Reviews for Action Theater: The Improvisation of Presence

The average rating for Action Theater: The Improvisation of Presence based on 2 reviews is 4.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2015-02-26 00:00:00 Nathan Dirkmaat Sehr inspirierende Trainingseinheiten, um Körper, Sounds und Sprache auf den Moment abzustimmen. Unabhängig von den rein physischen Fähigkeiten, erweitert man rasch sein Repertoire an Möglichkeiten des Körpers, sich selbst zu überraschen und mit ihm zu spielen. Warum das ganze "Action Theater" heißen muss, ist mir unklar geblieben. Genauso, warum es (in den USA) ein geschützter Begriff sein soll. Trainer müssen von der Päpstin persönlich oder von ihren Kardinälen nach langem Training lizensiert werden. Was Action Theater zum Beispiel von Bewegungs-Impro oder View-Points unterscheidet, verstehe ich auch nicht. Ich habe das Gefühl, das ist reines Marketing. Auf jeden Fall ist es ein schönes Trainingsbuch.

Review # 2 was written on 2015-07-09 00:00:00 Gregory Bennett Time to be a geek! Here with another entry of an academic book with a somewhat phenomenological perspective of theatre. Don't be scared by the big word. In fact, Ridout does a great job in creating a book that addresses complex theatrical issues without making it incomprehensible. Although Ridout claims not to be phenomenological, his way of speaking about the experience of the actor, and his very Heideggerian mention of issues of the 'theatricality of theatre', make it complicated for him not to be. I mean, the book uses resources like the fear of the actors, their sensation of appearing when they are being looked at by the audience, to make obvious and explore in depth the illusion and fiction of theatre... which at the same time, being the things that make it what it is, are the basis of the authenticity of theatre. It talks about things like how the use of animals on stage creates awareness in the spectator of the 'reality' in the fiction that they are seeing (after all, no one can really make animals act); or how the gaze of the spectator makes the actors aware of their own presence - with emphasis on the "present" part of the word; or how when we try to copy (mimesis) something, we are creating a new version of that which we are copying, which means that, in the end, we are not really copying anything but really being there making a new version of it. I swear he explains it way better than I do, so if you are confused well... luckily there is a book you can read. I confess that a lot of my appreciation for the book comes from its constant reference to Kleist's essay on puppets. And well, ok, I perfectly understand that it is not everyone's taste. You have to be quite geeky about theatre, but I think even you are a geeky spectator, it might be interesting and provide new perspectives.