This is an old video but I just really want to commend Dr. Mauldin's noble passion and mission in keeping alive this genuine legacy of theatre. As an arts student, it simply warms my heart and cheesily gives me hope. Thank you for sharing this content to the world, MSU! :)
Just want to ask some questions to Dr Mauldin what he exactly means by, in his American context, the current absence of power, danger and centrality, that used to imbue the industry. In what sense? Can he give a concrete example of what this danger he refers to was. Does he not feel that the traditional aspiration of Americans is still around, or at least has still been around in the past decade or so (anti-terrorism as we knew it as the past decade or so), but America had trouble projecting its values abroad to sufficiently persuade or what? Doesn't Dr Mauldin feel that while the Americans think the danger is there, the centrality is there, the power is there, but these things were organised not around a formal agenda he used to see or experience in his golden age of working in the industry (perhaps in the post-war days where America somewhat sprinted to the position of almost God), so much so that he somewhat now feels lost because of fast-changing technology, capricious globalized agendas (sufficiently culturally diverse items and symbols often not coming from America, but from Asia or elsewhere, things not organised around the idioms of western theatrical language traditionally experienced). He touched on the increasing commercialization of theatre in America. On this I want to ask how he felt this suddenly came into being. Since America is always seen and well-known for being commercial in everything, particularly even with respect to aspects of cultural life. Or, does he see things as having become bad taste so much? Does he feel that all the greatest acting talents would rather have a go in Hollywood than to perform artistic classical plays. In other words, is it a brain drain for the theatre - drained into Hollywood? I feel Dr Mauldin is just being too abstract in this dialogue, and wish he could be more specific about what he meant. For example, he found the current theatrical scene too commercial. But in what sense? He mentioned the spokespersons for products. I was thinking - they have those massive boobs in Hollywood they should not be spokespersons for some beauty parlours, fitness centres or something, or that if those men can get close to the bulging biceps and shoulders like Arnold Schwarzeneggar, they should not speak for a few protein powders to make some extra bucks? Would Dr Mauldin like to clarify what he meant by what was said? Is he saying that the Hollywood culture is eating into the theatre and has eroded the traditional modus operandi, and is continuously luring away his theatre talents he used to have? Because I'm not American, the way I see America is nothing more than the commercial in almost everything from my young days - colourful toys that got the avant garde American researches and inventions that we used to import here, funny Pac-Man, etc. Recently, even with seemingly pretty charitable nature of the search engines offered to the whole world to use, these are all listed companies making astronomical profits backstage in the NYSE. Everything is commercial in America or from America. So when he showed disdain for people donning an elitist attitude towards theatre, but how can he blame them if they specialise in performing works which could be those 500-year-old classics? The masses, don't they just go and watch TV?
I don't understand the point of this being part of a course on theatre. interviewing someone is a bit indulgent. this should be an 'extra' like on a dvd.
This is an old video but I just really want to commend Dr. Mauldin's noble passion and mission in keeping alive this genuine legacy of theatre. As an arts student, it simply warms my heart and cheesily gives me hope. Thank you for sharing this content to the world, MSU! :)
This can help me in my acting lifetime erin
Just want to ask some questions to Dr Mauldin what he exactly means by, in his American context, the current absence of power, danger and centrality, that used to imbue the industry. In what sense? Can he give a concrete example of what this danger he refers to was. Does he not feel that the traditional aspiration of Americans is still around, or at least has still been around in the past decade or so (anti-terrorism as we knew it as the past decade or so), but America had trouble projecting its values abroad to sufficiently persuade or what? Doesn't Dr Mauldin feel that while the Americans think the danger is there, the centrality is there, the power is there, but these things were organised not around a formal agenda he used to see or experience in his golden age of working in the industry (perhaps in the post-war days where America somewhat sprinted to the position of almost God), so much so that he somewhat now feels lost because of fast-changing technology, capricious globalized agendas (sufficiently culturally diverse items and symbols often not coming from America, but from Asia or elsewhere, things not organised around the idioms of western theatrical language traditionally experienced). He touched on the increasing commercialization of theatre in America. On this I want to ask how he felt this suddenly came into being. Since America is always seen and well-known for being commercial in everything, particularly even with respect to aspects of cultural life. Or, does he see things as having become bad taste so much? Does he feel that all the greatest acting talents would rather have a go in Hollywood than to perform artistic classical plays. In other words, is it a brain drain for the theatre - drained into Hollywood? I feel Dr Mauldin is just being too abstract in this dialogue, and wish he could be more specific about what he meant. For example, he found the current theatrical scene too commercial. But in what sense? He mentioned the spokespersons for products. I was thinking - they have those massive boobs in Hollywood they should not be spokespersons for some beauty parlours, fitness centres or something, or that if those men can get close to the bulging biceps and shoulders like Arnold Schwarzeneggar, they should not speak for a few protein powders to make some extra bucks? Would Dr Mauldin like to clarify what he meant by what was said? Is he saying that the Hollywood culture is eating into the theatre and has eroded the traditional modus operandi, and is continuously luring away his theatre talents he used to have? Because I'm not American, the way I see America is nothing more than the commercial in almost everything from my young days - colourful toys that got the avant garde American researches and inventions that we used to import here, funny Pac-Man, etc. Recently, even with seemingly pretty charitable nature of the search engines offered to the whole world to use, these are all listed companies making astronomical profits backstage in the NYSE. Everything is commercial in America or from America. So when he showed disdain for people donning an elitist attitude towards theatre, but how can he blame them if they specialise in performing works which could be those 500-year-old classics? The masses, don't they just go and watch TV?
I don't understand the point of this being part of a course on theatre. interviewing someone is a bit indulgent. this should be an 'extra' like on a dvd.
Same complaints in the arts -- money not the art-- instead of quality of the work, meaning forget that all together.
bet he couldn't wait to find a reason to wear that blouse.