Chp 5 Spring 2010

Chp 5 Spring 2010 - Yes: 2 No: 18 If the Government were to...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Yes: 2 No: 18 If the Government were to take over there would be a possibility that they would eliminate community theatres. Probably because you can't have actor's and crew work for the government and not get paid. This would give more jobs for the starving actor who maybe Broadway caliber but have not gotten there big break yet. But it would kill the less talented people like myself who probably will never be able to keep up with the upper class of actors. I believe it would do a lot of good for both the economy and the consumers. The benefits would (hopefully) be: decreased ticket prices, more productions throughout America, and more organization and job opportunities on account of government regulation. The only con that poses a real threat would be censorship. Theater in ancient times served as the media of its age. It contained the entertainment, political commentary, and ideas of the day. Back then, theatre was somewhat like what TV is now. But in the modern era, theatre does not command the audience that it did before. Other forms of expression have superseded it. Thus, I think that for the most part, theatre should be funded by the patrons who most enjoy it. If legislation can be made to prevent censorship then yes if not, no. Ill add that the reasoning behind the likely hood of a no is that the government has standards of political correctness that they set up so its hard for them to put up plays that violate em ' unless there is creative legislature about artistic integrity but i just restated that first sentence with more words and a detail This socialized theatre probably sounds good to commies and hippies but to rest of us humans the idea sounds pretty bad. Just as people would abuse a socialized healthcare system they would abuse the theatre as well. Maybe socialized strip clubs would work too? All the love and passion that the actors, the writers, and the audiences have for the theatre would gradually dimenish because theatre would cease to be performed for the love of it but for the love of the gov't. Under the organization of our current administration there could be efforts made for a variety of employment positions, and with the United States in our current recession it would probably be one of the most beneficial outcomes. However, more importantly, is it worth the risk of inevitable…propaganda…at the very least? In my personal opinion, 'government interference in the arts' almost sounds like an oxymoron. What does the government know of creativity and expression? They know how to censor and hide things they don't want the general public to know. They know how to "regulate" and play it safe, which really goes against everything the theatre stands for.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Chu on this… We’ve talked about money back guarantees, putting up popular plays, and not wanting to be censored by the
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 12/07/2011 for the course THE 1000 taught by Professor Chu during the Spring '10 term at Santa Fe College.

Page1 / 26

Chp 5 Spring 2010 - Yes: 2 No: 18 If the Government were to...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online