Alternately brilliant and boring. I think that Peter Brook is actually a profound man, but his writing on the theory of theatre gets tedious when he starts soliloquizing and forgets to include any means for the reader to put his abstractions into practice. At those times the book gets a self-infatuated tone, and loses believability. I spent most of the book slogging through, one paragraph at a time. That said, there are penetrating insights lodged within, and many times I felt he had unearthed a...

I am a(n)... empty spaceLooking for a(n)... book about the theatreOn a typical Friday night I am... deadly, holy, rough, immediate

This was suggested reading for my acting class and I was told it would probably be too deep for our standards but I actually really enjoyed it and got a lot from it. I must read for any fellow drama nerd.

This book is excellent, but it's hampered by two things. One is Peter Brook's fault and one isn't:1. It's a book about the current state of theater, written in 1968. As I was born in 1984, the author has literally no knowledge of any performance I have ever seen in my life, nor have I seen any of the performances he describes. So it's hard to relate his opinions about the state of theater to today, not knowing if I agree with his assessment of 1968.2. The book is inscrutable and high-minded to a...

Having seen Brook's televised "The Tragedy of Hamlet," and his filmed version of "King Lear," not to mention, the idea of his most recent "Love is My Sin," I take his word for what it is: clear thoughts from one perspective of what the theater could be, how it should be, and what is should not be. Brook separates theater into four slices: Deadly, Holy, Rough, and Immediate. In doing so, he opens up possibilities for the Dramatist and gives us a solid grounding in the more metaphysical aspects of...

A brilliant book that peers deeply into the heart of modern theatre. It's somewhat less systematic than the subtitle, with its hint of a rigorous typology, might lead us to expect. More a string of reflections that gravitate towards three main themes: the Context of modern theatre (Deadly Theatre), its Core Contribution (with Holy and Rough offering two complementary energies infusing life in theatre), and finally issues of Craft (wrapped into observations about Immediate Theatre). Brook's persp...

I like my theater like I like my men: deadly, rough, holy, and immediate.

Actual rating: 1.5 out of 5 starsAlthough there were some useful tidbits of information, at this point, I want to move past historical examples and ravings of directing in the field and just learn some tips directly. Despite an interesting format, theatre divided by four types, Brook broke too much down and made me uninterested. These historical texts don't seem right for me, and I feel like I'm kind of done with older white men ranting about their experiences in theatre when they could be much

I am abandoning this. Nothing to do with the book or Brook's erudition, though - I am stuck in a reading slump and this is not the ideal book for revival.Not rating It, either.

I've only been trying to get around to reading this book for 7 or 8 years...Brook explores his experience of theatre, though is very specific to state that it is only his experience so far and that everything will change, as theatre is always changing. He breaks theatre down into 4 categories, Deadly, Holy, Rough and Immediate. These, of course, can overlap and interplay at any time. Deadly theatre is theatre that is predicable, set in its ways, repetitive, passionless. It is theatre that does n...

More weighty than its page count would indicate, this slim volume is divided into the four sections indicated by the subtitle. Too long to be chapters, they're almost like long essays. What is good theatre? What is bad acting? There were some parts where I rolled my eyes to myself and thought "what hippy -dippy hooey is this?" , but by the end of the book I was left feeling like I'd just read a textbook, a learned treatise on the science and art of communicating inner truths. Peter Brook wrote t...

It is very difficult, maybe even impossible, to write a book like this and not sound pretentious at times. I rolled my eyes quite a bit along the way; but the final chapter, in which Brook finally admits he doesn't actually have any answers, but that he's just trying to ask the right questions, managed to endear itself to me. It turned what could easily have been a dated, forgettable book into an essay on the wonder and magic of the theatre. It reminded me of why I fell in love with it in the fi...

Many people can easily go through life reading nothing but novels. I admit that is better than not reading at all, of course, but it wouldn’t do for me. While the novel is still my favourite genre, I always need to mix it with other reading matter: history, travel, short stories, graphic novels, essays, drama. I don’t think I’ve ever read a collection of essays on theater before, though.The empty space is apparently an essential text for drama students; I’d never heard of it. Its idea is simple,...

What I found most interesting was Brook's examination of the role of the audience/spectator in theatre and how a "good house" can empower and participate with performers while a "bad house" can spoil a performance. While much of the book is more advice for actors and directors from the performance side, the parts which spoke to the connection between performers and audience members helped me to imagine what can be socially constructed between both groups within and during a live performance.

This book is mind-blowing. Brook builds a vivid conception of what theatre is and what it could be. As Brook describes the Deadly Theatre, he lays out a pointed critique of art under capitalism, and the rest of the book is masterfully imagining what play could be instead: play. I have a feeling I will be coming back to this again and again in my life.

3.75This book was a really interesting take on theatre!The book was separated into four sections, the first being absolutely incredible and most rememberable. In addition to this the book was filled with beautiful quotes and interpretations which were wonderful to read about. However, in the last three sections these positive gems were scattered around and they didn't compare to the first.However still very much enjoyed!

Every time I read this book, I learn something new about myself as a creator.

A concise yet erudite opinion of the theatrical condition, albeit in the 60s.

This slim book sets out to be an analysis of theatre, from one of the most significant directors of the second half of the 20th century. Actually, it's not about that: it's about life. Peter Brook analyses theatre performances into four categories, while acknowledging that any performance can flip from one to another category in a few words. It's completely timeless, by the way - it was written 50 years ago, but could have been written last year.The first is Deadly Theatre. Theatre as "tradition...

A funny provocative dated sociological text on theatre that has spawned a billion student essays.I think I read this chap-book manifesto 25 years ago. I know it was talked about a great deal by teachers of drama who got their degrees/ diplomas in the 1970s.It is very much a sales spiel, and, the author admits to making up 'successful productions' that didn't actually happen, when he first started directing theatre. It's on this basis, you've got to regard Peter Brook's enthusiasm and social acti...

Um, good... I don't know. I've only been slightly exposed to Peter Brook. I wanted to know more about his experiments with the Theatre of Cruelty but the book offered not much in the way of information. He organizes it around types of theater: deadly, which means empty; holy, which means transcendent maybe but also not necessarily possible; rough, which means accessible and effective, but lacking a bit in polish/grace; and immediate, which while its discussion formed the book's longest chapter,

I liked the first and last chapters but found the middle rather dry. There were some interesting tidbits here and there throughout, but a lot of it was just stuff I've heard before.Some of my favorite parts:-When he moved the cardboard cutouts around to plan out his show and then found that the actors were completely different. I've done that!-The idea that all the blocking and designs (sets, costumes, etc.) should always be a work in progress-The show where all the actors got to costume themsel...

Read as course work for Helen Mirren’s Master Class on acting. Peter Brook, director of the Royal Shakespeare Company and several operas at The Metropolitan Opera, gives us a tour of the role of theater, past and present. Theater presides as the main character with Brook expounding on its various aspects and its importance in our culture. For actors, theater goers, and all interested in the arts.

Nobody who ever has or ever will stride upon a stage should be ignorant of this book. It is as essential to you as your next breath.

- When this was ended, no explanations were needed, the audience had seen itself in action, it had seen how many layers silence can contain- "How many to make killing romantic"-"I know of one acid test in the theatre. It is literally an acid test. When a performance is over, what remains? Fun can be forgotten, but powerful emotion also disappears and good arguments lose their thread. When emotion and argument are harnessed to a wish from the audience to see more clearly into itself—then somethin...

British theater and film director Peter Brook (still living though retired) is primarily known as an influential Shakespearean, though he has plenty of other credits.He outlines the major types of theater of the title - Deadly, Holy, Rough, Immediate - making clear that the distinctions are not new vs. old, or avant-garde vs. traditional, although the staging where "Hamlet threw Ophelia on to the knees of the audience, while he swung above their heads on a rope" sounds like the kind of thing tha...

If you can withstand poetic prose that's not clinical or super-straightforward, then you can get through this book. It's written by a play director and actor who's studied the craft and really gotten a grasp as to what works or doesn't when it comes to plays and the way audiences (and the players, scene-setters, directors, etc.) view them. Some plays will be a hit one night, a miss on others, and some go out with a bang even though they've failed. Why? Audience interaction, changes to script or

I will not be able to instrumentalize this book in the way that I had intended (i.e. as theory), but it was nevertheless a wonderful collection of insights and lessons about how theatre works, written by a practitioner whose very strong opinions arose from decades of doing marvelous and exciting work. Indeed, the dichotomy/vocabulary Brook offers here is not going to help me write my term paper, but I can't help but feel that next time I have the opportunity to work on a play (perhaps in the Sha...

A life-changing book. I'm a massive Peter Brook fan, though sadly I've never seen anything he's done live. I find the films of his plays fascinating, however; his choices with cinema are odd but astonishingly powerful.This book justifies his experimental theatre practice from the perspective of a writer who assumes his audience are likely working in the commercial theatre, so he touts his bonafides in those areas as well [like House of Flowers with Truman Capote and Harold Arlen].His description...

The book is a record of Brook's lecture about 4 forms of theatre; the Deadly, Holy, Rough, and Immediate Theatre, which he defined based on its impact to audience.The Empty Stage starts off interesting. It definitely made me appreciate the many abstract concepts that actors need to consider and continuously shape in doing their art. However I found Brook's ideas growingly hard to follow because he tends to use big hazy words and metaphors. Most sentences and paragraph are long, and he jumps from...