(no subject)
I would like to comment here on my views of the Theatre Intime community of Princeton. I would like to say that, on the record, I believe that the benefit of the community at Princeton is that it needs people, that it wants people, that if you want to do something then there is something there for you. I want to say that this ideal is fostered and supported by the Intime Board in its position at the head of the theater community. I want to say that the only sin in the eyes of the Intime community can be a failure to uphold one's duties and responsibilites, but that because we are a college theater, because we are only at this school to learn, there must be an understanding of the importance of schoolwork; while causing chaos due to putting a class before a show is not something Intime would ever encourage, it will understand. Because of the conflict between school and theater, this only creates Intime's needs for help, and means that anyone who wants to try a show again should be welcomed back with open arms.
I want people to understand that Intime is a community, a large and nebulous one. Anyone who has been in an Intime show, who worked on the board, and who believes in the importance of theater on the campus becomes and always is a member who cannot be expelled. I want people to accept the Hamilton Murray theater as the general home of this community, and at least parts of it as common community area; there should be no question of why smeone is working in Theater Intime; if a space isn't being used for rehearsal then you can be there. I want people to recognize that cast parties, strikes, and Dean's Date are the only time that the Intime community truly unites in any kind of coherent form, and that people are free to celebrate or ignore this togetherness as they choose. The only community that people generally accept as existing at Intime is the board, because it meets regularly, and I want to dispel this myth. The board is a kernel at the community center, but it consists of people who sweep into and out of it from the community as time passes. I do not believe that this view is one held by all board members, but I believe that it is the one that they should hold, because through acknowledging it they can themselves strengthen ties to Intime.
I want people to understand that the heart of Theatre Intime, college theater, and high school theater (and no doubt many other organizations as well) is an acceptance of people willing to help, an openness to anyone who comes. And while people have to work to gain respect, perhaps, there can be no limit on second chances, and no one can throw anyone out.
It is because of this openness and accepting nature that I am depressed by the shift of the theatre community from Terrace (indeed, any sign-in) to Tower (indeed, any bicker). Perhaps finding meaning in such small things is a curse, but it speaks of a mental shift away from the ideals that I would like to think are fundamental to the Intime community (and perhaps overanalysis of a campus theater is another example of finding significance in small things).
I, of course, am in Quad, which can hardly fail to be considered some kind of contribution to the "break down" mentioned above. I had my reasons for joining Quad, no doubt as many have their reasons for joining Tower -reasons that hardly fit into this big picture. And if failing to keep this large picture in mind at all times is a crime, then this whole essay is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, and can be handily filed away. But it is not the club that I have issues with, it is its bicker policy. I would be sorry to see Intime lose the Bohemian feel promoted by Terrace, and will accept blame for the loss of that. But not for the loss of the theater's openness and acceptance, which I place squarely on other peoples' shoulders.