A metro bar has taken advantage of the “theater” loophole to host an indoor smoke-fest:
“Like many good plays, the plot in Benjamin's increasingly popular plays is simple and direct: Bar patrons light up. They aren't required to speak, gesture or — for the most part — dress up.
"’They're required to dress as they did before the ban,"’ said Brian Bauman, owner of the Rock Nightclub in Maplewood, which allowed its patrons to be part of Tuesday's production of ‘Before the Ban.’
"’It's a period piece,’ Benjamin said.”
It’s not simply a matter of some clever tavern owners exploiting a loophole so customers can smoke indoors. That’s the intention, of course. But the underlying issue is amusing, too: if the legislators want to cinch the loophole shut, this means the state will regulate not only the content of a theatrical performance but the definition of a theatrical performance.
In the olden times, of course, everyone knew what a play was, and what it wasn’t. People standing on a stage thee-and-thouing to a seated audience: a play. People milling saying anything that came into their heads: not a play. But having redefined theater to mean anything its practitioners wish it to be, we accept with shrugs the idea of a spontaneous plotless event as theater. And now the state has to say it’s not. Moreover, the state will base its decision on the intentions of the play’s author. Heck of a precedent.
Next: expect someone to stage a “play” in a bowling alley, add karaoke and declare it a musical. Never underestimate the ability of a smoker to get in a nail or two.
Performance art!
It's all performance art, man! And we want to knock down the artificial construct that creates barriers between actors and the audience. By enabling the audience to become part of the play itself this deconstructs the notion that an "author" is there to impose his or her will upon the story.
Gee, not only will people be able to light up in bars, but you could probably get a grant for it as well.