Modernist performance was the main topic of our session this week, with a specific focus on links between contemporary practice, 20^th century European history, and previous theatre or performance traditions.

“European modernist theatre is an extraordinarily diverse collection of performance happenings, some script-based, others rejecting language altogether, some almost educational, others virtually impossible to decipher in a reasoned manner, some maintaining a linear story, others fragmenting narrative by including different art forms such as music, dance or poetry. Appearing in different geographical locations (with personnel frequently moving between these locations often due to war or the rise of authoritarian regimes), modernist performance in Europe defies easy demarcation and can be defined only by the broad sense of antagonism…” (Warden, 2015)

In class we discussed some of the central concerns of modernism, including industrialisation, scientific progress, war, post-war rebuild/rebirth/regeneration, urban expansion, an appetite for function, service and efficiency. Modernist performance developed to respond to some of these themes, inspired by socio-political thinking and pushing back against theatrical traditions of the time. Performance began to communicate in rejections of traditional form – music, dance, poetry, movement, art, spoken word and more could, and did, combine to create abstract performances which overtly rejection naturalism and empowered artistic expression.

“…practitioners and theorists have acknowledged a debt to the modernist innovators because, in Lehmann’s terms, ‘here the conventional dramaturgy of unity was first disrupted’ (2010: 57)…later performances retain the dual modernist concepts of antagonism and aesthetic experiment, capturing modernism’s re-evaluation of language, image and actor-audience relationship in new and exciting ways. (Warden, 2015)

In doing some general research this week I found a pleasing piece from The Telegraph (online), covering some work done by The V&A Museum in London, who have compiled a list of the 100 most influential post-war theatre productions…click the picture below to link to the slideshow and associated commentary.

Works Cited

Warden, C (2015) Modernism and European drama/theatre. In: Stephen Ross & Allana C. Lingren (eds.) The Modernist World. London: Routledge.

This week’s focus was theatre historiography in contemporary performance practice – what it means to be a theatre historian, what methodologies might be used, and what problems might be encountered in this sort of research and study. Lastly we looked at ideas about the value of such research – where might it take us?

Theatre is haunted by all that precedes it, and each theatrical event will come to haunt what succeeds it. “Every performance, if it is intelligible as such, embeds features of previous performances: gender conventions, racial histories, aesthetic traditions – political and cultural pressures that are consciously and unconsciously acknowledged’ (Diamond 1996 p.1)

In class, as a case study, we looked at the production of ‘The Duchess of Malfi’, as shown at the Sam Wanamaker Playhouse in 2014. The indoor candlelit playhouse is billed as a faithful reconstruction of a Jacobean theatre, built using 17^th century plans which are thought to approximate the Blackfriars Theatre which existed near the site in the 16^th & 17^th centuries. The Duchess of Malfi, the playhouses opening production, was written in 1613 and originally performed at the Blackfriars Theatre.

We know that the old plans on which the Sam Wanamaker playhouse were based do exist, and we can accept that it is probably a very good replica of a theatre of that time. But we can’t guarantee it – the drawings which the building are based on could have been very different if produced by a different artist for example, we have no way to ensure the accuracy. The drawings could have been version 3 of 300, incomplete and superseded by later plans which no longer exist. This highlights one of the many and varied risks of theatre historiography. As meticulous as document research might be, it will only uncover what is left to find…the further back you go the less there is, particularly in terms of photographic evidence, or even accounts from people involved at the time.

In the introductory chapter to his book ‘The Cambridge Introduction To: Theatre Historiography’ Thomas Postlewait discusses theatre historiography from the starting point of two categories: Event (detailed examination of individual theatrical events in isolation) and Context (the shaping conditions which surround, develop and frame theatrical events). Postlewait believes that this division in focus hinders progress in the field and dangerously separates how scholars and theatre practitioners approach theatre history.

Can a venue really sell the candlelit, hard seated, restricted view 17^th century experience of the Duchess of Malfi? Perhaps not. It can sell a 21st century replica experience certainly, a close alternative loaded with expectations from historical references, media coverage, and cultural knowledge. Hundreds of productions of the Duchess of Malfi have paved the way and would have ‘haunted’ the 2014 leading lady Gemma Arterton and company as they performed. ‘Everything in the theatre, the bodies, the materials utilized, the language, the space itself, is now and has always been haunted, and that haunting has been an essential part of the theatre’s meaning to and reception by its audiences in all times and all places’ (Carlson 2001, p.15)

The cultural landscape is vastly different now. Where an authentic (as far as we now up to now) building can be presented, an authentic slice of 17^th century experience cannot, and that’s the reason the reviews of the Sam Wanamaker Playhouses opening production were fairly mixed (as we saw from those we read in class).

So then, what is the point of studying theatre historiography? A few thoughts from class and a few of my own…

For practitioners – At the top level it allows hugely ambitious undertakings like the building of the Sam Wanamaker Playhouse to actually happen. At a more general level it allows for better collaborative opportunities with other theatre makers because you have shared knowledge of what has gone before. It demonstrates that you know your field and your art. It can inspire revivals or drive new work into fruition. It can help you to try and avoid past mistakes and at the same time give you an understanding of successful trends, techniques, audience behaviours and expectations.

For academics – Contributes to study of the self, consciousness, culture, reception, politics, aesthetics, and many more fields.

I came to the course acutely aware that I had a long way to go but without a very solid grasp of exactly how much I didn’t know. Theatre Historiography took me by surprise – both in terms of its complexity, and in terms of how interested I am in this area of study. Essays are due in VERY soon and mine is already well underway so no time to pursue this at the moment. Hopefully I can make a return to do some more reading in this area in the not too distant future!

Below, to finish, an interesting clip from the BBC about some of the practicalities of lighting a performance with candles at the Sam Wanamaker Playhouse. Enjoy!

Works Cited

Carlson, M. (2003) The Haunted Stage: The Theatre as Memory Machine. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press

Diamond, E. (1996) Performance and Cultural Studies. Oxon and New York: Routledge.

Reading

Postlewait, T. (2009) The Cambridge Introduction To: Theatre Historiography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

In class this week we considered space and its relationship to performance.

Western theatre has traditionally been performed on a stage in a dedicated building – a bespoke setting designed for the purpose of ‘showing’ drama. The proscenium arch (the ‘frame’ around the action) stage style has been strongly favoured.

Variations on this theme include stages with extended parts or platforms, known as thrust stages. The thrust design pushes the performed action closer to the audience, breaking out of that ‘frame’, or ‘breaking the fourth wall’ as it is sometimes known. There are other designs which further adapt the common theme. Theatre in the round sees performers occupy a central position within the theatre space (sometimes on a stage, sometimes at floor level), with the audience watching from all four sides.

The late 20^th and early 21^st centuries have seen a stronger appetite for exploration of non-traditional performance spaces, and non-traditional performance. Performance art now seeks different ways to perform. No longer is everything bound to the written text, or bound to stages or theatre buildings.  Streets, industrial buildings, urban and outdoor locations of all kinds are in scope as performance spaces. Even virtual spaces are viable (as we have discussed in some of our previous classes). It’s a bit ‘chicken and egg’ in terms of where the movement began – experimentation with performance has pushed for consideration of new spaces to work in, and new spaces to work in have generated possibilities for site specific arrangements.

In Week 4 we looked at audiences. In that class we discussed how theatre impacts our senses, primarily in terms of the visual and aural. Progressing on with my wider reading it’s interesting to consider the differences in audience reception and consciousness in relation to the different sorts of performance space they might be in. With non-traditional performance spaces we can examine new questions of how audiences are managed – where do they enter the performance space and when, where do they sit (or indeed stand, or even lie down?), do they remain static or need to move? We can also look at impacts on reception for audiences in these unusual spaces – how much do they see, hear, feel, even taste?  What other distractions and diversions might there be now? Is it the intention to suppress some senses and heighten others (immersive theatre), or can that an unintentional result which then needs to be examined? How are the spaces separated, or shared, differently?

Left:

STREET LIFE: WILLI DORNER’S “BODIES IN URBAN SPACES” PHYSICAL GRAFFITI PROJECT:

Making anywhere a performance space, this time with an accidental and entirely unpredictable audience.

Week 7

All of the learning in the ‘Current Issues’ module is hugely interesting and valuable – every session a gateway to a massive area of study. I’ve been considering, of course, where to focus myself in terms of the fast approaching assessments for this module. Prior to starting the course I only had broad ideas about where my main interests were. Progressing through the semester I have (happily) been exposed to so much new learning that I have made the journey between being sure what I want to concentrate on, and being completely overwhelmed by possibilities with no clear path, every single week. It is fantastically frustrating! Having always been fascinated by the process of a performance coming together (as an actor, a crew/team member, or an audience member), and being very drawn to what creates meaning in a performance and what the experience of theatre really does which has so long enticed us, I have found lots to go at already during this module. But this weeks session in particular, Scenography & Semiotics, has helped me home in on something I want to concentrate on more fully.

As this area is likely to feature strongly in my forthcoming essay for this module I’m not going to go into detail in terms of the reading we discussed in the session (from ‘Looking into the Abyss: Essays on Scenography’ by Arnold Aronson, if it takes your fancy). Instead I’m just giving a brief overview here of what we talked about generally:

Scenography: Looking at the stage space of the performance, and all within it. Looks at considerations for theatre design (here, theatre could mean the building and/or the business of the play) in terms of the visual, the ‘seeing’ part of the experience, and how these might be read and create meaning. I’ll mention phenomenology really briefly here. Although not a major focus for the session itself, the philosophical study of ‘what appears’ in relation to experience and consciousness is important in this area.

Proxemics: Space between the different elements in situ; between actors and other actors, actors and objects, actors and the set (flats), actors and the audience, the stage and the audience, and so on. Where everything is placed in terms of everything else, and how such arrangements (which need not be static throughout, of course) might be understood in terms of the message of the performance.

Kinesics: Essentially – energy, movement, motion. The non verbal. Attention to bodily gestures, positions, poses, expressions and so on.

Semiotics: The reading of signs, the sign systems of the stage performance. That which is interpretable from the signifier (an object, a sound, a lighting effect, and more), what it conjures in the mind of the spectator, what is signified by it.

All of these components of theatre making should be facilitators to the creation of the truest meaning of the drama, that which the playwright holds as the intention at the heart of the piece, the metanarrative for the specific work in production.  In helping all of the this to take root we looked at scenography in various productions of The Cherry Orchard by Anton Chekhov, and in a scene from William Shakespeare’s The Taming Of The Shrew. We also had a practical exercise – to draw our stage design based on a play excerpt presented in the class. Unfortunately my illustrative effort, as enjoyable as it was to do, is in no way an accurate reflection of my engagement with this area of study, so I won’t share that!

In summing up, a quote from the playwright David Mamet:

“Everything which does not put forward the meaning of the play impedes the meaning of the play. To do too much or too little is to mitigate and weaken the meaning.” (Mamet, 1986, 130).

Works Cited

Mamet, D. (1986) ‘Realism’ in Writing in Restaurants, London: Penguin.

Reading

Aronson, A. (2005) Looking into the Abyss: Essays on Scenography. USA: University of Michigan Press.