Throughout history, theatre has been critical to the artistic realm. Stories told centuries ago with lessons of nobility, morality, courage, and patriotism seem to despise the passage of time, and are still being recreated. However, not everyone has been partial to this conventional form of theatre. Antonin Artaud, in particular, loathed the theatre, and wanted to reform the way society experienced it. In this paper, I will examine Artaud’s role as a major contributor to modern theatre in his attempt to rid performance of its fake realism, as well as the bourgeoisie neoclassical ideals.
Typically, when one imagines theatre, he often envisions a stage, with three walls, and an audience. Artaud was concerned with this view, and recognized a necessity to bring about something innovative and contrasting to this conventional perception. Artaud was an actor, poet, playwright, and theoretician with a will to create material that “probes issues of abandonment, confinement, and creativity…[producing] crucial images of the resurrection of language and life” (1-Barber). In particular, he thoroughly believed that “theatre restricts itself” (108), and that it needed to “[wake] us up heart and nerves” (108). Society separates everyday life from theatre, deeming it a fictional world animated by actors at predetermined times, in a special building where actors and spectators arrange to meet, yet there is still disconnect between the two. It is precisely this division, “based on the notion of ‘spectacle’, of ‘mimesis’, of ‘imitation of life outside life’” (108) that Artaud rejected. Thus, he established the Theatre of Cruelty; a concept in which one reverts into a more primordial, raw state of mind and body, it was his attempt to rid the theatr...
... middle of paper ...
... of culture. Demanding a reduction in the restrictions brought forth by the classic works, he repudiated text, and focused solely on the primitive aspects of civilization. On the whole, Artaud’s impact on modern theatre is undeniable, and in his own words, “theatre will never be itself again” (108).
Works Cited
Barber, Stephen. Antonin Artaud Blows and Bombs. London: Faber and Faber, 1993.
Barber, Stephen. The Screaming Body. Paris: Creation Books, 1999.
Goodall, Jane. Artaud and the Gnostic Drama. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Jamieson, Lee. Antonin Artaud From Theory to Practice. London: Greenwich Exchange, 2007.
Leach, Robert. Makers of Modern Theatre An Introduction. London: Routledge, 2004.
Schumacher, Claude. Artaud on Theatre. London: Methuen Drama, 1989.
Sethi, Manohar K.. The Theatre of Cruelty. New Delhi: Commonwealth Publishers, 1993.
This essay will investigate a variety of different approaches to using film by both Forced Entertainment and Frantic Assembly. Both companies claim to produce energetic, memorable and contemporary theatre and have both incorporated the use of film in their works. Although Frantic Assembly and Forced Entertainment both produce work that is placed under the umbrella of physical theatre, their ways of working and the work they produce differs from other theatre companies which also adopt this title. The two companies I will discuss have differences and similarities in their approaches to using film and have both incorporated it into their practices in groundbreaking ways. From the use of actual moving film in their stage performance, to exploring the different elements of film and exploring ways in which those same principles can be adapted unto the stage. Frantic Assembly and Forced Entertainment make claims of creating innovative theatre that offers to lure and shock spectators. Their works demonstrate that they are both in constant exploration to push and break the boundaries of how theatre is viewed today. Both Frantic Assembly and Forced Entertainment have always created theatre that is influential and relevant with the times, so it comes as no surprise that the use of film has been a big influence on the their works.
Here we run up against the bugbear of historically informed performance. So many of the treatises (in music and dance as well as in acting) depend on the student's imitation of an admired master, and a gradual perfection of "good taste" as his society constructed that elusive quality. We cannot recreate those apprenticeships, those saturations in a period aesthetic. However, by constructing exercises along the lines of a Renaissance aesthetic, we may expose some of the differences between what the Shakespearean audience saw, and what the North American audience sees today.
...izens and the moral choices to be made in order to effect a critical examination of society. In this sense, Bigsby contends that “[i]n his essays Mamet spends some time explaining what theatre is not. It is not, in particular, […] a mechanism for changing the world. He does, though, see it as a place where we show ethical experience, it is where we show interchange” (7) and the same Mamet goes further by stating, “[t]heatre is a place of recognition, it’s an ethical exercise, it’s where we show ethical interchange” (qtd in Kane: 2). In this sense, following Mamet’s reflections theater is not a catalyst for change, it is only a site of critical examination and does not offer ready-make solutions. In other words, it is a site where there is an ethical engagement and a place of encounter, but not a place to boost changes and intervene in the configuration of society.
Plunka, Gene A. Ed. Antonin Artaud and the Modern Theater; New Jersey: Associated UP, 1994.
In theatrical performance, the fictional realm of drama is aligned with the factual, or “real” world of the audience, and a set of actors feign re-creation of this factual world. At the same time the audience, by participating as spectators, feigns believability in the mimic world the actors create. It is in this bond of pretense between the on-stage and off-stage spheres of reality—the literal and the mock-literal—that the appeal of drama is engendered. The Merchant of Venice then, like any effective drama, ostensibly undermines realism by professing to portray it. The work contains no prologue to establish dramatic context; it offers no assertion of its status as imitation, a world separate from our own. And yet, the bond of pretense forged between actors and audience prevents the line between the fictional and the factual from being blurred completely. This division allows the device of metatheatricality to emerge as a means by which the play can ally itself with realism, rather than undermining it, by acknowledging its own status as drama.
My work proposes a broader view of the theatre-film interface, one that relies on intertextuality as its interpretive method. I believe it is valuable-both pedagogically and theoretically-to ask broad questions about the aesthetic, narrative, and ideological exchanges between the history of theatre and contemporary film and television. For example, this paper will study how the "Chinese Restaurant" episode of the sitcom, Seinfeld, intertextually reworks Samuel Beckett's modernist play, Waiting for Godot. In each text, characters encounter an existential plight as they are forced to wait interminably, and thus confront their powerlessness at the hands of larger social forces. As a pedagogical matter, this connection encourages the students to see academic culture in the guise of having to read Beckett's play for my course, not as foreign and alienating, but instead as continuous with their understanding of leisure activities like watching sitcoms. As a theoretical matter, this intertextual connection allows important ideological matters to come into bold relie...
The changes in technology gave lighting to the theatres. The change in theatre brought around a new group of audiences. Its change from Neoclassicism to Romanticism paved the way for plays such as Hernani. It’s understandable that nineteenth century theatre has changed dramatically.
Community performance can include political debates, social commentaries disguised as autobiographical self-debasing monologues as well as Renaissance Faires with their celebratory and informative performances. Each example can be said to include elements of Brechtian Alienation, even if they are not, perhaps, the performances that Brecht himself had in mind. However, the performances are important in that they force us to examine our own place within both the world of the theater and within our respective realities.
Commedia Dell’ Arte was a distinctive form of stage art in the 1600’s and the famous playwright Moliere furthered its acceptance and import throughout his life. Originating in Italy, the popular art form spread quickly with the aid of traveling troops. One area that was greatly affected by this form of theater was France. The French people adored this theater and made it fit in with their culture. This can be seen in an essay by Gustave Lanson when he states, “In Paris Italian farce had replaced French farce.” The success of Commedia Dell’ Arte during the reign of Charles IX is well-known” (Lanson, 137). This effect can be seen through one of the country’s most famous playwrights, Moliere. Moliere was a renowned playwright and actor that continues to be well-known today. He was greatly influenced by Commedia Dell’ Arte. “Well-known definitions of the Commedia Dell’ Arte are that it was a semi-literary form of theatrical performance based primarily upon effective gestures and lazzi, and involving a limited number of generally accepted types who in their contrasting relation provide the setting for a light and flimsy action linked somehow by the eternal theme of love”( 704). His showing of the art form can be seen through his three most famous plays Tartuffe, The Misanthrope, and The Imaginary Invalid. As Lanson stated, “From soiling the noble and pure conception of comic genius given to us by The Misanthrope and Tartuffe” (Lanson, 134). With the progression from an earlier play to his final play, we can see where Moliere used aspects of Commedia Dell’ Arte and where he veered away to fit his own personal tastes and that of France’s. Moliere was born Jean-Baptise Poquelin in 1622 to a father who was an upholsterer for th...
Thom, P (1992), For an Audience: A Philosophy of the Performing Arts (Arts and Their Philosophies), Temple University Press
The name of the Bread and Puppet Theatre hails from the custom of sharing freshly baked bread with the theatre visitors to symbolise that art should be an everyday ritual for everyone just like eating bread.` We give you a piece of bread with the puppet show because our bread and theatre belong together. For a long time the theatre arts have been separated from the stomach. Theatre was entertainment.` (Peter Schumann, Bread & Puppet official website). The foremost goal of this theatre is to raise feelings of sensitivity in the viewer and to outline what the terms 'good' and 'evil' mean, especially in political spheres. This reflects the use of the audience as being used to create this form of emotion within the performanceset up, this is done through the raising the elements of sensitivity within their audience. Theatre also places a huge emphasis on the education and popularisation of art. Artists expressing their pacifistic views, strongly opposed to the war in Vietnam, and the enormous dolls created by Schumann have since become a permanent feature in many pacifistic demonstrations. Theatre critiques racial discrimination, deaf royal of natural habitats, compulsory military service and globalism. The theatre spectacles take the role of mentors who teach is lessons of morality - they are full of symbolism, archetypes and they refer to the bible, mythology and folklore.` ìWe believe in puppet theatre as a wholesome and powerful language that can touch men and women and children alike, and we hope that our plays are true and are saying what has to be said, and that they add to your enjoyment and enlightenment ` (Robert Schumann, Bread & Puppet Theatre official website). They focus on en...
Nevertheless, the question at hand is whether theatre will have a role in the society of the future, where cinema, digital television, and computers will continue to expand and grow. The answer to this question is yes. Heading into the 21st century, theatre will only be a fraction in a solid media industry. However, despite all the excitement technology brings with it, they will never replace theatre because it has something that can not be recreated or offered anywhere else. The cinema and its larger than life world appeals as an affordable alternative. Digital television provides digital interaction between the viewer and the producer. Theatre on the other hand, and its contents may take on a larger dimension, but we receive it directly in flesh and blood – one to one. The magical atmosphere between an actor and spectator who are constantly aware of each other and the theatre’s level of engagement is fundamentally more human and far more intimate.
...er new wave in the 1880’s, it didn’t reach the United States until the 40’s. The first American avant-garde performance was in 1948 at Black Mountain College in North Carolina. According to writer and art historian and professor, Arnold Aronson: “In the roughly thirty-year period from the mid-1950’s to the mid 1980’s there was an eruption of theatrical activity in the United States that would ultimately reshape every aspect of performance and have significant influences both at home and abroad” (Qtd in DiLorenzo). The modern avant-garde theatre performance emerged when theatre decided to liberate itself from drama. This began with the new dynamic concept of the naturalistic "milieu" and its consequences in the art of stage direction. It matured with the poetic theatre of symbolist suggestiveness and imagination and the work of such visionaries as Appia (Glytzouris).
My experience watching a live theatre performance on stage was a fascinating one, most especially since it was my first time. I attended a staged performance of “The History Boys” in a small theatre called “The Little Theatre of Alexandria” at 8:00 pm on Wednesday June 8, 2016 in Alexandria, Virginia. The overall production of the play was a resounding experience for me particularly the performance of the actors and the design of the scene made the play seem real.