I rant and rave quite a lot about my personal mission of inherent theatricality in my work and the work that I produce. But what exactly does that mean?
Here's the definition of THEATRICAL from the American Heritage Dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theatricality):
the·at·ri·cal (thē-āt'rĭ-kəl) Pronunciation Key adj.
Of, relating to, or suitable for dramatic performance or the theater.
Marked by exaggerated self-display and unnatural behavior; affectedly dramatic. n.
Stage performances or a stage performance, especially by amateurs. Often used in the plural.
theatricals Affectedly dramatic gestures or behavior; histrionics.
A fine definition for the layperson, but it seems that there are plenty of plays put on in the theatre that are "suitable for dramatic performance in the theatre" but that do not in fact meet my personal requirements for inherent theatricality.
The question that must always be asked is: why tell this story using the medium of theatre? Why theatre and not film, photograph, novel, graphic novel/comic, song, painting, dance, television, computer program, animated serial, magazine article, rant on a blog, text message, sporting event, town hall meeting, presidential election, virtual reality, circus, etc.?
More importantly: what constitutes theatricality here in the 21st Century, when there are so many more things to define the art of the theatre against?
I see and read a lot of work that I think is cinematic or literary, but not necessarily theatrical. I have seen plays that were cinematic on the page transformed into theatrical experiences through the director's keen eye and imagination. I have seen literary works adapted for the stage to be vital, theatrical experiences and seen the opposite true as well.
Is theatricality something that can be determined on a case-by-case basis? Or is it a larger, over-arching concept that can be penned and used like a mission statement? Can the components of theatricality be broken down and then reconstituted to reinterpret inherent theatricality for the 21st century?
I think so. It's a multi-faceted concept and one that will be a central theme to the manifesto in the making, and one that I think is (and has been, always) central to the evolution of the art form.
2 comments:
The three definitions that I found all had the word "artificial" somewhere in there. Hmmmm... I find that disturbing yet ultimately true. Another definition I've used is something that requires physical, human presence to be complete. That can mean bodies in space to create the piece or bodies in space to witness it. I'm interested in this idea of bearing witness... hm... perhaps another thread... and yet, as I think about my own body of work I wonder if it has always had that in mind... On another note, what does defining theatricality give us? I know that I can point to what aesthetically pleases me and it usually has nothing to do with naturalism. It usually has a surprise use of water and a musical number in the place of a scene... On the other hand, I love William Inge and have cried along with 500 other saps at Picnic.
Thinking more about this------------ I also find deep satisfaction in a simple story well told. (Think Doubt or Glengarry Glen Ross). The only thing that makes the script into a play is the live actors and live audience experience. Both are amazing live. I never missed my 2 or 3 hours.
Post a Comment