posted
You know, I think I've seen a 'Is this the end of theater? piece for about the last million years.
As to the article, you can see just what it's talking about in 'Cats' and 'Starlight Express'. Yep. I mean, what's 'The Producers' about? Who knows? I don't. :/
posted
I'm actually making a serious point. You have all these articles about the obscurity of theater to the common joe, yet there's one vital ingredient missing from both Orson's article and that dude you just posted. What could it be? Perhaps actual theater showings to actually, you know, provide evidence?
So, let's take a look at these awful, elitist plays that OSC is complaining about.
quote: "Polish Joke," a comedy by David Ives, kicks off the third season of the Deep Dish Theater Company of Chapel Hill. The play is the story of Jan Sadlowski, a Polish-American man who has spent his life trying to deny his ethnic background. In a series of comic sketches, he seeks to remake himself, changing everything from his name to his national origin.
Woah! Totally anti-family!
quote: Raleigh Little Theatre's season continues today with the opening of the drama "Children of a Lesser God," the story of the relationship between a young, deaf woman and her idealistic, hearing teacher.
Dear God! That just drips intellectual haughtiness from every pore.! :/
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was intentionally a bit vague on that topic (first rule of paper writing in the real world: if you can't define something well, don't; invent a nifty sounding term), but I'll try to elaborate a bit.
First, a bit of a structure. Plays in some way involve emotion. I'd even go so far as to say that there is no art that does not at least attempt to involve emotion in its experience in a major way, and no good art that does not.
I am not saying that emotion is the most important thing to the analysis of art, or the only important thing, but it is an important thing, but as is customary I shall choose a mode, or vector, of analysis, and it shall be emotional analysis.
When viewing a play as a carrier/transmitter/creator of emotion (henceforth, an emotive work), it is important to ask what internal structures (to the play) facilitate this action, and what manner they do it in.
Since Shakespears is a ready reference point, consider his plays. In particular, consider how he portrays certain insults. For instance, at the beginning of Romeo and Juliet (and in several other places in various plays) he has one character bite his nails at others. This is an insult in the play, and also in the society of Shakespeare's time.
These are two very different roles. While it may be less clearly understood by the reader/viewer that it is an insult if they lack the societal background, in the play it will nevertheless still be an insult. However, to the modern person it will not be an insult when viewed personally.
This is still not what I would call a societal filter; this is a societal convention, a common reference point borrowed from a common experience (theoretically). Beckett uses such things regularly, as well (though perhaps less often).
A societal filter is the implicit assumption that (some system of) the societal conventions in a piece are meaningfully representative of human emotional experience.
some notes on and ramifications of this concept:
There is nothing wrong with this assumption. In fact, it will generally be a correct assumption, by direct example (notable possible exceptions lie in the area of extreme speculative fiction).
Societal filters may be (and often are) unintentional. Shakespeare loved writing about Italian people, but for some reason they always seem to act like English (and sometimes French) people.
The boundaries of societal filters are not well defined. Many possible rearrangements and combinations may be useful for the analysis of a given piece.
As to why there are no societal filters in Beckett, it is because he never assumes the importance of any societal conventions. If he considers one important, he tries to explain its important. If he includes one but not explain it, it does not hold importance (to his story).
This can be seen reflected in numerous stories of Beckett's. For instance, one story is all about the importance of supporting someone, and of being independent. It tries to expose that importance explicitly, without societal reference (indeed, the world is so deconstructed that there are no other people in it).
Or in Beckett's views on love: he repeatedly uses conventional modes of love, then breaks them down (sometimes by building them up!) to get to the root of the mode's importance (love), rather than relying on assumptions surrounding the mode.
posted
Storm, the article I linked did give examples. One of them, the Sarah Kane play, was even mentioned in the section I quoted.
No one is saying that every play produced is offensive and incomprehensible. But in my experience there is a tendency among theater people (i.e., people who work in, teach, or write about theater) to take a play less seriously if it’s easy to follow or has bourgeois moral assumptions.
And, sure, "The Death of [whatever]" articles are pretty easy to come by, mostly because it's a good way to get people's attention so the author can get into what he really wants to talk about. That doesn't mean they say nothing new or worthwhile.
posted
Except they're only absolutes when viewed incorrectly, without the societal filters . After running through the appropriate hatrack and lit analysis filters we get their true meaning:
"Beckett doesn't do that much".
Actually, I stand by their absolutism, but only with regards to Beckett's later works.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I did that, I wouldn't be a lit major, now would I . We'll start with the last five things he published (not sure what those are off the top of my head), and I may name an earlier cutoff later.
*marshals Beckett's works around him to look through*
As a side note, while my cutoff may seem arbitrary (it is, largely), and any adjustment to it will almost certainly be dependent upon an observation of the very phenomenon I allege is characteristic of his later works, this is because my observation is an attempt at a classificatory observation.
So long as my observation is classificatorily useful, that is, delineates a collection of Beckett's works in an analytically useful way in line with the parameters I have asserted for the boundaries (that is, at the end of his career), my observation is successful.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Arbitrary is fine, though I'll admit I was hoping for a slightly broader range of stuff to work with . For now, any boundaries are useful, so long as they define the limits of the debate.
Disjecta: Miscellaneous Writings and a Dramatic Fragment (1983)
Catastrophe (1984) What Where (1984)
Quad (1984)
Stirrings Still (1988)
Since I'm way more familiar with his drama, I'll probably focus on Catastrophe and What Where, his last two plays. They both involve depictions of authority--some sort of political dictator in one and a director of a play in the other.
I did see them on Beckett on Film, which I recommend, btw, but I don't have the scripts on hand. So I guess I've got some marshalling of my own to do...
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
You have all these articles about the obscurity of theater to the common joe, yet there's one vital ingredient missing from both Orson's article and that dude you just posted. What could it be? Perhaps actual theater showings to actually, you know, provide evidence? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. After running through the appropriate hatrack and lit analysis filters we get their true meaning:
