Specificity of Theatrical Language
Specificity of Theatrical Language
Specificity of Theatrical Language
Theatricality
Theatricality
95
96
Josette Feral
been set in motion, certain constraints are already imposed, certain signs
are already in place. The spectator knows what to expect from the place in
which he finds himself; he know what to expect from the scenic design-a
play.7 Because a semiotization of space has already occurred, the spectator
perceives the theatricality of the stage, and of the space surrounding him.
We can therefore draw a first conclusion: the presence of the actor is not
a prerequisite of theatricality.8 In this instance, space is the vehicle of
theatricality. The subject perceives certain relations within that space; he
perceives the spectacular nature of the stage. Space seems fundamental to
theatricality, for the passage from the literary to the theatrical is first and
foremost completed through a spatial realization of the text.
2nd scenario: In the subway, you witness an argument between two
passengers. One is smoking and the other strongly protesting, reminding
the first that smoking on the subway is against the rules. The first refuses to
comply; insults and threats are exchanged; tension mounts. Spectators of
this exchange, the other passengers watch attentively; several comment,
taking sides in the argument. The train pulls into a station and stops in front
of an imposing billboard advertising cigarettes. The smoker exits the train,
and for the benefit of all the interested observers, points out the disproportion
between the small NO SMOKINGsign in the train and the huge billboard
promoting smoking that occupies the entire wall of the station platform.
Is theatricality present in this instance? One would probably say not,
for the argument did not appear staged, nor had the non-participants been
formally invited to watch. Furthermore,the exchange did not appear to be a
fictional situation, for the parties seemed genuinely involved in the quarrel.
However, spectators exiting at the same station would have discovered
that the two antagonists were in fact an actor and actress taking part in what
Boal defined as an "invisible theatrical production." Knowing this, and
bearing in mind that the spectators' participation was involuntary, would
one now claim that theatricality had been present? After the fact, it would
seem so.
We might conclude that in this instance, theatricalityseems to stem from
the spectator's awareness of a theatrical intention addressed to him. This
awareness altered the way in which he looked at what was taking place; it
forced him to see theater where before he saw only a chance occurrence.9
The spectatorthereby transformsinto fictionwhat he thought was a quotidian
event. Re-semiotizing the space of the subway car, the spectator was able to
displace signs and to interpret them differently, revealing both the fictional
nature of the performers' behavior, and the presence of illusion where only
commonplace realityhad been expected. In this instance, theatricalityappears
SubStance# 98/99, Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3, 2002
Theatricality
97
98
Josette Feral
the condition for the emergence of theatricality.In the case where the initiative
belongs to the actor, the "other" becomes actor through an avowed act of
representation; in the case where the initiative belongs to the spectator, the
"other" is unwittingly transformed into actor through a gaze that inscribes
theatricality in the space surrounding him.
Therefore, we may conclude that theatricality consists as much in
situating the object or the other in a "framed theatrical space" (scenario 3),
as it does in transforming a simple event into signs in such a way that it
becomes a spectacle (scenario 2). At this stage of our analysis, theatricality
appears to be more than a property; in fact, we might call it a process that
recognizes subjects in process; it is a process of looking at or being looked
at. It is an act initiated in one of two possible spaces: either that of the actor
or that of the spectator. In both cases, this act creates a cleft in the quotidian
that becomes the space of the other, the space in which the other has a place.
Without such a cleft, the quotidian remains intact, precluding the possibility
of theatricality, much less of theater itself.
Initially, theatricality appears to be an almost fantastical cognitive
operation set in motion either by the observer or the observed. It is a
performative act creating the virtual space of the other, the transitional space
discussed by Winnicott, the threshold (limen) discussed by Turner, or
Goffman's "framing." It clears a passage, allowing both the performing
subject as well as the spectator to pass from "here" to "elsewhere."
Theatricality does not manifest itself in any obligatory fashion. It does
not have any qualitative properties that would permit our identifying it
beyond any shadow of doubt. It is not an empirical given. Theatricality is
authorized by the placing of the subject with respect to both quotidian and
imaginary dimensions, the latter being founded upon the presence of the
other's space. To see theatricality in these terms poses the question of its
own transcendent nature.
What Permits the Theatrical? The Theater as Pre-Aesthetic
If one is ready to admit the existence, outside the theatrical stage, of a
theatricality of acts, events, situations, and objects, then one must be willing
to consider the philosophical nature of theatricality.1In Kantianterminology,
we are confronted with the possibility of attributing a transcendent nature
to theatricality, and of thus defining stage-related theatricality as only one
expression of a transcendent phenomenon.12
Seen in this way, theatricality appears as a transcendental structure
whose general characteristicsare assumed by the theater. Thus stage-related
SubStance# 98/99, Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3, 2002
99
Theatricality
Fiction
Action
)
Acting
The Actor
When the actor is viewed as the source of stage-related theatricality (a
view defended by Peter Brook), all other signifying systems (scenic space,
costumes, makeup, dialogue, text, lighting, props, etc.) can disappear without
scenic theatricality being significantly affected.'5The actor's presence alone
SubStance# 98/99, Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3, 2002
100
Josette Feral
Theatricality
101
102
Feral
Josette Fra1
Theatricality
Theatricality
103
In his view, the truth of the play depends upon a proximity between the
actor and the reality he represents. For Stanislavski, theatricality appears as
a kind of distancing from reality-an effect of exaggeration, an intensification
of behavior that rings false when juxtaposed with what should be the realistic
truth of the stage.
On the other hand, Meyerhold believes that theater must aim at a kind
of grotesque realism, but one quite different from the realism described by
the naturalists.Theatricalityis the process by which the actor and the director
continually remind the spectator that he is in the theater, face-to-face with a
consummate actor who is playing a role. To affirm the "theatrical"as distinct
from life and from reality is the condition sine qua non of stage-related
theatricality. The stage must speak its own language and impose its own
laws. For Meyerhold, there is no equivalence between representation and
reality. On the contrary, theatricality is not to be found in any illusory
relationship with reality. Nor is it to be linked to a specific aesthetic. Rather,
it must be sought in the autonomous discourse that constitutes theater.
Meyerhold insists on a truly theatrical specificity.
Meyerhold's concept of theatricality is concretized in the actor's
ostentatious demonstration to the spectator that he is at the theater;his is an
act that designates the theater as distinct from reality. The distinction is
fundamental. On the one hand, it proposes a theatricalitycentered exclusively
on the function of the theater as theater, thus transforming it into the sort of
cybernetic machine about which Barthes spoke. On the other hand, the
distinction defines a space in which the process of theatrical production is
important, a space in which, outside of any relationship with reality,
everything becomes sign.
Contrary to Meyerhold's definition of theatricality, Stanislavski's is
marked by history, since it carriestraces of bygone debates over "naturalism"
in the theater-a naturalism opposed to the widely-condemned artificiality
of the late nineteenth century. Although these debates over naturalism are
not completely dead, today they are understood differently, with naturalism
itself being recognized as a form of theatricality.
Today's response to the question of whether theatricalitycan be defined
according to any specific relationship between the stage and the reality that
is its object,appears clear,for we believe that there is not any single, privileged
subject more appropriate to the theater than any other. Theatricality is a
process that is above all linked to the conditions of theatrical production. As
such, it poses the question of representational processes.
SubStance# 98/99, Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3, 2002
104
Josette Feral
Theatricality
Theatricality
105
105
transform the theater into a circus ring and violate one of the limits of the
theater.28Although theatricality may yet be present in the event, theater as
such has disappeared.
Conclusion
From these observations we can conclude that theatricality is not a sum
of enumerable properties or characteristics, but can be discerned through
specific manifestations, and deduced from phenomena termed "theatrical."
However, these examples are not theatricality's only form; it is not limited
strictly to the theater, but can be found in dance, opera, and performance
art, as well as in the quotidian.
If the notion of theatricality goes beyond the theater, it is because it is
not a "property" belonging to the subjects/things that are its vehicles. It
belongs neither to the objects, the space, nor to the actor himself, although
each can become its vehicle. Rather,theatricality is the result of a perceptual
dynamics linking the onlooker with someone or something that is looked
at. This relationship can be initiated either by the actor who declares his
intention to act, or by the spectator who, of his own initiative, transforms
the other into a spectacular object. By watching, the spectator creates an
"other" space, no longer subject to the laws of the quotidian, and in this
space he inscribes what he observes, perceiving it as belonging to a space
where he has no place except as external observer. Without this gaze,
indispensable for the emergence of theatricality and for its recognition as
such, the other would share the spectator's space and remain part of his
daily reality.
Theatricalityproduces spectacularevents for the spectator;it establishes
a relationship that differs from the quotidian. It is an act of representation,
the construction of a fiction. As such, theatricalityis the imbrication of fiction
and representation in an "other" space in which the observer and the
observed are brought face to face. Of all the arts, the theater is best suited to
this sort of experimentation.
Universitedu Quebeca Montreal
translatedby RonaldP. Bermingham
Notes
1. This articlewas first published in Frenchin Poetique,Paris,Sept. 1988,pp. 347-361.
2. Results of a survey undertakenin 1912by editors of the journalLesMargesreflectthe
importanceof this change.LesMargesput the following questionto its readers:"Which,
in your opinion, is the superiorperson:the one who loves to read or the one who loves
to go to the theater?"The majorityof those participatingin the survey responded in
SubStance
# 98/99,Vol.31, nos.2 & 3, 2002
106
Josette Feral
Theatricality
107
spectatorsuddenly found himself forced to enter into the action of the play, into the
"other's"space, and often to defend himself from the feeling of being violated.
14. J.M.Piemmewrites that theatricalityis thatwhich the theateralone is able to produce;
thatwhichotherartscannot produce.(Cf.Lesouffleur
inquiet,specialeditionof Alternatives
theatrales,nos. 20-21; December1984.)
15. Cf. PeterBrook,L'espace
vide(Paris:Seuil, 1977),p. 25:"Ican take any empty spaceand
call it a stage. For a theatricalact to begin, it suffices only that someone crosses this
empty space while someone else watches."
16. "Alleffectiveperformancessharethis "not-notnot" quality:Olivieris not Hamlet,but
also he is not not Hamlet:his performanceis between a denial of being another(= I am
me) and a denial of not being another(= I am Hamlet)."Cf. Schechner,123.
17. The relationshipof the actorto his body varies greatlyaccordingto the school. Certain
schools, such as thatof Grotowski,emphasizethe completemasteryof the body, basing
their practice upon an athletic methodology. Others, such as Artaud are more
introspectiveand de-emphasizethe corporalpresence;still others,such as Craig,strive
for the completemechanizationand total transparenceof the actor.
18.Thisshockis identicalto thatfeltby the spectatorat an athleticcompetition.Theparallel
between sports and theater has often been discussed. Cf. Theatre/Publicno. 62
(March-April1985)as well as Lescahiersde theatreJeuno. 20 (1981-1983).
19. Accordingto Piemme,the body, made anachronousby new technologies,is material,
singular,and vulnerable.Althoughits interactionswith realityareincreasinglyindirect,
it remainswhole, unique, singular."At the moment when the experienceof reality is
more and more indirect,when the humanbeing is bowled over by the force of images
produced by the technology of modern reproduction,the body, by its fundamentally
materialpresencein space, continuesto become increasinglyimportant."(Piemme,P.
40)
20. The rules of stage play are differentduring the Elizabethanperiod than during the
classicalperiod,just as plays belongingto the Commedia
dell'artetraditionnever impose
rulesthat,forexample,would have governedthe representationof a Sophocleantragedy.
Today,rulesdifferaccordingto one's stancewith respectto traditionalpracticesvis-a-vis
those inheritedfrom the 1960s.Thus, any attemptto elaboratea history of the rules of
stage-playmustbe carriedout within the frameworkof a historyof theatricalaesthetics.
21. A list of the characteristicsand propertiesof theatricalitywould include the following
elements:1) a representationalact that transformsreality,the subject,the body, space,
time;2) a creativeact thatgoes beyond the limits of the quotidian;3) an ostentatiousact
of the body, a semiotizationof signs;4) the presenceof a subjectwho, throughthe use of
his body, structures the imaginary.
SubStance
# 98/99,Vol.31, nos.2 & 3, 2002
Josette Feral
108
24. However, in this case, the concernsof the spectatordo not count, for if they did, there
would be intrusionon the part of the spectatorinto a space that is not his.
25. This processparallelsWinnicott'sin affirmingthatthe actor'semotionalinvestmentin
the stage-playmust distanceitself from subjectivelyfelt desires. When this distanceis
not maintained,the actorleaves the realmof stage-play,enteringthat of reality.
26. For example, the spectacles of StuartShermanin the 1960s. Focusing upon what is
forbidden, the process of killing animals seems more easily incorporated with
representationthan is mutilationof the actor.However, this form of mutilationoften
elicits fierceopposition from the spectators.
27. Cf. Diderot'sParadoxedu comedien.
28. These interdictionsdo not however constitutethe limits of theatricality.In this regard,
cf. Bataille'snotion of the "sacred."
Works Cited
Abensour, G. "Blokface a Meyerholdet Stanislavskiou le probleme de la theatralit6,"
Revuedesttudes slaves,Vol. 54, no. 4 (1982),pp. 671-679.
Aristotle.Poetics.New York:theatreCommunicationsGroup,1999.
Aron, Thomas. Litteratureet litterarite:essai de mise au point. Paris:Les Belles Lettres,
1984.
No. 18-19,Jan.-June
Baillon,Jacques."D'uneentreprisede theatralite."In Theatre/Public,
1975,pp. 109-22.
Bouazis,Charles.Litterariteet societe:theoried'un modele du fonctionnementlitteraire.
Paris:Mame, 1972.
Brook,Peter.I'EspaceVide.Paris:Seuil, 1977.
Carnicke,SharonMarie. "L'instinctth6atral:Evreinovet la theatralite."Revuedes etudes
slaves,No. 53, 1981,97-108.
sur le comedien.
Paris:Papiers,1985.
Diderot,Denis and JacquesBaillon.LeParadoxe
Evreinov,Nicolas. Letheatredansla vie.Paris:Stock,1930.
Fried, Michael. Absorptionand Theatricality:
Paintingand Beholderin the Age of Diderot.
Berkeley:UC Press, 1980.
- . "Art and Objecthood,"MinimalArt. A CriticalAnthology.New York:E.P. Dutton,
1968,pp. 139-141.
Ritual:EssaysonFace-to-Face
Behavior.
GardenCity,NY:Anchor,
Goffman,Erving.Interaction
1967.
. ThePresentation
of Selfin EverydayLife.GardenCity, NY:Doubleday,1959.
A Studyof thePlayElementin Culture.Trans.CecileSeresia.
Huizenga,Johan.HomoLudens:
London:Routledge,[1949]1980.
essaisurlespossibilites
d'unesciencede
Marghescou,Mircea.Leconceptdelitterarite:
theoriques
la litterature.
The Hague:Mouton,1974.
Meyerhold,Vsevolod. Myerholdon Theatre.London:Metheun,1978.
. Ecritssur le theatre.Vols. 1 & 2. Lausanne:La Cite-L'Aged'Homme, 1973.
Piemme, Jean-Marie.Le Souffleurinquiet.Special edition of Alternativestheatrales,Nos.
20-21.Dec. 1984.
Polany,Michael.TheTacitDimension.GardenCity,NY:1967.
Schechner,R. BetweenTheaterandAnthropology.
Philadelphia:Univ. PennsylvaniaPress,
1985.
- . Essayson Performance
Theory.New York:DramaBookSpecialists,1977.
New York:TheatreArts Books, 1936.
Stanislavski,Konstantin.An ActorPrepares.
New York:
Turner,VictorWitter.FromRitualtoTheatre:
WritingsonCultureandPerformance.
PerformingArts JournalPublications,1982.
et sa conditionesthetique.
Paris:Flammarion,1955.
Veinstein,Andre.Lamiseenscenetheatrale
SubStance
# 98/99,Vol.31, nos.2 & 3, 2002