The
authentic narrative is a sensory explosion occurring within an intellectual
context. We know it when we feel it as acutely
as we feel a kick on the shins at a chess match.
So
can theatre, the greatest illusion of all, articulate anything meaningful about
combatting trickery and fraud? In other
words: is it possible to create a plausible, authentic narrative within all
that fakery? I’m going to stick my neck right out here and say that is exactly what
theatre it is for and what it was first invented to do.
Playwrights
control and guide the emotional journey.
The audience experiences something different from what they know, thereby empathising and
understanding at a deep, visceral level.
I’ll
come back to the mechanics of theatre and writing for it in a later chapter But
I also want to explain how I feel theatre has become side-tracked away from its
primary function. The desire for an
instant gratification has reduced many forms of theatre to spectacle. Exciting and thrilling funny and even
emotionally engaging it may be but in the end, hollow and without heart. That is not to decry the theatre of spectacle
but it loses so much more that it could be doing. Theatre may not be able to change the world
but it can certainly set out to engage and challenge.
At the core of
live theatre experience is the fact that each performance is new and
different. No actor can reproduce the
exact same circumstances of performance night after night. He or she brings themselves to it with all
their own foibles and disappointments.
And we all know that the audience is different performance by
performance. The reaction to the wild
shamen on stage maybe quite different on a wet Thursday afternoon from a joyous
Saturday night out.
The actor is
key, he or she is living, breathing and sweating. It is up to the playwright to give the actor
the means to create that rank, odorific moment.
And the shape of the play provides the narrative underpinning that will
make this more than a moment in time. Plays happen here and now right in front
of and, perhaps, in and around the audience.
The actors are constructing and driving characters and their stories
right in front of our eyes. Plays happen
to everyone in this room.
Peter
Brook, in his seminal work “The Empty Space” decries a form of theatre he terms
“Deadly Theatre”. “A doctor can tell at once between the trace
of life and the useless bag of bones that life has left; but we are less
practised in observing how an idea, an attitude or a form can pass from the
lively to the moribund. It is difficult to define but a child can smell it
out.”
Jerzy
Grotowski when he talks about physical theatre, is not talking about empty
acrobatics but in the direct, living engagement of the actor with the text.
“Why
do we sacrifice so much energy to our art?
Not in order to teach others but to learn with them what our existence, our organism, our personal and repeatable experience have to give us; to learn to break down the barriers which surround us and to free ourselves from the breaks which hold us back, from the lies about ourselves which we manufacture daily for ourselves and for others; to destroy the limitations caused by our ignorance or lack of courage; in short, to fill the emptiness in us: to fulfill ourselves...art is a ripening, an evolution, an uplifting which enables us to emerge from darkness into a blaze of light.”
― Jerzy Grotowski
Not in order to teach others but to learn with them what our existence, our organism, our personal and repeatable experience have to give us; to learn to break down the barriers which surround us and to free ourselves from the breaks which hold us back, from the lies about ourselves which we manufacture daily for ourselves and for others; to destroy the limitations caused by our ignorance or lack of courage; in short, to fill the emptiness in us: to fulfill ourselves...art is a ripening, an evolution, an uplifting which enables us to emerge from darkness into a blaze of light.”
― Jerzy Grotowski
Antonin
Artaud when he describes a Theatre of Cruelty. “I would
like to write a Book which would drive men mad, which would be like an open
door leading them where they would never have consented to go, in short, a door
that opens onto reality.”
― Antonin Artaud, Selected Writings
― Antonin Artaud, Selected Writings
These
great thinkers about theatre are all trying to capture is the idea of
Authenticity in performance and production. They want genuine commitment to the
performance by performers and audiences alike. If a performance does not leave
us shaking with emotion, angry, fearful, delighted, in love with the world,
then it has failed. Actor and audience
alike should feel challenged, uplifted, crushed, beaten and absolutely
shattered. And, in that communion, a
sense of well-being and grace.
On
the other hand, apparently, the other great thinker about the role of theatre
in the twentieth century, Berthold Brecht, propounded the idea of making the
audience less engaged emotionally in a work by proposing an Epic Theatre that
stripped the spectator of the need to identify emotionally with the
characters or action before him or her. He
felt it should instead provoke rational self-reflection and a critical view of
the action on the stage He was concerned that emotional engagement engendered
complacency in his audience and he employed what became known as “alienation techniques”.
In fact the word “alienation” used in this
context is a bit of a red herring. I think the Brecht, like Brook and
Grotowski, was driving at undermining
the primly defined conventions of theatre as he saw it. The Deadly Theatre of the glossy, bourgeois
light comedy. He wanted to give the pendulum a push in the opposite direction. He
was a man of the theatre and understood the necessity of emotional engagement
in his plays even if he didn’t preach it. Ironically, Brechtian Theatre has become a
style of the mainstream. Contemporary
audiences are much less challenged by such techniques than they might have been
in the 1930s. We have absorbed Brecht
and his ideas into the mainstream. Brecht
was not trying to undermine theatre as a whole but to “re-function it” and to
make it more relevant and challenging.
For
me, the key to this is Nietzsche’s idea in “The Birth of Tragedy” that the
individual can lose themselves in a collective Dionysian event and thereby
undergo an ecstatic transformational experience while recognising the
authenticity of the created world and how it coincides with the real.
In
Greek mythology, Apollo and Dionysus are both sons of Zeus. Apollo is the god of
reason and the rational, while Dionysus is the god of the irrational and chaos.
The Greeks did not consider the two gods to be opposites or rivals, although often the two
deities were entwined by nature. The
Apollonian is based on reason and logical thinking. By contrast, the Dionysian
is based on chaos and appeals to the emotions and instincts. - Wikipaedia
Thus
theatre explores our need for authenticity twice over. First in the great Apollonian consistent
world that that the playwright creates and reports on and secondly in the
Dionysian immediacy and transformative power of the event itself.
Note, that I am not saying what form that authenticity takes, just that the drama needs to have both plausibility and deep engagement with its subject matter. And that must come from the playwright. If you like, that predicates a third form of Authenticity, that contained and manifested in the playwright herself.
Nietszche
suggests that the only way we can attain any form of enlightenment is by
scrupulous self examination.in which we disclose the furthest reaches of ourselves. By implication he says there is a rich inner
life to be explored and that truthfulness in this exploration is the only
virtue. If, as playwrights, we want to observe
truth in our work then we must chase down the inner workings of ourselves and thence our
characters as if we were the Spanish Inquisition.
But
in this fractured, opinionated world of 2017, which writers have the resources
either in time or expertise for this critical examination of themselves and
their own writing? Where are the
great works that seek to portray and explain the current divisions in society? Where are the contemporary “Three Sisters” “Hedda Gabler”. Where are the bold playwrights like Aphra
Behn or Dario Fo? Sadly, playwrights are losing opportunities to write with
such engagement, to construct towering mountains of ideas or to create worlds
of experience. And without those
opportunities, the skill withers away. Many of the current ways into
playwriting are to blame. The ten minute
sketch or the monologue are excellent introductions to the art but they are not
the art. A ten minute play is really a
sketch and while it may be funny, thoughtful, clever, witty it simply does not
have the room to construct a proper narrative or to follow characters that are
allowed to build and develop. The ten
minute sketch is an art form in itself but it is not playwriting. And I believe this is where we are losing the
skills and sensibilities required in constructing plays. Writing a play is a marathon not a
sprint. It is a five day test match
rather than a T20 Big Bash. Emerging
playwrights ought to be given real incentives to write real plays, and, I
suggest, as soon as the plays become big and challenging with room for big
ideas then audiences will be enticed back as they always are to the authentic
narrative which has no counterpart in the other media..
Many young
writers have these important imperatives in their work. They may be dealing with
the big subjects but unless there is room for their work to grow in size and
scope then they will not be able to create the theatre that is so desperately
needed. At the same time, they hear only
the glib quick cut language of film and television making. They are not sufficiently exposed to the
theatrical narrative style which requires time to develop. Theatre needs to be more contemplative and
require exposure over longer periods than the disposable media.
I have suggested
before that there ought to be some way for young writers to serve the sort of
apprenticeship that I had. I was given opportunities to work alongside
established playwrights and directors, to sit in on rehearsals, to stand on the
side of the stage and watch actors at work.
I was given the opportunity to handle a few rewrites for other writers
and eventually to work with studio companies on my own works.
It is essential
that theatre is grabbed back from the accountants and gatekeepers. And wrested from control of the large
commercial funders who would seek to channel the inspiration of the
creatives. We must join forces with
like-minded creatives and producers and
write the sort of theatre that needs to be written.
Theatre
in its greatest form is like a towering moving crystal ice sculpture loud with
trumpets and voices that has the power to drive an audience to the further
reaches of their feeling and comprehension.
Today it has become the artform smashed into a million tiny glittering
shards, all beautiful in themselves but unable to generate the visceral
response that Brook and Grotowski and Artaud were challenging us to
provide. And if we are not careful, if
we do not show young writers how to aspire to creating this greater thing,
those fragments that are left will melt away altogether leaving us infinitely
poorer.
No comments:
Post a Comment