Everyone who has seen a theatre production of the same
play twice (at different evenings, in different theatres, in different years,
in different countries…) will have noticed something: You do not see the same play twice.
This in itself is not surprising as the European theatre
tradition is largely build on the idea of constant re-interpretation and
ongoing modernization of plays, and the definition of drama furthermore
implicitly entails that the text never functions as more than a basis for all
the add-ons that constitute a play – one might promptly think of: the actors,
the playing setting, the audience space.
But
there is more to these three factors than immediately meets the eye: the actors
– this not only entails the bodily and gestural capacities of the performers,
but also the norms underlying it; the playing setting – there is much more to
it than the general physical environment and the mise-en-scène, e.g. the
technologies available such as lighting and sound; the audience space – this is
not only defined by the external definition of it, but also the social
conventions associated: are the spectators allowed to move around during the play,
eat and drink, shout at the actors? Are the actors in turn able to enter this
space, to see particular persons in the audience and meant to interact with
them?
Other factors that more subtly but likewise influence the
production are the social systems underpinning the theatre company (such as the
approach to “enskillment” and memorizing during rehearsals), economic
considerations and wider social contexts (such as censorship or patronage), as
well as historical variability concerning the emphasis placed upon various
elements of the enterprise, including directorial control, improvisation, the
role of music …
This list could easily be continued. But it suffices to
see that theatrical practice is best explained by the interaction of all its
parts – none of these elements can be said to be primary, but instead each
affects and modulates the others.
A framework suggested by Evelyn Tribble that takes an applicable view on
systems as dynamic and non-localizable, in which no one element can be
identified as the unit of analysis, is cognitive ecology: “Cognitive ecologies are the
multidimensional contexts in which we remember, feel, think, sense,
communicate, imagine, and act, often collaboratively, on the fly, and in rich
ongoing interaction with our environments.“
This approach is based on
the idea of the extended mind and distributed cognition: In all these views,
mental activities can spread across the boundaries of the individual skin and skull
to include parts of the social and material world. In her article and book, Tribble argues that
the complex human activity of performing a play can best be understood using
this as an analytical tool, linking internal cognitive mechanisms and the
social and physical environment together.
She illustrates this in focusing on two cognitive states
that are vital to constitute performances, but “unevenly distributed across the
physical, social, and cultural environments as well as bodies and brains”:
Memory and attention.
She e.g. argues – quite rightly as I believe – that any
theatrical performance has mechanisms of attention and perception, but that
these are not simply biological phenomena, but fundamentally also properties of
social and material systems, shaped by rich social knowledge of particular
cultural fields.
This framework is then interesting for literary criticism
and comparative analysis:
While in Shakespearean times audiences’ attention was
primarily mediated through sound, including voice, sound effects, and music, nowadays
this function is often taken on by the stage lighting – a technical device not
available in Shakespearean theatres – and sounds are more often used to set the
mood of a scene.
This also proves interesting for writers and dramaturges
conducting a performance: It can provide them with new views on looking at
plays written in different centuries in different cognitive ecologies – The
Tucker’s Original Shakespeare Company was inspired to integrate Shakespearean
rehearsal techniques in their routine which changed the whole delivery of the
performances. It should be noted that this will never lead to restoring “original
practices” (whatever those should be anyway) – as the viewer’s and actor’s
histories of learnt conventions cannot be changed. It is on the contrary more a
guide to increased creative possibilities of reinterpretation on all different
levels and aspects.
So, one does not see the same play as the people in
Shakespeare’s times. But who wants to anyway?
No comments:
Post a Comment