University Microfilms International 300 N

INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1.Thc sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Pagc(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing pagc(s) or section, they arc spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of "sectioning" the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again-beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 8305347 Kagan-Moore, Patrick THE WORLD OF THE PLAY: A METHOD OF PLAYSCRIPT ANALYSIS The Ohio Stale University PH.D. 1982 University Microfilms International300 N. Zed> Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 41106 Copyright 1982 by Kagan-Moore, Patrick All Rights Reserved THE WORLD OP THE PLAY: A METHOD OF PLAYSCRIPT ANALYSIS DISSERTATION * Presented in Partial^Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Patrick Kagan-Moore, B.S., M.A. The Ohio State University 1982 Reading Committee; Approved By George Crepeau Byron Ringland Alan Woods ser ent of The For Lori, who made it possible. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my gratitude to a number of people who helped me finish this work: to Dr. George Crepeau, who was an adviser in every sense of the word; to Dr. Alan Woods, who kept me honest; to Albert Pertalion and Byron Ringland, who were friends to my obsession; and certainly to Arne Zaslove, who opened my eyes to the world of the play. iii VITA January 26# 1948 ...........Born - Corvallis# Oregon 1971 . B.S.# L iberal Studies# Oregon State U niversity# Corvallis, Oregon. 1975 . M.A., Theatre# Western Washington University # Bellingham# Washington 1972-1982 . Teaching Associate# Theatre Department# The Ohio State University, Columbus# Ohio 1981-1982 Teachir g Associate# English Departs ent# The Ohio State Univers ity, Columbus# Ohio HONORARIES Phi Kappa Phi# The Ohio State University# 1980. FIELDS OF SuTDY Major Field: Theatre Areas o£ Concentration: Directing Dramatic Theory and Criticism# Dramatic Literature iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................ iii VITA .................................................... iv LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.................................. vi INTRODUCTION ............................................ I Textual Unity ...................................... 11 CHAPTER I. THE WORLD OF THE P L A Y ....................... 21 Time in the World of the Play Space in the World of the Play Major Relationships Theme8 Social Activity Conclusion II. THE SEGMENTATION OF A C T I O N ................... 66 III. BUILDING STAGE ACTIVITY ..................... 84 Groundplan Scenic Activity: Using the Dramatic Unit Conclusion IV. THE WORLD OF THE COUNTRY W I F E ..................119 Time Space Major Relationships Themes Social Codes Segmentation of the Action Building Stage Activity: The Country Wife Conclusion:’ The Country Wife V. THE WORLD OF THE TOOTH OF C R I M E ................212 Time and Space Themes v Page X. THE WORLD OF THE TOOTH OF CRIME (Cont.) Major Relationships Segmentation in The Tooth of Crime Building Stage Activity: The Tooth of Crime XI. CONCLUSION...................................... 271 The World of the Play SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................. 273 vi LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1 Groundplan for The Country Wife, Horner and Pinchwife scenes ................................. 209 2 Groundplan for The Country Wife, the New Exchange 210 3 Groundplan for The Country Wife# the Piazza of Covent Garden ................................... 211 4 Groundplan for The Tooth of C r i m e ................. 270 * vii INTRODUCTION Producing or criticizing a play is a complex process; it requires the interpreter to isolate# understand the significance of# and put to use as many of the meaningful elements of the play as possible. As has been pointed out by a number of recent theorists# this basic analysis tends to be approached in all sorts of ways— each of which is effective in identifying certain kinds of information# but none of which can lay claim to being a unified or somewhat complete system. In what follows# I describe an analytical method which is intended to be just that— a more unified and complete tool for script analysis. This method incor porates many concepts and approaches which have been described previously by others working in this field# and accordingly owes much to their excellent work and shares many similarities with it. At the same time, it is a more complete tool in that it offers a way to focus the analyst's attention on a broad spectrum of significant elements within a text# rather than on just a few. Put in the current terminology# it is more organic and holistic. By using such a wide-ranging and thorough technique~or any similarly-devised method of his own design— the director# 1 critic, or actor can more quickly and reliably detect a large number of significant elements within the text. While no claim should be made or implied that this model is suited to all situations or that it will prove useful to everyone, it may contribute to efficient textual analysis for many, and serve to provoke further work in this newly emerging field. Several writers have advanced important theories in the area of play-reading in the past ten years, among them Bernard Beckerman, Roger Gross, and Richard Hornby. Each of their methods is unique; there is much on which they seem to disagree. But they are surprisingly unified in their view of the problem— the insufficiency of current methods of analysis— and of the most promising avenue to its solution— development of a method that evaluates the text in terms of stage experience and production necessities. Each sees previous play-reading/analytical methods as inadequate, and for basically the same reasons: First, because no method of play-reading (and they cite many among them— Myth/Ritual Criticism, Archetypal Criticism, Marxist Criticism, Aristotelean Criticism, Neo-Aristotelean Criticism, New Criticism, Psychoanalytic Criticism, Imagist Analysis) has proved adequate as an evaluative tool for 3 examining the complex social environment, the imatrix" that any playscript offers.1 ■ Secondly, because no analytical model has yet proved successful at addressing the "theatrical act," the experience of the stage that is an implicit goal of any playscript and that contributes immeasurably to the way that any script "means." Finally, each of these theorists sees the stage director as the single most successful critical analyst in solving the above problems, since the director is (and has been through- out this century) the one person who must evaluate the script with an eye to justifying its meanings to the stage, and must bring forth a unified experience from the batch of words that make up a script. Beckerman has pointed out that wholesale changes have taken place in the drama over the last century,. Producers and writers such as Strindberg, Brecht, Meyerhold, Piscator, Brook, etc., have "delivered blow after blow against conven tional dramatic form and so have transformed our eyesight." Arthur Koestler, The Act of Creation (New Yorks Dell Publishing Co., 1967) p. 38. A matrix, according to Koestler, is any skill or structuring of ideas that operates under the rule of fixed codes. In his definition, Koestler notes that matrices are flexible structures that operate 'under the dual control (a) of a fixed code of rules . and (b) of a flexible strategy, guided by environmental pointer^— the 'lie of the land'." 4 And yet, Beckerman notes, the changes that drama has under gone have not been parallelled by like changes in dramatic criticism: What we expect of a play and how we identify its salient features are still refractions of The Poetics of Aristotle and its many historical offspring. Ideas of climax, of dramatic pro gression, and tragedy come directly and indirectly from Aristotle. Even where serious dramatic theorists depart from

Load more