Olly Crick Final Agreed Thesis Version III Without
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Approaching Aesthetic Positions for Neo‐Commedia (1946‐2016): A Dramaturgical Investigation, Mindful of the Potential for Local, Social and Political Relevance. “To make theatre for the present with the angels and demons of the past” Carlo Boso (Simioni: 1983) Vol I: Thesis and Bibliography Oliver Harold Crick November 2018 This thesis is submitted to the University of Edge Hill in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Edge Hill University 1 Declaration This thesis is entirely my own work and has not been submitted, in full, or in part, for the award of a higher degree at any other educational institution. Abstract This thesis articulates a range of dramaturgic and aesthetic positions within the contemporary theatrical form termed Neo‐Commedia, being the twentieth and twenty‐first century reinvention and re‐imagining of the Renaissance and Baroque European theatre form Commedia dell’Arte. Mixed‐method research involving existing sources, when combined with structured interviews with current practitioners, yielded information which is presented in three ways: the identification and critical comparison of existing academic sources concerning the genre’s founders; qualitative conclusions on current practice drawn from the interviews; and critical dramaturgic hypotheses which emerged from interrogating the previous two strands. It produces an evaluative study of praxis between 1946 and 2016, making the case that there is no single canonical definition of the genre, but rather a series of inter‐connected artist led practices. Sections 2 and 3 contain case studies of the genre’s originators, and their immediate disciples. I identify Giorgio Strehler, Jacques Lecoq, Giovanni Poli and Carlo Mazzone‐Clementi as the originators, and Dario Fo, Carlo Boso, Antonio Fava, Joan Schirle and Ronlin Foreman as significant second‐generation practitioners. Sections 4,5 and 6 explore a range of dramaturgic positions within Neo‐ Commedia, and then deal with dramaturgic conclusions involving both mask‐use within the genre and the evolution of new generic critical positions. As the form is complex and still evolving there will be anomalies present as well as correlations, and I aim to make these transparent to the reader. 2 Acknowledgements I would like to thank all those who were interviewed as part of this thesis and who willingly shared their praxis with me: Ole Brekke, John Broadbent, GianGiacomo Colli, Ronlin Foreman, Corinna Di Niro, Didi Hopkins, Adriano Iurressevitch, Malcolm Knight, Tony Kishawi, Fabio Mangolini, Scott McGehee, Mario Pirovano, Joan Schirle, Dory Sibley, Pete Talbot, John Rudlin, Annie Ryan, John Finbarr Ryan and Katrien Van Beurden. I would also like to thank Jon Kellam and Christina Coltelli for subsequent discussions, and my supervisory team for their patience. I commend my children who endured my prolonged absences. The conclusions drawn within my thesis are not necessarily those of the interviewees. I dedicate this thesis to all those involved in the ongoing conversation as to the nature of Commedia dell’Arte and Neo‐Commedia, then and now. 3 Table of Contents Volume I: Thesis and Bibliography Declaration and Abstract 2 Acknowledgements 3 Table of Contents 4 List of Figures and Tables 7 1 Prologue 8 1.1 Neo‐Commedia Aesthetics 9 1.2 Dramaturgy 12 1.3 Research Methodology 14 1.4 Research Method: Commedia Cards, Interview Method for Sections 3 and 4: Second and Third Generation. 16 1.5 Epistemology and Text 20 1.6 A Brief Backstory: pre‐1946 23 2 Founders 2.1 The Founders, Introduction 25 2.2 Conceptual Links: Stabile and Viaggiante 28 2.3 Giorgio Strehler (1921–1997) and Arlecchino Il Servatore di due Padroni (Harlequin, A Servant of Two Masters) 30 2.4 Carlo Mazzone‐Clementi (1920–2000) 37 2.5 Jacques Lecoq (1921–1999) 42 2.6 Giovanni Poli (1917–1979) 49 2.7 The Legacy of Four 57 3 Second Generation 3.1 The Second Generation, Introduction 60 3.2 Dario Fo (1926–2016) 61 3.3 Carlo Boso (1946–) 69 4 3.4 Antonio Fava (1949–) 79 3.5 The Schools of Mazzone‐Clementi 89 3.5.i Ole Brekke and the Commedia School 90 3.5.ii Ronlin Foreman and the Dell’Arte School 96 3.5.iii Joan Schirle and the Dell’Arte School 100 3.6 Conclusions 108 4 Third Generation 4.1 The Third Generation, Introduction 111 4.2 Positioning Political Engagement within Neo‐Commedia 114 4.3 Rough Theatre 120 4.4 Grammelot and the Performance of Language 126 4.5 The Ensemble 135 4.5. i Ensemble: The Business of Commedia 138 4.5. ii Ensemble: Politics 140 4.5.iii Ensemble: Family 143 4.5.iv Ensemble: Performance 145 4.5.v Ensemble: The Capocomico 147 4.5.vi Ensemble: Clown Theory 149 5 Masks in Neo‐Commedia 5.1 Masked and Unmasked; Scenarios and the Wider Field 153 5.2 Masks, Distributed Cognition and Agency 164 5.3 Masks and Neuroscience: Why Do We React Like That? 169 5.4 Entering the Uncanny Valley, Masked 175 5.5 Katrien Van Beurden and Hotel Courage: A Case Study 180 5.6 The Corn Exchange and The Rude Mechanicals: A Case Study 187 5.7 Masks Down Under: A Case Study 205 5.8 Makers and Coders 209 5 5.9 Conclusions: Mask Dramaturgy Unmasked 211 6 Fixed Types and Stock Roles 6.1 Commedia dell’Arte: The Masks as Embodied Locality 214 6.2 Masks as Embodied Positions of Power 222 6.3 Neo‐Commedia Dramaturgy: Experiments, Developments and Conclusions within Different Regions 225 6.4 Top‐down Translocation and The Fabulous Old Spot Theatre Company: A Case Study 227 6.5 Commedia and Gestus 240 6.6 The Commedia Mask Set: Levi‐Strauss and What We May Learn from Structuralist Anthropology 243 7 Epilogue 247 8 Bibliography 254 Volume II: Appendices Appendix A: Interview Transcripts 270 Appendix B: Commedia Timeline 272 Indicative Glossary 282 Appendix C: Interview Card Sets 295 Appendix D: Dramaturgic Diagrams (Grammelot, Mask Sets, Historical, Contemporary and Language Hierarchies) 307 Appendix E: Performance Scripts Once Upon a Time in Southport 318 Frack Off 322 6 List of Figures and Tables Figures Figure 1.5: Diagram showing the relationships and patterns of influence between those interviewed. P.18. Figure 2.6: Commedia degli Zanni, Giovanni Poli, 1958 (photo, left) and Jacques Callot, I balli di sfessania, 1621–1622 (engraving, right) (Filacanapa, 2013; images used by permission of Dr Guilia Filacanapa). P.52. Figure 5.4 (i): Mori’s diagram of anthropomorphic robots and our emotional reaction (Technium, 2012: Internet). P. 175. Figure 5.4 (ii): New Scientist adaptation of Mori’s Uncanny Valley diagram including the cartoon human character (Rutkin, New Scientist, 2015: Internet). P.177. Figure 5.6 (i): Rude Mechanical Theatre Company; white‐face in action (source: Internet). P.191. Figure 5.6 (ii): Diagram showing the convergence of influences that created Ryan’s praxis. P.196. Figure 5.6 (iii): Examples of the exaggerated makeup employed by Annie Ryan’s actors in Dublin by Lamplight, taken from advertising posters outside the Abbey Theatre, March 2017. They are of a far more detailed design than the Rude Mechanical Circus derived white‐face. P.201. Figure 5.6 (iv): Photos from prison workshops by the Actors’ Gang (2017: Internet). P.202. Figure 6.1: The geographical proximity of the four significant areas in Northern Italy from where the Masks originated: The Lovers came from Turin, Pantalone from Venice, the Doctor from Bologna and the Zannis from Bergamo and the Po Valley, stretching from the Adriatic coast south of Venice inland as far as Turin. P.221. Figure 6.4: Actor Steven DeProost as Titus Dallymore in the Fabulous Old Spot Theatre’s 2004 show, Hot Crackling. P.229. Tables Table 1.1: The Neo‐Commedia manifestations of Dutton’s seven aesthetic signatures. P.10. Table 3.6: The spectrum of purpose at this stage of the evolution of Neo‐Commedia. P.110. Table 6.2: The performative social hierarchy of the Masks, or roles, in Commedia dell’Arte. P.222. Table 6.4: The Mask translocations made by the Fabulous Old Spot Theatre Company. I.P.233‐5. 7 Section 1: Prologue The notion of a ‘tradition’ of Commedia dell’Arte as an unbroken line from the Renaissance to now is highly contested. There are certainly theatre forms that have, over several hundred years, evolved from the masked roots of the renaissance to the current day, and these include the UK’s Seasonal Pantomime and Punch and Judy puppet show. To state that ‘Nor are its techniques forgotten. They are still with us, for example in the work of actors from the Lecoq school, and in the…live performance of Dario Fo.” (Frost and Yarrow, 1990: 8), is to make two huge assumptions: that today’s techniques of performance are identical to those from history, and that there is an unbroken line of technique existing from then till now. Live performance, especially a historical one with an element of improvisation included, is a culturally mediated existential event, and hence unrepeatable. All one can be sure of is that today a self‐selecting group of theatre practitioners adopted the outward forms of the past in order to produce contemporary theatre. A picture of how they do this is the matter of this thesis. The creation of Neo‐Commedia performance is therefore characterised by an artist‐led mediation between the potentially competing concerns of entertainment and ideology and carried out through the deployment of both masked and unmasked roles based on historical Renaissance social types. Negotiating between historical forms and current performance sensibilities is a feature of the practice, which sometimes challenges and sometimes ignores historical events, often creating effective performances out of historical mismatches and ontological errors.