• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

IIr i ...II II ­ilia :rilia ID II ilia fI Other works by the author: Books: Happenings The Art of Time Futurist Performance Playscripts: Photoanalysis First Signs ofDecadence Three Structuralist Plays (Double Gothic Prisoners of the Invisible Kingdom, Junk/Neon) Editor: The New Theatre II .1- ilia University of Pennsylvania Press Philadelphia II" The review "Village Disaster" by CJive Barnes appeared in the New York Times, January 11, 1966. Copyright © by The New York Times Company Reprinted by permission. Portions of A Formalist Theatre previously appeared in: The Drama Review Modern Drama, Formations, Intermedia, The Dumb Ox Copyright © 1987 by the University of Pennsylvania Press Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Kirby: Michael. A formalist theatre. Includes index. 1. Experimental theater. 2. Theater and society I. Title. PN2193.E86K56 1987 306' .484 87-5839 First paperback printing 1990 All rights reseNed ISBN 0-8122-8055-5 (cloth) ISBN 0-8122-1334-3 (pbk.) Design: ADRIANNE ONDERDONK DUDDEN Printed in the United States of America To my twin brother E. T. (JlTed") Kirby (1931- 1985) Probably the largest audience my brother, Ted, played in front of was at the Rye­ Harrison high school footbaff game in J948. (He also acted in the class play, Ramshackle Inn, started on the basketbaff team, was a starting pitcher on the league champion basebaH team, and high jumped in track, but those events were not as well-attended as football games.) The crowd at Harrison filled the grandstands and was packed many-deep around the field because this was the traditional rivalry, the last game of the year, and because both teams were good. We had lost two early games; Harrison was undefeated. At halftime, Harrison led J2-0. In the locker room, Ted, who had never done anything of the kind, gave a short speech to the players. In the last quarter, Harrison, basically a power team, tried a somewhat tricky play. The ball went to the fullback in the single wing-even then the formation seemed old-fashioned-who faked to the taifback, faked to the wingback coming around, and threw to the tailback. The ball never got there. From my position at defensive right end, I had a perfect view of Ted, crashing in at left end, leaping to intercept the pass. Untouched, he ran 40 yards for a touchdown. With about two minutes left, we still trailed J2-6; Harrison was forced to punt. Our coach caHed for "Alabama," a play designed to block punts, and it worked. We had the baH near the goal with time running out. Earlier we had run a pass pattern where the two ends-my identical twin and I-went down about 15 yards and crossed. Now, on third down from the Harrison 14-yard line, we went down, faked the cross and broke to the outside. The ball went to Ted in the end zone. The score was tied. Playing the whole game without substitution and on his way to being voted aff-Ieague, Ted had scored all of our points: one touchdown on offense and one on defense. The game ended in a 12-12 tie; we felt almost as if we had won. More than 20 years later, my wife, my brother and I drove to the outdoor swimming pool at Playland in Rye. Ted and I no longer lived in Rye and had not been back for some time. The white-haired man selling admission tickets to the pool recognized us, though. "Which one of you fellows scored those two touchdowns against Harrison7" he asked. "He did," I said. The man let us all in free. There were many, many other things I got­ directly and indirectly-from Ted, some of them of immeasurable value. I don't think I was the only one. This page intentionally left blank o :-" introduction ix ..II :I part one: forlnalist analysis ilia II chapter one acting and not-acting 3 chapter two the structure of performance 21 chapter three referential and non-referential theatre 32 chapter four style as perceptual state 52 part two: the social context chapter five the critical screen 67 chapter six the question of efficacy 84 chapter seven avant-garde theatre 96 part three: structuralist theatre chapter eight the structuralist workshop 111 chapter nine three structuralist performances 121 chapter ten structuralist film 142 index 153 This page intentionally left blank introduction A Formalist Theatre is based primarily on a number of articles written over more than a decade. Most of them appeared in the Drama Review, a quarterlyjournal I edited for fourteen years (fifty-eight issues from 1971 through 19851. Thus, most of the material was not originally conceived as belonging to a book. It reads as though it had been written for a book, however. The approach and style are consistent. The pieces cover a wide range, and yet they complement each other; the arguments converge. Certain ideas, concepts, and theories are treated from different view­ points in different articles. Of course, the material has been rewritten and new material added. It is not merely an anthology: the whole is much more than the sum of its parts. Why the title A Formalist Theatre? Basically, it is a book of analysis, theory, and description. What is it that makes the analysis, the theory, and the particular theatre that is described formalist? Let us begin with a definition of uformal." (Beginning with definitions is a basic characteristic of my approach. We should be sure that we are using words in the same way before we get involved in a discussion.} Of the ten definitions of uformal" given in Webster's New World Dictionary the most useful here are: "1. of external form or structure, rather than na­ ture or content" and "6. done or made in orderly, regular fashion; me­ thodical." The analysis, theory, and performances described are all formal by these definitions. A formal approach to analysis means concentrating on "external form" rather than on the content or meaning of a piece. Most theatre is taught and understood in terms of its meaning, its "inner" content. The­ atre, in this approach, is its meaning. In A Formalist Theatre, theatre is approached not as meaning but as experience. The content approach brings theatre toward literature; one "reads" a performance for its mean­ ing, and most, if not all, of the meaning may be obtained as well from reading the script. A formal approach makes clear the difference be- x tween theatre as performance and theatre as literature. The experience of reading is quite different from the experience of attending a perfor- C mance. To a great extent, it is this difference that is being analyzed here o ~ as we examine theatre as an activity of the entire sensory organism .g rather than as an operation almost exclusively of the eyes-in a very lim- g ited way-and the mind. .5 Concentration on theatre as experience allows us to analyze perfor- mances that do not have sUbject matter, something that a content­ oriented approach is helpless to deal with and, therefore, rejects. We are not concerned only with content-laden "drama" but with perfor­ mances-whether or not they are dramatic, whether or not they involve actors and characterization-that are not "about" anything. Dance, spectacle, nightclub acts, and other forms are all considered equally as aspects of theatrical performance. Every performance has form; not every performance conveys mean­ ing. In dealing with the formal aspects of performance, A Formalist The­ atre may be thought of as nonsemiotic or even antisemiotic. It attempts to correct the historical attribution of theatrical significance on the basis of meaning and the concurrent denigration of performances that involve little or no meaning. The goal is to make the study of theatre as objective and systematic as science, to make it as scientific as possible. This means it should be done in an Ilorderly, regular fashion"-in other words, it should be formal rather than subjective, impressionistic, opinionated, unsystematic, and informal. What is the orderly, regular method that will be followed here? The basic tool is the analytical continuum, a device for displaying a particular range of possibilities without evaluating them. To see how this tool works, let us try to define theatre itself. What is theatre? What does it include and not include? What are the range and characteristics of its "analytical continuum"? Theatre does not occur in nature. It is not accidental. It does notjust happen. Intent is a necessary and crucial element. People make some­ thing that develops and changes in time-a performance-with the intent of having it affect an audience. Eavesdropping and voyeurism are not theatre because the perceived activity is not intended for an audience. This formulation allows us, among other things, to escape from a the­ atre version of a very old philosophical question: Is there any sound if a tree falls in the middle of a huge forest and nobody is there to hear it? Is it theatre if a person performs something when alone or if a full rehearsal of a play is conducted without an audience? By our definition, it would xi be theatre as long as there was the intent to make theatre, to show the performance at some time to an audience. :r.,,.. Allan Kaprow and others, however, do performances without any in­ o tention of showing them to an audience. They may be done alone, pri­ C. I:,..n vately. Other performers may see certain portions. Sometimes there may cr be accidental spectators. But the performances are intended to be done­ :::J to affect the performer-not to be obseNed.

Load more

  180

Copy Link