Theatricality: The Specificity of Theatrical Language Author(s): Josette Féral and Ronald P. Bermingham Source: SubStance, Vol. 31, No. 2/3, Issue 98/99: Special Issue: Theatricality (2002), pp. 94-108 Published by: University of Wisconsin Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3685480 Accessed: 07-05-2015 23:05 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of Wisconsin Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to SubStance.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 129.97.143.188 on Thu, 07 May 2015 23:05:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Theatricality: The Specificityof Theatrical Language'

JosetteFiral

To definetheatricality, or the specificityof the theater,is not only to attemptto definewhat distinguishes theater from other genres, but to define what distinguishesit fromother kinds of spectacle-dance, performance art,or multi-mediaart. It is to bringthe natureof theateritself into focus againsta backgroundof individual theatrical practices, theories of stage-play, and aesthetics.It is to attemptto findparameters shared by all theatrical enterprisesfrom time immemorial. Although such a projectmay appear overly ambitious,its pertinencerequires an attemptto establishsuch a definition.This articleis such a step,seeking to establishpoints of reference forsubsequent reflection. During the 20thcentury, the very foundations of theaterwere turned upside-down,as were thoseof otherarts. What had been a clearlydefined theatricalaesthetic at theend ofthe 19th century, outlining normative practice, was, duringthe 20th century, systematically reexamined. At thesame time, stagepractice began to distanceitself from the text, assigning it a new place in thetheatrical enterprise.2 Once undersiege, the text was no longerable to guaranteethe theatricality of the stage. Thus, it is understandablethat those concerned began to question the specificityof the theatricalact itself, especially since this very specificityappeared to influenceother stage practicesas well- dance,performance art, opera, and so on. The emergenceof theatricality in areastangentially related to the theater seems to have as a corollarythe dissolutionof the limitsbetween genres, and of the formaldistinctions between practices,from dance-theater to multi-mediaarts, including happenings, performance, and new technologies. The specificityof theater is moreand moredifficult to define.To theextent that the spectacularand the theatricalacquired new forms,the theater, suddenlydecentered, was obligedto redefineitself.3 From that time on, its specificitywas no longerevident. How thenare we to definetheatricality today? Should we speak ofit in thesingular or in theplural? Is theatricalitya property that belongs uniquely to the theater,or can it also be found in the quotidian? As a quality-

94 ? Board of Regents,University of WisconsinPress, 2002 SubStance# 98/99, Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3, 2002

This content downloaded from 129.97.143.188 on Thu, 07 May 2015 23:05:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Theatricality 95 understoodhere in theKantian sense of the term-does theatricalitypre-exist itsmanifestation in thetheatrical object, with the objectthen becoming the conditionof its emergence?Or is theatricalitythe consequence of a certain theatricalprocess relatedeither to realityor to the subject?These are the questionsI would like to considerhere.

The HistoricalContext The notionof theatricalityseems to have appeared at thesame timeas thenotion of literarity. However, its dissemination in criticalliterature was less rapid; in fact,the textsthat I have been able to assemble dealingwith theatricalitydate back only 10 years.4 This means that attempts to conceptualizethe notion of theatricality are linkedto recentpreoccupations with the theoryof theater.One mightwell object,maintaining that such worksas Aristotle'sPoetics, Diderot's Paradoxe du comidien,and theprefaces of Racine and VictorHugo, amongothers, are effortsto theorizein matters relatedto the theater. But "theorizing" understood according to contemporary usage as a reflectionupon thespecificity of genres and upon abstractconcepts (sign,semiotization, ostension, fragment, distance, displacement, etc.), is a much morerecent phenomenon. As Roland Bartheshas pointedout, the attempt to definea theoryof theater is itselfthe sign ofan era fascinatedby theory. Recentdissemination of the notion of theatricality can lead us to forget its more distanthistory. In fact,we can retracethe notionof theatricality back tothe first texts of Evreinoff (1922) who spokeof "teatralnost," stressing the significanceof the suffix"ost" in orderto underlinethe importanceof his discovery.5 Lexically speaking, theatricality is both poorly defined and etymologicallyunclear. It seemsto be muchlike the "tacit concept" defined by Michael Polany: "a concreteidea thatone can use directlybut thatone can onlydescribe indirectly."6 Itis a conceptthat one associatesin a privileged way withthe theater.

Theatricalityas a Propertyof the Quotidian By examiningconditions that accompany various manifestationsof theatricalityboth on and offstage, one can demonstratethat theatricality is notstrictly a theatricalphenomenon. Let us look at a fewpossible scenarios: 1stscenario: You entera theater.The play has notyet begun. In frontof you is a stage; the curtainis open; the actorsare absent.The set, in plain view,seems to await thebeginning of the play. Is theatricalityat workhere? If one answersin theaffirmative, one recognizesthat the set alone can convey a certaintheatricality. Although the theatricalprocess has not yet SubStance# 98/99, Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3, 2002

This content downloaded from 129.97.143.188 on Thu, 07 May 2015 23:05:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 96 JosetteFeral been set in motion,certain constraints are alreadyimposed, certain signs are alreadyin place. The spectatorknows what to expectfrom the place in whichhe findshimself; he know what to expectfrom the scenic design-a play.7Because a semiotizationof space has alreadyoccurred, the spectator perceivesthe theatricality of thestage, and of thespace surroundinghim. We can thereforedraw a firstconclusion: the presence of the actor is not a prerequisiteof theatricality.8In this instance,space is the vehicle of theatricality.The subjectperceives certain relations within that space; he perceivesthe spectacularnature of the stage.Space seems fundamentalto theatricality,for the passage fromthe literary to the theatricalis firstand foremostcompleted through a spatialrealization of thetext. 2nd scenario: In the subway,you witnessan argumentbetween two passengers.One is smokingand the otherstrongly protesting, reminding thefirst that smoking on thesubway is againstthe rules. The firstrefuses to comply;insults and threatsare exchanged;tension mounts. Spectators of this exchange,the otherpassengers watch attentively;several comment, takingsides in theargument. The trainpulls intoa stationand stopsin front of an imposingbillboard advertising cigarettes. The smokerexits the train, and forthe benefit of all theinterested observers, points out the disproportion betweenthe small NO SMOKING sign in thetrain and the huge billboard promotingsmoking that occupies the entire wall of thestation platform. Is theatricalitypresent in thisinstance? One would probablysay not, forthe argument did not appear staged,nor had thenon-participants been formallyinvited to watch.Furthermore, the exchange did notappear to be a fictionalsituation, for the parties seemed genuinely involved in thequarrel. However,spectators exiting at thesame stationwould have discovered thatthe two antagonistswere in factan actorand actresstaking part in what Boal definedas an "invisibletheatrical production." Knowing this,and bearingin mind thatthe spectators'participation was involuntary,would one now claim thattheatricality had been present?After the fact,it would seem so. We mightconclude that in thisinstance, theatricality seems to stemfrom the spectator'sawareness of a theatricalintention addressed to him. This awarenessaltered the way in whichhe looked at whatwas takingplace; it forcedhim to see theaterwhere before he saw only a chance occurrence.9 The spectatorthereby transforms into fiction what he thoughtwas a quotidian event.Re-semiotizing the space ofthe subway car, the spectator was able to displace signsand to interpretthem differently, revealing both the fictional natureof the performers' behavior, and thepresence of illusion where only commonplacereality had beenexpected. In thisinstance, theatricality appears SubStance# 98/99, Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3, 2002

This content downloaded from 129.97.143.188 on Thu, 07 May 2015 23:05:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Theatricality 97 as a resultof the performers'affirmed theatrical intention. The spectator mustbe aware of the performers'secret; without such awareness thereis misunderstandingand absenceof theatricality. 3rd scenario:You are seatedat a sidewalkcaf6 watching passers-by who have no desire to be seen, nor any intentionof acting.As theypass, they projectneither pretense nor fiction,nor do theybehave as if showing-off. Onlyby chancemight they be aware of thewatchful eyes followingthem. However,your eyes perceivea certaintheatricality in theirfigures and gestures,in theway theyoccupy the space aroundthem. As a spectator,you inscribethis theatricality in thereal space surroundingthem. It is thesimple exerciseof watching that reassigns gestures to theatricalspace. Consideringthe constraints that it imposes upon thespectator, this last example is perhaps the most marginal. Nonetheless, we can draw an importantconclusion from it: theatricality has littleto do withthe nature of the investedobject-the actor,space, object,or event-nor is it necessarily theresult of pretense, illusion, make-believe, or fiction. Were such conditions prerequisitesof theatricality,we would have been unable to identifyits presencein everydayoccurrences.'" Morethan a propertywith analyzable characteristics, theatricality seems to be a processthat has to do with a "gaze" thatpostulates and createsa distinct,virtual space belongingto theother, from which fiction can emerge. In our firstexamples, this space was createdby the conscious act of the performer,understood here in thelargest sense of theword to includethe actor,director, designer, lighting director, and architect.In our lastexample, the spectator'sgaze createda spatial cleftfrom which illusion emerged- illusion whose vehicle the spectatorhad selected fromamong events, behaviors,physical bodies, objects and space withoutregard for the fictional or real natureof thevehicle's origin. Theatricalityhas occurred under two conditions: firstthrough a performer'sreallocation of the quotidian space thathe occupies; second througha spectator'sgaze framinga quotidianspace thathe does notoccupy. Such actions create a cleftthat divides space into the "outside" and the "inside"of theatricality. This space is thespace ofthe "other"; it is thespace thatdefines both alterity and theatricality. Thus,theatricality as alterityemerges through a cleftin quotidianspace. The cleftcan be theresult of an actor'sseizing control of thequotidian and turningit intotheatrical space; it can also be theresult of a spectator'sgaze constitutingspace as theatrical.By institutinga Husserlian qualitative modificationin therelationship between subjects, this active gaze constitutes

SubStance# 98/99, Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3, 2002

This content downloaded from 129.97.143.188 on Thu, 07 May 2015 23:05:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 98 JosetteFeral

thecondition for the emergence of theatricality. In the case wherethe initiative belongs to the actor,the "other"becomes actorthrough an avowed act of representation;in thecase wherethe initiative belongs to thespectator, the "other"is unwittinglytransformed into actor through a gaze thatinscribes theatricalityin the space surroundinghim. Therefore,we may conclude thattheatricality consists as much in situatingthe object or theother in a "framedtheatrical space" (scenario3), as it does in transforminga simple eventinto signs in such a way thatit becomes a spectacle(scenario 2). At thisstage of our analysis,theatricality appears to be morethan a property;in fact,we mightcall it a processthat recognizessubjects in process;it is a processof lookingat or being looked at. It is an act initiatedin one oftwo possiblespaces: eitherthat of the actor or thatof the spectator. In bothcases, this act createsa cleftin thequotidian thatbecomes the space ofthe other, the space in whichthe other has a place. Withoutsuch a cleft,the quotidian remains intact, precluding the possibility of theatricality,much less of theateritself. Initially,theatricality appears to be an almost fantasticalcognitive operation set in motion eitherby the observeror the observed. It is a performativeact creating the virtual space ofthe other, the transitional space discussed by Winnicott,the threshold(limen) discussed by Turner,or Goffman's"framing." It clears a passage, allowing both the performing subjectas well as thespectator to pass from"here" to "elsewhere." Theatricalitydoes not manifestitself in any obligatoryfashion. It does not have any qualitativeproperties that would permitour identifyingit beyond any shadow of doubt.It is not an empiricalgiven. Theatricality is authorizedby theplacing of the subject with respect to bothquotidian and imaginarydimensions, the latterbeing foundedupon the presenceof the other'sspace. To see theatricalityin these termsposes the question of its own transcendentnature.

What Permitsthe Theatrical? The Theateras Pre-Aesthetic If one is readyto admitthe existence,outside the theatricalstage, of a theatricalityof acts, events, situations, and objects,then one mustbe willing toconsider the philosophical nature of theatricality.11 In Kantian terminology, we are confrontedwith the possibility of attributing a transcendentnature to theatricality,and of thusdefining stage-related theatricality as onlyone expressionof a transcendentphenomenon.12 Seen in this way, theatricalityappears as a transcendentalstructure whose generalcharacteristics are assumedby thetheater. Thus stage-related

SubStance# 98/99, Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3, 2002

This content downloaded from 129.97.143.188 on Thu, 07 May 2015 23:05:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Theatricality 99 theatricalityis possible only because of its transcendentnature. In other words,theater is possible onlybecause theatricalityexists and because the theatercalls it into play. Once evoked, theatricalitytakes on specifically theatricalcharacteristics that are collectively valued and sociallymeaningful. However, the theatricalityof the stage could not existwere the natureof theatricalitynot transcendent. Seen in thisway, the playwright merely takes his place withinthis transcendent structure, plunging into the cleft in space thattheatricality has opened,that he has chosen,and thatwe have imposed upon him.'3

Stage-relatedTheatricality

Althoughthe sine qua noncondition for the emergence of theatricality as definedabove is the creationof a distinct,fictional space, we can create such a space,as we have seen,outside the theater. What then are thesigns of theatricalitythat are specifically characteristicof the stage?'4 What characteristicsof theatricalitycan thetheater alone produce? Accordingto Evreinov,stage-related theatricality rests essentially on thetheatricality of an actorwho, movedby a theatricalinstinct, attempts to transformthe reality that surrounds him. Evreinov presents theatricality as a propertythat springs from the actor and rendershis surroundings theatrical. Thus thesetwo poles (self,reality) are thefundamental points of focusfor all reflectionson theatricality:its pointof emergence(the actingself), and itspoint of arrival (reality). The modalitiesof the relationship between these twopoints are governedby performance, whose rulesare bothtransitory and permanent.In fact,movement between these poles is varied and non- restrictive,bringing into play threeelements whose relationshipdefines the processof theatricality and whosepossible interactions-taking into account historical,sociological and aestheticalvariations-encompass the totality of theatricalpractices.

Actor...... (Story) Fiction

Acting ) Action The Actor When theactor is viewed as thesource of stage-related theatricality (a view defendedby PeterBrook), all othersignifying systems (scenic space, costumes,makeup, dialogue, text, lighting, props, etc.) can disappearwithout scenictheatricality being significantly affected.'5 The actor'spresence alone

SubStance# 98/99, Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3, 2002

This content downloaded from 129.97.143.188 on Thu, 07 May 2015 23:05:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 100 JosetteFeral is enoughto assurethat theatricality will be preservedand thatthe theatrical actwill takeplace-proof thatthe actor is one ofthe indispensable elements in theproduction of stage-related theatricality. The actoris simultaneouslythe producer of theatricality and thechannel throughwhich it passes. He encodes it,and inscribesit with signs within symbolicstructures on stage thatare informedby his subjectiveimpulses and desires.As a subjectin process,the actor explores the "other" he creates, makingit speak. These perfectlyencoded symbolicstructures are easily recognizedby a publicthat appropriates them as a mode ofknowledge and experience.All are formsof narrative fiction (fantastical characters, acrobats, mechanizedmarionettes, monologues, dialogues, representations) that the actorbrings to lifeupon thestage. As stagedsimulacra and illusions,these structuresevince possible world-views whose veridicaland illusoryaspects are graspedsimultaneously by the spectator. At the same time,the spectator's double-edgedgaze penetratesthe actor's mask, questioning the presence of the other, his know-how, his technique, his performance,his art of dissimulationand representation.The spectatoris nevercompletely duped. The paradox of the actoris also theparadox of thespectator: to believe in the otherwithout completely believing in him. As Schechnerreminds us, thespectator must deal withthe "not-not not" of the actor.16 Understanding the fragmentarynature of momentaryillusion, the spectatorlooks at a simulacrumcreated by theactor, a simulacrumthat invites the spectator to crossover into the realm of the imaginary, to yieldto thedesire of being the other,of transformation,of alterity.His performancetransforms into signs thedisplacement by whichhe distinguisheshimself from the "other." Thus,we maysituate the actor's theatricality ina processof displacement in whichhis veryself is at stake-in a dynamicwhose symbolicstructures are riddledwith static moments during which the actormust confront the ever-presentmenace of thereturn of theself. In aesthetictheory, a value is assigned to the tensionthus created between symbolic structures and self. At one extremewe findArtaud; at theother, oriental theater, and inbetween, thegreat diversity generated by variousschools and individualpractices.17 The body of theactor is theprivileged locus ofthe self's confrontation with alterity.It is a body in motionon stage,an impulsiveand symbolic body sometimesyielding to hysteria,at othertimes, controlled through a willfulact by which it becomes the locus of knowledge and of mastery. Moreover,it is a locus continuallythreatened by a certaininadequacy, by faults,by a certainlack. By definition, itis imperfect;as matter,it is vulnerable. Althoughit knows its limits, it is shockedwhen it surpasses them.'8 However,

SubStance#98/99, Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3, 2002

This content downloaded from 129.97.143.188 on Thu, 07 May 2015 23:05:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Theatricality 101 thisbody is morethan just performance. Transformed into a systemof signs, itsemiotizes everything around it: space, time, story, dialogue, scenery, music, lighting,and costumes.It brings theatricality to thestage. More thana simple bearerof information and knowledge,more than a vehicleof representation and mimesis,it manifeststhe presenceof the actor,the immediacyof the event,and thematerial nature of the body.'9 As space, rhythm,and illusion, as bothopaque and transparent,as language,story, character, and athlete, thebody ofthe actor is withoutdoubt one ofthe most important elements of stage-relatedtheatricality.

Acting The second fundamentalnotion of stage-relatedtheatricality is acting, whichHuizinga has definedas undertakinga ... freeactivity standing quite consciously outside "ordinary" life as being "notserious," but at thesame time absorbing the player intensively and utterly.Itis an activityconnected with no materialinterest, and no profit can be gainedby it. It proceedswithin its own proper boundaries of time and spaceaccording to fixed rules and in an orderlymanner. It promotes theformation of social groupings which tend to surround themselves with secrecyand tostress their difference from the common world by disguise or othermeans. (13) In otherwords, acting is theresult of a performer'sdecision (as actor, director,designer, or playwright)to consciouslyoccupy the here-and-now ofa space differentfrom the quotidian, to become involved in activityoutside of daily life.Acting demands a personaleffort whose objectives,intensity, and materialmanifestations vary accordingto the individual,the period, and thegenre. Actingis codifiedaccording to rules derived on the one hand from rules governingperformance in general(use of the stage,of scenic space, freedomof action withinscenic and spatial constraints,transformations, transgressions,etc.), and, on theother hand, from more specific rules derived fromhistorically defined theatrical aesthetics that vary according to period, genre,and practice.20These rulessupply a frameworkfor the action, and it is withinthis framework that the actor takes certain liberties with respect to the quotidian. The dimensionsof this framework are largerthan the physical-i.e. the visibleboundaries of the stage-for they encompass a virtualaspect imposed by the libertiesand restrictionsof acting.The frameworkbecomes visible onlythrough a tacitencoding of the space and ofthe players who createthe theatricalphenomenon. It is bettertherefore to speak of a "theatrical

SubStance#98/99, Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3,2002

This content downloaded from 129.97.143.188 on Thu, 07 May 2015 23:05:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 102 JosetteFeral

framework,"which, as IrvingGoffman reminds us, has the advantage of stressingthe dynamicaspect of the term.More thana simple resultor an imposedfinal product, the framework is, on thecontrary, a process, produced as theexpression of a subjectin action.It is perceivedin thelight of relations between subjects and objectstransformed into theatricalobjects. In this process of transformation,we have the imbrication of fiction and representation.Theatricality does not emergepassively from an ensemble of theatricalobjects whose propertiesone could enumerateat a glance,but as partof a dynamicprocess belonging to boththe actor and the spectator, who takespossession of the action he watches.21

Fictionvs. Reality The thirdnotion about stage-related theatricality brings reality into play. To speak of the relationshipbetween reality and the theateris to pose the problemof the existenceof a realityconceived as autonomous,knowable and capable ofbeing represented. Contemporary philosophy maintains that we can speak of realityonly as the productof scientificobservation; that realityis itselfa result,a representation,a simulacrum.However, it is importantto underlinethe relationshipbetween theatricality and reality, foruntil the beginning of the 20th century this relationship was thefocus of much theoretical reflection,and many "poetics" of the theater (e.g., Stanislavskiand Meyerhold)are profoundlymarked by itsimprint. In other words, is the seemingequivalence betweentheatrical representation and realityto be interpretedas indicativeof theatricality? Forcertain artists in fieldsother than theater, as well as forcertain ones within the field,the notion of theatricalityhas a number of pejorative connotations.G. Abensourwrites:

Nothingis moreodious for the lyrical poet than the idea oftheatricality thatinitially designates an attitudecompletely extraneous, unconnected withany intimate feeling that is supposedto inspireit-an attitudeone readilyidentifies with a deliberateabsence of sincerity. In sucha light,to be theatricalis tobe false.(671) Michael Friednotes that the success, even thesurvival, of the arts has come to depend to a greatextent upon theirability to destroytheater. He has gone so faras to maintainthat art degenerates as itapproaches theater (1968,139- 141).In thepopular imagination, "theatricality" is opposed tosincerity, which each personclaims from a differentperspective.

Stanislavskiattempts to make the spectator forget that he is in a theater, theterm "theatrical" being pejorative to thoseengaged in "artistictheater."

SubStance#98/99, Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3,2002

This content downloaded from 129.97.143.188 on Thu, 07 May 2015 23:05:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Theatricality 103

In his view, the truthof the play depends upon a proximitybetween the actorand thereality he represents.For Stanislavski,theatricality appears as a kindof distancing from reality-an effect of exaggeration, an intensification ofbehavior that rings false when juxtaposed with what should be therealistic truthof the stage. On theother hand, Meyerhold believes that theater must aim at a kind ofgrotesque realism, but one quite differentfrom the realism described by thenaturalists. Theatricality is theprocess by which the actor and thedirector continuallyremind the spectator that he is in thetheater, face-to-face with a consummateactor who is playinga role.To affirmthe "theatrical" as distinct fromlife and fromreality is the conditionsine qua non of stage-related theatricality.The stage must speak its own language and impose its own laws. For Meyerhold,there is no equivalencebetween representation and reality.On the contrary,theatricality is not to be found in any illusory relationshipwith reality. Nor is itto be linkedto a specificaesthetic. Rather, it must be sought in the autonomous discourse that constitutestheater. Meyerholdinsists on a trulytheatrical specificity. Meyerhold's concept of theatricalityis concretized in the actor's ostentatiousdemonstration to thespectator that he is at thetheater; his is an act thatdesignates the theateras distinctfrom reality. The distinctionis fundamental.On theone hand,it proposes a theatricalitycentered exclusively on thefunction of the theater as theater,thus transforming itinto the sort of cyberneticmachine about which Barthesspoke. On the otherhand, the distinctiondefines a space in whichthe process of theatricalproduction is important,a space in which, outside of any relationshipwith reality, everythingbecomes sign. Contraryto Meyerhold'sdefinition of theatricality,Stanislavski's is markedby history, since it carries traces of bygone debates over "naturalism" in thetheater-a naturalismopposed to thewidely-condemned artificiality of the late nineteenthcentury. Although these debates over naturalismare notcompletely dead, todaythey are understood differently, with naturalism itselfbeing recognized as a formof theatricality. Today's responseto the question of whether theatricality can be defined accordingto any specificrelationship between the stage and thereality that is itsobject, appears clear, for we believethat there is notany single, privileged subjectmore appropriateto the theaterthan any other.Theatricality is a processthat is above all linkedto theconditions of theatrical production. As such,it poses thequestion of representational processes.

SubStance# 98/99, Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3, 2002

This content downloaded from 129.97.143.188 on Thu, 07 May 2015 23:05:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 104 JosetteFeral

The Frameworkand the Forbidden

As withall frameworks,that of the theater has a double edge: working againstforces coming from the outside,the frameworkguarantees order; fromwithin, it authorizesthe violationof thatsame order.22"Doesn't the essence of theaterconsist, above all, in the capacity to violate norms established by nature, the state, and society?" asked Evreinov.23This possibilityof violation guarantees the freedom of the actor and thestrength of freewill ofall contributors. The freedoms authorized are those of reproduction, imitation, duplication,transformation, deformation, the violation of established norms, of nature,and of social order.Nevertheless, as Huizinga has shown,the play in general,and thestage-play in particular,consists of both a limiting frameworkand a transgressivecontent. The frameworkboth authorizes and forbids.However, it does notauthorize all freedoms,but only those initially sanctionedby rules sharedby all participants,and by the libertiesa given periodallows withina givengenre.24 These libertiesare frequentlylinked to specific aestheticsand to norms of receptionthat constitutea code of communicationshared by actor and spectator.Although it is possible to extendthe boundaries of theframework, i.e. stretch the code to surpriseor even shockthe public, limits must nevertheless be respected. However,these liberties must not make us forgetcertain fundamental interdictions.Were these to be violated,the frameworkof the stage-play would come apart,and themingling of stage with reality would destroythe sovereigntyof theatricalspace.25 Activitiesthat violate the "law of reversibility"are forbidden.In the theater,this law guaranteesthe reversibilityof timeand event.As such,it opposes any act in whichthe subject is mutilatedor executed.For example, barredfrom the stage are certainpractices of the 1960s in whichbodies were mutilatedor animals killed forthe supposed pleasure of representation.26 Such acts break the tacit contractbetween spectator and theaterthat guaranteesthat what one witnessesis representation,inscribed in a time and space differentfrom the quotidian, in whichthe forward march of time is suspended and thus reversible,an act in which the actor reservesthe possibilityof returningto his pointof departure.27 In actuallyattacking his own body (or that of an animal), the actor destroysthe conditions of theatricality.Henceforth, he is no longerin the alterityof theatricalspace, but has crossedback intoreality; his act has transgressedall shared rules and codes and is no longerperceived as illusion,fiction, or play. Such acts

SubStance# 98/99, Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3, 2002

This content downloaded from 129.97.143.188 on Thu, 07 May 2015 23:05:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Theatricality 105 transformthe theaterinto a circusring and violateone of the limitsof the theater.28Although theatricality may yetbe presentin theevent, theater as such has disappeared.

Conclusion Fromthese observations we can concludethat theatricality is not a sum of enumerableproperties or characteristics,but can be discernedthrough specificmanifestations, and deduced fromphenomena termed "theatrical." However,these examples are not theatricality'sonly form; it is not limited strictlyto the theater,but can be foundin dance, opera, and performance art,as well as in the quotidian. If thenotion of theatricalitygoes beyondthe theater, it is because it is not a "property"belonging to the subjects/thingsthat are its vehicles.It belongsneither to the objects,the space, nor to the actorhimself, although each can becomeits vehicle. Rather, theatricality is the result of a perceptual dynamicslinking the onlookerwith someone or somethingthat is looked at. This relationshipcan be initiatedeither by the actorwho declares his intentionto act,or by the spectatorwho, of his own initiative,transforms the otherinto a spectacularobject. By watching,the spectatorcreates an "other" space, no longersubject to the laws of the quotidian,and in this space he inscribeswhat he observes,perceiving it as belongingto a space where he has no place except as externalobserver. Without this gaze, indispensablefor the emergenceof theatricalityand forits recognitionas such, the otherwould share the spectator'sspace and remainpart of his dailyreality. Theatricalityproduces spectacular events for the spectator; it establishes a relationshipthat differs from the quotidian. It is an act of representation, theconstruction of a fiction.As such,theatricality is the imbrication of fiction and representationin an "other" space in which the observer and the observedare broughtface to face.Of all thearts, the theater is bestsuited to thissort of experimentation. UniversiteduQudbec a'Montreal translatedbyRonald P. Bermingham

Notes 1. Thisarticle was firstpublished in Frenchin Poetique,Paris, Sept. 1988, pp. 347-361. 2. Resultsof a surveyundertaken in 1912by editorsof the journal Les Marges reflect the importanceof this change. Les Marges put the following question to its readers: "Which, inyour opinion, is thesuperior person: the one who loves to read or theone who loves to go to thetheater?" The majorityof thoseparticipating in thesurvey responded in

SubStance#98/99, Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3, 2002

This content downloaded from 129.97.143.188 on Thu, 07 May 2015 23:05:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 106 JosetteF6ral

favorof thosewho read.(Cf. Andre Veinstein, La miseen sceneth~itrale et sa condition esthetique,Paris, Flammarion, 1955, p. 55) 3. An identicalsituation occurred in paintingwhen the invention of photography forced artiststo redefinethe goals and thespecificity of the art form itself. 4. Cf.the works of Mercea Marghescou, Charles Bouazis, and ThomasAron, as well as earlynotions of literarity by the Prague School. 5. Cf.Sharon Marie Carnicke's article, "L'instinct theatral: Evreinov et la theatralit&"p. 98. Please notethat the French use theexpression theatralite, while the English oscillate between"theatrality" and "theatricality"(cf. the special issue devoted to the"Theory of Dramaand Performance"in ModernDrama, vol. 25 March1982), in a less precise fashion,thus de-emphasizing the importance of the term. In Spanish,the expression is teatralidad. 6. Fromthe Tacit Dimension as quotedby J. Baillon in thearticle entitled "D'une entreprise de theatralit6"in Thdatre/Public,No 18/19, January-June 1975, pp. 109-122. 7. He expectsa playrather than dance, opera, music, or film.In thissense, the space that he entersis alreadycoded. 8. The absenceof theactor poses a certainproblems. Is theretheatricality without the actor?This is a fundamentalquestion. Beckett tries to respond to this question by forcing theactor to work in a spacein whichhe is scarcelyvisible. 9. Guy Debordwrites that one mustnot identify spectacle with the act of "lookingat," evenwhen coupled with "listening." Spectacle is theopposite of dialogue. 10. Thispermits us to approachthe second scenario (the scene in thesubway) from the oppositedirection and to answerthe question about the presence of theatricality in the affirmative.Yes, theatricalitywas presentin thesubway, even ifthe spectator didn't realizethat he was witnessinga theatricalproduction. 11.Evreinov sees theatricalityas an instinct,as thatwhich "transforms the appearance of nature."This instinct,named elsewhere by Evreinovas "thetheatrical will," is an irresistibleimpulse felt by all (Cf.Le theatrepour soi), similar to theinstinct for play felt byanimals (Cf. Le theatrechez les animaux). According to Evreinov, theatricality is a kind of universalquality present in manand anteriorto anyaesthetic act. It is thelove of disguise,the pleasure of creating illusion, of projecting make-believe images of the self and ofreality in plain view of others. In thisact, which transports and transforms,man appearsas theatricality'spoint of departure;in creatingsimulacra of theself, man is theatricality'ssource and primaryobject. Evreinov speaks of transforming nature (we willnot develop here the theoretical problems introduced by the notions of nature and reality),another name for reality. One mustconclude that for Evreinov, man is centralto the process;he is the fundamentalcause of the emergenceand manifestationof theatricality. ForEvreinov, theatricality is thus linked first and foremostto the body of the actor and appearsinitially as theresult of a game-like,physical experience before taking form inan intellectualundertaking focusing upon a givenaesthetic. Thus the founding process oftheatricality is a "pre-aesthetic"calling upon the subject's creativity, but preceding theaesthetic act of the accomplished artist. I wouldmaintain that Evreinov's view of theatricality concerns anthropology and ethnologymore than theater. Because he has inscribedtheatricality in the quotidian, Evreinovhas causedthe specificity of stage-related theatricality to disappear. 12. In otherwords, is theatricalitya transcendent property that encompasses all formsof reality(artistic, cultural, political, economic), or are we onlyable toinduce theatricality throughthe empirical observation of reality, taking as ourframe of reference only those artisticpractices in whichtheatricality is present? 13.For example, the participation forced upon the spectators by the actors; the experiences ofthe Living Theater in Antigone, orthose of the entire practice of the 1960s in which the

SubStance#98/99, Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3,2002

This content downloaded from 129.97.143.188 on Thu, 07 May 2015 23:05:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Theatricality 107

spectatorsuddenly found himself forced to enterinto the action of theplay, into the "other's"space, and oftento defendhimself from the feeling of being violated. 14.J.M. Piemme writes that theatricality is that which the theater alone is able toproduce; thatwhich other arts can not produce. (Cf. Le souffleur inquiet, special edition of Alternatives thdatrales,nos. 20-21; December1984.) 15.Cf . PeterBrook, L'espace vide (Paris: Seuil, 1977), p. 25:"I cantake any empty space and call it a stage.For a theatricalact to begin,it sufficesonly that someone crosses this emptyspace while someone else watches." 16."All effective performances share this "not-not not" quality: Olivier is notHamlet, but also he is notnot Hamlet: his performance is between a denialof being another (= I am me) and a denialof not being another (= I am Hamlet)."Cf. Schechner,123. 17.The relationship of the actor to his body varies greatly according to the school. Certain schools,such as thatof Grotowski, emphasize the complete mastery of the body, basing theirpractice upon an athleticmethodology. Others, such as Artaud are more introspectiveand de-emphasizethe corporal presence; still others, such as Craig,strive forthe complete mechanization and totaltransparence of the actor. 18.This shock is identicalto that felt by the spectator at an athleticcompetition. The parallel between sportsand theaterhas oftenbeen discussed. Cf. Theatre/Publicno. 62 (March-April1985) as wellas Lescahiers de thedtre Jeu no. 20 (1981-1983). 19.According to Piemme, the body, made anachronous by new technologies,is material, singular,and vulnerable. Although its interactions with reality are increasingly indirect, it remainswhole, unique, singular. "At themoment when the experience of reality is moreand moreindirect, when the human being is bowledover by theforce of images producedby thetechnology of modern reproduction, the body, by itsfundamentally materialpresence in space,continues to become increasingly important." (Piemme, P. 40) 20. The rulesof stageplay are differentduring the Elizabethan period than during the classicalperiod, just as playsbelonging to the Commedia dell'arte tradition never impose rulesthat, for example, would have governed the representation ofa Sophocleantragedy. Today,rules differ according to one's stance with respect to traditional practices vis-a-vis thoseinherited from the 1960s. Thus, any attempt to elaboratea historyof the rules of stage-playmust be carriedout within the framework ofa historyof theatrical aesthetics. 21. A listof the characteristics and propertiesof theatricality would include the following elements:1) a representationalact that transforms reality, the subject, the body, space, time;2) a creativeact that goes beyond the limits of the quotidian; 3) an ostentatiousact ofthe body, a semiotizationof signs; 4) thepresence of a subjectwho, through the use of hisbody, structures the imaginary. 22.Violations authorized by theatricality depend upon the rules of various periods, genres, countries,and upontheories of aesthetics. In thisregard, theatricality, singular, yields itsplace to theatricalities, plural, the latter being a conceptapproaching that of aesthetics. It wouldbe interestingto explorethe distinguishing aspects of specific, theatricalities linkedto given periods or genres, and comparethem with theatricality, singular, which "transcends"these conditions. For example, the nudity accepted on today'sstage, or evenupon thestage of the Middle Ages, was viewedas scandalousduring the 1950s. Althoughthe virtual framework governing staging was well delineated during the 1950s, thefreedoms and violationsthat had been authorized by the aesthetic theories of earlier periodsdid not,in the1950s, permit the exposure of the actor's naked body. Thus even thoughone of thetheater's functions is to assumeresponsibility for the violation of norms,the virtual framework delineated by thetheatrical process does notauthorize all liberties,which are governedby constraints of period, aesthetic, and genre. 23. As Dostoevskihas remarked,"In thetheater, two times two make three, or evenfive, dependingupon thedegree of theatricalityat work." (Quoted by Evreinovin Sharon MarieCarnicke, p. 105) SubStance#98/99, Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3,2002

This content downloaded from 129.97.143.188 on Thu, 07 May 2015 23:05:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 108 JosetteFeral

24. However,in thiscase, the concerns of the spectator do notcount, for if they did, there wouldbe intrusionon thepart of the spectator into a spacethat is nothis. 25.This process parallels Winnicott's in affirming that the actor's emotional investment in thestage-play must distance itself from subjectively felt desires. When this distance is notmaintained, the actor leaves the realm of stage-play, entering that of reality. 26. For example,the spectacles of StuartSherman in the1960s. Focusing upon whatis forbidden,the process of killinganimals seems more easily incorporatedwith representationthan is mutilationof the actor. However, this form of mutilation often elicitsfierce opposition from the spectators. 27. Cf.Diderot's Paradoxe du comidien. 28.These interdictions do nothowever constitute the limits of theatricality. In this regard, cf.Bataille's notion of the "sacred."

WorksCited Abensour,G. "Blokface a Meyerholdet Stanislavskiou le problemede la theatralite," Revuedes Etudes slaves, Vol. 54,no. 4 (1982),pp. 671-679. Aristotle.Poetics. New York:theatre Communications Group, 1999. Aron,Thomas. Litterature et litterarit6:essai de miseau point.Paris: Les BellesLettres, 1984. Baillon,Jacques. "D'une entreprisede theatralit&."In Theatre/Public, No. 18-19, Jan.-June 1975,pp. 109-22. Bouazis,Charles. Litterarit6 et societ&:theorie d'un moduledu fonctionnementlitteraire. Paris:Mame, 1972. Brook,Peter. I'Espace Vide. Paris: Seuil, 1977. Carnicke,Sharon Marie. "L'instinct thdatral: Evreinov et la theatralite."Revue des 6tudes slaves,No. 53,1981, 97-108. Diderot,Denis and JacquesBaillon. Le Paradoxesur le comidien.Paris: Papiers, 1985. Evreinov,Nicolas. Le theatredans la vie.Paris: Stock, 1930. Fried, Michael.Absorption and Theatricality:Painting and Beholderin theAge of Diderot. Berkeley:UC Press,1980. - . "Artand Objecthood,"Minimal Art. A CriticalAnthology. New York:E.P. Dutton, 1968,pp. 139-141. Goffman,Erving. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor, 1967. -.The Presentation ofSelf in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday,1959. Huizenga,Johan. Homo Ludens: A Studyof the Play Element in Culture. Trans. Cecile Seresia. London:Routledge, [1949] 1980. Marghescou,Mircea. Le concept de litteraritd: essai sur les possibilitis theoriques d'une science de la litterature.The Hague:Mouton, 1974. Meyerhold,Vsevolod. Myerhold on Theatre.London: Metheun, 1978. . Ecritssur le theatre.Vols. 1 & 2. Lausanne:La Cit6-L'Aged'Homme, 1973. Piemme,Jean-Marie. Le Souffleurinquiet. Special edition of Alternativestheatrales, Nos. 20-21.Dec. 1984. Polany,Michael. The Tacit Dimension. Garden City, NY: 1967. Schechner,R. BetweenTheater and Anthropology. Philadelphia: Univ. Pennsylvania Press, 1985. . Essayson Performance Theory. New York:Drama Book Specialists, 1977. Stanislavski,Konstantin. An Actor Prepares. New York:Theatre Arts Books, 1936. Turner,Victor Witter. From Ritual to Theatre: Writings on Culture and Performance. New York: PerformingArts Journal Publications, 1982. Veinstein,Andre. La miseen scene thtaitrale etsa conditionesthetique. Paris: Flammarion, 1955.

SubStance#98/99, Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3,2002

This content downloaded from 129.97.143.188 on Thu, 07 May 2015 23:05:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions