DRAMATICA 1/2013 STUDIA UNIVERSITATIS BABEŞ-BOLYAI DRAMATICA 1 / 2013 March STUDIA UNIVERSITATIS BABEȘ-BOLYAI DRAMATICA EDITORIAL OFFICE: 4th Kogălniceanu Street, Cluj-Napoca, RO, Phone: +40 264 590066, Web site: http://studia.ubbcluj.ro/serii/dramatica, Contact: [email protected] EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Lect. dr. ȘTEFANA POP-CURȘEU, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania EDITORIAL BOARD: Prof. dr. ION VARTIC, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania Prof. dr. LIVIU MALIȚA, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania Prof. dr. MIRUNA RUNCAN, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania Conf. dr. ANCA MĂNIUȚIU, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania Conf. dr. LAURA PAVEL, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania Conf. dr. VISKY ANDRÁS, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania Conf. dr. DORU POP, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania Lect. dr. ANDREA TOMPA, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania Prof. dr. PETER P. MÜLLER, University of Pécs, Hungary Prof. dr. TOM SELLAR, Editor of Theatre Journal, Duke University Press, Yale University, USA Lect. dr. IOAN POP-CURȘEU, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania Lect. dr. ANCA HAȚIEGANU, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania INTERNATIONAL REFEREES: Prof. dr. GEORGE BANU, Université Paris 3-Sorbonne Nouvelle Prof. dr. DOMNICA RĂDULESCU, Washington and Lee University, USA Prof. dr. JEAN-PIERRE SARRAZAC, Université Paris 3-Sorbonne Nouvelle Prof. dr. GILLES DECLERCQ, Université Paris 3-Sorbonne Nouvelle Prof. dr. MICHAEL PAGE, Calvin College, USA Prof. dr. PATRIZIA LOMBARDO, Geneva University ISSUE EDITOR (1/2013): Prof. dr. MIRUNA RUNCAN and Asist. dr. RALUCA SAS-MARINESCU, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania SECRETARIES OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD: Asist. Drd. Delia Marchiş-Enyedi, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania Front cover made by Andrei Littvin YEAR (LVIII) 2013 MONTH MARCH ISSUE 1 S T U D I A UNIVERSITATIS BABEŞ–BOLYAI DRAMATICA THEATRE, FILM, MEDIA 1 st Desktop Editing Office: 51 B.P. Hasdeu, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, Phone + 40 264-40.53.52 CONTENT / SOMMAIRE Thematic issue The Theatre's Text Today: Production, Interpretation, Reception STUDIES AND ARTICLES MARIE-LOUISE, PAULESC, Rhetoric of Everyday: Crisscrossing Ethnography: TEXTS/DATA/TEXTS............................................................................................ 5 MIRUNA RUNCAN, The Human Touch – On the Evolution of the Socially Engaged Theatre..................................................................................................................... 13 DOMNICA RĂDULESCU, Theater of War, Theater of Witness - Can Art Make a Difference?....................................................................................................... 25 WITOLD WOŁOWSKI, Scénario de pantomime ou le texte comme boîte noire: les ballets de R. Char et de B. Leśmian/ The Pantomime Scripts or the Text as a Black Box: The Ballets of R.Charet and B. Leśmian .................................. 51 ANDREA TOMPA, Documentary as Oblivion and a little bit of Memory - Nature Theatre of Oklahoma and the Uncreative Writing .......................................... 67 DANIEL IFTENE, Truth through the Meaning Glass: Tanacu in Literature, Theatre and Film ........................................................................................................... 77 IVONA VÂSTRAȘ, Radu Nica. A Leap from the Text to the Audience ...................... 89 OZANA BUDĂU, Sarah Kane. The Corrosive Drama of Aggression, Trauma and Depression ....................................................................................................... 95 MIHAI PEDESTRU, Tuning out the Text. Three Short Possible Readings ............... 103 CRISTINA IANCU, Critical Detachment and post-Brechtianism: Gianina Cărbunariu and the Text of the Performance ................................................................... 111 IULIA URSA, In Search of a Didactic Method for the Study of the Actor’s Art by Teenagers....................................................................................................... 125 ȘTEFANA POP-CURȘEU, IOAN POP-CURȘEU, Antigone, ou le triomphe du texte à l’épreuve de scène/ Antigone or the Triumph of Text in the Challenge of the Stage........................................................................................................ 135 CATARINA FIRMO, Recréer Beckett, rejouer Oh les beaux jours –trois Winnie en scène/ Recreating Beckett, Replaying Oh the Beautiful Day – three Winnie on the Stage................................................................................................... 151 CREATION, INTERVIEWS, MISCELLANEA RALUCA SAS-MARINESCU, Oleg and Vladimir Presnyakov – the Playwrights of Everyday Life.................................................................................................. 163 ATHÉNA-HÉLÈNE STOURNA, De la rêverie poétique au cauchemar vécu: La poésie dans l’écriture dramatique de Stamatis Polenakis/ From poetic Dreaminess to Lived Nightmare: the Poetry in Stamatis Polenakis Dramatic Writing............173 PERFORMANCE, FILM AND BOOK REVIEWS ANNE-LAURE RIGEADE, «Rompre les silences invisibles qui tuent»: la collaboration Mauvignier/ Dana pour une pièce d'aujourd'hui/ „Breaking the Invisible Silences that Kill“: the Collaboration Mauvignier/Dana for a today play...... 181 ANYSSA KAPELUSZ, De «l’état d’esprit performatif»/ About “the Performative Spirit” ............................................................................................................. 184 FLORE GARCIN-MARROU, Le drame émancipé/ The Emancipated Drama .......... 188 STUDIA UBB DRAMATICA, LVIII, 1, 2013, pp. 5 - 12 (RECOMMENDED CITATION) STUDIES AND ARTICLES RHETORIC OF EVERYDAY: CRISSCROSSING ETHNOGRAPHY: TEXTS/DATA/TEXTS MARIE-LOUISE PAULESC1 ABSTRACT. Recently, rhetorical scholars have issued a call for critics to go beyond formal texts and to attend to the everyday of discourse. This call is of course in the spirit of the grand project that aims expanding rhetoric as a discipline, but more importantly, it stimulates interesting and challenging questions related to the “object”/”text” of criticism. In addition, this call is accompanied by a methodological invitation to engage in ethnography; when rhetoric crisscrosses ethnography, their notions of texts and data get unsettled. Keywords: rhetoric, ethnography, everyday, vernacular, text, rhetorical artifact, rhetorical ethnography. Let’s say you are a communication student and want to study the everyday and the vernacular. Let’s add to this that you mainly identify yourself as a rhetorical scholar, but because it makes more sense to access the everyday via ethnographic methods, you are also something of a qualitative researcher. Your fellow rhetorical scholars will ask you impatiently: what is your text(s)? In their turn, your colleagues in qualitative research will ask you eagerly: what is your data? The received story of the rhetorical discipline in the US tells us that in the beginnings rhetorical analysis was mostly if not exclusively concerned with speeches. Dead white men’s speeches, as the formula goes. The speeches-as-texts are, in some critics’ view, self-sufficient units that exist out there and, moreover, should be studied one at a time, as, for instance, Leff does (Condit 1990, 331). Others, however, have taken issue with this perspective and started to draw attention to the constructedness of the text chosen for criticism. Most famously, McGee (1990) contends, “our first job as professional consumers of discourse is inventing a suitable text for criticism” (288). But 1 Phd candidate at the Hugh Downs School of Communication, Arizona State University, [email protected] MARIE-LOUISE PAULESC for Dow (2001), even McGee is guilty of seeing “the texts as existing outside critics” (341) and contends that texts and contexts are created. She affirms “the text” as “a purposeful creation of the critic, not a pre-existing entity.” (341) An additional point could be made against the speeches-as-texts, especially as their rhetorical analysis as ordinarily practiced lost sight of one of the traditional canons. For a rather long time, speeches have been flattened out as texts. Neo- aristotelian criticism and close textual analysis almost totally disregarded the performative, bodily aspects of a speech and its context. One of the most important aspects of the Greek and Roman rhetorical theory, delivery, has been forgotten. The rhetorical scholar has entered the routine of taking the speech as printed rather than considering it with all its complicated and provoking performative aspects. Thus the idea that the rhetorician is an armchair scholar who pursues his or her research interests from the comfort of the home. The received story of the discipline also narrates the permanent expansion of rhetoric. That is, rhetoric is striving, albeit slowly but nonetheless rather successfully, to add to the fold of its analytical attention more and more “texts” or objects of analysis. In an enthusiastic use of the scientific language or from the desire to make it intelligible to the scientific community some might even call them “data.” From the speech, critics moved to two speeches, so that they can assess a debate; from there, they moved further to a body of texts pertaining, for instance, to a social movement. But then rhetoric moved on, further and further, starting to pay attention to all sorts of “rhetorical instances” or “rhetorical artifacts.” “Artifact” thus moves one away from the