The development of participatory theatre Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Muchmore, Gilbert Leslie, 1937- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 04/10/2021 11:29:56 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/317873 THE DEVELOPMENT OF PARTICIPATORY THEATRE ■ by . Gilbert Leslie Muchmore A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF DRAMA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of . MASTER OF. ARTS \ In the Graduate College . THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfill­ ment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in The University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission3 provided that accurate acknowl­ edgment of source is made* Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College, when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the inter­ ests of scholarshipo In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author„ SIGNEDu APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR This thesis has been approved on the date shown below: ~7, / ‘3 '7 d ROBEpS^f^OTORTH "7D^e™™^™~™" Associate Professor of Drama ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This writer wishes to express appreciation.to Mr. Peter R„ Marroney, Head of the Department of Drama, and to Mr. Robert A. Keyworth, Associate Professor of Drama, for their assistance in the preparation of this thesis. Also, the writer is indebted to Mrs. Rosemary Gipson, Instructor of Drama, for her inspiration and many suggestions relative to the pursuit of this subject. TABLE: OF CONTENTS > Page ABS T a o o o o o o -o o ,o o o o o _o a a a a a a aa -' XZ Chapter la HISTORICAL BACKGROUND a a a , . „ V » a « „ 1 The Spiritual Theatre « . a » a 0 e a = » 5 The Popular Theatre = , » = » a » a 0 15 The Traditional Theatre a » a a « ® 0 ® ® 21 The German Anti-Illusionistic Theatre « . 25 The French Anti-Illusionistic Theatre e 37 2. CURRENT SOCIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PHENOMENA a a a a a a a . a ■ a a a a a a a a 52 3a CONTEMPORARY PARTICIPATORY THEATRE 9 . » » , . 71 The New Participatory Theatre Scene » . 72 New Participatory Theatre: A Page in HlStOry a & a & a a a a a a a a a a a 3 A * LIST OF REFERENCES a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 89 ABSTRACT The theatre is under pressure to find new direc­ tions in an age characterized by super-technology. But the established theatre is too helplessly ensnared in the economic structure to take the bold steps required. Thus, the revolutionary theatre directors and writers are look­ ing for a vital place for theatre in a dynamic culture and a violently changing society. They are aware at once of the mass-media sensibilities of today’s audience, the technological advances at the disposal of the theatre, and the essence of the theatrical experience which has not changed through the ages. Finding in history that theatre succeeds when the spectator takes a direct and creative part in the performance, the new theatre is seeking a re­ sponsive and integrated role for the electronic-age spectator. v CHAPTER 1 . HISTORICAL BACKGROUND It must be assumed that Shakespeare, not to men­ tion other great dramatists of the Elizabethan theatre, wrote with his one. eye. on the theatre and its potential, while the other eye was on the audience and its needs = What Shakespeare formulated, as he sat down to invent a play, was the performance--the occasion with all its ele­ ments: actor, words, poetry, dance, song, theatre, and audience. To deny as much would be to deny Shakespeare the intelligence to be sensitive to the functioning of his artistic medium. However, what history has passed down to us consists almost exclusively of his words, which, re­ markable as they are, have been assimilated into the tradition of literature, where they have been called either poetry or drama. The effect has been to isolate the con­ tent of theatre- from its form, a phenomenon which, until lately has pervaded the study, of theatre. Although our century has seen the emergence of academic theatre disci­ plines , these subjects were still treated independently of dramatic texts, until some of the most effective contem­ porary playwrights correctly consider themselves total- theatre artists and refuse to have their works analyzed ' .'1 . , . ' '. ' except in performance. Carried to its purest expression, this thinking would prohibit the unrolling of the texts of theatre except in performance; an extreme view that is, nonetheless, intrinsic to the contention that theatre is an art in its own right. Is theatre an art in its own right? If so, how does it function? What are its purposes? How does it relate to other arts and to cultural activities in general? These are questions which constantly demand new.answers. Today, as periodically throughout history, we are seeking l ' - to reestablish the theatre as an essential and vital human activity. In America, there is wide-spread worry that the profession of theatre is doomed, while a multitude of un-, conventional theatre directors and experimenters struggle to show that they hold the key to salvation.. It is the time to stop and ask some very basic questions, to define theatre, and to examine this definition from every possi­ ble perspective. Only by doing so can we infer that theatre has somehow gone astray, and that the visions of a future theatre are valid. This paper is essentially an historical inquiry about a specific present day concept of theatre: partici­ patory theatre. To facilitate the relating of historical developments to this concept, it will be necessary to begin with a tentative answer to the question "What is theatre?" Theatre historian Richard Southern discusses the . - • V ' 3 definition of theatre in terms appropriate to the purposes of this paper. Working toward a simplistic definition, as free as possible from overly repeated qualifications, he concludes that "Theatre is an act." Actually, Southern does not intend this to be an autonomous and inclusive definition; he is stressing that theatre is essentially . doing rather than creating, as distinguished from other arts. "Drama may be the thing done, but theatre is doing.D r a m a becomes a contribution, to literature, but theatre is the single, ephemeral occasion which is gone forever once the "act" is completed. Southern’s discussion also establishes the basic components of actor and audi­ ence, and he distinguishes theatre from ordinary "acts." The essence of theatre, he concludes, "does not lie in what is performed. It does not even lie in the way it is performed. The essence of theatre lies in the impression made on the audience by the manner in which you perform. Theatre is essentially a reactive art."^ Thus far, theatre is comprised of an act and the reaction to that act by an audience. But, while this definition points to the importance of audience response, it fails to specify the nature of either the act or the 1. The Seven Ages of the Theatre (London, 1964), p. 22, 2. ' Ibid. 3. Ibid., p. 26. - ' occasion. Does the occasion of a man In everyday life acting out a story or joke, before a friend constitute theatre? Peter Brook writes that "a man walks across [anJ empty space and this is all that is needed for an act of theatre to be engaged,*'^ On the other hand, Eric Bentley believes that the act must be mimetic at least. The theatrical situation, reduced to a minimum, is that A im- personates B while C looks on.’ As regards the occasion Ken Dewey, a theatre experimenter, tells Richard Kostelanetz: "The root of the theatrical experience.is, in addition to the integration of the elements involved, the bringing together of people for the purpose of articu- lating a mutual.concern." The focus here is on the participatory aspect of the theatre experience. It implies that there is artistic activity on the part of the specta­ tor as well as the actor. With all modifications considered, theatre may now be defined an occasion for group activity in which there 2.S a mimetic act and the reaction to that act by an audi­ ence . Participatory may be thought of as emphasis upon the occasion and the reaction, which are closely interrelated,. Occasion informs the purpose of the theatre, which varies; 4. The Empty Space (New York, 1968), p. 9. 5. The Life of the Drama (New York, 1964), p> 150. 6. The Theatre of Mixed Means (New York, 1968), p. 182. ; : . the purpose may be to entertain, to elevate spiritually, or to educate. For some, the.purpose of theatre is ther­ apy, It may be a combination of any or all. of these, or, it may simply be considered art and intended to reveal some truth. Whatever the purpose, it also dictates the nature of the desired response. Participatory theatre as­ sumes an occasion where the purposes of the player, and those of the audience in going to the theatre, are iden­ tical, and that the manner in which the act is communicated is effective for those given purposes.