Nothing is more modern than to claim that one is not constrained by rules. In our era, many of us find it so self-evident that artists should be free to do whatever they want that the notion of an academy setting standards for good art seems manifestly perverse.
During the next two weeks as we look as French neoclassical theatre and English restoration theatre, I challenge you to move beyond whatever instant reaction you might have, and try to understand why most of Europe was convinced until the late 18th and early 19th centuries that theatre should adhere to neoclassical standards. What is actually RIGHT about neoclassicism? What neoclassical beliefs are still with us, informing plays, movies and television shows that we see? In what ways, despite ourselves, do we actually behave as if we think that good art should follow certain standard conventions?
Part of any answer to such questions might be a recognition that "conventions" play a role in all artistic traditions, regardless of how modern they are. For proof of this, just think about how movies are marketed as "comedies" or "horror" or "romance," and we are disappointed if they don't fulfill certain conventions of these genres. Theatre artists may intentionally break conventions in order to shock audiences or create interest, but the truth is that most spectators have limited patience for this sort of thing, and prefer to have their expectations fulfilled.
* * *
The two most significant ancient authorities invoked by neoclassical theatre folk were Aristotle and Horace.
It is Aristotle who defined tragedy as a representation of a serious and complete action, accomplishing through pity and terror the catharsis of these emotions. Neoclassicists argued over whether or not Aristotle actually advocated "the three unities" (time, action and place) and whether these should be followed. In general, they agreed that Aristotle advocates unity of action (i.e. that everything that happens in a play should contribute to telling one clear story of an appropriate magnitude with no unnecssary embellishment and no distracting subplots). Unity of time (action of a play should take place in 24 or 12 hours) and place (it should take place in locations that could be realistically reached within that time) produced a bit more controversy. Aristotle defines tragedy and comedy as completely separate genres, each with appropriate characters (i.e. no kings in comedy, no clowns in tragedy). And, above all, he defines tragedy as serving a moral social purpose: to bring about a catharsis of anti-social emotions.
Horace, in contrast, gives much greater weight to the duty of theatre to entertain. To be fair, he also acknowledges that it should "educate," but seems a bit more interested in the entertainment part. For theatre to be entertaining, it does need to follow rules of the trade, such as characters adhering to behaviors appropriate to their types. It is more from Horace that neoclassicists get their notions of "decorum" and "verisimilitude" (which to them has more to do with behaving appropriately than naturally). When Lope de Vega defends his comedias as conforming to the expectations of his public, he may be defending himself against the authority of Aristotle, but he does so in Horatian terms.
Finally, as the Le Cid controversy demonstrates, the French neoclassicists adopted the Greek bias towards tragedy, and were much more concerned with enforcing these rules within that genre. As we will see, Moliere faced different concerns in writing his comedies.
Wednesday, January 21
Wednesday, January 14
From Calderón's autos to Sor Juana's Divino Narciso (1690)
Autos sacramentales (sacramental one-act plays) were first developed as purely theological plays performed for the Corpus Christi festival in late May or early June. In time, this term was used to describe any play performed at the festival, even if it did not have a sacramental or even religious theme (a trend introduced by Calderón when autos became his primary genre after 1651). As we discussed, the Spanish 17th century theatre differed from those of Italy, England and France in that religious theatre continued right along the development of secular professional theatre, and in the late 17th century even pre-dominated for a time. The autos combined elements of medieval morality and mystery plays and could include human, supernatural or allegorical characters. They were produced at the festivals by professional companies and then tour local villages and even perform in the public corrales. Over the course of the 17th century, the staging conventions for autos developed from carros (wagons) to larger platform stages. By the 1690s, the auto stage was 36 feet deep and nearly 50 feet high, while the carros (which still served as architectural elements) could be 36 feet high.
Since 1623, Calderón had written plays for court as well as for the corrales. However, over the course of the late 1630s, his attentions were pulled away from the corrales. In 1635, the year he wrote La vida es sueño (1635), Lope de Vega died, and Calderón was named director of the court theatre. In 1640, however, both court and corral theatres were closed due to wars in Catalonia and Portugal, and Calderón joined the army. In 1651, he returned to religion and was ordained a priest. He returned to writing plays, but not for the public stage. Only autos for the Corpus Christi festivals. In 1663, he was reappointed court poet, and served there as director of theatre, and the sole licensed author of autos in Madrid until his death in 1681.
Sor Juana wrote El Divino Narciso in 1687 as part of a competition for a festival in Madrid to see who would write autos after the death of Calderón. So the final dialogue, in which Zeal and Religion argue about how this play would be received in Madrid speaks directly to that context. Unfortunately, the festival was canceled on account of the death of the Queen. Sor Juana published the play in 1690 in New Spain (present-day Mexico) but there is no record of it having been performed during her lifetime.
In reading this short play (Longman 620-629), think about what Sor Juana was doing in writing such a play, and how it might have been received in Madrid or even in New Spain. How does she mix the genre of sacramental play with that of "conquest literature"? How does she reconcile the conversion and conquest of Mexico? What is her attitude towards the indigenous population? Are the facts that she is a female playwright (the first we've read in this world theatre sequence), a nun and a criolla (a person of European descent born in colonial Mexico) significant to our understanding of the play? Why does she represent Aztec ritual practices (which the native population themselves were forbidden to perform in the 17th century)?
Since 1623, Calderón had written plays for court as well as for the corrales. However, over the course of the late 1630s, his attentions were pulled away from the corrales. In 1635, the year he wrote La vida es sueño (1635), Lope de Vega died, and Calderón was named director of the court theatre. In 1640, however, both court and corral theatres were closed due to wars in Catalonia and Portugal, and Calderón joined the army. In 1651, he returned to religion and was ordained a priest. He returned to writing plays, but not for the public stage. Only autos for the Corpus Christi festivals. In 1663, he was reappointed court poet, and served there as director of theatre, and the sole licensed author of autos in Madrid until his death in 1681.
Sor Juana wrote El Divino Narciso in 1687 as part of a competition for a festival in Madrid to see who would write autos after the death of Calderón. So the final dialogue, in which Zeal and Religion argue about how this play would be received in Madrid speaks directly to that context. Unfortunately, the festival was canceled on account of the death of the Queen. Sor Juana published the play in 1690 in New Spain (present-day Mexico) but there is no record of it having been performed during her lifetime.
In reading this short play (Longman 620-629), think about what Sor Juana was doing in writing such a play, and how it might have been received in Madrid or even in New Spain. How does she mix the genre of sacramental play with that of "conquest literature"? How does she reconcile the conversion and conquest of Mexico? What is her attitude towards the indigenous population? Are the facts that she is a female playwright (the first we've read in this world theatre sequence), a nun and a criolla (a person of European descent born in colonial Mexico) significant to our understanding of the play? Why does she represent Aztec ritual practices (which the native population themselves were forbidden to perform in the 17th century)?
Monday, January 12
Pedro Calderon de la Barca's La Vida es Sueno (Life is a Dream, 1635)
On Monday (January 12), we discussed the general historical and political context of Siglo de Oro (Golden Age) Spain, and Felix Lope de Vega's seminal work of dramatic theory, El arte nuevo de hacer comedias en este tiempo (The new art of writing comedies in this era, 1609). In this work, which is in one sense a manifesto of artistic freedom from neoclassicism, Lope demonstrates the kind of ambivalence about Stephen Toulmin had described in his book, Cosmopolis. On the one hand, Lope demands the right for himself and his contemporaries to compose new plays that do not adhere to the rules of Aristotle. On the other hand, he replaces the authority of the Greek and Roman ancients with that of Spanish tradition and custom. It is this persistent respect for authority in the creation of secular, vernacular arts that marks what Toulmin calls the "humanistic" phase of the Renaissance. Even though Lope's invocation of the "nuevo" suggests Hans Gumbrecht's third definition of the modern (the transitory "past of a future present"), his privileging of uso (Spanish custom) belies the belief in progress that we generally associate with a modern perspective.
Keep all this in the back of your mind as you read Calderon's play (Longman 588-616). For those of you who have studied earlier periods of drama, consider how the play retains aspects of classical drama in terms of dramatic structure (beginning with how the play is broken into acts and including the shape of the plot), characterization (what familiar "types" do the characters belong to?) and staging conventions called for in the text (what are the minimum requirements in terms of scenery, props, costumes, etc. to stage this play?) For everyone else, look for signs of the play's historical context. Is Spain's historical situation in 1635 evident in any way (an imperial absolutist monarcy making war throughout Europe and filling its coffers with American gold while its status as the preeminent power in Europe begins to fade in favor of England and France)? Do you see evidence of those Renaissance/Early Modern struggles between humanistic freedom and the authorities of Church, state and tradition? How do Sigismund, Rosaura and the rest compare to characters you've seen in Shakespeare? Do they behave "appropriately" to their types, or do they have more complex psychologies? Lastly, why does Calderon set his play in Poland rather than Spain?
Here are three images of corral theatres to give you a sense of where Calderon's play would have been staged. On the left is a rendering of a very early corral from the late 16th century. On the right, a photograph of a performance at Al Magra corral, a space that resembles a little more closely the mid-17th century corrales of Calderon's time. Note that, although it is still cozy compared to a large proscenium theatre, it is less intimate than the first theatre. On the bottom, a scholar's guess at how the different niches and galleries of the corral stage might have been arranged for a performance of La Vida es Sueno. How could you imagine the stage being used for a performance of this play? How might conventions of the corral (such as the location of lower-paying guests in the courtyard, nobility in the galleries and women in their own separate cazuela gallery) affect the choices available to actors in this play?
Keep all this in the back of your mind as you read Calderon's play (Longman 588-616). For those of you who have studied earlier periods of drama, consider how the play retains aspects of classical drama in terms of dramatic structure (beginning with how the play is broken into acts and including the shape of the plot), characterization (what familiar "types" do the characters belong to?) and staging conventions called for in the text (what are the minimum requirements in terms of scenery, props, costumes, etc. to stage this play?) For everyone else, look for signs of the play's historical context. Is Spain's historical situation in 1635 evident in any way (an imperial absolutist monarcy making war throughout Europe and filling its coffers with American gold while its status as the preeminent power in Europe begins to fade in favor of England and France)? Do you see evidence of those Renaissance/Early Modern struggles between humanistic freedom and the authorities of Church, state and tradition? How do Sigismund, Rosaura and the rest compare to characters you've seen in Shakespeare? Do they behave "appropriately" to their types, or do they have more complex psychologies? Lastly, why does Calderon set his play in Poland rather than Spain?
Here are three images of corral theatres to give you a sense of where Calderon's play would have been staged. On the left is a rendering of a very early corral from the late 16th century. On the right, a photograph of a performance at Al Magra corral, a space that resembles a little more closely the mid-17th century corrales of Calderon's time. Note that, although it is still cozy compared to a large proscenium theatre, it is less intimate than the first theatre. On the bottom, a scholar's guess at how the different niches and galleries of the corral stage might have been arranged for a performance of La Vida es Sueno. How could you imagine the stage being used for a performance of this play? How might conventions of the corral (such as the location of lower-paying guests in the courtyard, nobility in the galleries and women in their own separate cazuela gallery) affect the choices available to actors in this play?
Wednesday, January 7
Review of Week 1, Preview of Week 2
On Wednesday (1-7), we talked about theories of modernity from Marshall Berman, Stephen Toulmin and Hans Gumbrecht that will continue to inform our discussion of the development of new traditions of theatre and drama in 17th through early 19th century Europe. We also began a slideshow on single-point perspective and the innovations of the proscenium stage.
Key phrases/terms from Week 1: "a unity of disunities" (Berman), "invention of tradition" (Hobsbawm), "drunkenness of modernity" (Rousseau), "radical contradictions of modernity" (Marx), "a modern man can never really look well-dressed" (Nietzsche), "shift from humanism to rationalism" (Toulmin), "early 1600s as a time of crisis for Europe" (Toulmin), "modern as 'present' (vs. previous), 'new' (vs. old) or 'transitory' (vs. eternal)-- the 'past of a future present'" (Gumbrecht); single-point perspective, Sebastiano Serlio, Teatro Olimpico; how the medieval booth stage and Elizabethan popular stages (like the Swan and the Globe) differ from perspectival proscenium stages.
The agenda for Monday (1-12) is as follows:
1. Finish the slide show on perspectival scenery.
2. Lecture on Spanish golden age theatre.
3. Facilitation (by Dr. Winet) on Lope de Vega's "Arte nuevo de hacer comedias en este tiempo" (which the seminar track students will have discussed on Friday (1-9)
4. General discussion (bring your Theatre Histories texts!)
Your reading in Theatre Histories for Monday (pp. 151-162) begins by comparing the civilization of China around the 16th century with developments in Europe. It discusses the rise of neo-classical and professional theatres in Italy (including commedia erudita and commedia dell' arte) and the emergence of new secular dramatic writing in England in the late 16th century. Those of you who took World Theatre I have already discussed these practices. The rest should look at this section carefully as it is an important background to where this course begins, but which I won't take class time to repeat. I will instead concentrate on the part of the reading that deals explicitly with Spain (pp. 159-162), and elaborate a bit on what the text presents.
Here are some questions to think about for our discussion section: What is the argument that your textbook is making regarding the importance of "print culture" to the emergence of golden age Spanish theatre? What did the transition from feudalism to absolutism have to do with the emergence of this theatre? How did the "playhouses" of Spain differ from those of renaissance Italy or England? What do the dramatic genres of "comedia de capa y espada" and "auto sacramentale" reveal about the political and socio-cultural context of Spanish renaissance theatre?
And here are a few helpful videos depicting the "corrales de comedia" where secular plays such as Calderon's "Life is a Dream" were staged. First, a computer animation with a discussion of the layout and use of the "corral", including separations by class and gender (yes, the voiceover is entirely in Spanish. Sorry.):
And here is a scene of an audience at a corral performance from the film "Alatriste" (2006), based on popular novels by Spanish author, Arturo Perez-Reverte, about the adventures of a soldier in the 1620s (the time of Lope de Vega's popularity). Note differences in how the customs of the corral are depicted in the two videos. What can you conclude about the possibilities and limitations of the corral stage? What kinds of theatre would best be served by such a venue? And yes, that is Viggo Mortenssen in his Spanish film debut...
Key phrases/terms from Week 1: "a unity of disunities" (Berman), "invention of tradition" (Hobsbawm), "drunkenness of modernity" (Rousseau), "radical contradictions of modernity" (Marx), "a modern man can never really look well-dressed" (Nietzsche), "shift from humanism to rationalism" (Toulmin), "early 1600s as a time of crisis for Europe" (Toulmin), "modern as 'present' (vs. previous), 'new' (vs. old) or 'transitory' (vs. eternal)-- the 'past of a future present'" (Gumbrecht); single-point perspective, Sebastiano Serlio, Teatro Olimpico; how the medieval booth stage and Elizabethan popular stages (like the Swan and the Globe) differ from perspectival proscenium stages.
The agenda for Monday (1-12) is as follows:
1. Finish the slide show on perspectival scenery.
2. Lecture on Spanish golden age theatre.
3. Facilitation (by Dr. Winet) on Lope de Vega's "Arte nuevo de hacer comedias en este tiempo" (which the seminar track students will have discussed on Friday (1-9)
4. General discussion (bring your Theatre Histories texts!)
Your reading in Theatre Histories for Monday (pp. 151-162) begins by comparing the civilization of China around the 16th century with developments in Europe. It discusses the rise of neo-classical and professional theatres in Italy (including commedia erudita and commedia dell' arte) and the emergence of new secular dramatic writing in England in the late 16th century. Those of you who took World Theatre I have already discussed these practices. The rest should look at this section carefully as it is an important background to where this course begins, but which I won't take class time to repeat. I will instead concentrate on the part of the reading that deals explicitly with Spain (pp. 159-162), and elaborate a bit on what the text presents.
Here are some questions to think about for our discussion section: What is the argument that your textbook is making regarding the importance of "print culture" to the emergence of golden age Spanish theatre? What did the transition from feudalism to absolutism have to do with the emergence of this theatre? How did the "playhouses" of Spain differ from those of renaissance Italy or England? What do the dramatic genres of "comedia de capa y espada" and "auto sacramentale" reveal about the political and socio-cultural context of Spanish renaissance theatre?
And here are a few helpful videos depicting the "corrales de comedia" where secular plays such as Calderon's "Life is a Dream" were staged. First, a computer animation with a discussion of the layout and use of the "corral", including separations by class and gender (yes, the voiceover is entirely in Spanish. Sorry.):
And here is a scene of an audience at a corral performance from the film "Alatriste" (2006), based on popular novels by Spanish author, Arturo Perez-Reverte, about the adventures of a soldier in the 1620s (the time of Lope de Vega's popularity). Note differences in how the customs of the corral are depicted in the two videos. What can you conclude about the possibilities and limitations of the corral stage? What kinds of theatre would best be served by such a venue? And yes, that is Viggo Mortenssen in his Spanish film debut...
Monday, January 5
Scenic Perspectivism
For Wednesday, read Theatre Histories, pages 166-172, which talks about the relationship between the development of single-point perspective for scenic design and the development of aristocratic and monarchical government. Single-point perspective was developed by Italian painters in the 14th and 15th centuries, enabling them to create convincing renderings of three-dimensional space within two-dimensional drawings. Sebastiano Serlio innovated applications of these techniques for the stage. The techniques subsequently spread throughout renaissance Europe and beyond. For example, Inigo Jones brought the techniques back to Jacobean England, inspiring developments in court entertainments that looked very different from what was going on at the Globe and other public theatres.
A collection of Serlio drawings: http://rubens.anu.edu.au/htdocs/bytype/arch.sources/serlio/.
And here's a page from the British National Portrait Gallery with discussion of single-point perspective and a few theatrical images by Inigo Jones about halfway down the page: http://www.npg.org.uk/live/perspective.asp
And here's a video that traces the development of these stage technologies (with emphasis on works by several members of the Italian Bibiena family in the late 17th and early 18th centuries). Note the brief segment showing a scene change at the Drottningholm Court Theatre, a beautiful 18th century theatre whose elaborate machinery still works:
As your text points out, the development of perspectival scenography was not simply about making theatre imagery more "realistic". It was about turning the theatre into a place where the expanding realms being brought under the control of European rulers and scientific progress could be represented for the enjoyment of the rulers themselves. Though our modern proscenium stage is certainly related to ancient Greek and Roman spaces, it was developed during this period to facilitate stage imagery that would be "framed" just like perspectival painting, and which presumed a "best" seat. "The implicit visual demand on the other spectators in the auditorium, of course, was to imagine how the scene looked from the prince's or duke's point of view." (167) This basic condition of perspectival stages is still with us, which is why, for most proscenium productions, the best (and most expensive) seats are in the center, midway down the orchestra seating.
Think about how the perspectival stage differs from other theatrical spaces you've seen or learned about. How does the perspectival stage shape the experience of the audience differently than thrust, arena or amphitheatre stages? What does it have to do with the development of early modern society and culture? Does perspectival scenography have an implicit politics? What does it have to do with the expansion of European political influence and global empire?
A collection of Serlio drawings: http://rubens.anu.edu.au/htdocs/bytype/arch.sources/serlio/.
And here's a page from the British National Portrait Gallery with discussion of single-point perspective and a few theatrical images by Inigo Jones about halfway down the page: http://www.npg.org.uk/live/perspective.asp
And here's a video that traces the development of these stage technologies (with emphasis on works by several members of the Italian Bibiena family in the late 17th and early 18th centuries). Note the brief segment showing a scene change at the Drottningholm Court Theatre, a beautiful 18th century theatre whose elaborate machinery still works:
As your text points out, the development of perspectival scenography was not simply about making theatre imagery more "realistic". It was about turning the theatre into a place where the expanding realms being brought under the control of European rulers and scientific progress could be represented for the enjoyment of the rulers themselves. Though our modern proscenium stage is certainly related to ancient Greek and Roman spaces, it was developed during this period to facilitate stage imagery that would be "framed" just like perspectival painting, and which presumed a "best" seat. "The implicit visual demand on the other spectators in the auditorium, of course, was to imagine how the scene looked from the prince's or duke's point of view." (167) This basic condition of perspectival stages is still with us, which is why, for most proscenium productions, the best (and most expensive) seats are in the center, midway down the orchestra seating.
Think about how the perspectival stage differs from other theatrical spaces you've seen or learned about. How does the perspectival stage shape the experience of the audience differently than thrust, arena or amphitheatre stages? What does it have to do with the development of early modern society and culture? Does perspectival scenography have an implicit politics? What does it have to do with the expansion of European political influence and global empire?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)