Drama, Script, Theater, Performance

Stating that “those cultures which emphasize the dyad drama-script de emphasize theatre-performance” Schechner attempts to split performance into two pairs. In his essay “Drama, Script, Theater, Performance” he highlights the key differences between cultures that focus mainly on ritual “patterns of doing” and those that place emphasis on moving the action beyond the limitations of the script. He begins with stating that even the words which we must use to begin to explain these two aspects of performance are “loaded” and we must approach all of them in a new light if we are to begin to understand how and why “different cultures mark the boundaries differently”.

Cultures that place emphasis on the drama-script, such as Greco-Roman and Indian Sanskrit drama, follow on from the notion of drama as ritual and concentrate on the written text in its basic form. Stanislavski epitomises this type of performance placing great emphasis on reality – going even so far as to “deny the existence of performance altogether”. Easily contrasted to this is the Brechtian V-effekt which is consistent with the opposing theatre-performance, highlighting the importance of the “experience” as a whole and not placing the author’s intentions as paramount.

The claim that “those cultures that emphasise the dyad drama-script de-emphasise theatre-performance” implies that a performance cannot truly be both. By sticking to “the basic code of the events” (drama-script) one cannot give the “theater” ultimate freedom. As the above claim shows, you either give authority to the drama, which is the domain of the author, or to the audience and performers. Though there are occasions on which a performance may straddle both, where author, teacher and performers agree on the intentions for the production, it is far more likely that the play will either follow what’s written or be opened up and led in a new direction, becoming a “performance” in its own right.

Schechner states that Western theatre “has merely sought for new ways to present any one drama” showing the development of drama-script theatre into performance-theatre productions. This movement demonstrates how modern performance is changing and how directors and performers are creating new ways for audiences to experience performance. Schechner, in his essay, documents one such performance, TPG’s “Tooth”. Though it is interesting to see the way in which they broke the “seams” I think it is more important to note the reaction of the author, Sam Shepherd. Shepherd, in a letter to Schechner, demonstrates the clash between the “drama” (the writer’s domain) and the performance. Not only was the new production “far from what (he) had in mind” but Shepherd goes on to claim that “a play is written because a writer receives a vision” and that the TPG should not merely “extrapolate its language” to create something that is not and never will be “the” play.

I think the notion of it never being “the” play is an important one. Nowhere was it stated that the TGP were intending to replicate Shepherd’s original. Yes, the new production would be different and indeed “another form” but it doesn’t mean that it isn’t the play. Shepherd implies that by moving the performance away from his original intentions it is distorted so far as to become something else entirely. However, it is with this that I strongly disagree. Shepherd goes on to say that Schechner will surely run into this problem again if he were to “attempt other plays by living writers” throwing the sovereignty of the play’s intentions into question. As Roland Barthes states, “Once the Author is gone, the claim to “decipher” a text becomes quite useless.” Applying this to the matter of “breaking the seams” we are asked to question whether the meanings of the play are innate to the drama, or do they exist merely at their creator’s whim?

Many classical plays which have lived on due to their lack of didiscalia eventually need adapting and reinventing to carry on stimulating audiences. Modern audiences need to be increasingly challenged and older plays need to be kept alive to ensure their success. Worthen states:

“Performance may discover nuance and meaning not immediately available through reading or criticism, these meanings are nonetheless seen as latent potentialities of the words on the page”

Though the playwright may not be aware of all the potential interpretations, they are still there. Shepherd claims that his “vision” should not be changed, although objectively this does not mean that the other readings are wrong. The words of the physical script may lead to scores of varied analysis, but they will all be based upon the same words and therefore are all true understandings of the play.

The Shepherd-esque author belongs firmly in the drama-script category, not wanting or willing to let his drama grow and develop away from exactly how he sees it. However, many authors are prepared to let the seams holding the elements together break apart, in some cases even pioneering it themselves. Brecht, refusing to allow his work to become static, sought to find new potential in his plays, remaking his own drama. John Willett and Ralph Manheim write “Brecht was a profound believer in change” describing him as a “man in motion who progressed best by disagreeing with what had already been said”. This idea of playwrights taking criticisms and alternative readings of their work and adapting the original appropriately not only leads to a more open, seamless production but, in a way, gives back sovereignty to the author, allowing them to play up on, or even remove, different readings. Brecht left many versions of his own plays, not allowing us to know which is the definitive one. If we were to take Shepherd’s rigid notion of having a single “vision,” how would we know which one was Brecht’s?

Worthen quotes Wells as stating that “performance is the end to which (plays) were created” – and it is this which we must keep in mind. Plays are meant to be ever-changing and regenerative rather than static and closed and it is important to remember, when investigating the change from drama that is closely held together to that which has been broken apart, that plays are a product of their time.

In conclusion, I agree with Simon Shepherd and Mick Wallis that “Schechner’s modelling both illuminates and obscures” – that he doesn’t take into account authors such as Brecht who move between drama-script and theatre-performance. Contemporary theatre with authors writing for performance in a world of interactive production and multimedia cannot be confined into a dramatic domain that holds all four elements together as it is too limiting; performance is no longer merely “drama” but an experience outside the confinements of Schechner’s elements.