Féral & Bermingham-The specificity of Theatrical language

8/4/2019 Fral & Bermingham-The specificity of Theatrical language

1/16

Theatricality: The Specificity of Theatrical LanguageAuthor(s): Josette Fral and Ronald P. BerminghamSource: SubStance, Vol. 31, No. 2/3, Issue 98/99: Special Issue: Theatricality (2002), pp. 94-108Published by: University of Wisconsin PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3685480

Accessed: 31/07/2009 18:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uwisc.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. 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
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3685480?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uwischttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uwischttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3685480?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/16

Theatricality:The Specificity of TheatricalLanguage1Josette Feral

To define theatricality, or the specificity of the theater, is not only toattempt to define what distinguishes theaterfrom othergenres, but to definewhat distinguishes it from other kinds of spectacle-dance, performanceart, or multi-media art. It is to bring the nature of theater itself into focusagainstabackgroundof individual theatricalpractices,theories of stage-play,and aesthetics. It is to attempt to find parameters shared by all theatricalenterprises from time immemorial. Although such a project may appearoverly ambitious, its pertinence requires an attempt to establish such adefinition. This article is such a step, seeking to establish points of referencefor subsequent reflection.During the 20th century, the very foundations of theater were turnedupside-down, as were those of other arts. What had been a clearly definedtheatricalaesthetic atthe end of the 19thcentury,outliningnormativepractice,was, during the 20th century, systematically reexamined. At the same time,stage practice began to distance itself from the text, assigning it a new placein the theatricalenterprise.2Once under siege, the text was no longer able toguarantee the theatricalityof the stage. Thus, it is understandable that thoseconcerned began to question the specificity of the theatrical act itself,especially since this very specificity appeared to influence other stagepractices as well- dance, performance art, opera, and so on.Theemergence of theatricality n areastangentiallyrelatedto the theaterseems to have as a corollary the dissolution of the limits between genres,and of the formal distinctions between practices, from dance-theater tomulti-mediaarts,including happenings, performance,and new technologies.The specificity of theater is more and more difficult to define. To the extentthat the spectacular and the theatrical acquired new forms, the theater,suddenly decentered, was obliged to redefine itself.3From that time on, itsspecificity was no longer evident.How then are we to define theatricality today? Should we speak of it inthe singular or in the plural?Is theatricalitya property thatbelongs uniquelyto the theater, or can it also be found in the quotidian? As a quality-94 ? Board of Regents, University of Wisconsin Press, 2002SubStance# 98/99, Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3, 2002


3/16

Theatricality 95

understood here in the Kantiansense of the term-does theatricalitypre-existits manifestation in the theatricalobject,with the objectthen becoming thecondition of its emergence? Or is theatricalitythe consequence of a certaintheatrical process related either to reality or to the subject? These are thequestions I would like to consider here.The Historical Context

The notion of theatricalityseems to have appeared at the same time asthe notion of literarity.However, its dissemination in critical literaturewasless rapid; in fact, the texts that I have been able to assemble dealing withtheatricality date back only 10 years.4 This means that attempts toconceptualize the notion of theatricalityare linked to recent preoccupationswith the theory of theater. One might well object, maintaining that suchworks as Aristotle's Poetics,Diderot's Paradoxe ucomedien, nd the prefacesof Racine and Victor Hugo, among others, are efforts to theorize in mattersrelatedto the theater.But"theorizing"understoodaccordingto contemporaryusage as areflectionupon the specificityof genresand upon abstractconcepts(sign,semiotization, stension,fragment, istance,displacement,tc.), is a muchmore recent phenomenon. As Roland Bartheshas pointed out, the attemptto define a theory of theater is itself the sign of an era fascinated by theory.Recent dissemination of the notion of theatricalitycan lead us to forgetits more distant history. In fact, we can retrace the notion of theatricalityback to the firsttexts of Evreinoff (1922)who spoke of "teatralnost,"tressingthe significance of the suffix "ost" n order to underline the importance ofhis discovery.5Lexically speaking, theatricality is both poorly defined andetymologically unclear. It seems to be much like the "tacitconcept" definedby Michael Polany: "a concrete idea that one can use directly but that onecanonly describeindirectly."6tis a conceptthat one associatesin aprivilegedway with the theater.Theatricality as a Property of the Quotidian

By examining conditions that accompany various manifestations oftheatricalityboth on and off stage, one can demonstrate that theatricalityisnot strictly a theatricalphenomenon. Let us look at a few possible scenarios:1stscenario: You enter a theater.The play has not yet begun. In front ofyou is a stage; the curtain is open; the actors are absent. The set, in plainview, seems to await the beginning of the play. Is theatricalityat work here?If one answers in the affirmative, one recognizes that the set alone canconvey a certain theatricality. Although the theatrical process has not yetSubStance# 98/99, Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3, 2002

Theatricality 95


4/16

96 Josette Feral

been set in motion, certain constraints are already imposed, certain signsare already in place. The spectator knows what to expect from the place inwhich he finds himself; he know what to expect from the scenic design-aplay.7Because a semiotization of space has already occurred, the spectatorperceives the theatricalityof the stage, and of the space surrounding him.We can thereforedraw a first conclusion: the presence of the actoris nota prerequisite of theatricality.8 In this instance, space is the vehicle oftheatricality. The subject perceives certain relations within that space; heperceives the spectacular nature of the stage. Space seems fundamental totheatricality, for the passage from the literary to the theatrical is first andforemost completed through a spatial realization of the text.

2nd scenario: In the subway, you witness an argument between twopassengers. One is smoking and the other strongly protesting, remindingthe first that smoking on the subway is against the rules. The first refuses tocomply; insults and threats are exchanged; tension mounts. Spectators ofthis exchange, the other passengers watch attentively; several comment,taking sides in the argument.The trainpulls into a station and stops in frontof an imposing billboard advertising cigarettes. The smoker exits the train,and forthebenefit of all the interestedobservers,points out the disproportionbetween the small NO SMOKINGsign in the train and the huge billboardpromoting smoking that occupies the entire wall of the station platform.Is theatricality present in this instance? One would probably say not,for the argument did not appear staged, nor had the non-participantsbeenformally invited to watch. Furthermore,the exchange did not appear to be afictional situation, for the parties seemed genuinely involved in the quarrel.However, spectatorsexiting at the same stationwould have discoveredthat the two antagonists were in fact an actor and actresstaking part in whatBoal defined as an "invisible theatrical production." Knowing this, andbearing in mind that the spectators' participation was involuntary, wouldone now claim that theatricalityhad been present? After the fact, it wouldseem so.

We might conclude that in this instance,theatricalityseems to stem fromthe spectator's awareness of a theatrical intention addressed to him. Thisawareness altered the way in which he looked at what was taking place; itforced him to see theater where before he saw only a chance occurrence.9Thespectatortherebytransforms nto fictionwhat he thoughtwas a quotidianevent. Re-semiotizing the space of the subway car,the spectatorwas able todisplace signs and to interpretthem differently, revealing both the fictionalnature of the performers'behavior, and the presence of illusion where onlycommonplacerealityhad been expected.Inthis instance,theatricalityappearsSubStance# 98/99, Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3, 2002

Josette Feral6


5/16

Theatricality 97

as a result of the performers' affirmed theatrical intention. The spectatormust be aware of the performers' secret;without such awareness there ismisunderstanding and absence of theatricality.

3rd scenario: You areseated at a sidewalk cafe watching passers-by whohave no desire to be seen, nor any intention of acting. As they pass, theyproject neither pretense nor fiction, nor do they behave as if showing-off.Only by chance might they be aware of the watchful eyes following them.However, your eyes perceive a certaintheatricalityin their figures andgestures, in the way they occupy the space around them. As a spectator, youinscribe this theatricalityin the realspace surrounding them. It is the simpleexercise of watching that reassigns gestures to theatricalspace.

Considering the constraintsthat it imposes upon the spectator, this lastexample is perhaps the most marginal. Nonetheless, we can draw animportant conclusion from it: theatricalityhas little to do with the nature ofthe invested object-the actor, space, object,or event-nor is it necessarilythe result of pretense, illusion, make-believe,or fiction. Were such conditionsprerequisites of theatricality, we would have been unable to identify itspresence in everyday occurrences.l0Morethan a propertywith analyzablecharacteristics, heatricalityseemsto be a processthat has to do with a "gaze" that postulates and creates adistinct,virtual space belonging to the other,from which fiction can emerge.In our first examples, this space was created by the conscious act of theperformer,understood here in the largest sense of the word to include theactor,director,designer, lighting director,and architect.Inour last example,the spectator's gaze created a spatial cleft from which illusion emerged-illusion whose vehicle the spectator had selected from among events,behaviors, physical bodies, objectsand space without regardfor the fictionalor real nature of the vehicle's origin.

Theatricality has occurred under two conditions: first through aperformer's reallocation of the quotidian space that he occupies; secondthrougha spectator'sgaze framingaquotidianspacethathe does not occupy.Such actions create a cleft that divides space into the "outside" and the"inside" of theatricality.This space is the space of the "other"; t is the spacethat defines both alterity and theatricality.Thus, theatricalityas alterity emerges througha cleft in quotidian space.The cleft can be the result of an actor's seizing control of the quotidian andturning it into theatricalspace; it can also be the result of a spectator's gazeconstituting space as theatrical. By instituting a Husserlian qualitativemodification in the relationshipbetween subjects,this active gaze constitutesSubStance# 98/99, Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3, 2002

Theatricality 97


6/16

98 JosetteFeral

the conditionforthe emergenceof theatricality. nthecasewhere the initiativebelongs to the actor, the "other"becomes actor through an avowed act ofrepresentation;in the case where the initiative belongs to the spectator, the"other"is unwittingly transformedinto actor through a gaze that inscribestheatricalityin the space surrounding him.Therefore, we may conclude that theatricality consists as much insituating the object or the other in a "framed theatrical space" (scenario 3),as it does in transforming a simple event into signs in such a way that itbecomes a spectacle (scenario 2). At this stage of our analysis, theatricalityappears to be more than a property; in fact, we might call it a process thatrecognizes subjects in process; it is a process of looking at or being lookedat. It is an act initiated in one of two possible spaces: either that of the actoror that of the spectator.Inboth cases, this act creates a cleft in the quotidianthatbecomes the space of the other, the space in which the other has a place.Without such a cleft, the quotidian remainsintact,precluding the possibilityof theatricality,much less of theateritself.

Initially, theatricality appears to be an almost fantastical cognitiveoperation set in motion either by the observer or the observed. It is aperformativeactcreatingthe virtual space of the other,the transitionalspacediscussed by Winnicott, the threshold (limen) discussed by Turner, orGoffman's "framing." It clears a passage, allowing both the performingsubjectas well as the spectator to pass from "here" to "elsewhere."

Theatricalitydoes not manifest itself in any obligatory fashion. It doesnot have any qualitative properties that would permit our identifying itbeyond any shadow of doubt. It is not an empirical given. Theatricalityisauthorized by the placing of the subjectwith respect to both quotidian andimaginary dimensions, the latter being founded upon the presence of theother's space. To see theatricality in these terms poses the question of itsown transcendent nature.What Permits the Theatrical? The Theater as Pre-AestheticIf one is ready to admit the existence, outside the theatrical stage, of atheatricalityof acts, events, situations, and objects,then one must be willingto consider thephilosophicalnatureof theatricality.1InKantianterminology,we are confronted with the possibility of attributinga transcendent natureto theatricality,and of thus defining stage-related theatricalityas only oneexpression of a transcendentphenomenon.12Seen in this way, theatricality appears as a transcendental structurewhose general characteristicsare assumed by the theater.Thus stage-related

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

Josette Feral8


7/16

Theatricality 99

theatricality is possible only because of its transcendent nature. In otherwords, theater is possible only because theatricalityexists and because thetheater calls it into play. Once evoked, theatricality takes on specificallytheatricalcharacteristics hatarecollectively valued and socially meaningful.However, the theatricality of the stage could not exist were the nature oftheatricalitynot transcendent.Seen in this way, the playwright merely takeshis place within this transcendent structure,plunging into the cleft in spacethat theatricalityhas opened, that he has chosen, and that we have imposedupon him.l3Stage-related Theatricality

Although the sine quanoncondition for the emergence of theatricalityas defined above is the creation of a distinct, fictional space, we can createsuch a space, as we have seen, outside the theater.What then are the signs oftheatricality that are specifically characteristic of the stage?14 Whatcharacteristicsof theatricalitycan the theater alone produce?According to Evreinov, stage-related theatricality rests essentially onthe theatricalityof an actorwho, moved by a theatricalinstinct, attempts totransform the reality that surrounds him. Evreinov presents theatricalityasapropertythatspringsfrom the actorandrenders his surroundingstheatrical.Thus these two poles (self, reality) are the fundamental points of focus forall reflections on theatricality:its point of emergence (the acting self), andits point of arrival(reality).The modalities of the relationshipbetween thesetwo points aregoverned by performance,hose rules areboth transitoryandpermanent. In fact, movement between these poles is varied and non-restrictive,bringing into play threeelements whose relationship defines theprocess of theatricalityand whose possible interactions-taking into accounthistorical, sociological and aestheticalvariations-encompass the totality oftheatricalpractices.

Actor ...........................................(Story) Fictionctor .(Story) FictionActing ) ActionThe Actor

When the actor is viewed as the source of stage-related theatricality(aview defended by Peter Brook),all other signifying systems (scenic space,costumes,makeup, dialogue, text,lighting, props,etc.)candisappearwithoutscenic theatricality being significantly affected.'5The actor'spresence aloneSubStance# 98/99, Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3, 2002

Theatricality 99


8/16

100 Josette Feral

is enough to assure thattheatricalitywill be preserved and that the theatricalactwill takeplace-proof that the actoris one of the indispensable elementsin the production of stage-related theatricality.The actoris simultaneously theproducerof theatricalityand the channelthrough which it passes. He encodes it, and inscribes it with signs withinsymbolic structures on stage that are informed by his subjective impulsesand desires. As a subjectin process, the actorexplores the "other"he creates,making it speak. These perfectly encoded symbolic structures are easilyrecognized by a public that appropriatesthem as a mode of knowledge andexperience.All areforms of narrative fiction(fantasticalcharacters,acrobats,mechanized marionettes, monologues, dialogues, representations) that theactorbrings to life upon the stage. As staged simulacra and illusions, thesestructures evince possible world-views whose veridical and illusory aspectsaregraspedsimultaneously by the spectator.At the same time, the spectator'sdouble-edged gaze penetrates the actor'smask, questioning the presence ofthe other, his know-how, his technique, his performance, his art ofdissimulation and representation.Thespectatoris never completely duped.The paradox of the actor is also the paradox of the spectator: to believe inthe other without completely believing in him. As Schechner reminds us,the spectator must deal with the "not-notnot"of the actor.16Understandingthe fragmentary nature of momentary illusion, the spectator looks at asimulacrum created by the actor,a simulacrum that invites the spectator tocross over into the realm of the imaginary, to yield to the desire of being theother, of transformation,of alterity.His performance transforms into signsthe displacement by which he distinguishes himself from the "other."Thus,we may situatethe actor'stheatricality n aprocess of displacementin which his very self is at stake-in a dynamic whose symbolic structuresare riddled with static moments during which the actor must confront theever-present menace of the return of the self. In aesthetic theory, a value isassigned to the tension thus created between symbolic structures and self.At one extreme we find Artaud;at the other,orientaltheater,and in between,the great diversity generated by various schools and individual practices.7

The body of the actor is the privileged locus of the self's confrontationwith alterity. It is a body in motion on stage, an impulsive and symbolicbody sometimes yielding to hysteria, at other times, controlled through awillful act by which it becomes the locus of knowledge and of mastery.Moreover, it is a locus continually threatened by a certain inadequacy, byfaults,by a certain ack.Bydefinition,it is imperfect;as matter, t is vulnerable.Although it knows its limits,it is shocked when it surpassesthem.l8However,

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

Josette Feral00


9/16

Theatricality 101

thisbody is more thanjust performance.Transformed into a system of signs,it semiotizes everythingaroundit:space,time,story,dialogue, scenery,music,lighting, and costumes. Itbrings theatricality o the stage. More than a simplebearer of information and knowledge, more than a vehicle of representationand mimesis, it manifests the presence of the actor, the immediacy of theevent, and the material nature of the body.l9As space, rhythm, and illusion,as both opaque and transparent,as language, story, character,and athlete,the body of the actoris without doubt one of the most importantelements ofstage-related theatricality.ActingThe second fundamental notion of stage-related theatricalityis acting,which Huizinga has defined as undertaking a

... freeactivitystandingquite consciouslyoutside"ordinary"ifeasbeing"notserious,"but at the same time absorbing he player intensivelyandutterly.Itis an activityconnectedwith no material nterest,andno profitcanbe gained by it. Itproceedswithin its own properboundariesof timeand spaceaccording o fixedrulesand in an orderlymanner.Itpromotesthe formationof socialgroupingswhich tendtosurround hemselveswithsecrecyand to stress their difference rom the commonworldby disguiseor other means.(13)

In other words, acting is the result of a performer's decision (as actor,director, designer, or playwright) to consciously occupy the here-and-nowof a space different from the quotidian,to become involved in activityoutsideof daily life. Acting demands a personal effort whose objectives, intensity,and material manifestations vary according to the individual, the period,and the genre.

Acting is codified according to rules derived on the one hand fromrules governing performance in general (use of the stage, of scenic space,freedom of action within scenic and spatial constraints, transformations,transgressions,etc.),and, on the otherhand, frommore specificrules derivedfrom historically defined theatricalaesthetics that vary according to period,genre, and practice.20These rules supply a framework for the action, and itis within this framework that the actor takes certainliberties with respect tothe quotidian.The dimensions of this framework are largerthan the physical-i.e. thevisible boundaries of the stage--for they encompass a virtualaspect imposedby the liberties and restrictions of acting. The framework becomes visibleonly through a tacit encoding of the space and of the players who create thetheatrical phenomenon. It is better therefore to speak of a "theatricalSubStance 98/99,Vol.31,nos.2 &3, 2002

Theatricality 101


10/16

102 Josette Fra1

framework," which, as Irving Goffman reminds us, has the advantage ofstressing the dynamic aspect of the term. More than a simple result or animposed finalproduct,the framework s, on the contrary,aprocess, producedas the expression of a subjectin action.It is perceived in the light of relationsbetween subjects and objects transformed into theatrical objects. In thisprocess of transformation, we have the imbrication of fiction andrepresentation. Theatricalitydoes not emerge passively from an ensembleof theatricalobjectswhose properties one could enumerate at a glance, butas part of a dynamic process belonging to both the actor and the spectator,who takes possession of the action he watches.2Fiction vs. RealityThethirdnotion aboutstage-relatedtheatricalitybrings realityintoplay.To speak of the relationship between reality and the theater is to pose theproblem of the existence of a reality conceived as autonomous, knowableand capable of being represented. Contemporary philosophy maintains thatwe can speak of reality only as the product of scientific observation; thatreality is itself a result, a representation, a simulacrum. However, it isimportant to underline the relationship between theatricality and reality,for until the beginning of the 20thcentury this relationship was the focus ofmuch theoretical reflection, and many "poetics" of the theater (e.g.,Stanislavskiand Meyerhold) areprofoundly marked by its imprint. Inotherwords, is the seeming equivalence between theatrical representation andreality to be interpreted as indicative of theatricality?

For certainartistsin fields other than theater,as well as for certain oneswithin the field, the notion of theatricality has a number of pejorativeconnotations. G. Abensour writes:Nothings moreodious orthelyrical oetthan he ideaof theatricalitythat nitiallydesignatesnattitudecompletelyxtraneous,nconnectedwithanyintimatefeeling hat s supposedoinspiret-an attitude nereadilydentifieswithadeliberatebsence fsincerity.nsuchalight, obetheatricals tobe false. 671)

Michael Friednotes that the success, even the survival, of the artshas cometo depend to a greatextent upon theirability to destroy theater.He has goneso faras to maintain that artdegenerates as it approaches theater (1968,139-141).Inthepopularimagination,"theatricality"s opposed to sincerity,whicheach person claims from a different perspective.Stanislavskiattempts to make the spectatorforget that he is in a theater,the term "theatrical"being pejorativeto those engaged in "artistictheater."

SubStance98/99,Vol. 1,nos.2&3,2002

102 Josette Feral


11/16

Theatricality 103

In his view, the truth of the play depends upon a proximity between theactor and the reality he represents.ForStanislavski, theatricality appears asa kind of distancingfromreality-an effectof exaggeration,an intensificationof behavior thatrings false when juxtaposedwith what should be the realistictruth of the stage.

On the other hand, Meyerhold believes that theater must aim at a kindof grotesque realism, but one quite different from the realism described bythe naturalists.Theatricality s the processby which the actorand the directorcontinually remind the spectatorthathe is in the theater,face-to-face with aconsummate actorwho is playing a role.Toaffirmthe "theatrical"as distinctfrom life and from reality is the condition sine qua non of stage-relatedtheatricality. The stage must speak its own language and impose its ownlaws. For Meyerhold, there is no equivalence between representation andreality. On the contrary, theatricality is not to be found in any illusoryrelationshipwith reality.Nor is it to be linked to a specific aesthetic. Rather,it must be sought in the autonomous discourse that constitutes theater.Meyerhold insists on a truly theatricalspecificity.Meyerhold's concept of theatricality is concretized in the actor'sostentatious demonstration to the spectatorthathe is at the theater;his is anact that designates the theater as distinct from reality. The distinction isfundamental. On the one hand, itproposes a theatricalitycenteredexclusivelyon the function of the theater as theater,thus transformingit into the sort ofcybernetic machine about which Barthes spoke. On the other hand, thedistinction defines a space in which the process of theatricalproduction isimportant, a space in which, outside of any relationship with reality,everything becomes sign.

Contrary to Meyerhold's definition of theatricality, Stanislavski's ismarkedby history,since it carriestraces ofbygone debates over "naturalism"in the theater-a naturalism opposed to the widely-condemned artificialityof the late nineteenth century. Although these debates over naturalism arenot completely dead, today they areunderstood differently,with naturalismitself being recognized as a form of theatricality.

Today's response to the question of whether theatricalitycan be definedaccording to any specific relationshipbetween the stage and the reality thatis its object,appearsclear,forwe believe thatthere is not any single, privilegedsubject more appropriate to the theater than any other. Theatricality is aprocess that is above all linked to the conditions of theatricalproduction. Assuch, it poses the question of representational processes.SubStance# 98/99, Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3, 2002

Theatricality 103


12/16

104 Josette Feral

The Framework and the ForbiddenAs with all frameworks, that of the theater has a double edge: working

against forces coming from the outside, the framework guarantees order;from within, it authorizes the violation of that same order.22 Doesn't theessence of theater consist, above all, in the capacity to violate normsestablished by nature, the state, and society?" asked Evreinov.23 Thispossibility of violation guarantees the freedom of the actorand the strengthof free will of all 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, theplay in general, and the stage-play in particular,consists of both a limitingframeworkand a transgressivecontent.The framework both authorizes andforbids. However, it does not authorize all freedoms, but only those initiallysanctioned by rules shared by all participants, and by the liberties a givenperiod allows within a given genre.24These liberties arefrequently linked tospecific aesthetics and to norms of reception that constitute a code ofcommunication shared by actor and spectator. Although it is possible toextend the boundaries of the framework, i.e. stretch the code to surprise oreven shock the public, limits must nevertheless be respected.However, these liberties must not make us forget certain fundamentalinterdictions. Were these to be violated, the framework of the stage-playwould come apart,and the mingling of stage with realitywould destroy thesovereignty of theatricalspace.25Activities that violate the "law of reversibility" are forbidden. In thetheater, this law guarantees the reversibility of time and event. As such, itopposes any act in which the subjectis mutilated or executed. Forexample,barred from the stage arecertainpracticesof the 1960sin which bodies weremutilated or animals killed for the supposed pleasure of representation.26Such acts break the tacit contract between spectator and theater thatguarantees that what one witnesses is representation, inscribed in a timeand space different from the quotidian, in which the forward march of timeis suspended and thus reversible, an act in which the actor reserves thepossibility of returning to his point of departure.27n actually attacking hisown body (or that of an animal), the actor destroys the conditions oftheatricality. Henceforth, he is no longer in the alterity of theatrical space,but has crossed back into reality;his act has transgressed all shared rulesand codes and is no longer perceived as illusion, fiction, or play. Such acts

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

Josette Feral04


13/16

Theatricality 105

transform the theater into a circus ring and violate one of the limits of thetheater.28Although theatricality may yet be present in the event, theater assuch has disappeared.Conclusion

From these observations we can conclude that theatricalityis not a sumof enumerable properties or characteristics,but can be discerned throughspecific manifestations, and deduced from phenomena termed "theatrical."However, these examples are not theatricality'sonly form;it is not limitedstrictly to the theater, but can be found in dance, opera, and performanceart, as well as in the quotidian.If the notion of theatricalitygoes beyond the theater, it is because it isnot a "property" belonging to the subjects/things that are its vehicles. Itbelongs neither to the objects, the space, nor to the actor himself, althougheach canbecome its vehicle. Rather,theatricalityis the result of a perceptualdynamics linking the onlooker with someone or something that is lookedat. This relationship can be initiated either by the actor who declares hisintention to act, or by the spectator who, of his own initiative, transformsthe other into a spectacular object. By watching, the spectator creates an"other" space, no longer subject to the laws of the quotidian, and in thisspace he inscribes what he observes, perceiving it as belonging to a spacewhere he has no place except as external observer. Without this gaze,indispensable for the emergence of theatricality and for its recognition assuch, the other would share the spectator's space and remain part of hisdaily reality.Theatricalityproduces spectacularevents for the spectator; t establishesa relationship that differs from the quotidian. It is an act of representation,the constructionof a fiction. As such, theatricality s the imbrication of fictionand representation in an "other" space in which the observer and theobserved arebrought face to face. Of all the arts,the theater is best suited tothis sort of experimentation. Universitedu Quebeca MontrealtranslatedbyRonaldP. Bermingham

Notes1. Thisarticlewas firstpublishedin French n Poetique, aris,Sept.1988,pp. 347-361.2. Resultsof a survey undertaken n 1912by editors of the journalLesMarges eflect theimportanceof thischange.LesMarges ut thefollowingquestionto its readers:"Which,in your opinion,is thesuperiorperson: heone who loves to read or the one who lovesto go to the theater?"The majorityof those participatingn the survey respondedin

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

Theatricality 105


14/16

106 Josette Feral

favor of those who read. (Cf.AndreVeinstein,Lamiseen scene heatrale t sa conditionesthetique,aris,Flammarion, 955,p. 55)3. An identicalsituationoccurred n paintingwhen the invention of photography orcedartiststo redefinethe goals and the specificityof the art formitself.4. Cf. the works of MerceaMarghescou,CharlesBouazis,and ThomasAron, as well asearlynotions of literarityby the PragueSchool.5. Cf.SharonMarieCarnicke's rticle,"L'instincth6atral:Evreinovet la theatralite" . 98.Please note that the Frenchuse the expressiontheatralite, hile the Englishoscillatebetween "theatrality"nd "theatricality"cf. the specialissue devoted to the "Theoryof Dramaand Performance"n ModernDrama, ol. 25 March1982),in a less precisefashion,thus de-emphasizing he importanceof the term.InSpanish,the expression steatralidad.6. Fromthe TacitDimension s quotedbyJ.Baillon n thearticleentitled"D'uneentreprisede theatralite"n Theatre/Public,o 18/19, January-June975,pp. 109-122.7. He expectsa play rather handance,opera,music,or film. In this sense, the spacethathe enters is alreadycoded.8. The absenceof the actorposes a certainproblems.Is there theatricalitywithout theactor?This s a fundamentalquestion.Beckett riestorespondto thisquestionby forcingthe actorto work in a spacein whichhe is scarcelyvisible.9. Guy Debordwrites that one must not identify spectaclewith the act of "lookingat,"even when coupledwith "listening."Spectacle s the oppositeof dialogue.10. Thispermitsus to approach he second scenario(the scene in the subway) from the

oppositedirectionand to answerthe questionaboutthepresenceof theatricalityn theaffirmative.Yes, theatricalitywas presentin the subway, even if the spectatordidn'trealizethathe was witnessinga theatricalproduction.11.Evreinovsees theatricality s an instinct,as thatwhich "transforms he appearanceofnature."This instinct, named elsewhere by Evreinovas "the theatricalwill," is anirresistibleimpulsefeltby all (Cf.Letheatrepour oi),similarto the instinctforplay feltby animals(Cf.Le heatre hez esanimaux).According o Evreinov, heatricalitys a kindof universalqualitypresentin man and anterior o any aestheticact. It is the love ofdisguise,thepleasureof creating llusion,of projectingmake-believeimagesof the selfand of reality n plainview of others.Inthisact,whichtransportsand transforms,manappearsas theatricality'spoint of departure;n creatingsimulacraof the self, man istheatricality'sourceand primaryobject.Evreinovspeaksof transformingnature(wewill not developherethe theoreticalproblems ntroducedby the notionsof natureandreality),anothername forreality.One mustconclude hatforEvreinov,man is central othe process; he is the fundamental cause of the emergence and manifestation oftheatricality.ForEvreinov, heatricalitys thuslinked firstandforemost o thebody of theactorandappears nitiallyas the resultof agame-like,physicalexperiencebeforetakingforminanintellectualundertakingocusinguponagivenaesthetic.Thus hefoundingprocessof theatricalitys a "pre-aesthetic"allingupon the subject'screativity,but precedingthe aestheticactof the accomplishedartist.Iwould maintain hatEvreinov'sview of theatricality oncernsanthropologyandethnology more than theater.Becausehe has inscribedtheatricalityn the quotidian,Evreinovhas caused the specificityof stage-related heatricalityo disappear.12.In otherwords, is theatricality transcendentproperty hatencompassesall formsofreality(artistic, ultural,political,economic),or are we only able to inducetheatricalitythrough heempiricalobservationof reality, akingas ourframeof referenceonly thoseartisticpractices n which theatricalitys present?13. Forexample,theparticipationorceduponthespectatorsby theactors; heexperiencesof theLivingTheaternAntigone, rthose of theentirepracticeof the1960s n whichthe

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


15/16

Theatricality 107

spectatorsuddenly found himself forced to enter into the action of the play, into the"other's"space,and often to defendhimself fromthe feelingof beingviolated.14.J.M.Piemmewrites thattheatricalitys thatwhich the theateralone is ableto produce;thatwhichotherartscannotproduce. Cf.Le ouffleurnquiet,pecialeditionofAlternativestheatrales, os. 20-21; December1984.)15. Cf. PeterBrook,L'espaceide Paris:Seuil,1977),p. 25:"Ican takeany empty spaceandcall it a stage. For a theatricalact to begin, it sufficesonly that someone crossesthisempty spacewhile someone else watches."16. "Alleffectiveperformancesharethis"not-notnot"quality:Olivier s not Hamlet,butalsohe is not not Hamlet:his performances betweena denial of beinganother(= I amme) and a denial of not beinganother = I am Hamlet)."Cf. Schechner,123.17.Therelationshipof the actor o hisbodyvariesgreatlyaccording o the school.Certainschools,suchas that of Grotowski, mphasize hecompletemasteryof thebody,basingtheir practice upon an athletic methodology. Others, such as Artaud are moreintrospectiveand de-emphasize hecorporalpresence; till others,suchas Craig,strivefor the completemechanizationand totaltransparence f the actor.18.Thisshock s identical o thatfeltbythespectatorat anathleticcompetition.Theparallelbetween sports and theater has often been discussed. Cf. Theatre/Public o. 62(March-April 985)as well as Lescahiers etheatreeuno. 20 (1981-1983).19.Accordingto Piemme,thebody, made anachronousby new technologies, s material,singular,andvulnerable.Although tsinteractionswithrealityareincreasinglyndirect,it remainswhole, unique,singular."At the moment when the experienceof realityismore and moreindirect,when thehumanbeing is bowled overby the forceof imagesproducedby the technologyof modernreproduction, he body, by its fundamentallymaterialpresencein space,continues to becomeincreasingly mportant." Piemme,P.40)20. The rules of stage play are differentduring the Elizabethanperiod than during theclassicalperiod, ustasplays belongingto the Commediaell'arteraditionneverimposerulesthat, orexample,wouldhavegoverned herepresentationf aSophoclean ragedy.Today,rulesdifferaccording oone's stancewithrespect otraditionalpracticesvis-a-visthose inherited romthe 1960s.Thus,any attemptto elaboratea historyof the rulesofstage-playmustbe carriedout withinthe framework f ahistoryof theatrical esthetics.

21. A list of the characteristicsndpropertiesof theatricalitywould include the followingelements:1) a representational ct thattransformsreality,the subject, hebody, space,time;2) a creativeact thatgoes beyondthelimitsof thequotidian;3) anostentatiousactof thebody,a semiotizationof signs;4) thepresenceof a subjectwho, through he use ofhis body, structures the imaginary.22.Violationsauthorizedby theatricality epend upontherulesofvariousperiods,genres,countries,and upon theoriesof aesthetics.In this regard,theatricality, ingular,yieldsitsplacetotheatricalities,lural, he latterbeingaconceptapproachinghatof aesthetics.It would be interesting o explorethe distinguishingaspectsof specific,theatricalitieslinkedto given periodsorgenres,andcompare hemwith theatricality, ingular,which"transcends" hese conditions. Forexample,the nudity acceptedon today's stage, oreven upon the stage of the MiddleAges, was viewed as scandalousduringthe 1950s.Although he virtual rameworkgoverning tagingwaswell delineatedduring he1950s,the freedomsandviolationsthathadbeenauthorizedby theaesthetic heoriesof earlierperiodsdid not, in the 1950s,permittheexposureof theactor'snakedbody. Thus eventhough one of the theater'sfunctions is to assume responsibility or the violation ofnorms,the virtualframeworkdelineatedby the theatricalprocessdoes not authorizeall liberties,which aregovernedby constraintsof period,aesthetic,and genre.23. As Dostoevskihas remarked,"Inthe theater, wo times two makethree,or even five,depending upon the degreeof theatricality t work."(Quotedby Evreinov n SharonMarie Carnicke, p. 105)SubStance 98/99,Vol.31,nos. 2 &3, 2002


16/16

108 Josette Feral

24.However,in thiscase, the concernsof thespectatordo not count,for if theydid, therewould be intrusionon the partof the spectator nto a spacethatis not his.25. ThisprocessparallelsWinnicott'sn affirming hat theactor'semotional nvestment nthe stage-playmust distance tself fromsubjectively elt desires.Whenthis distance snot maintained, he actor eaves the realmof stage-play,enteringthat of reality.26. Forexample, the spectaclesof StuartSherman n the 1960s.Focusingupon what isforbidden, the process of killing animals seems more easily incorporated withrepresentationhan is mutilationof the actor.However,this form of mutilationoftenelicits fierceoppositionfrom the spectators.27. Cf. Diderot'sParadoxeucomedien.28.Theseinterdictionsdo not however constitute he limits of theatricality.n thisregard,cf. Bataille'snotion of the "sacred."

Works CitedAbensour,G. "Blok face a Meyerholdet Stanislavskiou le problemede la theatralit6,"Revuedes ttudesslaves,Vol.54,no. 4 (1982),pp. 671-679.Aristotle.Poetics.New York: heatreCommunicationsGroup,1999.Aron,Thomas.Litterature t litterarite: ssai de mise au point. Paris:Les BellesLettres,1984.Baillon,Jacques."D'uneentreprisede theatralite."n Theatre/Public,o. 18-19,Jan.-June1975,pp. 109-22.Bouazis,Charles.Litterarite t societe:theorie d'un modele du fonctionnement itteraire.Paris:Mame,1972.Brook,Peter.I'Espace ide.Paris:Seuil,1977.Carnicke,SharonMarie."L'instincth6atral:Evreinov et la theatralite."Revuedes etudesslaves,No. 53, 1981,97-108.Diderot,Denis andJacquesBaillon.LeParadoxeur le comedien. aris:Papiers,1985.Evreinov,Nicolas. Letheatre ans avie.Paris:Stock,1930.Fried, Michael.Absorptionnd Theatricality:aintingandBeholdern theAge of Diderot.Berkeley:UC Press,1980.- . "Art and Objecthood,"MinimalArt. A CriticalAnthology.New York:E.P.Dutton,

1968,pp. 139-141.Goffman,Erving. nteraction itual:Essays nFace-to-Faceehavior. ardenCity,NY:Anchor,1967.. ThePresentationof Self nEveryday ife.GardenCity,NY:Doubleday,1959.Huizenga,Johan.HomoLudens: StudyofthePlayElementnCulture.Trans.CecileSeresia.London:Routledge,[1949]1980.Marghescou,Mircea.Leconcept e itterarite:ssai ur espossibilitesheoriques'une cience elalitterature. heHague:Mouton,1974.Meyerhold,Vsevolod.MyerholdnTheatre. ondon:Metheun,1978.. Ecrits urle theatre.Vols. 1 &2. Lausanne:LaCite-L'Aged'Homme,1973.Piemme,Jean-Marie.LeSouffleurnquiet.Specialedition of Alternatives heatrales,Nos.20-21. Dec. 1984.Polany,Michael.TheTacitDimension.GardenCity,NY: 1967.Schechner,R. BetweenTheater ndAnthropology.hiladelphia:Univ. PennsylvaniaPress,1985.- . EssaysonPerformanceheory.New York:DramaBookSpecialists,1977.Stanislavski,Konstantin.An ActorPrepares. ew York:TheatreArtsBooks,1936.Turner,VictorWitter.FromRitual oTheatre:Writingsn Culture ndPerformance.ew York:PerformingArtsJournalPublications,1982.Veinstein,Andre.Lamise nscene heatraletsaconditionsthetique.aris:Flammarion, 955.

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

Documents

Féral & Bermingham-The specificity of Theatrical language