SHAKSPER 2000: What is truth in theatre?

From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu)
Date: 03/28/00 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0604  Tuesday, 28 March 2000.

From:           Sarah Boswell <samarist@xtra.co.nz>
Date:           Tuesday, 28 Mar 2000 20:29:35 +1200
Subject:        What is truth in theatre?

"To experiment is to make a foray into the unknown - it is something
that can be charted only after the event.  The next few people mentioned
have opened up the possibilities of theatre as an art and for each of
them experiment has implied something very different.

For Stanislavsky it meant the importance of the actor, whereas for Craig
the actor was practically indispensable, the emphasis being upon the
scenic possibilities of theatre.  Meyerhold and Reinhardt stressed the
importance of the director; Appia the use of light.  Brecht, like his
master, Piscator, was concerned to explore the didactic nature of the
theatre.  Artaud, like Stanislavsky, came to believe that theatre should
reflect not the everyday reality of naturalism, but rather those
intimations that are beyond the reach of words.  Much that was foreseen
by the early pioneers has come to be realized in the American modern
dance, while the theatre of Alwin Nikolais represents in many ways a
synthesis of Artaud's concept of a non-verbal theatre and Craig's idea
of moving abstract masses.  Finally, like Copeau, Jerzy Grotowski, Peter
Brook and Eugenio Barba have gone back to the essence of theatre, to the
live relationship of actor and audience."

- Experimental Theatre, James Roose-Evans

My question to you all is whether you believe there is truth in theatre,
what is it, where is it and what your opinion is on how to get it.


about SHAKSPER | current postings | submitted papers | browse SHAKSPER | search SHAKSPER
  
Copyright © 2002, Hardy M. Cook, design by Eric Luhrs. All rights reserved.