Theatre is Not About Recreating Real Life on Stage
Theatre has a long history of portraying human experience. In the late 19th century and early 20th century, movements such as naturalism and realism gained traction by imitating reality. As a response, Surrealism, Bertolt Brecht, Samuel Beckett and The Theatre of the Absurd, and Peter Brook constructed a system of expression, which specifically avoided imitating nature. Through an analysis of The Cherry Orchard by Chekhov, and The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time adopted by Simon Stephens from the book by Mark Haddon, this essay will demonstrate that theatre is not about recreating real life on stage. Especially with the age of television, where mimicking reality is second nature, theatre has the opportunity to do more, such as provoke the audience into thought. This is because the philosophical discourse that the audience can gain from an anti-illusionist play is far superior to the sliver of reality that a naturalist play can provide.
Before this essay can explain the purpose of theatre it is imperative to define key terms. For instance, naturalism is an attempt to construct a perfect illusion of reality guided by the ideas of man being controlled by nature and science. Realists go a bit further, they not only replicate reality, but do so through the social reality and psychology (Yannas, 2014 p29). Both realists and anti-illusionists discuss ‘real life.’ ‘Real life’ for realist and naturalists is the mundane activities of contemporary society, which playwrights try to imitate or mimic as close as possible. The essence of the division between realists and anti-illusionists is magnified through a surrealist, Antonin Artaud’s definition of ‘real life,’ which is the audiences’ metaphysical perception of the world that can only be produced by unreal imagery and symbolism on stage. Thus, throughout this essay, the term reality will differ based on context and theatre style.
These definitions are important, but a full historical context will ensure the reader has the critical background to understand the topic. There are two polar opinions that discussed how theatre should be portrayed. The first were the ideas of naturalism and realism. These concepts appeared as early as William Shakespeare’s Hamlet where Hamlet told his actors to “Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to you…suit the action to the word, the word to the action” (p17). Hamlet was telling the actors to perform as they normally would as people, as opposed to a more melodramatic or stylized way of performing. The epitome of realism could be more closely linked to playwrights such as Ibsen, Chekhov, as well as, Stanislavski, a director and author. Some describe Ibsen’s plays more “like a personal meeting” than a play because of the way he depicted real life (Styan, 1981 Volume 1 p24). One way he did this was through the use of prose in contrast to verse. Chekhov contributed to realism in a different way. He was aware that every detail had the potential to express subtle aspects of the actor’s background. For instance the way Yasha from The Cherry Orchard flippantly held his cigarette could represent his thoughts concerning his social status in Russian society (p84). Stanislavski took his characters’ actions a step further. He not only focused on what his characters’ actions could reveal, but how the actors could portray emotion in the truest form. By ‘truest form’, he never meant actors could comprehensively reach that unconscious state of natural emotion, but he hoped they could get as close to them as possible. He had a technique called psychological realism. This is where actors created a backstory for their character in order to bring them closer to the emotions they would have felt if the story were their ‘real life’ (Counsell, 1996 p27). Stanislavski called this the ‘magic if,’ where he would have the actor perform an exercise saying, “’I am I; but if I were an oak… what would I do?”’(p28).
On the other spectrum there are those who were anti-illusionists, believing social commentary, art, and entertainment could be portrayed in other ways besides a replication of contemporary society. For instance, Surrealism was a movement that explored the subconscious as well as dreams and the imagination. Antonin Artaud, an actor and director in the early twentieth century, was a surrealist in his early years and had pieces of bricks fall onto stage to demonstrate the collapse of society (Styan, 1981 Volume 2 p106). Later he created the Theatre of Cruelty, which was a movement to assault the audience with latent emotions (110). Coincidently, surrealism was conceived right around the same time as television, in the 1920s. TV had a similar effect on theatre as photography’s affect on paintings. Now that there was something that could more easily recreate reality, theatre need to re-evaluate its purpose. Bertolt Brecht also wanted to present his audience with a new type of theatre, but instead of focusing on emotion, he wanted to force those watching to think and understand the outside world. He aimed to detach people from their emotions and did so through episodic plot, narration, and montage. Brecht called this concept Epic Theatre (Counsell, 1996 p82). Additionally, he used other forms of media on stage to convey a message. For instance there would be a screen showing the stock market while the actor on stage would be starving, depicting his view on the economy and society (84). The Theatre of the Absurd furthered this idea about provoking the audience into philosophical discourse. When Samuel Beckett, a playwright and director, wrote Waiting for Godot, the play was not about mimicking daily life, but about the futility of life, guiding the audience to consider ideas beyond their daily life (114-116). Peter Brook, a theatre and film director, also believed in representing life with symbols but for a different purpose. In his play, the Mahabharata, Brook used bamboo sticks to represent bows and arrows and an actor holding a single wheel to symbolize a chariot (148). He did so in order to make the theatre more universal, explaining that he rejected realism because, “each [play] depicts only one facet of life, and none is able to incorporate the Invisible” (146). In other words, the world, including its spiritual aspects, cannot be represented efficiently by a mere play, thus it is more useful to implement symbols and other methods to convey a universal message. Robert Wilson took anti-illusion to the next level. His plays did not have plot or dialogue. Wilson even had his actors reconstruct their movement, claiming that movement was not natural. When comparing people from America, Asia, and Africa, they eat and walk differently. Because these distinctions are connected to culture it is evident that these are learned traits. Thus to truly project ‘reality’ he deconstructed theatre from its original form.
The idea that realism is not fully comprehensive is evident when looking at The Cherry Orchard performed at the Young Vic and directed by Katie Mitchell. It was a play written in the style of realism, which can be seen through its stage, acting, and set design. The stage was a black box, which means there was a flat floor surrounded by three black walls. Typical to realistic theatre, there was a clear division between the audience and the actors. The set, designed by Vicki Mortimer, was decorated like a worn Russian aristocratic house that had not been taken care of in years. Light came from the side of the stage, in an attempt to replicate natural light, which was used both for symbolism and to mark the passing of time. The actors performed as if they were not acting for an audience, allowing their back to face the spectators. Furthermore, they did not use the full space of a stage or project their voice; rather they spoke huddled close together as one would talk with a friend in the intimacy of a home. While all of these aspects helped construct the idea of realism, they did not evoke sympathy or create an emotional connection with the audience. This could be because of the particular actors, however the style is responsible as well. The stark separation between the audience and the actors made those watching feel less connected with actors, because they were fully aware of the gap between their ‘true’ reality and the reality the actors portrayed. Additionally, when the actors bunched together to talk it was difficult for the audience to perceive the relationship between the actors. For instance, in the beginning of the play, the entire family was gathered on downstage right, not giving the audience a clear explanation of who these characters were. In these two cases, the issues that erupt from trying to make the play realistic were far more detrimental to understanding the social commentary than helpful.
On the other hand, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time directed by Marianne Elliott, was not trying to replicate reality, yet was enjoyable and thought provoking. The play was staged in a proscenium theatre where the set designer Bunny Christie created a space that gave the ambiance of a Tetris and a computer motherboard, made of a gridded pattern with flashing lights. Fully aware that depicting the mind of an autistic boy would be difficult, Christie did not strive for reality. Instead she constructed a set that symbolized Christopher John Francis Boone’s, the boy’s mind. The acting followed a similar suit with the way the way Christopher’s feelings were portrayed. For instance, when Christopher went through a panic attack the digital screen portrayed an explosion of numbers and the music was a mixture of cacophonous sounds. Furthermore, the movement directors, Scott Graham and Steven Hoggett, glided Christopher across the stage using other actors to twist and turn him in slow motion to symbolize his confusion about the rest of the world. Through figurative means these directors and designers represented the mind of an autistic boy far better than if they had attempted to use verbatim realism. Furthermore, the representative nature of the depiction allowed for multiple interpretations from the audience. Another spectator could have thought that Christopher’s movements were structured as a way of demonstrating how he was easily manipulated by outside forces because of his disability. Regardless of the ‘correct’ interpretation the point is this type of play allowed for interpretation.
Naturalism and Realism’s attempt to create reality was ineffective. Reality can never truly be recreated and thus the endeavour to do so detracted from the message of the play as seen in the rendition of The Cherry Orchard. On the other hand, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time demonstrated the use of symbols not only gave the audience a better understanding of the playwright’s meaning, but also allowed them to think and create meaning for themselves.
Works Cited
Aston A. & Savona G., Theatre as Sign System, London: Routledge 1991
Counsell C., Signs of Performance, London: Routledge 1996
Yannas, Ellie, Overview of Western Theatre, 2014.
Styan J.L. Modern drama in theory and practice (Vols l and 2), Cambridge University Press 198l
Hartnell P., The Theatre – A Concise History, London: Thames and Hudson 1991
Leave a Reply