HowlRound: I’d like to take this opportunity to discuss what I’ve come to call Fightaturgy; the dramaturgical revelations brought out by the violence and related movement implied in a play text and how this might play out in articulating character journey throughout a play.
Fightaturgy matters. Because it’s the moments of violence on stage that are among the most direct expressions of conflict and objective, and because if they’re done well and are dramatically motivated, these are moments that you know the audience is leaning forward in their seats. This goes as much for a slap as it does for a duel to the death.
3 comments:
I think that when any form of conflict exists in a production (which is practically always), this conflict involves dramaturgy and must be handled carefully. Stage violence, to me, calls for an obvious need for dramaturgy. The only thing that surprises me is how much the violence can dictate a character's actions in a play. I think that violence, both in theatre and in the real world, impacts the way humans act at all times. For plays that exist in extremely violent settings, the characters are going to act in a very specific way. Also, violence often is associated in some way with culture. Sometimes, violence defines a culture altogether. It is very important that all members of a cast and creative team understand the specific type of violence in a play, and the way that violence forces the characters to interact with themselves, each other, and the play as a whole.
"It is my own feeling that consistency and dramatic effectiveness trump historical accuracy, but specific choices must be made by the performers and production staff."
This quote is fascinating, because as I was reading the article, I kept thinking, yes, it's interesting that it means different things when an actor has his japanese sword on the left or the right, but will the audience really understand that? Perhaps it will help the actor psychologically, but if it doesn't, then does it really matter? The quote above clarified this for me, because it points out that while we should aim to put on historically accurate productions, the most effective choices on stage may not be congruent with historically accurate details. It's a trade-off. In most cases, honestly, I doubt that the audience would even notice.
I appreciate this author's efforts to explain why violence is more than violence itself. The intentions behind violence and the cultural implications of different violent acts can have a huge effect on how actors play the violence and how the audience perceives it. I'm sure that playwrights would appreciate this article, because they don't just put violence in their plays because they can. (I'm not sure that the same can be said for movies, but that's a whole different story.) This is a great example of how thorough dramaturgical research can enhance a production for both performers and their audiences.
This article points to some really crucial points about both dramaturgy and stage combat. Violence is informed by the culture in which it occurs, so dramaturgy is crucial to staging. The author claims to be of the mindset that "consistency and dramatic effectiveness trump historical accuracy." Though I agree that there are situations where this is true, the point that is being missed here is that the historical facts and cultural details are meant to inspire the artistic process by giving an insight to the real context. There is much more gray area than the author implies.
Post a Comment