Theatre criticism: Where the critics are struggling to analyse contemporary theatre
|
Budha Chingtham
We have many performance critics. They may be men or women. They are trying to analyse this form of art by examining the performance where they highlight the pros and cons of it. They are pursuing their work with seriousness. Both experienced and novice critics are in pursuit of this field. There are also some specialists of performance and critics who are attempting to come up with a new theory or an approach of analysing a performance or are applying latest performance theories. However, a question can be raised here. Does anyone has the ability to go deeper into a work of art? Can anyone become a critic? Some might say ‘Yes’.But here let me quote the lines from the celebrated play of Shakespeare, “A Mid-summer Night’s Dream” which has intrigued the minds of many, “The eye of man hath not heard, the ear of man hath not seen, man’s hand is not able to tast, his tongue to conceive, nor heart to report, what my dream was.”
The above few lines are like the guiding light to those who are continuously working on art, aesthetics and creativity. It is because it will be difficult for a person who does not have the heart for art to find aesthetic beauty in a work of art. In short, we can say, “…the artistic dream is quite impossible to appreciate without an artistic heart.”
In the field of theatre, Manipur is a state that is contributing and leading not only in India but across the globe. The state is home to world class theatre actors and directors. While establishing such an impactful Manipuri theatre one cannot elude the need for good theatre critics. Many good critics had been contributing and they still are.
Unfortunately, revered Oja Nilakanta, Oja Damudor and so on who had occupied important positions as critics are no more. Along with its critics, Manipuri theatre is moving continuously towards experimental theatre. The challenges that the critics are facing are soaring. The theatre critics are struggling to keep up with the highly experimental theatre. They seem to be unable to be in the same pace with our playwrights, artists and the new productions. There comes a situation where the critics seem unable to find insights of the literary work and where the critics and the directors are looking at different directions. Because of the above mentioned reasons, the critics should be well aware that it is high time to make preparations to produce good critics to pave ways for the production of good performances.
The major problem that the contemporary critics are facing is how to assess and analyse experimental performances. We are witnessing a few theatre directors who are experts as well as who have their own philosophy of theatre. These four or five theatre directors’ play productions cannot be critically analysed based on the conventional yardsticks unless the critics look through the lens of their theories, philosophy and experiments. The traditional way of performance analysis where they simply say, “I really liked that” or “I was bored” are long gone. If the performance specialists or the critics do not go hand in hand with the current major theories, then their critique will have no value. So, they have be well verse with the relevant theories. If such criteria is not established, anyone would come up and pose as a theatre critic. Thus, the need arises to have clear instructions to develop adequate performance theory and adequate performance criticism.
The term, “theatre criticism” covers many elements of analysis. It is impossible to give full justice to every aspects of “theatre criticism”. In my opinion, the objective of a theatre critic should be either to appreciate a theatrical work by highlighting the merits or to point out its demerits. A critic has to display the different layers of interpretation of a work, to surface the underlying themes through his or her interpretations, to experiment with new theories and philosophies and make such interpretations accessible to the larger audience. In short, a critic plays an indispensable role in the interpretation of a play. Only when a good critic provides a deep interpretation to a play, can the audience fully enjoy and cherish the play production. Here, I would like to mention that there are different forms and types of theatre criticism. Before I discuss the different forms and types, there were instances where in the field of “theatre criticism”, the critics are found to be going astray from the conventions of effective journalistic criticism and were pursuing their own forms of criticisms.
There were occasions where the new revolutions of drama in France ( Existentialist drama), America (New Realism of Arthur Miller), Germany (Epic theatre of Brecht) and the new dimensions in political (Marxist Criticism), social (Feminist Criticism), formal criticism (matters of form, structure and so on), context criticism (matters of idea, metaphor) are not interpreted properly. The same situation was encountered in terms of vocabulary and dramatic action. In Europe, with the emergence of distinguished critics who had gained practical experience in stage for instance, Kenneth Tynan, an actor and a director, Martin Esslin and their approach in the analysis of Post war drama had a tremendous impact on European theatre and they take European theatre on a new route.
What should intrigue the critics is to delve into how Kenneth Tynan could uncover the new theatrical movements. The qualities or the theatrical qualifications that Kenneth possesses can be put under scrutiny in connection to what has been discussed earlier. First, he is a great actor. Second, he is an excellent director. He is a skilled designer and an efficient dramatist. In addition to all these, he is also a theorist. For these reasons, he could easily dive into the recesses of the experimental movement of theatre and decode the latent features of such plays. So, in order to become a good critic in today’s time, one has to look into the experimental performance through the lens of Kenneth. For instance, an experimental play cannot be analysed with the same parameters used for the conventional plays. That is why it is said that experimental theatre is truly heretical. This form of theatre enables the theatre makers to work freely. In lieu of this, what different experimental performances are facing are unrelated action and movement, audience as participant/ performer, non-narrative structure using an interdisciplinary collage of dance, multiplicity of meaning, interdisciplinary performance, multicultural casting, the metaphor newly invented, digitized through multi layers of text, the emphasis on inner vision, distortion and aggressive expression, symbolic overtones, metaphysical statement. Not only these, the critics are also struggling with the immense theatrical imaginations.
Thus, today what the theatre critic is dealing with are multiplication of theories of drama and performance. The major current theories that can be cited are Semiotics (study of signs), Deconstruction (the close analysis of text of performance to reveal multiple layers of meanings), Feminist theory (to define a feminist aesthetic), Lacanism (psychoanalytic theory). one certainly needs to have some knowledge of semiology, traditional anthropology, neurophysiology and psychology to assess the immensely varied plays. The task of a critic now is to find out which major current theory should be used to analyse an experimental play. This does not mean that such form of analysis can be applied to any director. The vigorous experimental directors who have presented non-realistic production to the world like Robert Wilson, Robert Woodruff, Anne Borgart can be critically assessed using the current major theories. In Manipur too, only a few four or five experimental directors can be examined through the same lens. Even in terms of actors, there are only a few actors who can be semiotically analysed. It is really difficult to find actors who are at ease with the energy in tune with new rhythms in body shaped by the muscles tones (which is a modification based on psychological factors). There are indeed many actors. However, they fail to do justice. They cannot explain why they are doing so and why the director is making them do so. We have many more to learn from world class directors. They are very clear with their theory, their philosophy and their experiment. Sometimes, critics could hardly interpret their works. Sometimes, learned critics from across the world interpret their works in international festival.
Digressing from what has been discussed so far, technically, what “theatre criticism” stands for or what its definition is, it is “any written or oral response.” The way a group of experts discussed the pros and cons, the merits and demerits of a play which is not recorded in written form is also a form of theatre criticism. There are three types in written form. The first form is the detailed study of the play (analytical or critical endeavour). Such analysis in book form of criticism is very rare. This includes historical overview, biographical sketch, documentary or descriptive text. So, it requires in-depth explanation and it is time consuming. The second form is the shorter form such as essays, journals, book chapters, where the discussion is made in brief. The third form of theatre criticism is the space or sections in newspapers dedicated to such criticism. Simply put, it is called newspaper review. To be contd
We have many performance critics. They may be men or women. They are trying to analyse this form of art by examining the performance where they highlight the pros and cons of it. They are pursuing their work with seriousness. Both experienced and novice critics are in pursuit of this field. There are also some specialists of performance and critics who are attempting to come up with a new theory or an approach of analysing a performance or are applying latest performance theories. However, a question can be raised here. Does anyone has the ability to go deeper into a work of art? Can anyone become a critic? Some might say ‘Yes’.But here let me quote the lines from the celebrated play of Shakespeare, “A Mid-summer Night’s Dream” which has intrigued the minds of many, “The eye of man hath not heard, the ear of man hath not seen, man’s hand is not able to tast, his tongue to conceive, nor heart to report, what my dream was.”
The above few lines are like the guiding light to those who are continuously working on art, aesthetics and creativity. It is because it will be difficult for a person who does not have the heart for art to find aesthetic beauty in a work of art. In short, we can say, “…the artistic dream is quite impossible to appreciate without an artistic heart.”
In the field of theatre, Manipur is a state that is contributing and leading not only in India but across the globe. The state is home to world class theatre actors and directors. While establishing such an impactful Manipuri theatre one cannot elude the need for good theatre critics. Many good critics had been contributing and they still are.
Unfortunately, revered Oja Nilakanta, Oja Damudor and so on who had occupied important positions as critics are no more. Along with its critics, Manipuri theatre is moving continuously towards experimental theatre. The challenges that the critics are facing are soaring. The theatre critics are struggling to keep up with the highly experimental theatre. They seem to be unable to be in the same pace with our playwrights, artists and the new productions. There comes a situation where the critics seem unable to find insights of the literary work and where the critics and the directors are looking at different directions. Because of the above mentioned reasons, the critics should be well aware that it is high time to make preparations to produce good critics to pave ways for the production of good performances.
The major problem that the contemporary critics are facing is how to assess and analyse experimental performances. We are witnessing a few theatre directors who are experts as well as who have their own philosophy of theatre. These four or five theatre directors’ play productions cannot be critically analysed based on the conventional yardsticks unless the critics look through the lens of their theories, philosophy and experiments. The traditional way of performance analysis where they simply say, “I really liked that” or “I was bored” are long gone. If the performance specialists or the critics do not go hand in hand with the current major theories, then their critique will have no value. So, they have be well verse with the relevant theories. If such criteria is not established, anyone would come up and pose as a theatre critic. Thus, the need arises to have clear instructions to develop adequate performance theory and adequate performance criticism.
The term, “theatre criticism” covers many elements of analysis. It is impossible to give full justice to every aspects of “theatre criticism”. In my opinion, the objective of a theatre critic should be either to appreciate a theatrical work by highlighting the merits or to point out its demerits. A critic has to display the different layers of interpretation of a work, to surface the underlying themes through his or her interpretations, to experiment with new theories and philosophies and make such interpretations accessible to the larger audience. In short, a critic plays an indispensable role in the interpretation of a play. Only when a good critic provides a deep interpretation to a play, can the audience fully enjoy and cherish the play production. Here, I would like to mention that there are different forms and types of theatre criticism. Before I discuss the different forms and types, there were instances where in the field of “theatre criticism”, the critics are found to be going astray from the conventions of effective journalistic criticism and were pursuing their own forms of criticisms.
There were occasions where the new revolutions of drama in France ( Existentialist drama), America (New Realism of Arthur Miller), Germany (Epic theatre of Brecht) and the new dimensions in political (Marxist Criticism), social (Feminist Criticism), formal criticism (matters of form, structure and so on), context criticism (matters of idea, metaphor) are not interpreted properly. The same situation was encountered in terms of vocabulary and dramatic action. In Europe, with the emergence of distinguished critics who had gained practical experience in stage for instance, Kenneth Tynan, an actor and a director, Martin Esslin and their approach in the analysis of Post war drama had a tremendous impact on European theatre and they take European theatre on a new route.
What should intrigue the critics is to delve into how Kenneth Tynan could uncover the new theatrical movements. The qualities or the theatrical qualifications that Kenneth possesses can be put under scrutiny in connection to what has been discussed earlier. First, he is a great actor. Second, he is an excellent director. He is a skilled designer and an efficient dramatist. In addition to all these, he is also a theorist. For these reasons, he could easily dive into the recesses of the experimental movement of theatre and decode the latent features of such plays. So, in order to become a good critic in today’s time, one has to look into the experimental performance through the lens of Kenneth. For instance, an experimental play cannot be analysed with the same parameters used for the conventional plays. That is why it is said that experimental theatre is truly heretical. This form of theatre enables the theatre makers to work freely. In lieu of this, what different experimental performances are facing are unrelated action and movement, audience as participant/ performer, non-narrative structure using an interdisciplinary collage of dance, multiplicity of meaning, interdisciplinary performance, multicultural casting, the metaphor newly invented, digitized through multi layers of text, the emphasis on inner vision, distortion and aggressive expression, symbolic overtones, metaphysical statement. Not only these, the critics are also struggling with the immense theatrical imaginations.
Thus, today what the theatre critic is dealing with are multiplication of theories of drama and performance. The major current theories that can be cited are Semiotics (study of signs), Deconstruction (the close analysis of text of performance to reveal multiple layers of meanings), Feminist theory (to define a feminist aesthetic), Lacanism (psychoanalytic theory). one certainly needs to have some knowledge of semiology, traditional anthropology, neurophysiology and psychology to assess the immensely varied plays. The task of a critic now is to find out which major current theory should be used to analyse an experimental play. This does not mean that such form of analysis can be applied to any director. The vigorous experimental directors who have presented non-realistic production to the world like Robert Wilson, Robert Woodruff, Anne Borgart can be critically assessed using the current major theories. In Manipur too, only a few four or five experimental directors can be examined through the same lens. Even in terms of actors, there are only a few actors who can be semiotically analysed. It is really difficult to find actors who are at ease with the energy in tune with new rhythms in body shaped by the muscles tones (which is a modification based on psychological factors). There are indeed many actors. However, they fail to do justice. They cannot explain why they are doing so and why the director is making them do so. We have many more to learn from world class directors. They are very clear with their theory, their philosophy and their experiment. Sometimes, critics could hardly interpret their works. Sometimes, learned critics from across the world interpret their works in international festival.
Digressing from what has been discussed so far, technically, what “theatre criticism” stands for or what its definition is, it is “any written or oral response.” The way a group of experts discussed the pros and cons, the merits and demerits of a play which is not recorded in written form is also a form of theatre criticism. There are three types in written form. The first form is the detailed study of the play (analytical or critical endeavour). Such analysis in book form of criticism is very rare. This includes historical overview, biographical sketch, documentary or descriptive text. So, it requires in-depth explanation and it is time consuming. The second form is the shorter form such as essays, journals, book chapters, where the discussion is made in brief. The third form of theatre criticism is the space or sections in newspapers dedicated to such criticism. Simply put, it is called newspaper review. To be contd