Andrea – came across a quandary while reading the Davis
excerpt: the chapter establishes that the thing affecting a spectator is a
sense of ‘doubleness,’ that there exists both the actual viewing of the spectacle
and the cognizance a spectator has of doing that viewing; From personal
experience, Andrea noted that she is most affected when she loses herself in
the spectacle, not when she is distanced from it. What are other class members’
perspectives? Are you more likely to leave a performance charged for action if
you have been totally absorbed in the event, or if you have been critically
distanced?
Courtney – this question brings to mind Justin’s blog post: can
we turn sympathy on/off as a switch? Davis doesn’t confront such a situation in
spectacles; reminded of Handke and a sense of not feeling sympathy
Derek – reminded of Kelly’s blog post, which pointed out the
Diderot quote, calling into question how much an actor’s feeling is connected
to the presentation of successful performances; suppose this is complicated as
it would vary from piece to piece.
Sara – Davis doesn’t concern herself with the playwright’s
intent; we can and should; lately, have been thinking about lucid dreaming and
the notion that people want to have lucid dreams, so they start looking for
clues as they sleep in order to create such experiences; a spectator may do the
same thing; reminded of doing this while viewing the Republican National
Convention – noticed a clock and sign saying “we built that”, signs which
clearly espoused the party’s core themes in the election; However, a glitch in
the televised action called attention to these elements as political
signs/tools, breaking the illusion of the event, calling attention to the
propaganda
Derek – wondered if that experience came about because Sara
was not the target audience for the party’s emblems
Whitney – does identifying with the event affect how well
individuals might distance themselves from the event; for example, in
witnessing a play concerning a character with a dying relative, are spectators
with similar experiences more likely or less likely to become entranced by the
performance? (is it more difficult to switch off sympathy if you share the
experience?)
Jess – it is a very difficult question, as it is a very
personal/individual reaction; reminded of the last sentence from Sara’s blog
post, “The only way to do harm to the oppressive regime of the spectacle, Davis
might say, is to be always aware of it”; However, most audience members aren’t
aware of the spectacle, view it purely as escapism
Ellen – Theatricality is not dependent on an absence of leisure
and it doesn’t have to be political; can you think of examples of such
situations?
Derek – Not sure; recently saw American Idiot and never felt the trance during the performance;
may be due to a late arrival, but more likely due to the insanity of
production; unsure what the playwright and director’s intentions may have been;
were they trying to be jarring?; a program note indicated that they wanted to
be innovative, but that seems to be a common goal today; the performance merely
came across as loud - in every sense.
Jess – Ron Wainscott saw American
Idiot in New York and said it ‘transported him’; was surprised by this
reaction - is a performance deemed successful if it conforms to a person’s
expectations of the event?
Derek – Didn’t have any expectations for the show, so it is
impossible to answer in this instance
Sara – Did American
Idiot feel like a concert?; wonder if engagement is dependent on empathetic
response or if it is possible when an event is solely experiential?
Derek – not sure; American
Idiot was very concert-like with complicated lighting and a set littered
with garbage and numerous functioning television sets; there was a story
related through songs and brief moments of dialogue; it was fun to watch, but
demanded audience members to work hard to figure out what was going on; other spectators
appeared to be pleased with the performance during intermission, but admitted that
they didn’t follow the show’s details all that well either
Sara – were you upset about not identifying with the story?
Derek – No; identification may have been possible by working
to remember college angst; although it might be possible, not sure if it would
be worth the effort
Whitney – is this somewhat different from distance alluded
to by Davis? Is she concerned solely with a feeling of alienation from the
spectacle or does alienation from the other spectators also carry significance
for theatricality?
Derek – this idea touches on a point Ming brought up in one
of her blog comments concerning collective viewing
Ming – does collective viewing include sincerity? What do we
need to have the trance take effect?
Ellen – this is where Artaud and Brecht appear to be most at
odds with each other; Brecht focused on eliciting a political
self-consciousness and saw a surfeit of identification as a major problem;
Artaud saw trance as the ability to connect in a different manner than normal
day-to-day mentality; reminded of Kelly’s blog post – as Davis points out,
theatricality is against apathetic realism, but Brecht would do the same; What
are possible positive attributes of the trance state?; “Theaters sponsor a
private encounter within the public realm, and so each person who has been bored
or tormented by the play has felt the impact of that boredom or torment
precisely in the area most sacrosanct within classic liberal doctrine – the
private space. The play becomes a seizure of freedom, not a liberation” (quote
by W.D. King, p. 137); Davis suggests this as the unfortunate theatrical norm
Derek – interested in what Davis terms “the communal act of
viewing” (p. 137); in relation to American
Idiot, could tell if audience collectively approved of a moment through the
quality of applause; its members were seemingly consciously approving as part
of a public display
Amy – noted that a very real tension exists between trance
and theatricality; by verbalizing/physicalizing agreement, one joins with the
audience; to do this you have to have awareness of the audience, as well as the
spectacle; the social significance of public membership is policing the trance;
in a bizarre way it calls attention to the trance but also reinforces the
collective need/desire for the trance
Jenna – reminded of Clint Eastwood’s recent appearance at
the Republican National Convention; although moments for standing and cheering
are generally a prescripted process at such an event, here the audience struggled;
their struggle was especially evident when actor John Voigt was mentioned as a
prominent Republican and when Paul Ryan was caught on camera speaking with his
wife with a questioning look on his face, then immediately changed to cheers
when she nudged him, letting him know he was on camera; these moments highlight
the disconnect between a private reaction when it is displayed in a public
space and it does not match the expected communal reaction
Jennifer – noted Davis’s mention of the French Revolution and
authority’s made use of the audience trance to gauge unity, which is a rather
frightening notion and can see why people would want to break the trance
Jess – we can also begin to see how spectacle creates
community, how a mob mentality comes into play; people go along with the
spectacle in order to not stand out from their neighbors
Sara – related to the concert atmosphere we often attribute
to Artaud’s theories, which is meant to demolish a sense of individuality; this
suddenly becomes important when codes are successful (or not); points to why Clint
Eastwood moment was significant; it broke tradition by explicitly introducing
theatricality to an event – suddenly more authentic because of its inauthenticity;
the moment shifted audience expectations and changed and changed the atmosphere
of the room
Amy – clearly, political examples are most at hand; as soon
as props and other characters are introduced, spectators are taken to a
heightened sense of spectating.
Ellen – one more item before we leave the notion of boredom:
it seems to break a contract between the spectator and the thing viewed; you’re
supposed to be transported by the event; What if you aren’t transported?; being
bored is not a response you’re supposed to experience, thus a break with
convention has taken place
Ellen/Amy – Davis relies on weird rhetorical strategies, but
how is she defining theatricality?; in particular, notice Table 5.2, where
Davis tracks her own definition of theatricality for the OED; she presents a way of
correcting errors by historicizing theatricality; to understand what theatricality
means we need to get rid of our assumptions, both historical and philosophical
Ellen – an immediate problem arises with Davis’s definition:
Dedoublement and its ambiguous meaning; Why not use the term splitting?;
Dedoublement carries more nuances than splitting, what do those seem to be?
Derek – dedoublement is a way of equating theatricality to
acting or the nature of acting
Ellen – on page 141, Davis references D. Marshall, who talks
about performance and theatricality from a literary point-of-view
Jennifer – dedoublement carries notion that a person becomes
aware that they are both the person watching and the person who they are
Ellen – to understand a person’s use of the term, you need
to place that individuals sentiments in the context of their historical time;
there is a disconnect between what we feel and what was felt by previous users
of words; Dedoublement accounts for the self-splitting that is necessary (i.e.
Carlyle and his wife)
Amy – looking at theatricality from a material perspective: consider
performances by Slim Shady and Lady Gaga, especially think of the display of
hundreds of Slim Shady look-alikes at the MTV music awards; these performances
forces us to take a new perspective on the performance - we look both out of
desire to view but also for the alternate possibility (an awareness of our own
reaction); any time elements cause emotional reactions, that is in large part
from being in that spectating position
Jess – love Lady Gaga; enjoy the performance but also understand
the flouting of convention
Amy – breaking the trance is not about not enjoying
the performance, it is simply a recognition of the meaning making
Ellen – theatricality should not be related to ostentatiousness;
theatricality is a choice by the audience; pleasure taking in artifice
(Brecht); cure comes from performance, but volition is from audience; American Idiot is not your grandma’s
Broadway, but “we” don’t feel it’s avant-garde - it doesn’t make theatricality
Amy – from the materialist view, consider touring shows,
which are many steps removed from original thing that made it alive
Courtney – How do you step back from a performance if the
point of the performance is to step back?
Amy – Davis is not equating theatricality with emotion; the
theatre she is rallying against is that which we identify with – where we know
what’s happening because of emotional resonance
Courtney – we must keep in mind that Davis is not just
talking about theatre, but life in general; unfortunately, her argument is just
too slippery
Sara – interesting to look at the snippet of Table of
Contents – What is Davis’s project?; Has she failed by allowing other chapters
into the book by other scholars; easy to identify what her project is not, but
not what project actually is
Ellen – compare Davis’s attempt to define theatricality with
Jackson’s attempt to elucidate performativity; how can you control how others
will contradict her?; In effect, Davis is preaching to the choir; we
collectively need to be more careful in how we use our terms; was the use of
the Clinton impeachment hearings successful in Davis’s argument?
Courtney – the event was too staged to make the connection
Ellen – Davis’s use of theory can be very off-handed, making
her allusions difficult for the uninitiated reader; per the Clinton example,
the public shares in simultaneous enjoyment and disgust in the process; holding
two ideas at once in one’s head is crucial to how theatricality works in the
world; How well can the example be extrapolated?; Do we need more examples that
aren’t arising from politics?;
What is it to have theatricality activated without having
critique activated?
Jennifer – this question brings to mind Roach and memorials; consider an officiate at a funeral or wedding – the person will be torn apart, this appears to be a non-academic way of engaging or critically looking at a spectacle that is not political
Ellen – Boredom is apolitical, so King is a strong example;
resistance may be called theatricality; it is not a critique of the overall
social structure; theatricality may be something we want to tinker with more,
especially extrapolating it to the social realm
No comments:
Post a Comment