Introduction
It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors.
—Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray
This is a book about modern British and American drama, the sense of theatricality it demands, and the audience it both reflects and creates. Indeed, the burden of the argument here is really about this audience, about how modern drama and theater work to frame the audience's experience and to characterize its interpretive activities as an audience—to cast the spectators, so to speak, as part of the spectacle.
In the pages that follow I argue that the meanings of modern drama cannot be fully seized without considering how those meanings are produced as theater. For in the theater, drama can speak only through the practices of acting and directing, the construction of the material space of the mise-en-scène, and the arrangement and disposition of the audience. We often think of these activities as free and unconstrained, as based on the unique insights of the theater's practitioners. In practice, though, the theater's ways of producing texts on the stage tend to be highly formal; despite the range of personal "choice" that appears in any production, such choices emerge within the theater's systematic ways of putting the drama into play. Not only are these practices specific to a given moment in history, they also have a manifestly rhetorical dimension. The theater works to claim a certain kind of meaning for the drama by claiming—even legitimating—a certain kind of experience for the audience as significant. The rhetoric of theater, that is, frames a relationship between the drama, stage production, and audience interpretation, and it is within that relationship that our experience as an audience takes place.
The rhetoric of theater should be grasped not in terms of a specific production, a given corpus of dramatic texts, or even features
of theatrical style, but as what Kenneth Burke calls "a general body of identifications " (Rhetoric 26).[1] The rhetoric of theater is not present in the dramatic action, nor in individual stage productions, but defines the intersection between the text and the institutions that make it producible—and so, readable—in the practices of the stage. Let me take stage acting as an example of how we might think about this rhetoric. Stage acting relies on a variety of techniques embedded in theatrical training and performance for asserting a fictive character, ways of identifying the dramatic role and its actions as a character through a range of specifically theatrical behaviors; this is what we generally call acting style .[2] Style in this sense is not just an inert body of vocal and gestural conventions. Instead, style embraces the entire network of disciplines that make acting meaningful in the theater: conventions of movement, bodily carriage, gesture, vocal intonation, facial inflection, language, costuming, and so on. The actor performs an actual, physical activity onstage that signals the fictive actions of a "character." The rhetoric of acting intervenes as the complex of attitudes, assumptions, and habits of interpretation that makes this particular kind of assertion possible, and that invites the audience to read these two behaviors in certain kinds of ways.[3] David Garrick, Henry Irving, and Laurence Olivier each invoked a different behavioral rhetoric, stage
[1] Burke's influence on studies of modern drama is well known, and is particularly keen in the work of States and of Donoghue. More recently, Bruce A. McConachie has amplified Burke's connection to stage performance, arguing that in theatrical performance, "Burke's range of identifications includes all the primary means playwrights, directors, designers, and actors use to involve and persuade their audiences of the legitimacy of certain kinds of actions" (46). In this exemplary reading of Burke, McConachie reduces the "hegemonic we" that such rhetoric tries to produce to an identification with or against the actions performed by a given character or characters in the drama, sharply limiting the kinds of identifying processes that we can conceive as part of the theater's rhetoric.
[2] For a fine discussion of the relationship between the discipline of the body and theatrical interpretation, see Roach, "Power's Body."
[3] Anne Ubersfeld describes the relation between the dramatic fiction and the material reality of the theater in L'école du spectateur: the actor "intervient dans la fiction et en ce sens, il réfère à un ailleurs, à une absence"; yet at the same time, "il se livre, sur la scène et devant nous, à une activité concrète en présence d'autres êtres humains, activité qui est de l'ordre de la performance. Ces deux activités sont liées sans qu'on puisse les confondre" (167).
acting that not only conveyed markedly different ideas of action, character, and meaning, but also required different acts of attention from their audiences. Training and technique provide the performer with a paradigm both for interpreting the role (discovering how it is "actable") and for representing it as theater. The rhetoric of acting frames our reading of the actor's performance, and so the kind of "character" we can discover there.
The rhetorical character of acting is relatively plain to see—more plain, certainly, than the activities of the audience. Much of this book will work to expose the similar rhetoricity of our performance in the modern theater, to ask how the audience's material and ideological positioning by theatrical performance inflects its interpretive behavior, its ways of seeing the fictions of the drama onstage. The modern theater's history of innovation is directly concerned with producing a certain kind of experience for the audience, and so with producing the audience itself. As Austin E. Quigley suggests, this history describes a movement "away from a nineteenth-century tradition that gave priority to entertaining and instructing audiences" and toward "a modern tradition"
that gives priority to offering audience members the opportunity to participate in a particular mode of social inquiry. Such participation requires audience members to respond to the challenge of reconsidering their role as audience as a first step in reconsidering the nature of the theatre and the nature of the larger worlds in which they and it participate.
(52–53)
Quigley's impressive reading of the interpretive and epistemological horizons offered and subverted by the modern drama, like fine recent studies by Thomas R. Whitaker and Benjamin Bennett, reflects an increasing interest in seeing the audience's performance as part of the meaning of drama.[4] The spectator emerges as a partici-
[4] See Whitaker, Fields of Play in Modern Drama, and Bennett, Modern Drama and German Classicism and Theater as Problem: Modern Drama and Its Place in Literature . By suggesting that these studies—the most searching studies of modern drama in the past two decades—take a somewhat metaphorical or ideal perspective on theatrical production, I may seem to cavil with work that has done much to spur and inform my reading of modern theatricality, and to which I am in various ways gratefully indebted. I should also note here a more general indebtedness to Bert O. States, Great Reckonings in Little Rooms; to the relationship between dramatic action andstage activity developed by Bernard Beckerman, Dynamics of Drama; and to Michael Goldman's presentation of acting in The Actor's Freedom . See also John Peter's discussion of open and closed theatricality in Vladimir's Carrot .
pant in a variety of ways, though, and how the spectator's mode of inquiry is channeled depends in large measure on the rhetoric of stage production. Anne Ubersfeld remarks that the spectator is "le sujet d'un faire , l'artisan d'un pratique qui s'articule perpétuellement avec les pratiques scéniques" (L'école 303). Much as actors represent "characters," individuals are transformed into "spectators" through a specifically theatrical making and doing. Their affective and interpretive behavior is shaped not only by the drama but by the machinery of theatrical representation working on the drama and on them.
Thematic readings of the spectator are corrected to some extent by more symbolic inquiries into the theoretical status of an audience (such as Herbert Blau's luminous study, The Audience ), and by phenomenological readings of stage production, like Bert O. States's Great Reckonings in Little Rooms . The spectator also figures prominently in theater semiotics, which tries to to locate the spectator's perception as a response to the theater's verbal and nonverbal "languages." The rigor implied by the quasi-linguistic methods of theater semiotics has proven elusive, in part because the analogy between stage signification and the working of language is only that—a rich, provocative analogy. The promise of theater semiotics has foundered on the fact that the theater's meanings arise in a congeries of signifying formalities that is too multiplex, indeterminate, and unsystematic in its "lexicon," "grammar," and "syntax" to be readily reduced to the model provided by verbal language.[5] Yet theater semiotics alerts us to an important truth about meaning in the theater: meaning arises not through a given production's direct reference to an external world, but through the production's assertion of a set of available signifiers from the field of stylistic possibilities. Even when a production's style most claims its likeness to life, it is marked by its difference from other stylistic resources that might have been used. In this limited sense, the various rhetorical modes of modern theatrical production function like signs. The meaning of
[5] For a shrewd reading of theater semiotics, see Bennett, Theater as Problem 9–13.
a given ensemble of practices and effects is discerned not by reference to the world it represents, but by its difference from other ensembles, other rhetorical modes.
Of course, thematic, symbolic, phenomenological, and semiotic approaches to the audience's share in dramatic performance have charted many of the problems I want to raise here, and I have frequently incorporated their insights in the argument that follows. In considering the theater as a rhetorical arena, however, I attempt to avoid these ways of describing the audience in favor of asking how the theater produces and qualifies the position(s) the audience comes to occupy. Drama in production defines and legitimates a certain range of interpretive behavior and experience as the role the audience performs—this is what I take to be the rhetoric of theater. This book examines some of the rhetorical practices that stage the modern drama in the modern theater and in its audience. I address three ways of organizing the relationship between the drama, its staging, and the audience it creates, which I call the rhetoric of realism, the rhetoric of poetic theater, and the rhetoric of political theater. This taxonomy is not meant to be exhaustive, but to help map three critical modes of theatrical production in the twentieth century, and three modes of audience engagement as well. Each mode locates the meaning of theater in relation to a different aspect of theatrical signification. The rhetoric of realism frames dramatic meaning as a function of the integrated stage scene; poetic theater uses the poet's text, the word , to determine the contours of the spectacle and the experience of the audience; and contemporary political theater works to dramatize the theatrical subjection of the spectator as a part of its political action.
As a performance rhetoric, modern theatrical realism embraces several dramatic genres—experimental naturalism, modern realism, expressionism, the theater of the absurd—that stage the text within its rhetorical priorities: a proscenium stage, often implying a box set; a fourth wall discriminating between stage and audience; objects that both constitute and express character and action; the necessary erasure of the activities of production from the realm of the audience's legitimate interpretation. The rhetoric of realism opposes the visible and integrated scene onstage to the invisible, indeterminable, absent scene of the spectator's interpretation. As Teddy puts it in Harold Pinter's The Homecoming , "It's a way of
being able to look at the world. It's a question of how far you can operate on things and not in things" (61). The rhetoric of realistic theater ascribes particular qualities, forms of action, and kinds of power to the visible stage and to the invisible audience. This rhetoric, I argue, relates offstage observation to staged activity, naturalizing the behavioral and social stratifications of bourgeois society and transforming them into the relations of "objectivity" that characterize its theatrical style. In the first chapter, "Theater and the Scene of Vision," I describe the origin of this rhetoric in the theory of stage and literary naturalism and suggest how naturalism appropriated the technology of the nineteenth-century theater and gave it a sustaining ideological coherence. I then turn to an important dramatic form at the turn of the century—problem drama, particularly the "fallen woman" play. This drama phrases class and gender problems as problems of visibility. The means (acting/spectating) and the relations (onstage/offstage) of realistic theatricality become, in these plays, the instruments of social control, explicitly duplicating and clarifying the work they perform in the theater itself.
In the second chapter, "Actors and Objects," I redefine the realistic drama's thematic focus on character and environment in terms of stage production, as a function of the relationship between acting and objects on the stage. The formal experimentation of modern drama is often traced by the rhetoric of realism it attempts to displace, and by considering the stage's construction of actors and objects, we can see that the more material the stage becomes, the more consistently it assigns explanatory power to mystified and indecipherable causes: to the romantic interiority of "character" developed by acting in the Stanislavski/Method mode, and to the private freedom of the spectator's consciousness, observing from the offstage environs of the auditorium. The apparent differences between expressionism and documentary realism—between Eugene O'Neill's masked plays and Elmer Rice's Adding Machine , on the one hand, and Street Scene, Dead End , and Long Day's Journey Into Night , on the other—turn out to be only apparent. By training our attention on acting and objects, I also suggest that the more elusive rhetoric of Pinter and Sam Shepard never really outflanks the priorities of realism or the problematic authority of its offstage spectator. I conclude by considering how Edward Bond's Saved provides a kind of alternative; its frustrating and aggressive vio-
lence is threatening precisely because it is not readable from the privileged vantage of realism's invisible voyeur.
Poetic theater is usually described in terms of its drama. To see the drama of "poetic drama," though, the text must be seen to direct a theatrical rhetoric as well as a verbal order: as urging the staging of the word (rather than the scene of realism) as the point of the dramatic event and of the spectators' interpretation. Poetic theater may now seem rather moribund, the toy of an effete and elitist theater, and so it often was. However, in chapter 3, "Scripted Bodies: Poetic Theater," I argue that the poetic theater undertakes a specifically theatrical investigation of the relationship between the text and its staging. The poetic theater examines the provisional authority of the verbal text in relation to the productive practices of the stage, and it has specific affiliations not only with the more vividly "theatrical" experiments of Vsevolod Meyerhold or Antonin Artaud but also with the postmodern textualization of stage space in the spectacles of Robert Wilson, Richard Foreman, and others. W. B. Yeats, W. H. Auden, and T. S. Eliot all worked to devise a radically innovative form of theater by asking how the text might be distributed among the various discourses of stage production. This rhetoric also places the spectator's performance in a different relation to the drama, and to the world beyond it. To escape the disquieting absence of the realistic theater, the spectator in poetic theater accepts a different kind of discipline, the more public discipline devised by the text. Yet, as Yeats and Eliot recognized, this submission to the text's authority can be dehumanizing. For in poetic theater the authority of the text can require the exhaustion, the evacuation, of the performers, both actors and audiences, an implication that reaches its final extreme in Samuel Beckett's theater.
Bertolt Brecht understood that political theater works to dramatize (rather than to conceal) the spectator's performance. Yet Brecht's assimilation and repudiation by the British and American theater in the postwar era often provides the strategy for marginalizing "political theater" on the contemporary stage. In chapter 4, "Political Theater: Staging the Spectator," I describe Brecht's refiguration of the absent spectator of realism and the efforts of the contemporary theater to render the ideological contours of the audience's performance an explicit, self-conscious part of the play. The
rhetoric of political theater, that is, explores how our production as spectators can be made to resonate with the dramatic action and with a wider social critique. The contemporary theater stages the spectator in a variety of ways, of which I have chosen three as exemplary: as the subject of history in the plays of Howard Brenton; as an effect of theatrical and social genres in the plays of John Osborne, Peter Barnes, and Peter Nichols; and as a gendered participant in the theater of Caryl Churchill and Maria Irene Fornes. I conclude by setting the rhetoric of European theater itself in a critical context, using Wole Soyinka's The Lion and the Jewel to draw out some of the consequences of how we produce ourselves as spectators in the world.
Any argument of this kind will seem to some readers to leave out more than it includes, and I am sympathetic with those who may find the division of modern drama into three rhetorical modes artificial, and the plays used to ramify them idiosyncratic. Other plays might illustrate the rhetoric of modern theater in somewhat different terms, and in practice the rhetorical options I present as distinct usually emerge in blended or hybrid combinations. Here, I have tried to suggest their permeability mainly through the selection of examples: Elizabeth Robins and Edward Bond (usually associated with political theater) are discussed in relation to stage realism, as a way of troubling our sense of its powerful rhetoric, much as Beckett complicates the sense of poetic theater, and Fornes places a political stage in the house of realism. More significant objections might be raised to the Anglo-Irish-American focus of the discussion and to my bias toward scripted drama, which tends to discount more imagistic or nonverbal forms of theater, to bypass film and television, and to overemphasize the innovations of playwrights at the expense of the work of directors. My sense that the rhetoric of theater is deeply implicated in its immediate culture has led me to avoid treating the familiar figures of the European theater at any great length, and the important impact of African, Asian, and Latin American theater as well. This cast of plays from England, Ireland, and the United States points, at a relatively high level of generalization, to a common theatrical and cultural situation, circumscribed here in order to reveal some features of its rhetoric. This selection does tend to homogenize rhetorical and political differences within and without this geographical, linguis-
tic, and dramatic grouping, and I hope at a later date to address some of the differences that I have been able only to point to here.
Of course, film and video have decisively altered our sense of drama and of what is distinctive about modern theater. It might even be argued that the identity of modern stage drama now depends on its shifting or permeable generic boundaries with film and television (see Bennett, Theater 255), as well as with other theatrical forms—opera, performance art, improvisational and participatory theater. The rhetoric of these modes of theater is quite different from that of the dramatic stage, though, in large part because they do not claim to reproduce a dramatic text as theater. Improvisational theater, for example, discovers the "text" it produces in the performance itself. The libretto of opera, far from governing the production, is shaped by the requirements of the score, which determines many of the features we usually think of as dramatic—the voicing, pace, intensity, and dynamic range of the performance. That is, the drama of opera is framed at least as much by the rhetoric of musical production as by the performative aspects it shares with the dramatic theater.
Film seems to consume its dramatic script, to reproduce it as a unique object rather than as a rhetorical interpretation. Perhaps because it is not live, because the audience is subject not to the charismatic effects of the performance but to the scope of the camera's eye, the rhetoricity of film seems more readily apparent to us. Recent film theory has developed powerful ways of reading film's production of a "spectator," but the apparatus of film production—both the making of films and the milieu of the cinema—differs strikingly from the machinery of the stage. Film subjects its audience through the instrument of the camera, while the rhetoric of theater uses the fiction of the drama to structure an immediate relationship between live individuals, actual deeds, and a material environment. The modern theater depends on various and diffuse practices—including acting and dramatic style, the mise-en-scène, the arrangement of the audience—for staging dramatic texts, practices that have been so readily naturalized to our sense of theater-in-general that their rhetoricity can be difficult to see; Modern Drama and the Rhetoric of Theater concentrates fairly exclusively on bringing some features of that rhetoric to light.
Finally, to some extent, the work of directors and companies—
Peter Brook, William Gaskill, Alan Schneider, the Actors Studio, Mabou Mines, Portable Theatre, Monstrous Regiment—is treated selectively or only implicitly here. Theatrical practice intrudes throughout this discussion, though, because the buildings, stages, actors, directors, and audiences that have realized the modern drama in performance form the critical instruments of the rhetoric I want to describe. Rather than underlining the unique genius of the theater's practitioners, my aim in these pages is to ask how their work reveals a common rhetoric of possibility, one that is evoked and often contested in the action of the drama. As a way of lending my abstract or "merely" theoretical account of that rhetoric some ballast, a variety of voices speak here, voices not only of critics and scholars but of journalists, theater reviewers, directors, actors, and playwrights. These voices speak in their own accents, and to their own public, but they can tell us about the work of theater at a given moment in its history, and about its goals, its assumptions, its audiences, its rhetoric. The voices of the theater suffuse the discussion as a way of making the history of this rhetoric palpable, thick.[6]
The rhetoric of realism, of poetic theater, of political theater: these three terms are put forward for their heuristic value, to allow us to isolate aspects of the rhetoric of modern theatricality which in practice are always mixed and intermingled—in a given playwright's, actor's, or director's work, in the course of a single production, and in many of the plays I have chosen for illustration. Modern Drama and the Rhetoric of Theater offers neither a history of modern drama nor a thematic reading of major playwrights, though it does concern the development of dramatic and theatrical forms since the turn of the century. As Walter Benjamin commented about another performance medium, "The manner in which human sense perception is organized, the medium in which it is accomplished, is determined not only by nature but by histori-
[6] For a similar reason, I have not considered the production of the classics on the modern stage. Were I to do so, I would argue that despite our efforts to recover "authentic" period staging practices—an Elizabethan theatricality for staging Shakespearean drama, for instance—those styles would necessarily be informed by our own sense of what meaningful action looks like onstage. Although our sense of the modern open stage owes something to the recovery of Elizabethan stagecraft, any modern production will, I think, inevitably be inflected by the rhetoric of Stanislavski, of Beckett, and of Brecht.
cal circumstances as well" (222). The forms of theatrical production that I discuss here might well work differently at other times, in other places; a friend once told me that when he saw Rice's Street Scene in Buenos Aires in the 1970s, the air was charged with the excitement and apprehension of a subversive political event—which is exactly what it was.[7] The scene of modern drama is a rhetorical arena in which texts are staged as theater, and in which individuals are cast as spectators. This book outlines some of the strategies that have made this drama, framed our modes of perception, experience, and activity as spectators in the theater, and so shape the ways we discover the drama, and ourselves, in the discourse of the stage.
[7] My thanks to William Hallman for relaying this anecdote.