As we discussed the first section of Michael Chemers' Ghost Light: An Introductory Handbook for Dramaturgy, we also discussed how our own sensibilities and previous training shaped the lens through which we read the text. Think back to our discussion, and your reading of the text. Select a quotation from the text that you feel captures the sense of your unique perspective, and discuss how this quotation capitalizes on that.
Monday, February 14, 2011
A first look at the Ghost Light
As we discussed the first section of Michael Chemers' Ghost Light: An Introductory Handbook for Dramaturgy, we also discussed how our own sensibilities and previous training shaped the lens through which we read the text. Think back to our discussion, and your reading of the text. Select a quotation from the text that you feel captures the sense of your unique perspective, and discuss how this quotation capitalizes on that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Near the end of his first chapter in "Ghost Light," Michael Chemers provides his thesis for the book, stating, "Ghost lights remind me of dramaturgs at their best--venturing, usually alone, into dark places for the benefit of others, to illuminate potential hazards, prevent missteps, and navigate across that most perilous of all terrains, the living stage." Not only does the quotation summarize the basic intent of Chemer's book, but it also resonated with me the most because of my background in acting. As an aspiring actor, my duty too is to often be a "ghost light" for others--delving into the dark world of drama to illumine the drama of people's everyday lives. And because I often play characters who are dealing with deep, harsh internal struggles, this quotation spoke particularly sharply to me. My work too is often done primarily alone. I must venture into the darkness of my characters' conflicts. And the end goal is to enlighten the audience about their own lives, so that they can go on to lead more sensible lives.
Many attributes go into the making of a dramaturg, I'm sure, but what being an actor helps bring to my (future) dramaturgical life is objectivity, passion, and a translative quality. Much of an actor's duty is maintaining an objective, open mind about particular characters so that he/she can better understand and relate to their work. This characteristic comes in handy as a dramaturg who must work objectively with all areas of a production crew to maintain the essence of a script, while also adapting it for a particular performance. Being an actor also requires a good deal of passion for a work--any work, in fact, that falls into one's lap--which makes for good dramaturgy as well. It's much easier to make a contribution to a production when you care deeply about it--it's themes, it's dialogue, it's characters, everything. Also, being an actor playing dramaturg allows me to translate a dramaturg's work to my fellow actors in a way that they will understand.
“A dramaturg is a member of the artistic team of a production who is a specialist in the transformation of a dramatic script into a meaningful live performance”
This quote focuses on the practical application of dramaturgy, a process that is familiar to me. Though I have not taken any dramaturgy classes prior to this, I have participated as a dramaturgical assistant on a production. I have experienced the transformation of text to stage described in the quote without theoretical training in dramaturgy. My unusual perspective offers me an example in which to base the material that will be taught.
"Replicating one's teachers precisely is a process of strict adherence to on'e teachers and study of those who have come before."
This quote comes from the second chapter, in the section on the Japanese Theatre Practitioner and Actor Zeami Motokiyo. It partially refers to what Zeami expects of his actors in training, however, fits my focus on Dramaturgy well. As I stated in class, I tend to view things from a historical perspective, greatly enjoying the patterns found in the repetition of history. Coming into Dramaturgy for the first time, I automatically picked this up as a point of importance. It manifests itself clearly when working on a period piece, but recently I have expanded my idea of history past examining specific events. Dramaturgs need to examine history itself, the patterns of cultures and of humanities. Through knowing these "teachers" backwards and forwards the Dramaturg can see a whole new set of choices within a script, and whole new set of reactions waiting to be received from an audience.
Historical setting does not just apply to things in Shakespearean era, but to things as recent as yesterday. For this idea, history needs to be viewed as constantly expanding and encompassing. This view allows for the Dramaturg to dip into their own recent experience as well as the font of wisdom from practitioners prior, like those listen in our readings. It also allows for the inclusion of post-opening factors, such as the audiences reaction to a line, as Chris mentioned in his discussion. To me having the historical view in a production opens up many doors and avenues for the Dramaturg, and for my personal idea of Dramaturgy.
Do not be mistaken, I do not mean to count out the future in any way. I would only infer that history would decide the reasoning on predictions of the future. We gage the audiences reaction, the actors understanding and much more on our prior experiences.
"Frustrated by the professor's analysis of the Oresteia, which brought together a wide spectrum of political, religious, and historical observations, a student remarked, 'Excuse me, professor, but don't you think you're reading too much into this?' The professor replied, 'Well, since Aeschylus was a genius and I'm not, I rather think I'm not reading enough into it."
This quote immediately resonated with me when I read it owing to the fact that this story exemplifies my own thoughts and speculations I had when I initially approached my education at the University of Arizona. I have been asked by professors to spend dozens of hours looking at a script, an act, or even a scene, studying a playwright's words, delving not just between the lines, but under and behind them as well. Initially I found it difficult to give the playwright so much credit for being a mastermind because not everyone can be a genius but anyone can be a playwright (whether if they are good or not is questionable). However, a couple things have come to my attention over the past few months and have inspired me, so much so that I have found myself in the process of changing majors in order to delve deeper into the minds of playwrights. With my naive reasoning, I neglected the fact when reading the play, one is not only watching a story being told, but looking into an entirely new world inside the playwright's head. In order for words on a page to become a play on a stage, those piecing together the production have to be able to take a look from the playwright's eyes, and play out the events the way it was first seen. This is where the dramaturg steps in. Imagine the playwright's imagination as a football stadium, full of players, fans, and vendors, and when the play is published, the lights in the stadium turn off and everything swings into chaos. It is now the job of the dramaturg to come to the rescue and turn each and every light back on, one by one, until everything is returned to it's original state.
"Historicizing reminds you that concepts and terms change, sometimes fairly drastically, over time and distance, and sometimes two authors or thinkers who might appear to be dealing with the same issue have wildly divergent ideas."
This quote from "Ghost Light" really drew my attention when I first read it. When I read a play for the first time I often find that I draw different conclusions than I was meant to because the language and historical concept is something I am not familiar with. I recently read a play where this happened. I was unable to grasp the full idea of the play because it took place in a time period that I do not have a wide range of knowledge about. Certain things from that time would motivate the actions of the characters and I wouldn't understand what was going on. I feel like having a good historical context grounds the play and I am able to fully invest myself in it.
"The ghost light's lonesome existence is dedicated to protecting us, just in case we wish to venture into the dangerous space. The ghost light is a beacon in a world of darkness, where a single step (say, off the stage into the pit or off a catwalk) could be the last mistake one ever makes."
After reading this particular line in the book, I finally felt I had a good definition of what a Dramaturg is. Someone who protects the show and makes sure no one makes a mistake that could end in the downfall of the entire production. I also like this quote because it is not directly describing a Dramaturg or dramaturgy but rather just defining what a ghost light is but if you replace the world ghost light for Dramaturg it works perfectly! I like the idea of thinking of the Dramaturg as a safety net, someone to turn to with questions regarding history, aesthetics and performance. Someone who can show us the light when we are in the dark about something and not just for the people working on the production but for the audience as well. Being a Media Arts and Theatre Arts major i find my self comparing the two mediums A LOT and depending on the week and the particular medium I am favoring at the time i tend to pick out the flaws in one and find the things I love in the other. This week has been in Theatre's favor and a lot of it has to do with my study in Dramaturgy because i love that there is this figure there that helps illuminate the play not just for the people working on it but for the audience as well. It is an interactive experience which you don't have in media and it is one of my favorite things about theatre!! I feel this quote really encompasses a lot of what i think and feel a dramaturg is and should be and how they are such a unique entity that is special to theatre.
In the beginning of his book “Ghost Light” Michale Chemers talks about Bly's idea of the Dramaturg saying “Bly’s understanding of the dramaturg as the one who doubts is a very powerful idea.” I really like this quote because I think it sums up the basic idea of dramaturges to question everything, including themselves and what they are doing to add to a production. I never (and still don’t) quite understand the definition of a dramaturg and I have had many different people, companies and dramaturges say the same thing. But I like the simple answer that they are there to question everything about the production. They are there to ask what an audience member would ask so that every aspect of a show can be more cohesive. Its kind of like always having a audience member there, so we cant/ wont just wait and hope that what has been done to a production is correct and hopefully inspiring.
“This is not meant to be an end-all-be-all of historical dramaturgy but rather the beginning of a lifelong study of critical context that helps the student dramaturg understand his or her own work as part of one (or actually several) very ancient philosophical traditions that have profoundly influenced the development of dramatic art”, page 14.
I am well aware that this is an explanation of what the idea behind the book is, but the notion that what we are learning (through this book as well as class) is something that we are going to take with us and use on a daily bases is slowly but surely becoming my approach to dramaturgy. I have come to see that I have been participating in the dramaturgy of my own life since the day I asked my first question. Dramaturgy is something that has and will continue to effect my daily life in and outside of the theatre. Kaylee Gutierrez often says, “Dramaturgy is Life”, and I would have to say I agree.
“[Dramaturgs] are devoted to the principle that theatre should be socially as well as artistically relevant” (Chemers, 7).
This quotation really resonated for me at the moment I was reading it because that week I had been thinking about theatre’s role as an advocate for social change, and had just decided to dedicate a good portion of my own creative writing to evoking that change, albeit incrementally. I was pleased to be able to follow a brief history of theatre utilized in just such a role in Chemers’ “Historicizing Dramaturgy” chapter and “Power Plays;” I found a particular ignition in the brief summaries of the dramaturgies of Hrosvitha von Gandersheim, Karl Marx and Bertolt Brecht, and Wole Soyinka. For me, creatively, thinking about my work (both as a writer and…a dramaturg) in terms of social relevancy helps me get my head out of the story and context and into the mindset of an audience member experiencing the theatre.
“Saint Isidore of Seville . . . argued in the seventh century that theater, with its emphasis on dialectical knowledge, was but one form of pagan wisdom among many that could be employed in the service of Christian ministry” (Chemers 25).
As a child, I was first introduced to theatre and acting in church. My mother used to always direct short plays for the children to perform in that would be used as part of the worship service or performed at a church event. Sometimes the content would not necessarily be “Christian” but we would then hold a discussion after the performance about how the messages of the piece could relate to our lives as Christians. My lens when reading plays or works like Michael Mark Chemers’ book always has a little bit of the Sunday school side to it. I find myself recognizing Christian imagery or allusions to the Bible. While reading this chapter I found myself extremely excited when I read about Hrosvitha of Gandersheim and her dramaturgical work because she was operating from an extremely similar lens. As a dramaturgy student I often felt like a fish out of water but now after reading about Hrosvitha’s contributions I find that my lens can become quite useful in the future. I feel that there is a huge lack of dramaturgical work being done in the Christian world and I think that this could be an exciting new field to explore.
It might seem basic, but the quote I connected to the most was, "A dramaturg is a member of the artistic team of a production who is a specialist in the transformation of a dramatic script into a meaningful living performance."
I like this explanation, because it shows how the dramaturg is the bridge, like we talked about it class, between the two points. As a playwright, I feel like I am responsible for being one of the set points. The dramatic script is under my jurisdiction, if you will. It shows the process of what will happen; I will finish that script (Point A), and then the dramaturg will take it and escort it to Point B. There's a sense of comfort in this; that your work is under a constant literary eye.
The quote in the text I relate the most to is "In practice, dramaturgy refers to the accumulated techniques that all theatrical artists employ to do three things: 1. Determine what the aesthetic architecture of a piece of dramatic literature actually is (analysis) 2. Discover everything needed to transform that inert script into a living piece of theatre (research) 3. Apply that knowledge in a way that makes sense to a living audience at this time in this place (practical application". I chose this quote because it arranges the definition of dramaturgy in the same way that my mind seems to function. I more easily relate to a practical step by step definition than to an abstract metaphor. I don't just think of dramaturgy in a structural, historical, or practical way. I see dramaturgy as all of these things as a part of a process.
Post a Comment