Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 26 items for

  • Author or Editor: Henri Schoenmakers x
Clear All
In: Festivalising!
In: Festivalising!

Abstract

This chapter analyses the types of reasons (concerns) behind the strong emotions that accompany theatre scandals. To understand the complexity of the emotional impact and effect, we classified the emotions into non-fiction and aesthetic emotions. The non-fiction emotions are based on the same concerns as in daily life, which in the theatre are activated when actions on stage have a representational character. The aesthetic emotions are based on the types of norms and values we have developed during our socialisation history in contacts with works of art or with specific types of art such as theatre. A mix of both concerns and emotions is characteristic for theatrical events: we may have tears in our eyes because of the sorrow we experience in relation to one or more of the characters and more or less at the same time we may love the acting or the staging. With the help of such basic principles, examples of famous scandals in theatre history are discussed and analysed. To illustrate the theoretical considerations, scandals concerning performances of the following plays are discussed: Phrynichus: The Capture of Milete, Aeschylus: Oresteia, Sophocles: King Oedipus, Shakespeare: Othello, Molière: The Misanthrope, Beaumarchais: The Barber of Seville, Shelley: The Cenci, Gerhart Hauptmann: Before Sunrise and The Weavers, Jean Cocteau / Pablo Picasso: Parade, Terence McNally: Corpus Christi.

In: Theatre Scandals
In: Festivalising!
In: Festivalising!

Abstract

This chapter analyses the types of reasons (concerns) behind the strong emotions that accompany theatre scandals. To understand the complexity of the emotional impact and effect, we classified the emotions into non-fiction and aesthetic emotions. The non-fiction emotions are based on the same concerns as in daily life, which in the theatre are activated when actions on stage have a representational character. The aesthetic emotions are based on the types of norms and values we have developed during our socialisation history in contacts with works of art or with specific types of art such as theatre. A mix of both concerns and emotions is characteristic for theatrical events: we may have tears in our eyes because of the sorrow we experience in relation to one or more of the characters and more or less at the same time we may love the acting or the staging. With the help of such basic principles, examples of famous scandals in theatre history are discussed and analysed. To illustrate the theoretical considerations, scandals concerning performances of the following plays are discussed: Phrynichus: The Capture of Milete, Aeschylus: Oresteia, Sophocles: King Oedipus, Shakespeare: Othello, Molière: The Misanthrope, Beaumarchais: The Barber of Seville, Shelley: The Cenci, Gerhart Hauptmann: Before Sunrise and The Weavers, Jean Cocteau / Pablo Picasso: Parade, Terence McNally: Corpus Christi.

In: Theatre Scandals

The expression ‘being oneself on stage’ is often used to characterize differences between those developments in (post)modern theatre in which performers are considered not playing roles anymore and more traditional types of theatre in which fictional worlds with fictional characters are shown on stage. Konijn (1992, 1994, 2000) concluded in her research about the relationship between actor’s and character’s emotions that during a performance actors experience emotions related to their acting task and not to the emotions they portray as character’s emotions. With these results as point of departure a proposal is being made for a more detailed approach to the idea of ‘being oneself on stage’ by distinguishing between social roles and artistic roles. The conclusion is that the expression ‘being oneself on stage’ is hiding the fundamental similarities between performers portraying fictional characters and those who are considered to be oneself on stage. In both cases their dominant social role is the one of actor/crafts(wo)man of performer/crafts(wo)man. In both cases the assumed dominant emotions will be the ones related to their acting/performing task, which makes an image of oneself as much a construction as a fictional character is.

In: Playing Culture

The expression ‘being oneself on stage’ is often used to characterize differences between those developments in (post)modern theatre in which performers are considered not playing roles anymore and more traditional types of theatre in which fictional worlds with fictional characters are shown on stage. Konijn (1992, 1994, 2000) concluded in her research about the relationship between actor’s and character’s emotions that during a performance actors experience emotions related to their acting task and not to the emotions they portray as character’s emotions. With these results as point of departure a proposal is being made for a more detailed approach to the idea of ‘being oneself on stage’ by distinguishing between social roles and artistic roles. The conclusion is that the expression ‘being oneself on stage’ is hiding the fundamental similarities between performers portraying fictional characters and those who are considered to be oneself on stage. In both cases their dominant social role is the one of actor/crafts(wo)man of performer/crafts(wo)man. In both cases the assumed dominant emotions will be the ones related to their acting/performing task, which makes an image of oneself as much a construction as a fictional character is.

In: Playing Culture
In: Theatre Scandals
In: Theatre Scandals