Postdramatic Characterization in the Liminal Space of the Contemporary Theatre

Document Type : علمی - پژوهشی

Abstract

Abstract Drama has staged, presented, represented, and performed different concepts of subjectivity, throughout history. Many theoreticians believe in the mutual interdependence between modern drama’s structural and stylistic innovations and the major changes in the conceptual understanding of identity and subjectivity particularly from the beginning of the twentieth century onwards. Acknowledging the importance of theatre’s endeavour to imitate, negotiate and construct human identity; no one disputes their fundamental premise about the basic correlativity between the two. Critical analysis regarding the reciprocal relationship between the conceptual fluctuations of subjectivity and the structural and stylistic theatrical and dramatic innovations of our time is yet far from exhausted. The present article specifically will focus on the definition of postdramaticality form Lehman’s perspective and endeavors to investigate and identify the possible underlying causes for postdramatic innovative methods of characterizations in theatre after 1980. It also tries to explicate the necessity of stylistic and structural changes in theatre, due to the new conceptualization of subject in postmodern theories of subjectivity, and also the changed status of the subject in the mediatized environs of today’s world. The essay introduces five different postdramatic methods of characterization in theatre that are practiced by different playwrights to perform/represent postmodern subjectivity

Keywords

References

  1. Abrams, M. H. and Geoffrey Galt Harpham. A Glossary of Literary Terms. Ninth ed. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009.
  2. Aragay Mireia and Clara Escoda. “Postdramatism, Ethics, and the Role of Light in Martin Crimp’s Fewer Emergencies (2005).” New Theater Quarterly 28, 2 (2012): 133-142.
  3. Barnett, David. “Staging the Indeterminate: Brian Friel's ‘Faith Healer’ as a Postdramatic Theatre-Text.” Irish University Review 36, 2 (2006): 374-388.
  4. Bogdan, Deanne. “Musical Listening and Performance as Embodied Dialogism.” Philosophy of Music Education Review 9, 1 (2001): 3-22.
  5. Carlson, Marvin. Performance: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge, 2003.
  6. Citron, Atay, Sharon Aronson-Lehavi, and David Zerbib. Eds. Performance Studies in Motion: International Perspectives and Practices in the Twenty-First Century. London and New York: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. 2014.
  7. Derrida, Jacques. “‘Eating Well’ or the Calculation of the Subject: An Interview with Jacques Derrida.” In Cadave et al., Who comes After the Subject? New York: Routledge, 1991: 96-119.
  8. Fuchs, Elinor. “Postdramatic Theatre (review).” The Drama Review 52, 2 (2008): 178-183.
  9. Fischer-Lichte, Erika. History of European Drama and Theatre. Trans. Jo Riley. London: Routledge, 2002.
  10. Jameson, Fredrick. Postmodernism or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham: Duke University Press, 1997.
  11. Harmon, William, C. Hugh Holman. Eds. A Handbook to Literature. Eighth ed. Upper Saddle River: Princeton Hall. 2000.
  12. Lehmann, Hans-Thies. Postdramatic Theater. Trans. Karen Jurs-Munby. London and New York: Routledge, 2006.
  13. Mansfield, Nick. Subjectivity: Theories of the Self from Freud to Haraway. New South Wales: Allen & Unwin, 2000.
  14. Richardson, Brian. “Narrative Poetics and Postmodern Transgression: Theorizing the Collapse of Time, Voice, and Frame.” Narrative 8, 1 (2000): 23-42.
  15. Schechner, Richard. Performance Theory. London: Routledge, 2003
  16. Sikes, Alan. Representation and Identity from Versailles to the Present: The Performing Subject. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007
  17. Worthen, W.B. The Harcourt Brace Anthology of Drama. 3rd Edition. Orlando & Fort Worth: Harcourt College Publishers, 2000.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics