Practice 1.

1. Ask questions for which these remarks would be suitable answers.

1. Yes, it got rave reviews.

b) No, I’m not really a theatre-goer, but thanks anyway.

c) The cast were fine, but the direction was weak.

2. Describing a performance: match definitions with the words they explain.

We went to see a new production of “Hamlet” last night. The sets (1) were incredibly realistic and the costumes (2) were wonderful. It was a good cast (3) and I thought the direction (4) was excellent. Anthony O’Donnell gave a marvellous performance (5). It got rave reviews (6) in the papers today.

1. a) the way the director had organised the performance

b) clothes the actors wear on stage

2. c) scenery, building, furniture on the stage or in the studio

3. d) got very enthusiastic comments

4. e) all the actors in it

3. Speak on the problem of how theatre are run in this country and in Great Britain. Consider the following.

1. the financing of the theatres

2. the renting of the building

3. the company/troupe

4. the repertoire

5. attendance at theatres

6. prices of tickets

4. Name all the parts of a typical theatre. The Oxford-Duden Pictorial Dictionary might help you.

5. Give a talk on the type of sets that modern theatre may have. Should the scenery be realistic or not? How does the scenery affect the expressive value of the production? What do you think of the following statements?

1. Representation without any scenery is too symbolic. A branch of a green tree and a bench on the stage are not enough to represent a garden.

2. The acting should be emphasized at certain phases of the performance and this can be done with the help of skilful scenery.

3. Without realistic sets a lot of people in the audience will fail to understand the message and even the plot of the play.

4. Sound and light effects are always put to advantage against the background of impressive scenery.

6. Imagine you are a famous actor or actress. Write and design a poster publicising yourself in a play or a film. Use exaggerated language to sell yourself to the public.

Reading 2.

What is theatre?

Read the following text and state the place of the theatre among other performance arts.

Before we follow the history of the THEATRE through so many centuries, we ought to try to understand what the Theatre is all about, why if offers amusement and pleasure, but then so do lots of other things. Is there something special in itself that it offers us? Clearly there is, otherwise the Theatre would not have gone so long in so many different places. But what is it that is special about the Theatre?

True, when we see a play we see it with a number of other people; we form part of an audience. This is important, because we behave differently when we are part of an audience. If the play is funny, we laugh a great deal more than we should if we were by ourselves. If it is pathetic, we are more deeply moved just because a lot of other people are being moved too. And notice this, we cannot enjoy the play at all unless it is having the same effect upon us as it is having upon all the other members of the audience around us.

We have to share the feelings of a great many other people to enjoy a play properly, and this in itself is a good thing, particularly these days, when to many people, usually living in large cities, feel cut off and separate and lonely. To enjoy the Theatre we have to join it; and we feel better after it in the same way (though to a less degree). That we feel better after attending some great public meeting.

Now all this business of being part of an audience, which is essential to the Theatre, is very important. But it still leaves unexplained what the Theatre has to offer its spectators that other public gatherings and other forms of amusement cannot offer them. Is there some kind of experience that we enjoy at a play and nowhere else? And it there is – then what is it? This is a question easy to ask, but as we know from the work of dramatic critics and theorists at many different times who have asked themselves the same question, very difficult to answer adequately. Now we will try.

A theatrical production consists of a member of players acting imaginary characters. Here are two quite different elements – the real actors, the imaginary characters. We have to accept them both; and this is where theorists of dramatic art have gone wrong, for they have generally accepted one to the exclusion of the other. And this simply will not work as the following reasons show.

If we say we go to the play only to follow the fortunes of the imaginary characters, then we have to assume, what certainly is not true, that we do not know we are in a playhouse, looking at and listening to actors.

If we go to the other extreme, as some critics have done, and say we go to the play for the acting, then what becomes of the play itself, the imaginary life of its characters? Why should these unreal people and what happens to them have any interest for us, when we know it is all make-believe, just so many actors performing?

Nearly all theorists of the drama have been baffled by this dilemma, simply because they have assumed that the experience offered us by the theatre must be based on either the imaginary life of the play or on the reality of the performance. And clearly it cannot be, both elements must contribute to the experience, which is complex, involving two different levels of mind. One level is accepting the imaginary life of the play and its characters. The other level is concerned with the actual presentation of the play, with theatre, stage, actors, scenery, lighting and effects.

A very young child generally cannot accept the experience, assumes that what is happening in the stage is real, and is either frightened or bored, wanting to run up and down the aisle to play. A year or two later, the same child may be enchanted, eagerly following the fortunes of the characters and yet at the same time being tremendously conscious of sitting snugly in the theatre with Mummy and Daddy. It is this eager responsiveness on both levels that makes children such a splendid audience. Adults who have completely forgotten their childhood, who have allowed all wonder and imagination to wither away, who are really incapable of making this double response, are never keen playgoers and usually dislike Theatre.

This, then, is dramatic experience, the result of an appeal to two different levels of the mind and off corresponding response on both levels. And as on one level we are fully conscious of being in a theatre, watching and listening to actors, it follows that on this level we accept whatever convention of theatrical writing, production and acting may be in vogue; that all drama depends upon some convention – a generally accepted pretense that something is something else. There are, many different kinds of convention as we shall see; but all of them have and always have had one central purpose – to offer audience that unique type of experience which we can call dramatic experience. It is to provide this that the Theatre exists. What must be remembered is that acting, like everything belonging to the Theatre, has a double aspect: the actor must be the character he is playing and also himself.

Without some truth to life, the costume comedy would not be engrossing: without some theatrical artificiality, the realistic play could not hold our attention. The Theatre must always be what we should never be-two-faced.