Teatre Contemporani

Theatrical contexts: 1940/50s

*Sociopolitical: Winston Churchill, UK’s influence in the war, loss of British empire, rising of
US’ power (Eisenhower as president), Marshall aid (money to Europe).Theatrical: bourgeois
theatre (realistic, middle class settings).
Britain at war
 Sir Winston Churchill was the prime minister at the time, very famous for his eloquence
at that time (war and postwar), leading the war effort “I have nothing to offer but sweat
and tears.” They attributed the winning of the war to him. Nationalist pride. It was a
divided society, some with nationalist pride others saying that it was thanks to the US that
they won the war.
From imperial to post imperial Britain
 There’s a declining of imperial Britain, not many places under British rule. Colonies
became independent so Britain lost its power and its identity, when different races and
ethnicities, most from the colonies came to England there were many racial tensions. The
uk became multiethnic.
Post.war Britain: international.
 There’s instability and the anxiety brought by:
o the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs.
o Europe became divided between capitalistic countries (US influence) and
communist countries (influence by the Soviet Union). Cold War.
o The Korean and Vietnam war, influenced by the division between communism
and capitalism.
o The cold war also brough the Berlin Wall that prevented people from the east,
going to the West and viceversa to separate capitalists from communists.
 Collective mood
o Sensation of danger, anxiety, fear because of a possible war after a war happened
because of the division there was around the world.
 The contradiction of a “New Europe” to the unification of Europe
o Creation of the European Union, Brussels treaty and the treaty of London, both
with the goal of uniting Europe. Paris treaty used to share with the capitalist
European country steel and coal. The treaty of Rome with the idea to create a
uniting market for all the countries who agreed and united, also the no need of
passport to travel inside the European Union.
Post-war Britain: home affairs
 The state start to intervene on people’s wealth and health. National Health Insurance,
give people a home and an opportunity.
  A time of austerity where food and coal were rationed
 Collective mood of hostility and anxiety and nostalgia.
 Welfare state.
o After Churchill, there was a labor government lead by Clement Aklee. He gave
this support. “Face the future” speech. His premise was to build a welfare state
with a canasianism type of economy, a capitalist balanced economy, avoiding a
lot of separation between rich and poor. Looking for the working classes. An
attempt to build new universities, to empower the working classes, to make a new
education act. Attempt to educate the working classes.
The welfare state
 JM Keynes. An economist who implemented a type of economy, modulating capitalism
via state regulation. It has 4 pillars: Social security, medical services, housing and
education.
Theatrical contexts
 Bourgeois theatre: an upper-middle class theatre. Values: values of family that were
already there,
 1930s-1960s: playwrights. Coward, Priestly and Baligan.
 In terms of aesthetics we see realism, the upper class’s costumes and settings.
Look Back in Anger, John Osborne
 A revolutionary play: Jimmy centers his anger to his wife, the neighbors, pretty specific
politic situation, anger to politicians, the church…
 Before there was the traditional narrative of the ‘well-made’ realistic ‘drawing room
plays.
o Realism, upper-middle class values, English. It’s staged in the West End upper-
middle-class audiences while there’s stage censorship until Theatres Act, 1968.
o Brannigan, a homosexual playwriter, hoped for this censorship to end so that he
could write what he wanted.
 When Look Back in Anger came it was a break from this traditional narrative. But is it so
different from the other plays?
o It doesn’t take place on an upper-middle class room but on a working class attic,
there’s depiction of the working classes. There’s no ‘well made play’ structure or
realistic language. The thing they have in common is that it’s real, it’s like a
mirror of life (realism). It’s not abstract theatre like radical drama.
 Revisionist historiography: a different narrative
o Challenging the ‘myth’ of Look Back in Anger.
 He was not the only one that challenged the traditional narrative. LBiA did
make an important contribution to transforming post WW2 British
drama/theatre but it was realistic,
New directions in British drama/theatre
 Multiple factors:
o Joan Littlewood: she introduced theatre workshops, something considered
revolutionary and not a goof thing.
o The destruction of London. There was the theatre workshop at the Theatre Royal,
the aim of these workshops was:
 Making theatre (including classical) for working-classes audiences.
 Addressing social and political issues.
 Incorporating…
Oh, What a Lovely War
 On the play there’s non-naturalistic elements:
o The contrast of what a lovely war and the viewing of the deaths from war on the
front.
 A play abut war and it’s causes. Another example is Minefield, play about the Malvinas
war.
 We can see a lot of Brechtian strategies on these plays, the use of a song ironically,
breaking the fiction to question more the war, it’s more of like a musical play to mock the
war. These are distancing techniques that make the audience question the war. There’s
also the use of real footage of the news about war.
 Brechtian theatre strategies (they are used on Radical Drama):
o Brecht came to Britain and visited London with a production of Mother Courage
and it changed his life, enlightened him.
o He had a profound influence on British Theatre,
 Why is Brecht so important today?
o Disrupting the fourth wall: direct address to the audience.
o Critical discourse between actor and role “character”.
o Dissatisfied with naturalistic dramatic/theatrical conventions.
o Actors are demonstrators rather than actors.
o There’s a critical distance between the audience and actor/role/character.
o He also introduced minimal sets so that the audience could have this critical gaze.
o Stage image: minimal sets, very few props, stylized costumes.
o Scene changes in full view of the audience to demonstrate this disruption of the
fourth wall.
o Contrary to realistic dialogue it has songs (that interrupt the scene so as to break
with the fiction), choric spectacles, summarizing scenes in placards, parades on
stage…
o verfremdungeffect: the principle of using innovative, non-realistic devices in
order to make the familiar strange (estrangement, defamiliarization). Opposed to
the realistic effect or illusionistic effect. Aim: didactic/political to provoke a
social/critical audience response.
Arts theatre
 Founded in 1927. Taking risks raising…
Lucky: questioning of the grand narratives and how he portrays the world. The undermining of
the grand narratives is received badly by other characters, they react with violence. The other
characters don’t like this undermining because they don’t understand what he’s talking about, it’s
unreasonable speech for them. But it’s trans-reasonable, goes beyond reason, because it’s not
what everyone thinks. He’s named Lucky because he’s free from the grand narrative, to create
new meanings, but he is and wants to be dependent. He seems to be dependent from his role of
servant. Lucky is an enigma because he’s not lucky, he’s a dependent servant. The only
possibility is that of not following these grand narratives. Language has this referential function,
communicative, expressive (we share meanings) and pragmatic function.
Language/dialogue
Disrupting the referential function: stage directions and dialogue do not work smoothly, they are
slippery, playful, contradictory relationship “Let’s go” [they do not move]. We don’t have sense
of a shared past. There’s also uncertainty about names (they are called different names). Link
between language and reality is problematized. There’s no sense of reality.
Disrupting the communicative function: there’s not a possibility to share. Act I and II. It shows
that the grand narrative of Christianity is dissolving.
Foregrounding the pragmatic function: the idea of power and grand narratives and dismantling
them. Language is shown to be intimately connected to power.
The stage picture: the tree
There’s many referenced to the tree symbolizing the radical play because is a non-functional
object. They seem to use the tree as suicide but then we realise that it acquires a more symbolic
meaning, linked with Christian references (crucifixion), the Grand narrative of Christianity, but
in here there’s no hope so it is dismantled. Perhaps Godot will come but he does not come. It
seems to be related to progress but it does not, the tree and the rope do not symbolize elements of
rebirth or progress but with being stuck. There’s this mirroring effect. On the structure of the
play there’s no progressing, I’s circular, a mirroring effect in which it finishes like in the
beginning. The appearance of the little boy might mean the demonstrating of the purity of a
child, he tells the truth, also he might be the personification of hope “he’ll come tomorrow”. The
non-remembrance of the child might mean that they are stuck in this loop that everything that
happens is the same and for that reason the child does not remember to have seen them, because
it’s like ‘el dia de la marmota’.
The stage picture: the road
Meaning of the origin of life, life and death
Essay
4 paragraphs, not use of ‘I’, one reference minimum.
Top Girls (1982)
Is it a relevant play today?
It suggests feminism, hierarchy. The title can be seen as demining or as whole women.
Characters being doubled, meaning that actors played more than one character, provoked
defamiliarization. The castlist was 16 characters played by 7 actresses. The only character that
doesn’t double is Marlene and that portrays that she doesn’t relate to other women and that she’s
individualistic, doesn’t have friends Dramatic shape: there’s distinction between story and plot,
the 3rd act a year before (1979) and in act I we can see the dinner and it takes place in 1980, it’s a
Saturday evening. Then in act II er have scene 1 (Joyce’s backyard) and scene II (Marlene’s
office). The effect on placing the 3rd act within the timeline of what it should be the first is that
there’s not a clear conclusion. We have an open ending, so it challenges this Freytag’s pyramid
structure. Reference for circularity because there’s no closure. There are 2 endings in the 2 nd act
we see the ending of the story while in the 3 rd we see the ending of the plot. The effect on the
spectator is that there’s distance from this identification and this is enhanced by the treatment of
the character and by the historical perspective provided in act I. This ending questions this
believe that feminism should ‘calma calma calma’ because we don’t need it.
There is overlapping dialogue that offers an intrasexual impression between men and women. It
is like a distopyan with an utopian gap. Topics of the dinner scene: motherhood, work, travelling
and cloth. Motherhood: women who did become mothers and some who didn’t. professionally
they “decided” what patriarchy chose them to do. For example Isabella’s sister that stayed at

home. Capitalism forcing women to be the caring role. Mobility/travel: they are quite happy 😊.
Education is linked to mobility, Jenny wishes to travel and combines it with family and Marlene
discourages it.
Language dialogue: overlapping female voices in act 1: Churchill’s “note on layout” (59-60). 3
possible interpretations. (1) To portray this dystopia of women not taking the opportunity to
build community. This overlapping to represent a fragmented voice. No class awareness. They
would be caught up with their individual characters. There’s intrasexual oppression, they’re
oppressing one another. (2) the overlapping seems to show the collective eye, as a response to
patriarchal oppression. A rejection of language as phallocentric. Rejecting male homocentrism.
(3) it underlays the way they’re not listening to each other and also the idea of intrasexual
oppression. It's a merge of both the first impressions. A more collective female voice. Could this
be the 2 possible directions of feminism: each women stands for her own class or feminism seen
more as a collective. Churchill wants spectators to think which direction should we go, towards
fragmentation, not listening, or towards this more collective function. A bubble of
bildungsroman, different life stories depending on the women. For the actors, the overlapping
was a difficult thing to do because the aim is for the spectator to focus on one person and there’s
a decision on who to focus on. They seem not to have the intimacy to listen to each other stories
but just talking over.
Act III it’s like a class warfare, representatives of it. Marlene vs Joyce on heir parents live, Joyce
is more compassionate, Marlene puts it on the individual accuses the individuals decision, like
not caring. Climax: “I hate the working class” but then she says it doesn’t exist, she says it’s for
lazies… These are the 2 possible interpretations feminism could move into, liberal boutgeois
feminism that Marlene represents or the matierialist feminism, as Joyce is represented. But
Joyce’s model and character is not represented to be followed, she treats Angie horribly, not a
character the spectator wants to follow. Social feminism view of paying attention also to the
class of women, apart from caring about the gender. there’s no masculine point of view, it
focuses on women. The title itself is an expression of both class (top) and gender (girls).
Is it a feminist play? (content): there are different points of view, it can be feminist because the
play is about women and their success and their stories, but also not because they overlap each
other and don’t support each other. There are alternatives.

Blasted, Sarah Kane (1995)

Introduction
First impressions
Culture that is fascinated by violence. Main words: upsetting, confusing, astonishing, shocking,
violence.
Similarity to Phaedra’s Love in extreme sexuality and violence.
Theatre in the 1990s
Bosnian War, the Rwanda genocide, the fall of the Great War. Post-emotional society, the media
drains these horror facts but also ‘desensibiliza’ them.
“In-yer-face” theatre: a shocking and experiential kind of drama. It seeks to change the idea of
Cool Britannia into ‘Cruel Britannia’ (quote), this idea of fighting this desensitization (?) of
media. Aleks Sierz came up with its name and he said that he defined it as a sensibility rooted in
the shock... it can be compared to a revolution. Some of the authors are Mark Revenelly, Martin
McDonough, Anthony Nelson and Sarah Kane.
These plays don’t offer a moral framework but are presented very violently. They have this
nihilistic politics, an active kind of nihilism based on saying that only human responsibility
exists so we need to face reality, nothing is going to help us, all we have is one another.
‘response-ability’: that we have the ability to respond and we should use to help each other.
Dramatic shape: There are five scenes. Scene one (3-26) ending with spring rain. The room can
be interpreted as an isolation or alienation from the exterior world as a kind of shelter. The sense
of space is disorienting us, there’s defamiliarization in space. After the whole, the space is
different, some productions wanted to present the hotel room as a hotel room and others want to
present it as a warzone. There’s a parallel between how are the characters with how is the room.
In the TNC production the transparent curtain acts like the hole and when it falls there’s not a
safe space anymore. The choice of making the space more as a hotel is for the spectator to think
that war is everywhere, it could be in your own home. What is the connection between Ian and
domestic violence. The thin wall that exists between the rape that happened inside and the mass
of rapes that happened outside. Maybe it is saying that the privileged part of society is
responsible for the zones of brutality (‘response-ability’). The zone of privilege and the zone of
brutality are connected.
Space cannot be understood in isolation but in relation with globalization. So we are connected
with what goes on outside of our zone. Absolute space: space understood as a … and relational
space is that space is understood as relational when it is seen as interdependent…
The soldier can be seen as a victim and a perpetrator at the same time because of the trauma of
war and the violence he perpetuates. Theatre destroys itself as we know it. We have a Brechtian
acting and its techniques.