Medieval Theatre By Joseph Norman
Some
have written that theatre died following the fall of the Roman
Empire, and its memory was kept alive only in the performances of
roving bands of jongleurs:
itinerant street players, jugglers, acrobats and animal trainers.
However, while such troupes did help to maintain certain aspects of
theatrical art, particularly that involving stock characters, the
Church itself contributed to the preservation of theatre. It is
ironic that the Church, which caused theatres to be outlawed as the
Roman Empire declined and then fell, was one of the primary means of
keeping theatre alive through the Middle Ages. This resulted from the
Church's need to establish itself in the community -- a community
still steeped in pagan ritual and
superstition which manifested itself in seasonal festivals. The
Church ultimately linked its own religious holidays with these
seasonal festivals and began to use dramatic form to illustrate the
stories underlying these holidays so as to reinforce their religious
connotation and to better communicate the stories to an illiterate
congregation. At first the parts played in these simple religious
re-enactments of the nativity and adoration of the Magi were played
by priests in the sanctuary of the church. However, as the repertoire
of the Church grew to include the passion and crucifixion of Christ,
the Church was confronted with the dilemma of how a priest should
portray Herod. While division of opinion in the Church continued as
to the worth of dramatic interpretations, the members of the
congregation clearly enjoyed and were moved by them. The dramas
continued to grow, moving out of the sanctuary and into the open air
in front of the Church. Ultimately, the members of town guilds began
to contribute to these dramas, which continued to grow more elaborate
with time. Known as passion plays, miracle plays and morality plays,
they continued their close connection with the Church and church
holidays, but began to introduce elements of stock characters that
were more contemporary in nature.
I. Вставте пропущені букви у словах першого абзацу.
II. Виберіть та вставте запропоновані у дужках слова
III. В третьому абзаці підкресліть правильну граматичну форму.
IV. Складіть план до тексту.
V. Поставте 10 запитань до тексту.
VI. Напишіть анотацію.
From The Mirror 23. 08. 2008
Defining Postmodern Theatre
By Stephen Hewett
I'd like to begin by differentiating postmodern theatre from its preceding periodizing categorization, the 'classical' and the 'modern' drama. Classical drama is characterized by the value placed in the plot and its adherence to Aristotle's laws of dramatic unities. In the nineteenth century we also observed how Hegelian philosophy filtered into modern drama with the movement of 'man'/character at the forefront of dramaturgy in the character dramas of Ibsen, Strindberg and Chekov. We also see how Aristotle's mimesis is taken to the heights in the period of naturalism as influenced by the Darwinian science in the stagings of modern theatre. Raymond Williams observes the perfection of tragedy in modern drama where the alienated predicament of the human being in a highly industrialized world is highlighted. He sees Beckett's tragicomedies representing the reduction and degradation of the human beings in a new absurdist dramatic structure. To Elinor Fuchs, it is in the postmodern theatre that we witness the "death of the character" and the eradication of the plot. In this statement we are reminded of Barthes' announcement of the "death of the author", Foucault stating the "death of man" and Lyotard hailing the dissolution of metanarratives. As rigid categorization and structures of modernism collapse, eclecticism now characterizes postmodernism. But unlike Jameson's notion of pastiche and extreme consumerism of multi-national capitalism, critical postmodern theatre derives its theory from the post-structuralists' insight on semiotics. De Saussure laid bare the very construction of the human language exposing its structure of signs and codes. Taking off from this, Derrida's analysis of the subjectivity of man's meaning-making has furthered the invalidation of metanarratives. Now as the validity of the sign-signified and code-meaning constructs of languages are put into question, postmodernists are forced to investigate the language construction itself. Ultimately, we come to realize that meaning and signification is subjective and should be contextualized. With this, categorizing boundaries set by modernism collapse as well.
I. Вставте пропущені букви у словах першого абзацу.
II. Виберіть та вставте запропоновані у дужках слова
III. В третьому абзаці підкресліть правильну граматичну форму.
IV. Складіть план до тексту.
V. Поставте 10 запитань до тексту.
VI. Напишіть анотацію.
From The Mirror 22. 07. 2006