Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T20:34:32.480Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

‘A Question of Location’: Theatrical Space and Political Choice in The Plough and the Stars

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2009

Extract

Space is the essence of theatre, for while we may have theatre without text we can have none without space. This, however, is only to refer to the architectonic space itself, while the problematic concern is not with the space in which we have theatre, but with the space from which the dynamic of the drama itself is derived, particularly as it is located in the analysable dramatic text. This, of course, leads to the contentious question as to whether text or performance has primacy in determining understanding; an issue dismissed by Jiři Veltruský as ‘perfectly futile’ as, in his view, ‘Drama is a work of literature in its own right; it does not need anything but simple reading to enter the consciousness of the public.’ While Veltruský locates the essence of drama in the dialogue, and so argues for ‘Dramatic Literature’, he does acknowledge the dimension of performance in a highly significant qualification to the self-sufficiency of the text: ‘Consequently, the individual arts in their turn influence the development of dramatic literature through the intermediary of theatre. Indeed, when he writes a play, the dramatist is not unaware of the existing theatrical structure and of the various openings it presents to new developments. This is true even though the play is a self-sufficient work of literature which does not necessarily require theatrical performance; the creating subject usually feels, though often unconsciously, the possible applications of his work.’

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © International Federation for Theatre Research 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Veltruský, Jiři, ‘Dramatic texts as a Component of Theater’, in Matejka, L. and Titunik, I. R. (eds.), Semiotics of Art (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1976), p. 95.Google Scholar

2. Ibid, p. 114.

3. Serpieri, Alessandro, Elam, Keir, Pugliatti, Paola Gulli, Kemeny, Tomaso, and Ruttelli, Romana, ‘Towards a Segmentation of the Dramatic Text’, Poetics Today, vol. 2:3, 1981, p. 164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Pugliatti, Paola Gulli, I segni latenti: Scrittura come virtualita in King Lear (Messina and Florence: D'Anna, 1976), p. 18.Google Scholar Quoted by Elam, Keir, The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama (London: Methuen, 1980), p. 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Serpieri, , op. cit., p. 164.Google Scholar

6. Ubersfeld, Anne, Lire le Théâtre (Paris: Éditions Sociales, 1982), p. 160.Google Scholar

7. The Abbey's early insistence on an almost anthropological realism is revealed in the programme notes for its 1906 British tour: ‘Mr W. G. Fay, producer of these plays, has gone direct to the actual scenes, and the interiors are unique fac-similes of the originals.’ Saddlemeyer, Anne (ed.), Theatre Business (Gerrards Cross: Colin Smythe, 1982), p. 30.Google Scholar

8. Ayling, Ronald, ‘Sean O'Casey and the Abbey Theatre Dublin’, in Krause, David and Lowery, Robert G. (eds.), Sean O'Casey Centenary Essays (Gerrards Cross: Colin Smythe, 1980), p. 30.Google Scholar

9. Watson, G. J., Irish Identity and the Literary Revival (London: Croom Helm, 1979), p. 247.Google Scholar

10. Williams, Raymond, Drama from Ibsen to Brecht (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973), p. 165.Google Scholar

11. Watson, , op. cit., p. 286.Google Scholar

12. Shrank, Bernice, “‘There's Nothin’ Derogatory in th' Use o' th' Word': a Study in the Use of Language in The Plough and the Stars”, Irish University Review, vol. 15, no. 2, autumn 1985, p. 169.Google Scholar

13. Pavis, Patrice, ‘Discussion on the Semiology of Theatre’, Languages of the Stage: Essays in the Semiology of Theatre (New York: Performing Arts Journal Publications, 1982), pp. 28–9.Google Scholar

14. Krutch, Joseph Wood, The Nation, 21 12, 1927.Google Scholar Quoted by Krause, David, Sean O'Casey: The Man and his Work (New York: Macmillan, 1960), p. 92.Google Scholar

15. Ibid.

16. Rollins, R. G., Sean O'Casey's Drama: Verisimilitude and Vision (Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 1979), p. 26.Google Scholar

17. Krause, , op. cit., p. 91.Google Scholar

18. Simmonds, James, Sean O'Casey (London: Macmillan, 1983), p. 78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19. Lotman, Yuri, La Structure du texte artistique (Paris: Gallimard, 1973), p. 311.Google Scholar Quoted by Ubersfeld, , op. cit., p. 170.Google Scholar

20. Ubersfeld, , op. cit., p. 170.Google Scholar

21. Ibid., p. 171.

22. Ibid., p. 160.

23. Ibid.

24. Ibid., p. 170.

25. Ubersfeld, Anne, L'Ecole du spectateur (Paris: Editions Sociales, 1981), p. 72.Google Scholar

26. Issacharoff, Michael, ‘Space and Reference in Drama’, Poetics Today, vol. 2:3, 1981, p. 215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27. Ibid.

28. O'Casey, Sean, The Plough and the Stars, Collected Plays: Vol. I (London: Macmillan, 1971), p. 239.Google Scholar All subsequent references are from this edition and are entered in the main body of the article.

29. Deane, Seamus, ‘Irish Politics and O'Casey's Theatre’, in Kilroy, Thomas (ed.), Sean O'Casey: A Collection of Critical Essays (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1975), p. 149.Google Scholar

30. Mulhern, Francis, ‘Ideology and Literary Form – A Comment’, New Left Review, no. 91, 05/06 1975, p. 85.Google Scholar

31. Deane, , op. cit., p. 153.Google Scholar

32. Watson, , op. cit., pp. 247–8.Google Scholar

33. Ibid., p. 286.

34. Pavis, Patrice, ‘Towards a Semiology of the Mise en scène?, Languages of the Stage, p. 160.Google Scholar

35. Ibid., p. 147.

36. Ibid., p. 156.