Though apparently an elementary matter, the shape of the stage and auditorium probably offers the greatest single control over the text of the play that can be measured and tested. Moreover, it is arguable that the playhouse architecture dictates more than any other single factor the style of a play, the conventions of its acting, and the quality of dramatic effect felt by its audience. The shape of the theatre is always changing, so that to investigate its function is both to understand the past and to anticipate the future. Western theatre has broken away from the dominance of the Victorian picture-frame theatre, and therefore from the kind of experience this produced.
You are watching: Which of the following is not a convention of dramatic structure?
The English critic John Wain called the difference between Victorian and Elizabethan theatre a difference between “consumer” and “participation” art. The difference resulted from the physical relationship between the audience and the actor in the two periods, a relationship that determined the kind of communication open to the playwright and the role the drama could play in society. Three basic playhouse shapes have emerged in the history of the theatre: the arena stage, the open stage, and the picture-frame.
The arena stage
To the arena, or theatre-in-the-round, belongs the excitement of the circus, the bullring, and such sports as boxing and wrestling. Arena performance was the basis for all early forms of theatre—the ceremonies at Stonehenge, the Tibetan harvest-festival drama, probably early Greek ritual dancing in the orchēstra, the medieval rounds in 14th-century England and France, the medieval street plays on pageant wagons, the early Noh drama of Japan, the royal theatre of Cambodia. Characteristic of all these theatres is the bringing together of whole communities for a ritual experience; therefore, a sense of ritualistic intimacy and involvement is common to the content of the drama, and only the size of the audience changes the scale of the sung or spoken poetry. Clearly, the idiom of realistic dialogue would have been inappropriate both to the occasion and the manner of such theatre.
The open stage
When more narrative forms of action appeared in drama and particular singers or speakers needed to control the attention of their audience by facing them, the open, “thrust,” or platform stage, with the audience on three sides of the actor, quickly developed its versatility. Intimate and ritualistic qualities in the drama could be combined with a new focus on the players as individual characters. The open stage and its variants were used by the majority of great national theatres, particularly those of China and Japan, the booths of the Italian commedia, the Elizabethan public and private playhouses, and the Spanish corrales (i.e., the areas between town houses) of the Renaissance. While open-stage performance discouraged scenic elaboration, it stressed the actor and his role, his playing to and away from the spectators, with the consequent subtleties of empathy and alienation. It permitted high style in speech and behaviour, yet it could also accommodate moments of the colloquial and the realistic. It encouraged a drama of range and versatility, with rapid changes of mood and great flexibility of tone. It is not surprising that in the 20th century the West saw a return to the open stage and that plays of Brechtian theatre and the theatre of the absurd seem composed for open staging.
The theatre of the Auditorium Building, Chicago, by Dankmar Adler and Louis Sullivan (1889), a horseshoe-shaped theatre with a proscenium stage.
It may be that the primary influence upon the conception and creation of a play is that of the audience. An audience allows a play to have only the emotion and meaning it chooses, or else it defends itself either by protest or by a closed mind. From the time the spectators began paying for playgoing, during the Renaissance, the audience more and more entered into the choice of the drama’s subjects and their treatment. This is not to say that the audience was given no consideration earlier; even in medieval plays there were popular nonbiblical roles such as Noah’s wife, or Mak the sheep thief among the three shepherds, and the antic devils of the Harrowing of Hell in the English mystery cycles. Nor, in later times, did a good playwright always give the audience only what it expected. Shakespeare’s King Lear (written 1605–06), for example, in the view of many the world’s greatest play, had its popular elements of folktale, intrigue, disguise, madness, clowning, blood, and horror, but each was turned by the playwright to the advantage of his theme.
Any examination of the society an audience represents must illuminate not only the cultural role of its theatre but also the content, genre, and style of its plays. The exceptionally aristocratic composition of the English Restoration audience, for example, illuminates the social game its comedy represented, and the middle-class composition of the subsequent Georgian audience sheds light on the moralistic elements of its sentimental comedy. Not unrelated is the study of received ideas in the theatre. The widespread knowledge of simple Freudian psychology undoubtedly granted a playwright such as Tennessee Williams the license to invoke it for character motivation; and Brecht increasingly informed his comedies with Marxist thinking on the assumption that the audiences he wrote for would appreciate his dramatized argument. Things go wrong when the intellectual or religious background of the audience does not permit a shared experience, as when Jean-Paul Sartre in his day could not persuade a predominantly Christian audience with an existentialist explanation for the action of his plays, or when T.S. Eliot failed to persuade an audience accustomed to the conventions of drawing-room comedy that The Cocktail Party (1949) was a possible setting for Christian martyrdom. Good drama persuades before it preaches, but it can only begin where the audience begins.
A great variety of drama has been written for special audiences. In the 20th century, plays began to be written for children, though it should be acknowledged that Nativity plays have always been associated with children both as performers and as spectators. These plays tend to be fanciful in conception, broad in characterization, and moralistic in intention. Nevertheless, probably the most famous of children’s plays, James Barrie’s Peter Pan (1904), implied that the young are no fools, and it celebrated children in their own right. Barrie submerged his point subtly beneath the fantasy, and his play is still regularly performed, while Maurice Maeterlinck’s Blue Bird (1908) has disappeared from the repertory because of its weighty moral tone.
In the wider field of adult drama, the social class of the audience often accounts for a play’s form and style. Court or aristocratic drama is readily distinguished from that of the popular theatre. The veneration in which the Noh drama was held in Japan derived in large part from the feudal ceremony of its presentation, and its courtly elements ensured its survival for an upper-class and intellectual elite. Although much of it derived from Noh, the flourishing of Kabuki at the end of the 17th century is related to the rise of a new merchant and middle-class audience, which encouraged the development of less esoteric drama. The popular plays of the Elizabethan public theatres, with their broader, more romantic subjects liberally spiced with comedy, are similarly to be contrasted with those of the private theatres. The children’s companies of the private theatres of Elizabethan London played for a better-paying and more-sophisticated audience, which favoured the satirical or philosophical plays of Thomas Middleton, John Marston, and George Chapman. Similarly today, in all Western dramatic media—stage, film, radio, and television—popular and “commercial” forms run alongside more “cultural” and avant-garde forms, so that the drama, which in its origins brought people together, now divides them. Whether the esoteric influences the popular theatre, or vice versa, is not clear, and research remains to be done on whether this dichotomy is good or bad for dramatic literature or the people it is written for.