Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T18:26:10.133Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rehearsal as a Subsystem: Transactional Analysis and Role Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2009

Stratos E. Constantinidis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What happens during a rehearsal? How are actors' expectations and achievements affected by different directorial approaches, and how do the various ‘systems’ of acting fit with the responses of an audience? From Diderot through Stanislavski. Brecht. and Artaud to the work of such modern experimental directors as Brook, Grotowski, Chaikin, and Schechner, the theory may or may not be adequately tested against the practice. The author of two earlier, complementary studies in empirical theatre research – ‘Feedback as a Subsystem’ and ‘Prompt–Copy as a Subsystem’, both published in Kodikas/Code: Ars Semeiotica (1984 and 1987) – Stratos E. Constantinidis here checks several normative fallacies which have influenced theatre practice by relating the findings of empirical research in theatre to the experimental work of theatre artists. The author, who has previously worked in the Universities of Iowa and Arizona, presently teaches theory and criticism in the Department of Theatre at Ohio State University.

Type
Research Article
Information
New Theatre Quarterly , Volume 4 , Issue 13 , February 1988 , pp. 64 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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 and References

1. Derrida, Jacques, ‘The Theatre of Cruelty and the Closure of Representation’, in Writing and Difference, trans. Bass, Alan (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), p. 235Google Scholar.

2. Artaud, Antonin, The Theatre and Its Double, trans. Richards, Mary (New York: Grove Press, 1958), p. 105Google Scholar.

3. Ibid., p. 107.

4. Ibid., p. 110.

5. Brook, Peter, US (London: Calder and Boyars, 1968), p. 13Google ScholarPubMed.

6. Ibid., p. 17–18.

7. Hristic, Jovan, ‘On' the Interpretation of Drama’, New Literary History, III, 2 (1972), p. 353Google Scholar.

8. Blumenthal, Eileen, Joseph Chaikin: Exploring at the Boundaries of Theatre (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), p. 140Google Scholar.

9. Ibid., p. 143.

10. Ibid., p. 142.

11. Ibid., p. 144.

12. Ibid., p. 145.

13. Ibid., p. 146, 147, 148.

14. Ibid., p. 148.

15. Grotowski, Jerzy, Towards a Poor Theatre, ed. Barba, Eugenio (Holstebro: Christian Christensen, 1968), p. 19Google Scholar.

16. Findlay, Robert, ‘Grotowski's Cultural Explorations Bordering on Art, Especially Theatre’, Theatre Journal XXXII, 3 (1980), p. 355Google Scholar.

17. Hite, Roger, Czerepinski, Jackie and Anderson, Dean, ‘Transactional Analysis: a New Perspective for the Theatre’, Empirical Research in Theatre (Summer 1973), p. 11Google Scholar; Porter, Robert, ‘Analyzing Rehearsal Interaction’, Empirical Research in Theatre (Summer 1975), p. 4Google Scholar; Miller, Keith and Bahs, Clarence, ‘Director Expectancy and Actor Effectiveness’, Empirical Research in Theatre (Summer 1974), p. 61Google Scholar.

18. Peter Brook, US, p. 12.

19. Ibid., p. 13.

20. Ibid., p. 10.

21. Ibid., p. 132.

22. Ibid., p. 136.

23. Ibid., p. 1.

24. Ibid., p. 137.

25. Ibid., p. 151.

26. Ibid., p. 1.

27. Ibid., p. 12.

28. Ruble, Ronald, ‘Performer Descriptions of Stressed Rehearsal Conditions Created by an Authoritarian and a Libertarian Directing Method’, Ph.D. dissertation, Bowling Green State University, 1975Google Scholar.

29. Porter, Robert, ‘Analyzing Rehearsal Interaction’, Empirical Research in Theatre (Summer 1975), p. 8Google Scholar.

30. Trauth, Suzanne, ‘Effects of Director's System of Communication on Actor Inventiveness and Rehearsal Atmosphere’, Empirical Research in Theatre, VI (Summer 1980), p. 6Google Scholar.

31. Robert Findlay, ‘Grotowski's Cultural Explorations’, p. 351.

32. Eileen Blumenthal, Joseph Chaikin, p. 143.

33. Peter Brook, US, p. 147.

34. Marowitz, Charles, ‘Notes on the Theatre of Cruelty’, Tulane Drama Review, XI, 2 (1966), p. 153, 156Google Scholar.

35. Peter Brook, US, p. 199.

36. Miller, Keith and Bahs, Clarence, ‘Director Expectancy and Actor Effectiveness’, Empirical Research in Theatre (Summer 1974), p. 61Google Scholar.

37. Lazier, Gilbert, ‘An Experimental Study of the Attention Value of Certain Areas of the Stage’, M.A. thesis, University of Pittsburgh, 1963Google Scholar.

38. Clevenger, Theodore Jr, ‘Behavioral Research in Theatre’, Educational Theatre Journal, XVII (05 1965), p. 120Google Scholar.

39. Crockett, Walter, ‘Cognitive Complexity and Impression Formation’, in Progress in Experimental Personality Research, ed.Maher, Brendan (New York: Academic Press, 1965), Vol. II, p. 47Google Scholar.

40. Delia, Jesse, ‘Change of Meaning Processes in Impression Formation’, Speech Monographs, XLIII, 2 (1976), p. 152Google Scholar.

41. Peevers, Barbara and Secord, Paul, ‘Developmental Changes in the Attribution of Descriptive Concepts to Persons’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, XXVII, 1 (1973), p. 126Google Scholar; Hale, Claudia and Delia, Jesse, ‘Cognitive Complexity and Social Perspective Taking’, Speech Monographs, XLIII, 3 (1976), p. 196, 202Google Scholar.

42. Claudia Hale and Jesse Delia, op. cit., p. 201.

43. Powers, William, Jorns, David, and Glenn, Robert, ‘The Effects of Cognitive Complexity on Characterization Depth and Performance’, Empirical Research in Theatre, VI (1980), p. 2Google Scholar, 5.

44. Charles Marowitz, ‘Notes on the Theatre of Cruelty’, p. 161.

45. Cashman, Danial, ‘Grotowski: His Twentieth Anniversary’, Theatre Journal, XXXI, 4 (1979), p. 462Google Scholar.

46. Schechner, Richard, ‘Drama, Theatre, and Performance’, Drama Review, XVII, 3 (1975), p. 18Google Scholar, 24.

47. Ibid., p. 12.

48. Charles Marowitz, ‘Notes on the Theatre of Cruelty’, p. 166.

49. Sarbin, Theodore and Coe, William, Hypnosis: a Social Psychological Analysis of Influence Communication (New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1972), p. 29Google Scholar, 31.

50. Eileen Blumenthal, Joseph Chaikin, p. 140.

51. Theodore Sarbin and William Coe, Hypnosis, p. 63–4.

52. Ibid., p. 69–70.

53. Sarbin, Theodore and Lim, D., ‘Some Evidence in Support of the Role Taking Hypothesis in Hypnosis’, International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, XI (1963), p. 98–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54. Devereux, G., ‘Social and Cultural Implications of Incest Among the Mojave’, Psychoanalytic Quarterly, VIII (1939), p. 510–33Google Scholar.

55. Brook, Peter, The Empty Space (New York: Atheneum, 1969), p. 54Google Scholar.

56. Ibid., p. 59–60.

57. Ibid., p. 64.

58. Ibid., p. 42.

59. Ibid., p. 45.

60. Ibid., p. 52.

61. Ibid., p. 54.

62. Ibid., p. 56.

63. Ibid., p. 33.

64. Ibid., p. 79.

65. Bordewijk-Knotter, J., ‘Empiric Audience Research: Its Relevance and Applicability’, in Das Theater und sein Publikum (Wien: Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1977), p. 390Google Scholar.

66. Sarbin, Theodore, ‘Physiological Effects of Hypnotic Stimulation’, inHypnosis and its Therapeutic Applications, ed. Dorcus, R. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956)Google Scholar.

67. Hilgard, E., ‘Altered States of Awareness’, Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, CXLIX (1969), p. 68–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68. Theodore Sarbin and William Coe, Hypnosis, p. 75–6.

69. Hilgard, E., Hypnotic Susceptibility New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1965Google ScholarPubMed.

70. Jerzy Grotowski, Towards a Poor Theatre, p. 15.

71. Ibid., p. 17.

72. Ibid., p. 17–18.

73. Ibid., p. 133.

74. Ibid., p. 37.

75. Ibid., p. 19.

76. Peter Brook, The Empty Space, p. 59.

77. Jerzy Grotowski, Towards a Poor Theatre, p. 25, 57.

78. Ibid., p. 37.

79. Ibid., p. 40–2.