营救理查德-狮心》:谢里丹的德鲁里巷剧院里的竞争、排练和表演

IF 0.3 3区 艺术学 0 THEATER THEATRE SURVEY Pub Date : 2023-12-21 DOI:10.1017/s0040557423000248
Robert W. Jones
{"title":"营救理查德-狮心》:谢里丹的德鲁里巷剧院里的竞争、排练和表演","authors":"Robert W. Jones","doi":"10.1017/s0040557423000248","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Utopia might always prove impossible. But it should not be entirely abandoned as a concept, or as a goal toward which work might be directed. It is hard to see how meaningful change could arise without at least some sense of utopian possibility. The architectural historian Nathaniel Coleman argues in this vein that simply “making-do with reality may be compensatory, but limits possibility, transforming apparent pragmatic agency into its capture by enclosing realism.”<span>1</span> Dealing with reality—often enough by making do—while keeping an eye on more magical possibilities has sometimes appeared, and has certainly been claimed, as the founding experience of making theatre. Theatres have seemed unique places where much might happen. If they are indeed special places, able to achieve special things, then they are not simply ebullient, but like Foucault's “heterotopias” able to combine dissident elements at the margins. Even when viewed at considerable historical distance, theatrical companies can appear truculent, wayward, and unsettling, even when they remain exploitative, manipulative, hierarchical—as many utopias are.<span>2</span> Inequities and exclusions based on race, sexuality, gender, and class are not absent from theatrical life. Coleman's point, however, is really to argue that that it ought to be possible to imagine sites and patterns of work that are not already foreclosed by the demands of the market, the law, or other forms of curtailment. It should be equally possible to imagine people coming together, bringing their skills, and working out how they might be combined. Reality and its utopian antithesis might then valuably contradict and coalesce. The combination is never easy. Imperatives, financial and otherwise, loomed large over theatres in Georgian England, as they do today. But improvisation and collective effort could both respond to and yet resist such downward pressures, to make something that is at least potentially dissident, as much a way of working as the work produced.</p>","PeriodicalId":42777,"journal":{"name":"THEATRE SURVEY","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rescuing Richard Cœur de Lion: Rivalry, Rehearsal, and Performance at Sheridan's Drury Lane\",\"authors\":\"Robert W. Jones\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0040557423000248\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Utopia might always prove impossible. But it should not be entirely abandoned as a concept, or as a goal toward which work might be directed. It is hard to see how meaningful change could arise without at least some sense of utopian possibility. The architectural historian Nathaniel Coleman argues in this vein that simply “making-do with reality may be compensatory, but limits possibility, transforming apparent pragmatic agency into its capture by enclosing realism.”<span>1</span> Dealing with reality—often enough by making do—while keeping an eye on more magical possibilities has sometimes appeared, and has certainly been claimed, as the founding experience of making theatre. Theatres have seemed unique places where much might happen. If they are indeed special places, able to achieve special things, then they are not simply ebullient, but like Foucault's “heterotopias” able to combine dissident elements at the margins. Even when viewed at considerable historical distance, theatrical companies can appear truculent, wayward, and unsettling, even when they remain exploitative, manipulative, hierarchical—as many utopias are.<span>2</span> Inequities and exclusions based on race, sexuality, gender, and class are not absent from theatrical life. Coleman's point, however, is really to argue that that it ought to be possible to imagine sites and patterns of work that are not already foreclosed by the demands of the market, the law, or other forms of curtailment. It should be equally possible to imagine people coming together, bringing their skills, and working out how they might be combined. Reality and its utopian antithesis might then valuably contradict and coalesce. The combination is never easy. Imperatives, financial and otherwise, loomed large over theatres in Georgian England, as they do today. But improvisation and collective effort could both respond to and yet resist such downward pressures, to make something that is at least potentially dissident, as much a way of working as the work produced.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":42777,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"THEATRE SURVEY\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"THEATRE SURVEY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0040557423000248\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"艺术学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"THEATER\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"THEATRE SURVEY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0040557423000248","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"THEATER","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

乌托邦可能总是被证明是不可能的。但是,乌托邦作为一个概念,或者作为一个工作目标,不应该被完全抛弃。如果没有乌托邦的可能性,我们很难想象会发生什么有意义的变革。建筑历史学家纳撒尼尔-科尔曼(Nathaniel Coleman)在这方面认为,"简单地与现实打交道可能是一种补偿,但却限制了可能性,将表面上的实用主义能动性转化为现实主义的封闭性 "1。剧院似乎是一个独一无二的地方,在这里可能会发生很多事情。如果它们确实是特殊的地方,能够成就特殊的事情,那么它们就不仅仅是热情洋溢的,而是像福柯的 "异托邦 "一样,能够将边缘的持不同政见者结合在一起。2 戏剧生活中并非没有基于种族、性、性别和阶级的不平等和排斥。2 基于种族、性别和阶级的不平等和排斥在戏剧生活中并非不存在。然而,科尔曼的观点实际上是在论证,应该有可能想象出那些尚未被市场需求、法律或其他形式的限制所禁锢的工作场所和工作模式。我们同样可以想象,人们聚集在一起,发挥各自的技能,研究如何将它们结合在一起。这样,现实与乌托邦的对立面就会产生有价值的矛盾和融合。这种结合绝非易事。在乔治时期的英格兰,剧院面临着巨大的财政和其他方面的压力,今天也是如此。但是,即兴创作和集体努力既可以应对也可以抵制这种向下的压力,从而创造出至少具有潜在异见的作品,就像所创作的作品一样,是一种工作方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Rescuing Richard Cœur de Lion: Rivalry, Rehearsal, and Performance at Sheridan's Drury Lane

Utopia might always prove impossible. But it should not be entirely abandoned as a concept, or as a goal toward which work might be directed. It is hard to see how meaningful change could arise without at least some sense of utopian possibility. The architectural historian Nathaniel Coleman argues in this vein that simply “making-do with reality may be compensatory, but limits possibility, transforming apparent pragmatic agency into its capture by enclosing realism.”1 Dealing with reality—often enough by making do—while keeping an eye on more magical possibilities has sometimes appeared, and has certainly been claimed, as the founding experience of making theatre. Theatres have seemed unique places where much might happen. If they are indeed special places, able to achieve special things, then they are not simply ebullient, but like Foucault's “heterotopias” able to combine dissident elements at the margins. Even when viewed at considerable historical distance, theatrical companies can appear truculent, wayward, and unsettling, even when they remain exploitative, manipulative, hierarchical—as many utopias are.2 Inequities and exclusions based on race, sexuality, gender, and class are not absent from theatrical life. Coleman's point, however, is really to argue that that it ought to be possible to imagine sites and patterns of work that are not already foreclosed by the demands of the market, the law, or other forms of curtailment. It should be equally possible to imagine people coming together, bringing their skills, and working out how they might be combined. Reality and its utopian antithesis might then valuably contradict and coalesce. The combination is never easy. Imperatives, financial and otherwise, loomed large over theatres in Georgian England, as they do today. But improvisation and collective effort could both respond to and yet resist such downward pressures, to make something that is at least potentially dissident, as much a way of working as the work produced.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
THEATRE SURVEY
THEATRE SURVEY THEATER-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
期刊最新文献
Recruiting Places: Pearl Primus's Plans for Global Activism through Community-Engaged Dance Theatre Crossing Collaborative Borders: The Making and Becoming of ÓRALE! by David Herrera Performance Company and El Vez, the Mexican Elvis The Constructive Deconstruction of Mary Overlie's Six Viewpoints Stage Echoes: Tracing the Pantomime Harlequinade through Comic Ballet, Trap Work, and Silent Film Jacques Copeau's “The Spirit in the Little Theatre”: Contexts and Texts
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1