Friday, December 25, 2009

Feliz Natal


Hoje entrei num café e estava ao balcão quando um homem com o ar de mendigo e com comportamento nervoso se dirigiu, resoluto, na minha direcção me abordou: O senhor pode-me pagar uma sandes? É Natal!
Caíu-me tudo. Eu enjoado das comezainas da ceia e alguém que se delicia com uma sandes no Natal.
Quer uma sandes de quê? -... Perguntei eu-
Mista! - Respondeu sem pensar e com o ar de quem já tinha decidido o que queria para repasto.
Pedi uma sandes mista e assentassem no meu "tikê". Perguntei: E não quer beber nada?
Um galão! - respondeu com a mesma prontidão.
Refiz o pedido. O homem olhou para mim e disse: Eu sabia!
Só isso, não disse mais nada. O que me ficou foi a sensação de que ele sabia que eu não lhe ia negar a sandes. Por isso se dirigiu a mim mal entrou no café.
Não me perguntem como é que ele sabia. Mas sabia. E isso fez-me chorar! Um Feliz Natal foi o que ele teve.
Terminou a sandes e o galão e disse na voz forte e resoluta com que tinha falado sempre: Muito obrigado!
Não sei quem ele é nem se o tornarei a ver de novo mas sei que me deu em troca algo mais grandioso. Percebi de novo o sentido do Natal!

Besos

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Julia, Meryl e Inquisição

Querido blog, já cá não venho desde Julho como sabes. Je suis une vache lol. Bem, estou no meu segundo ano de doutoramento. Está a correr muito bem e estou muito contente. Estive no início de Dezembro em Brno, na Rep Chaca, a apresentar uma comunicação integrada numa conferência sobre estudos doutorais teatrais. O título da minha comunicação é: "Theatricality: a transversal structure to the domains of Power" e vai ser publicada na Rep Checa como a da FIRT vai ser publicada na Sinais de Cena :-)).

Estou muito contente mas tenho andado muito ausente dos amigos e família porque isto do PHD consome muito tempo e energia. Não tenho feito coisas que adoro como, por exemplo, cozinhar. O meu forno avariou no Verão e nem sequer ainda o substitui. Tal é o "retiro" que tenho feito da cozinha. Mas vai passar em breve, se bem me conheço, porque hoje fui ver mais uma pérola da Meryl Streep que empresta o corpo e a voz (que trabalho sublime) a Julia Child. E ao ver aquelas personagens a cozinharem apeteceu-me logo vir para casa cozinhar. Tal como quando vi o ratatui lol. Mas não dá porque ainda não acabei de traduzir a comunicação para a entregar à minha supervisora.

O filme vale bastante a pena e só dei por 3 erros de racord mas são inócuos.

Vão deliciar-se que deve estar a sair :-)).

Para já aqui fica a minha comunicação.

Diviram-se.

Besos

UNIVERSITY OF LISBON

FACULTY OF LETTERS

ARTISTIC STUDIES

THEATRICALITY: a transversal structure to the domains of power

Paper to be read at the 4th International Seminar of Doctoral Studies of Theatre Schools in Brno, Czech Republic, 4th - 5th December 2009

Bruno Schiappa

2009

UNIVERSITY OF LISBON

FACULTY OF LETTERS

ARTISTIC STUDIES

THEATRICALITY: a transversal structure to the domains of power

Paper to be read at the 4th International Seminar of Doctoral Studies of Theatre Schools in Brno, Czech Republic, 4th - 5th December 2009

Bruno Schiappa

PHD program

in Artistic Studies

Specialty: Theatrical Studies

2009

1 – Introduction ------------------------------------------------- 4

2 – Theatricality, Theatre and Spectacle -------------------- 5

3 – Some examples of Theatricality used by the Power - 10

4 – The Auto-de-Fe -------------------------------------------- 13

5 – My doctoral research and the state of it ---------------- 15

6 – A few considerations in manner of conclusion -------- 17

7 – Images -------------------------------------------------------19

8 – Images credits -----------------------------------------------31

9 – Bibliography ------------------------------------------------ 32

Theatricality: a structure transversal to the domains of Power

Introduction

Theatricality is a concept that is not very clear for most of the scholars who are dealing with Theatrology[1]. In spite of being apparently a simple noun derived from the adjective theatrical it is, indeed, complex in itself. In the realm of common sense theatricality is used to refer to something that is either fake like or exaggerated. Something that is created to provoke some sort of effect.

Some directors who created methods for the actor’s training (e.g. Stanislavsky or Lee Strasberg) used it to refer to the actors who were being caricatural or distant from what was considered “natural” or “authentic”. Therefore, in this context, it had a pejorative meaning. Other directors (e.g. Meyerhold) used it to refer to what was artistically built on stage and would be taken as symbols. In this context, theatricality had a positive value.

Besides the suffix ity and the fact that we can use the term both in theatre and in other fields apart from theatre situations, which means that Theatricality is a structure of meaning in itself, this same structure has always been used by the Power in order to impose a certain kind of behaviour on the individual and on society at large. It’s not new that some scholars and philosophers already referred that there was always something “spectacular” in the ceremonies and rituals (e.g. Michel Foucault) but I believe that its format was broadened to the realm of secular power.

2 – Theatricality, Theatre and Spectacle[2]

The notion of theatricality had several dimensions according to the contexts in which it was used. In his work The Apology of Theatricality, wrote in 1908, Nicolai Evreinov (Russian playwright and director – 1879/1953) affirms that there is a theatrical instinct inherent to Man, referring to his capacity to play and imitate:

“Man has an inexhaustible instinct of vitality (…). I am referring to the instinct of transfiguration, the instinct of opposing the images received from the outside, the images created randomly in the inside: the instinct to transmutate the appearances offered by nature in something different. In short, an instinct which essence is revealed in what I would call theatricality”. (EVREINOV: p. 35. M.T.)

Marcel Jousse, an anthropologist orientated to the comprehension of the pre-logical universe of the human mind deriving from the cultural phenoma, considers the mimesis a fundamental role to any pedagogy and affirms in 1969 that “it is not the gesture that underlines the thought but the gesture that brings out the thought” (JAUSSE: p. 37. M. T.).

The sociologist Erving Goffman, in his study The presentation of the self in everyday life refers to the social roles and the representative functions operating in today’s rather complex societies. His main focus on the professional relations makes clear to us the subtle and essential sense of representation in our daily work as a professional performance. According to his study, those behaviours of the daily life embody the theatricality and dramatization inherent to the social life in itself. He concludes that:

“The political and dramaturgical perspectives intersect clearly in regard to the capacities of one individual to direct the activity of another. For one thing, if an individual is to direct others, he will often find it useful to keep strategic secrets from them. Further, if one individual attempts to direct the activity of others by means of example, enlightenment, persuasion, exchange, manipulation, authority, threat, punishment, or coercion, it will be necessary, regardless of his power position, to convey effectively what he wants done, what he is prepared to do to get it done and what he will do if it is not done. Power of any kind must be clothed in effective means of displaying it, and will have different effects depending upon how it is dramatized.” (GOFFMAN: p. 241)

As we can see theatricality is a concept that includes not only the play, the representation and, therefore, artifice or artefact but, also, and most important of all, it carries a value of exchange; an exchange of considerations and an exchange of “views” of the world. Our formation – the formation of the citizen that we are or of our personae – depends on the assimilation of models, patterns, examples, norms. Nevertheless, as a general rule, it is easier for us to behave in a certain way according to the demands of the situation. We “show” what is expected from us. The sense of opportunity, more or less spontaneously, activates this human ability of “getting into somebody else’s skin”.

Calderon de la Barca wrote The Great Theatre of the World and Shakespeare defined the world as “a stage”. They both referred to the same thing: the artificiality of the norms/rules and to the use of the right strategy to “gain” something, to seduce, to repress, to restrain or, simply, to impress. The aim was always the same: to dominate through appearance.

Besides these considerations and, continuing my argument on the issue of theatricality I became aware that, just like infantilism means what participates of or is related to infants or infancy without being necessarily confined to the time and space of infancy – i.e., we say that a certain attitude or reaction was infantile (or childish) even though (and above all if) the person who had that behaviour is already an adult – also theatricality is not subjected to the time and space of theatre. It is surely a signal of artificiality but it may occur out of the Theatre or, at least, of what is received as Theatre.

Consequently, I’ll use the concept of theatricality more in the sense given to it by Patrice Pavis:

“it is the theatre without the text; it is a mixture of signs and sensations which are built in the scene starting from the script; it is that kind of ecumenical perception of the sensory artifices, gestures, tones, distances; substances, lights which submerge the text under the plenitude of its external language”. (PAVIS: p. 358. M. T.)

The fusion of this definition with the notion that most people have of the theatrical or of the theatre, results in the hybrid which seems to me to be fair enough to consider Theatricality both a concept and a structure.

It is a structure because it is a complex system of interrelated parts: a script, music, text, sounds, lights, choreography, wardrobe, voice, gestures, props, set. But the way they relate can change according to the times and spaces of the production. This brings us to consider another concept that integrates theatricality but is not always related to theatre although theatre is related to it: spectacle.

In general, spectacle refers to an event that is memorable for the image it creates; a specially prepared or arranged display; something to be shown and watched. According to some historians, the term was borrowed from the Roman practice of staging Circuses, in the rather famous philosophy of the Roman elite of "Bread and Circuses" to maintain civil order due to an inability to solve underlying social and economic problems.

Spectacle used to be a notion related to Theatre and operating in the high culture performances as in the low cultural shows. Since 1967, nevertheless, its meaning was broadened when Guy Debord published his work The Society of the Spectacle. The concept of a Society of the Spectacle may refer in a narrow sense to the people who appear in television, particularly the hosts of television shows and newsreels. A broader meaning refers to all the people living in a society, and whose behavior and lives are heavily conditioned by the behavior of TV presenters. The impact of the medium of television, labelled by Marshall McLuhan as the timid giant, is such that even the small minority of people that don't watch it at all, are indirectly influenced by their relationship with those who do. Historically in the capitalist societies, television outlets have not been public places where talented and skilled individuals can make a career and express their ideas without censorship. Instead, they have been owned by powerful corporations or controlled by directors appointed by political officials. The flow of ideas that go through a society come from, or are “sweetened” by, the television. This is in fact a totalitarian control of the public discourse, resulting in the contamination of ideas, tastes, behaviors, life styles, and political choices. The images that are produced form an actual social relation bound to influence people at large.

The Society of the Spectacle refers to the social relation mediated by the images that are produced by television and printed news. People watch television as an escape from life, but they also rely on it for news, life lessons, and examples of the norms of values of society. The main situationist critique is that the spectacle, because it is produced for profit and for political purposes, is a corruptive force and is certainly not art, which should be an actual expression of emotion, an existential release of higher value, which offers greater and better forms of relationship, at the same time that it creates situations of charity and altruism, and is, for that matter, of a more direct value.

With a point of view that we could label as Marxist, Debord defines spectacle as an event that:

“…presents itself at the same time as the society itself, as a part of the society, and as an instrument of unification. (…) The spectacle is not a group of images but a social relation between people transmitted by images. (…) We cannot oppose in an abstract way the spectacle and the effective social activity. (…) Reality shows up in the spectacle and the spectacle is real”. (DEBORD: pp. 10-12. M.T.)

My understanding of Debord’s considerations about TV as the most prominent spectacle is because it vehicles mass spectacles like football games and political manifestations, but Helga Finter, in her text about theatricality and theatre, gives us the examples of the destruction of the World Trade Center (11/09/2001) and the invasion of the theater, in Moscow, by terrorists as spectacles of the real. She concludes her text by saying that:

“There is (…) a difference between spectacle and theatre or performance. The spectacle is given as “nature”, as “reality” and, at the same time, becomes unreal as an image susceptible of repeating itself to the infinite. Spectacle is not conscientious of its theatricality; theatre, on the other hand, proceeds from it conscientiously by its constitutive symbolic pact of the “as if”. It creates a dialogue with what is absent from the image, a dialectic relation between presence and absence.” (FINTER: p.7)

These are the prerequisites which led me to infer that Theatricality is both a concept and a concrete structure that is used both in theatre and in theatrical events but also in manifestations of Power created to restore the order and to impose social behaviours and conventions. Those manifestations were/are produced for a certain effect and included the elements that form the structure of theatricality which I referred before.

3 – Some examples of Theatricality used by the Power

Several studies by renowned anthropologists demonstrated already how deeply Rituals are related to theatricality. Across the History of Societies, Rituals have played a very important role as far as the organization of communities is concerned.

According to Victor Turner, Elizabeth Tolbert and, more recently, James MacLynn Wilce, Man started ritualizing even before he started talking. We already referred Jousse’s premise that “it is not the gesture that underlines the thought but the gesture that brings out the thought” (p. 5th of this work).

Ritual can be defined as a set of actions, performed mainly for their symbolic value, which is prescribed by a religion or by the traditions of a community. The term usually excludes actions which are arbitrarily chosen by the performers, or dictated purely by logic, chance, necessity, etc. We can also say that a ritual may be performed on specific occasions, or at the discretion of individuals or communities. It may be performed by a single individual, by a group, or by the entire community; in arbitrary places, or in places especially reserved for it; either in public, in private, or before specific people. A ritual may be restricted to a certain subset of the community, and may enable or underscore the passage between religious or social states.

Due to their symbolic nature, there are hardly any limits to the kind of actions that may be incorporated into a ritual. The rites of past and present societies have typically involved special gestures and words, recitation of fixed texts, performance of special music, songs or dances, processions, manipulation of certain objects, use of special dresses, consumption of special food, drink, or drugs, among other possibilities. Religious rituals have also included animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, ritual suicide, and ritual murder.

In religion, a ritual can comprise the prescribed outward forms of performing cult, of a particular observation within a religion or religious denomination. Although ritual is often used in a given context, related to worship performed in a church, the actual relationship between any religion's doctrine and its ritual(s) can vary from organized religion to non-institutionalized spirituality. As a social tool, alongside the personal dimensions of worship and reverence, rituals can have a more basic social function in expressing, fixing and reinforcing the shared values and beliefs of a society. Social rituals have formed a part of human culture. The earliest known undisputed evidence of burial rituals dates from the Palaeolithic period.

Rituals also help creating a firm sense of group identity. Humans have used rituals to create social bonds and even to nourish interpersonal relationships (cfr. GOFFMAN).

Anthropologists from Emile Durkheim through Turner and contemporary theorists like Michael Silverstein treat ritual as a social action aimed at particular transformations often conceived in cosmic terms. Though the transformations can also be thought of as personal, they become a sort of cosmic event, stretching into "eternity".

In general, the moments in which Power uses rituals - and therefore theatricality -, include not only the various worship rites and sacraments of organized religions and cults, but also the rites of passage of certain societies, atonement and purification rites, coronations and presidential inaugurations, political campaigns, etc. Many activities that are ostensibly performed for concrete purposes, such as jury trials, execution of criminals, and scientific symposia, are loaded with purely symbolic actions prescribed by regulations or tradition, and thus partly ritualistic in nature which is the same as saying partly “soaked” in theatricality.

Concrete examples of the use of theatricality by the secular Power are: the Roman Circuses, where criminals were put together with lions and/or gladiators. Those were spectacles where the seats were set in a hierarchical order, taking place at certain hours and days and where Power would “show” the punishment that those who were “out of the rules” would suffer. Auto de Fe (literally “act of faith”) was the ritual of public penance of condemned heretics and apostates that took place when the Inquisition had decided their punishment (that is, after the trial). I shall elaborate on this particular case of theatricality in the next chapter.

In another sense of showing force and order, all the parades used by totalitarian regimes (i.e. dictatorships) have been intended to vehicle a certain “image” of order and discipline. For instance, the fascist parades which would present concrete images of the “new man” and virility:

“If fascism worked, fundamentally, with a pre-existent esthetic, it had to innovate in the form it presented itself. The fascist liturgy institutionalized a narrow bond between esthetic and policy, surpassing largely the isolated examples from the past, (…). It used the esthetic of the body, of the color and form to nationalize the masses, forming and controlling the popular rallies which were an essential part of the fascist policy. We already referred the esthetic of the human body, supposing that the young men (and even the not so young ones) who marched and saluted were the ideal representatives of the movement and of the nation. The mise en scéne of those meetings, the set that was built or the one that was chosen for its accomplishment, represented a spectacle charged of grandeur and beauty, allowing the reunited and disciplined masses, through its dynamic and virile movements, to symbolize again the order and progress as well its reconciliation.” (MOSSE: pp. 10, 11)

As we can see, the relationship between Power and Theatricality has always been (and still is) very strong and I would risk saying that it has always been essential for the Power to achieve whatever goal it wanted to achieve.

4 – The Auto-de-Fe

In the previous chapter I already used a few lines to refer to the Auto de Fe as an example of the use of theatricality by the Power.

This is the real subject that I am studying for my doctoral thesis, therefore I will try to be more specific about it before speaking about the state of my research. Auto de fé in medieval Spanish (and in Portuguese) means "act of faith". In the popular imagination, it has come to refer to be burned at the stake for heresy but the auto de fe involved a Catholic Mass; prayers; a public procession of those found guilty; and a public reading of their sentences. The ritual took place in public squares or esplanades and lasted several hours with ecclesiastical and civil authorities in attendance. Artistic representations of the auto de fe usually depict torture and the burning at the stake. But, neither torture nor burning at the stake took place during an auto de fe, which was a religious ritual. Torture was not administered after a trial was concluded. Executions were always held after and separately from the auto de fe.

Portuguese Historian, Francisco Bettencourt, refers to this ceremony as a mise en scéne and says:

“Auto-da-fe means literally act of faith, which at the time corresponds to a moral effect and (theatrical) representation of faith. This representation, which we can now situate among the group of manifestations of the religious theatre in the Iberian Peninsula – v. g. the Autos Sacramentales, the acts of passion or the live pictures of bible scenes included in the processions of the Corpus Christi –, has the particularity of being produced with real accused, who surely know their parts but who are not actors in the literal sense of the term and do not rehearse: the spectacle is definitive and unique for them. The only permanent “actors” representing in the autos-de-fe are the Inquisitors themselves, who accumulate this role with that of the directors. It is above all a public presentation of the abjuration, of reconciliation and punishment which follow the precise rules that result from the Hispanic Inquisitions common model, with an evident theatrical dimension, made concrete on stage, scenography and in the distribution of the parts.” (BETTENCOURT: p. 201)

The Auto de Fe would start with a sermon during which the heresies were pointed out and condemned while catholic faith was exalted. A reading of the sentences would follow by decreasing order of gravity without the knowledge of the accused or any chance of defending themselves.

Early in the morning, the prisoners were brought to a large yard and dressed up with the habits for the procession (the sambenitos). In the procession they were led by Dominican friars carrying the Inquisition’s flag followed by the penitents in general, all of them dressed with long black robes with no sleeves, barefoot and carrying a candle. After them were the penitents who had barely escaped from death with flames painted upside down on their black vests, symbolizing that they had been saved but only from the fire. These were followed by the relapses whose destiny was to be burned at the stake; in this case the flames were painted pointing up. In the end were the heresiarchs who, besides the flames had their own bust painted surrounded by dogs, serpents and demons, all with their mouth open. This would make evident both the character of symbolic act and public spectacle of the auto de fe.

The prisoners who were going to be burned were kept company by a familiar – a member of the Inquisition – and by a Jesuit who would ask them to abjure their heresies. Only the heretic who would not confess the error he was accused of would suffer the highest penalty: to be burned at the stake. Confession could free them from this penalty but not from others of diverse nature.

About this entire spectacle Isabel Drumond Braga says that:

“The apparatus and the exuberance of the autos, the theatricality of all the acts and the intrinsic connection between the autos de fe and the relaxations to the secular hand, even though the actions of burning at the stake took place in different spaces and in posterior moments, made this ceremony one of the most marked images of the institution. The auto de fe, a religious feast and, above all, a theatrical representation of the faith, became, in last instance, the major rite of the Inquisition”. (DRUMOND BRAGA, p.185)

The first recorded auto de fe was held in Paris in 1242, under Louis IX. The first Spanish auto de fe took place in Seville, Spain, in 1481. The first Portuguese Auto de Fe took place in 1540.

The Portuguese Inquisition was established in 1536 and lasted officially until 1821. Its influence was much weakened by the late 1700s under the government of the Marquis of Pombal but returned strengthened with Queen Mary I. Autos de fe also took place in Mexico, Brazil and Peru. Contemporary historians, such as Bernal Díaz del Castillo, recorded them. They were also held in the Portuguese colony of Goa, India, following the establishment of the Inquisition there in 1562-1563.

5 – My doctoral research and the state of it

As seen previously, my doctoral research is about the relationship between Theatricality and Society/Power. I have chosen the Auto de Fe as a specific case because it’s one of the ceremonies that are less studied in Portugal as far as its relation with theatricality and spectacle is concerned. I am inclined to consider that besides all the apparatus that it included, the Inquisitors were also aware that it would work as a sort of catharsis for the audience. I still don’t have enough elements to infer that, but by reading Roger Graínger’s The Drama of the Rite: Worship, Liturgy and Theatre Performance, it is getting more and more clear to me that there was that element of “purging” the audience during the proclamation of the condemned. Otherwise they would not include chants like de te deum laudamus or the veni creator spiritus, both hymns praising God.

Previously I devoted my time to the complementation of the credits which are obligatory by the Bologna process; I read and noted several historical and theoretical texts which are related to my work selecting and defining concepts of major interest for my research; I studied several images and documents related to Autos de Fe in the Portuguese National Archive of the Torre do Tombo and in the Portuguese National Library selecting the most pertinent ones for my project; I defined and deepened the concepts of theatricality, spectacle and representation as well as Victor Turner’s concept of liminality, Erika Fisher-Lichte’s concepts of phenomenal body and semiotic body, Friedrich Schiller’s concepts of formal impulse, material impulse and playful impulse; I wrote an abstract and a critical analysis on the text The Performance of Culture: Anthropological and Ethnographic Approaches, by Marvin Carlson (which was presented during the seminar on Documentation oriented by Professor Maria Helena Serôdio) dedicated to the issue of performance and how it operates on the individual level; I also wrote the study No Women in the Theatre (Queen Mary I and the prohibition of women both on stage and among the audience), a paper read in the framework of the 52nd Conference of the IFTR– July 2009 – that focused on Theatre and Censorship (the title being “Silent Voices, Forbidden Lives”). That paper is about to be published in the Portuguese theatre journal Sinais de cena, its issue number 12, which is due to be released in December.

I am now working on the issue of performance/transversality/liminality confronting the works of Nietzsche, Turner, Fisher-Lichte and Goffman. In articulation with this issue I am developing a group of fundamental figures for “tremor and terror” (Kierkgaard) in the “spectacles of public execution” (Foucault).

Due to the scarcity of documents in Portugal on the actions of the Inquisition during the second half of the 18th century, I asked the Vaticano a permission to do a research in the Secret Archives, which was granted, and I will be there during the whole month of March 2010. This research is based on the fact that it was from Rome that the control, alteration and regulation of the Auto de Fe would come.

After that, I will revise all the documents with a directional reading which will focus mainly on the relationships among citizens, the social space of the victims or condemned and the identification of the elements that led to the construction of the religious identity. Those aspects will serve as a parameter for the appreciation of the theatrical moments and their public effectiveness. My last action will be to cross theory and analysis of the documents through the elaboration of a critical text that will include all the information that I have found out and assembled. The interpretation of the data will constitute the basis for the final argument of my thesis. In parallel I will keep the bibliographic research in order to keep it updated which will allow me to include new acknowledgements if necessary.

Most of my actual conclusions and accomplished steps were already included in the previous chapters of this paper.

6 – A few considerations in manner of conclusion

Theatricality is a structure that is present in most of the human actions and operates in terms of consequence. Almost everything we do either in group or isolated is supposed to have a determined effect or result. It means that we always think in terms of what is going to be seen and whether or not it is going to be accepted. This “projected” spectator can become real (a concrete person or group of people) or invisible, i.e., divine (e.g. God). During the duration of the “performance”, i.e., between the moment it starts until the moment it ends, there is a period that Victor Turner called liminality or liminarity. This period comprehends the transformation – the spectator is not what he was before and is still not what he is going to be in the end (even if there is only a slight and subtle alteration). In the concrete case of the Auto de Fe it was during this period that I believe that something similar to the catharsis would happen. The audience would fear for their souls and bodies because the possibility of being burned at the stake as the last and stronger penalty would horrify them. Even if they were “thirsty of blood” I believe they would be horrified or, at least, they would not be indifferent to the image of those condemned being burned (the fire would also symbolize Hell). But this last “show” was secular. It was not provided by the Church although it was due to the religious institution that it was carried out. The bonfire would just conclude what had already happened during the Auto de Fe (the proclamation of the convicted with hymns, chants and psalms). Theatricality had already taken place in the catholic ceremony and had a second and last act in the secular ceremony. The second “act” might not have included hymns or chants (I still lack that information) but it surely included the choreography of guards bringing the victim to the place of the bonfire, the cries of the people (whether encouraging or rebelling against the burning), the drums, the vocal effects of the announcement of the penalty having been accomplished. Theatricality, I am sure, was a structure transversal to the domains of both monastic and secular power in what concerns the Auto de Fe.

7 – Images

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

8 – Images credits

1 – Cover of the first French Edition of “The Society of Spectacle”

2 – World Trace Center attacked 2001

3 – Moscow Theatre Siege 2004

4 – Chechens accused of the Moscow theatre siege

5 – Pagan ritual

6 – Caddo Indian with antler headress dances in a ritual ceremony marking the death of a special chief or leader in the tribe

7 – Roman Circus

8 – Fascist parade in Barcelona

9 – Auto de Fe in Spain, 1683, by Frncisco Ricci

10 –St Dominic judging "heretics" who are about to be burned at the stake

12 – Inquisition in Portugal

13 – Representation of an AUTO DA FE, 1822

9 - Bibliography:

BETTENCOURT, Francisco

1996: História das Inquisições – Portugal, Espanha e Itália, Lisboa: Temas e Debates

BRAGA, Isabel M. R. Mendes Drumond,

2006, “Representação, Poder e Espectáculo: o Auto da Fé”, Turres Veteras VIII. História das Festas, coordenação de Carlos Guardado da Silva, Lisboa, Torres Vedras, Edições Colibri, Câmara Municipal de Torres Vedras, Instituto Alexandre Herculano, pp. 177-185.

DEBORD, Guy

1991, A Sociedade do Espectáculo, Lisboa: Mobilis in Mobile

EVREINOV, Nicolai

S/D, El teatro y la vida, Buenos Aires: Leviatã

FINTER, Helga

2003, A teatralidade e o teatro; espectáculo do real ou realidade do espectáculo? – Notas sobre a teatralidade e o teatro recente na Alemanha, in Revista Teatro al Sur, n.º25, Argentina

FISHER-LICHTE, Erika

2005, Theatre, Sacrifice, Ritual, Exploring Forms od Political Theatre, London and New York: Routledge

GOFFMAN, Erving

1959, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books Doubleday & Company, Inc.

GRAÍNGER, Roger

2009, The Drama of the Rite, Eastbourne: Sussex Academic Press

JOUSSE, Marcel

1969, L’Anthropologie du geste, Paris: Resma

MOSSE, George L.; BRAUN, Emily; BEN-GHIAT, Ruth

1999, A Estética do Fascismo, Lisboa: Edições João Sá da Costa

PAVIS, Patrice

1996, Dictionnaire du Théâtre, préface de Anne Ubersfeld, Édition revue et corrigée, Paris: Dunod

TURNER, Victor

1969, The Ritual Process, Structure and Anti-Structure, New York: Aldine de Gruyter



[1] We should not, however, forget the very important book edited by Traccy C. Davis and Thomas Postlewait, Theatricality, in 2003 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), where we can find illuminating articles by, among others, the Editors themselves and Shannon Jackson.

[2] Just as a reminder, the word Theatre derives from the Ancient Greek theatron (θέατρον) meaning "the seeing place", while the word Spectacle drives itself a reflection of the Latin spectaculum "a show" from spectare "to view, watch". As we all know, the Greek culture is centuries older than the Latin (Roman) one. Also, according to Helga Finter, from the place of the spectator (theatron) derives the theatre and from its activity (theaomai – to look simultaneously with the eyes and with the mind) came the terms theatre and theory. Cfr. Helga Finter, 2003, A teatralidade e o teatro; espectáculo do real ou realidade do espectáculo? – Notas sobre a teatralidade e o teatro recente na Alemanha, in Revista Teatro al Sur, n.º25, Argentina, p. 1. I also would like to make clear that although Aristotle mentioned the existence of characters in the group of elements that compose Theatre, in no place he says that the absence of that element invalidates theatre. Of course a character can have traces other than the mask itself; it can be representative of the function of the person who is “acting”. But that is another entire chapter for another study.

Monday, July 20, 2009

Comunicação para FIRT/IFRT

Boas, a semana passada foi a conferência internacional anual da FIRT/IFRT, cujo tema geral era "Censorship and Performance". Segue a minha comunicação/paper.
Besos

UNIVERSITY OF LISBON

FACULTY OF LETTERS

ARTISTIC STUDIES



No Women in the Theatre:
Paper to be read at the IFTR/2009

Bruno Schiappa

PHD program
in Artistic Studies
Specialty: Theatrical Studies

2009




4 – Introduction
5 – 1) Women gradually banned from Theatre
7 – 2) The statements of foreigners regarding the Theatre in Portugal
7 – 2.1) William Beckford
7 – 2.2) Duc du Chateley
8 – 2.3) Robert Southey
9 – 3) Pina Manique and the banishment of Women both from the stage and from the Theatre buildings
9 – 3.1) The case of Luisa Todi
10 – 3.2) The Royal Theatre of São Carlos
11 – 4) Prejudice Extension
12 – Conclusion
23 – Bibliography






No Women in the Theatre

Introduction

No matter how skilled a man may be to perform the role of a woman, it will never be fully accomplished if the purpose is to recreate the most inner truth of a female emotional state and vice versa.
Hence, if women are prevented from acting and only men play female roles, something will be missing in the performance since there is no true inner commitment as far as feelings are concerned. There might be some exceptions but one cannot count on that to make a rule.
However, in the 18th century women were kept from showing themselves in Royal spectacles and public Theatres. In fact, during the reign of the Portuguese Queen Mary I (r. 1777 – 1816), they were simply banished not only from the stage but from the auditorium.
This circumstance not only provoked a delay in the development of the Theatre in Portugal (mainly in Lisbon) but it also restrained the development of the Portuguese society as far as the ideas of the Enlightenment are concerned.
The Enlightenment considered Theatre to be a “school of civilization” and a moderator of vices as well as a morality builder and to be so it should always be “vraisemblable” or truth-seeming.
Therefore, the atmosphere of the theatrical performances where only men played all the roles, which were considered ridiculous by several foreigners who visited Portugal at the time, could not be of much contribution for the achievement of such an elevated title that the rest of the Western World conferred to the Theatre.
1 – Women gradually banned from Theatre
Already during the last years of the reign of the Portuguese King John V, when he became feverishly devoted to religion, women started to be cast away from the Royal stages. During the reign of King Joseph I, due to the deep jealousy of the Queen Mariana, they were not even allowed among the audience in the theatre performances at the Royal stages. In 1772 two foreigners, Twiss and Wraxall, wrote the following:
Twiss: I went to the King’s palace, in Belém, the 17th November, where I saw the Italian opera Ezio. (…) women are not allowed to this show, except for the ones of the Royal House. They are also not admitted in the Theatre: castrati in women’s disguises take their place (…). But I was shocked by seeing the ballets during the intermissions, performed by men, whose black beards and large shoulders under women’s costumes do not inspire anything pleasant. This unusual habit is said to be caused by the Queen’s jealousy. (CARREIRA: p. 391)
Wraxall: (…) A circumstance distinguished these representations of everything I had seen in other places; it may seem very extraordinary, therefore you’ll hardly believe it: women were completely excluded, not only from the room but also from the stage; thus, none could be neither spectator nor actress. (Ibidem).
After the death of King Joseph I, women were banned from the Public stages. Laureano Carreira says that at this time, in Lisbon, women only had the chance to act in the private houses (CARREIRA: (p.398). With Queen Mary I those measures forbidding women on stages were so strict that “the proscription of female performers was a sine qua non without which a theatrical script could not be performed.” (ELEUTÉRIO: p. 278). It means that in order to get a license from the Real Mesa Censória for a script to be performed, the theatrical entrepreneurs had to declare that it would only be played by men.
Queen Mary I claimed that this was imposed in order to keep the morality and good values.
In a letter of 1779, Arthur William Costigan[1] wrote:
Dear brother:
I promised that in one of my letters I would tell you about a theatre performance that we attended to. It was an authentic farce; in my point of view, it exceeded in ridiculous and grotesque everything rude that was ever produced in the Theatre. Nowadays there’s no public theatre because the pious Queen does not allow a public school of immorality; she would even less allow that women could show up on stage. Her opinion is that consenting women to expose themselves to audiences in that way would look like she was sponsoring the favorite vice of the country; since the main issue is to avoid scandal. It does confirm what I said some time ago, the same way that also agrees with the advise given in this country by old monks to the youth: si non caste tantum modo caute, if you can’t be a saint at least take care. According to these same reasons, Her Majesty, due to her absolute authority, can prevent women from performing in public: they, however, thank God that she is not empowered to keep them from performing in private. (CARREIRA: p 476. T. M.)
Whether or not it was because of the above mentioned reasons or because of her deep jealousy, the fact is that only in 1800 women were officially back on stage as actresses.





2 –Assessments of foreigners regarding the Theatre in Portugal
Several travelers left their impressions about the theatrical life in Portugal during the 18th century. I have selected the statements of three travelers who visited Portugal between the years 1787 and 1797.

2. 1 – William Beckford – (1760 – 1844)
Was in Portugal in 1787/88 and again in 1794
D. Pedro (…) entreated me to take them to the Salitri theatre, where a box had been prepared for us by his father’s orders. Upon the whole I was better entertained than I expected, though the performance lasted above four hours and a half, from seven to near twelve. It consisted of a ranting prose tragedy, in three acts, called Sesostris, two ballets, a pastoral, and a farce. The decorations were not amiss, and the dresses showy. A shambling, bear-eyed boy, bundled out in weeds of the deepest sable, squeaked and bellowed alternately the part of a widowed princess. Another hob-e-di-hoy, tottering on high-heeled shoes, represented her Egyptian majesty, and warbled two airs with all the nauseous sweetness of a fluted falsetto. Though I could have boxed his ears for surfeiting mine so filthly, the audience were of a different opinion, and were quite enthusiastic in their applause. (BECKFORD: pp.239, 240)
2. 2 – Duc du Chatelet – (1727 – 1793)
Was in Portugal in uncertain year and his statements were published in 1799
To emphasize the disgust inspired by their dramatic representations, a false idea of decency completely swept women away from stage and one has to accept to see men who bear beards playing the roles of queens, princesses and lovely ladies. The beautiful sex is excluded even from the ballets. The repertory of its actors is mainly based on the best plays translated from the French, Italian, a large number from Spanish and a few ones from the English. They even translated several of our comic-operas. However, their favorite plays are still those which tell the mysteries of the Passion and other aspects of the Holy Book; those which represent Christ, the Holy Virgin and the Saints. (CHATELÊT: p. 83. T. M.)
2. 3 – Robert Southey
Was in Portugal in 1797 and in 1800
The Italian Opera, whose absurdity requires such wickedness to support it, is in general but thinly attended here. The present Queen suffers no woman to appear on stage, and this measure, in reality the effect of her jealousy, was said to proceed from her regard to the morals of the public. Permission has been granted since I arrived here for a female dancer to exhibit herself, and the theatre has been crowded in consequence. Where was her Majesty’s regard to the public morals when she permitted this? No amusement should be tolerated which cannot benefit the spectator, and must vitiate the performer. Such Spartan-like prohibitions would be deemed despotic in our modern free states, where sumptuary laws are thought encroachments upon freedom; but how the diseased man shrinks when you touch his sores! (SOUTHEY: Pp. 345, 346)
As we can see the result of men pretending to be women was not very pleasant , according to these statements and we can imagine that the result for the local people was also ridiculous, grotesque or at least comic. That would be the result of a constant caricature and therefore would not honour the Theatre.






3 – Pina Manique and the banishment of Women both from the stage and from the Theatre buildings
In 1780, December the 15th, the Chief of the Portuguese Police, Pina Manique, observing a request for a license for theatrical plays, writes the following to the Queen Mary I:
… it seems to me that the applicants are worthy of the requested grace mainly because all the plays will be performed only by men which means that there won’t occur those disturbances which arouse whenever there is a huge gathering of people of both sexes. And to cut any abusive situation that might show up it is necessary that under no pretext shall women be allowed to pass the doors of the Theatre of the representation, back stage, and scenery places and lodges; and in the boxes there shall be no curtains and no woman or prostitute who shadow the virtue shall be accepted.
3. 1 – The case of Luisa Todi (1753 – 1833)
Luisa Todi was the most famous Portuguese actress and singer of the 18th century. She worked in Lisbon and than she moved to Oporto where she worked from 1771 until 1776, the year in which she left Portugal to work abroad becoming very famous and singing on the most prestigious stages in Europe. In spite of the importance of her diplomatic role carrying the name of Portugal wherever she sang, she suffered the restraining measures that did not allow women to act on Portuguese Theatres. She was only allowed to come back to sing in 1793, for the celebration of the birth of the Princess of Beira, Maria Teresa de Bragança. Todi needed a special permit which was only granted due to the intervention of the Empress of Prussia and to the request made by the Portuguese diplomat assigned to her court. It was the same Pina Manique who accepted her for the celebration but Victor Eleutério says that:
The coldness of the reception, the absence of the royal family and the audience’s lack of enthusiasm dramatically highlighted the difference in the presence of Europe’s most famous actress and singer. (ELEUTÉRIO: p.263)
Luisa Todi came back to Portugal in 1799 and died in 1811, poor and blind.
3. 2 – The Royal Theatre of São Carlos
In 1793, June 21st, the same Chief of the Police asked Queen Mary I permission to change the name of the new Opera Theatre from Princesa do Brasil to São Carlos.
At this point, the last request is to beg Your Highness to give us the license to name the actual Theatre Princesa do Brasil with the title of São Carlos (…).
The Theatre had been built with money from several merchants and the gathered receipts were meant to finance the functioning of the Casa Pia, an Orphanage for boys founded by Pina Manique. Queen Mary was not interested in promoting a Theatre, since it was due to her that women were kept away from all official stages, hence, for a Public Theatre to be blessed by her it would better carry a religious name. Since its architect, José da Costa e Silva, had followed the plan of the Teatro S. Carlo in Naples, the choice was clear. In fact, if women were not allowed to act how could a Theatre bear the name of a woman and specially of a royal one? The fact that it was previously called Teatro Princeza do Brasil mislead some of the Portuguese Historians about the origin of its name.







4 – Prejudice Extension
As Roland Barthes once said, mentalities take longer to change than ideologies. Prejudice belongs to the ambit of mentality. Therefore, when a prejudice is installed, even when political and social circumstances change, the social behaviour tends to remain unchanged for a while. In 1805, 3rd of January, the Police Chief at the time, still under the authority of Queen Mary I (although her madness was already deeply installed and her son was the regent since 1799), writes in the books of the Intendência Geral da Polícia:
I was notified by Agostinho Catalani that in his house had been insulted by Jozé Antonio Caminha, Lucio Jozé Bolonha, and Manoel Izidro da Paz beating him with several slaps and meaning to throw him from the stairs because the above mentioned Agostinho Catalani wanted to preserve the honour of his house and not to allow them in there (…). In the morning of the following day he came with tears in his eyes repeating the same notification and saying again that he did not want to lose the good opinion in which he had always preserved his wife, and daughter, in Italy and several other countries of Europe where he had been. (…) It is true that no family chief is obliged to allow in his house any person against his will; it is also true that wife and children are subjected to him and that the recurrent has given proves that he keeps wife and daughter without any note in their behaviour, which is very rare among people who work in the Theatre.

Catalani’s wife as well as his daughter were both actresses and singers and the event took place after an opening in S. Carlos’ Theatre.









Conclusion
Either caused by despotic authority or under the reasons of religion, censorship against women did create a bigger gap than the one that already existed between Portugal and the rest of the Europe. It limited Theatrical evolution for it ignored the importance of women to convey feminine emotions. Failing that, the role of Theatre as a “school of civilization” also failed. Therefore, the ideas of the Enlightenment did not reach the Portuguese population as far as Theatre is concerned. It was a drawback in what Marquês de Pombal had achieved. It was a drawback from the rest of the world. That was the consequence of a situation that lasted for more than twenty years. A situation that kept the audience away from truth and seriousness, by depriving it from watching women act. Those were the consequences of casting women away from stages silencing their voices and forbidding their lives.













Bibliography
Contas da Secretaria da Intendência Geral da Polícia, Livros I, IV e VIII, A. N. T. T.
BECKFORD, William
1835, Italy; with sketches of Spain and Portugal, Vol. II, London: Richard Bentley
BRITO, Manuel Carlos de,
1989, Opera in Portugal in the eighteenth century, Cambridge: Cambridge
CARREIRA, Laureano
1988, O Teatro e a Censura em Portugal na Segunda Metade do séc. VXIII, Lisboa: Imprensa nacional – Casa da Moeda
CHATELET, Duc du,
1799, Voyage en Portugal, Vol. II, BN
ELEUTÉRIO, Victor Luís,
2003, Luisa Todi, Lisboa: Montepio Geral
SOUTHEY, Robert,
1799, Letters written during a short residence in Spain and Portugal, Bristol: Longman and Rees.


[1] Literary pseudonym of the Portuguese Major Diogo Ferrier.

Academic or not?

Pois é querido blog. Apesar de, universalmente, os estudos performativos serem considerados sine qua non para perceber a evolução do ser humano e da sociedade (ethnos, pathos, ethos), o preconceito medíocre continua a ver só a aplicabilidade prática. Mesmo sendo uma área de estudos da Univ. Clássica. O pior é que parte dos próprios performers. Põe-me os nervos em franja. Eu explico, os Estudos Artísticos existem num vertente teórica que se define por ciências sociais e humanas. Qualquer candidatura à bolsa mais elevada neste país (Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia), da qual sou bolseiro, só é atribuída, depois de se considerar pertinente e inovador o projecto de Doutoramento, se o estado da "arte" naquela área for pouco desenvovido e merecer atenção. Inferimos, deste modo, que para o conhecimento instituído, é definida como arte toda e qualquer obra (work) que nasça da mão do homem. Assim, as ciências matemáticas: física, química e medicina, são "arte". Política, é arte, psicologia é arte, antroplogia é arte, sociologia, é arte, etc. Porquê? Porque tudo aquilo que exista na natureza em estado bruto e caótico só passa a ter existência concreta quando "organizado" pelo Homem. A partir desta premissa, tudo o que existe e que foi instituído pelo Homem é Arte. Já na Grécia Clássica, as três disciplinas mais importantes eram, por esta mesma ordem, Arte, Filosofia e Direito.
Ora bem, onde quero eu chegar com isto? Acontece que, como sou um homem de palco (dos teatros e afins) o meu percurso académico é assombrado por isso, i.e., como estou a fazer um Doutoramento em Estudos Artísticos (depois de um Mestrado em estudos de Teatro e, antes dele, uma pós graduação/especialização na mesma área), ainda ouço colegas a falarem como me falavam outrora no Curso Superior de Teatro (como se fosse só ler, escrever e fazer peças). Bom, há poucos dias, falando sobre as defesas das teses de mestrado, alguém referia uma tese como "mais" académcia do que outra. Ora, se são tudo áreas da Academia como é que uma pode ser "mais" académica do que a outra? Têm a mesma extensão, são sujeitas à mesma forma estrutural e têm que integrar uma determinada quantidade de biografia pertinente. Além de que são sempre o estudo de uma ideia de determinado campo do conhecimento. Excepto quando se passa para o plano do Doutoramento no qual se passa para a defesa de uma ideia nova e inovadora para determinado campo do conhecimento. Não sei porquê mas irritou-me mesmo muito. Bem, irá passar rapidamente, tenho a certeza.
Besos

Thursday, July 09, 2009

Hello life!


Querido Blog, long time no see :--).Ontem fui aos Fados da Tasca do Chico com um amigo que vive em Londres e estava cá de fugida. Adivinhem quem lá estava com o seu staff? E GNR's à paisana? O Sacana Lopes (perdão, Santana), lol.Hoje fui ver "Bruno": um must para escapar às sugestões da silly season. Terminei o dia a comprar o CD dos Oquestrada (Martinha, que saudades dos vossos tempos Chapitonianos com a banda sonora que fizeram para o Nosferatu). Estou a ouvir agora e animadamente. Ainda comprei dois filmes com o Sr. Javier Barden (Golden Balls e Desejos Inconscientes). A partir dagora venha o Sacha Baron Cohen quando quiser. Fiquei fã :-). Bem, vou passear o Lobo. Entretanto fiquem com o momento trágico em que medeia é consumida pelo fogo irreversível da verdade depois de matar os filhos. Besos

video

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

7 da manhã


Odeio as pessoas que se levantam às sete da manhã na boa. Eu nunca consigo. Parece sempre que os olhos estão colados.

Mas enfim.... la vie oblige.

Besos

Monday, April 27, 2009

Produção e programação nacional

Não sei qual é pior, se a produção da TVI ou se a programação da SIC.
A TVI apresenta, numa produção sua, Equador, onde surge uma pedra de tomar banho e/ou lavar as mãos com a inscrição lift up, isto numa época em Portugal era um dos grandes fabricadores de parafernália para a higiene no WC. A SIC programou uma novela brasileira, com o título Caminho para as Índias, onde as mulheres fazem a dança sagrada dos dedos e mãos sem o mínimo cuidado de saberem o que estão a fazer.
Enfim.
F***-se. É mesmo atroz a actualidades.
Besos

Sunday, April 26, 2009

25 de Abril e Mais







Ora, foi um fim de semana votado a Abril e foi muito bom :-))
No sábado fui sozinho ao Rossio porque o ppl estava de ressaca. Mas não pude deixar de marcar presença na celebração da Liberdade. Ainda este fim de semana também fui "baptizar" o Lobo na praia. Fica o vídeo.

Besos

video