4 from ritual to theater and back: the efficacy ... - AAAARG.ORG

seems to me that the reason someone wants to put that play together
in a production is because they are pulled to its vision. If that’s true
then it seems they should respect the form that vision takes place in
and not merely extrapolate its language and invent another form
which isn’t the play. It may be interesting theater but it’s not the play
and it can never be the play. . . . I’m sure that if you attempt other plays
by living writers you’re going to run into the same situation. It’s a
question you should really look into rather than sweep it aside as
being old-fashioned or even unimportant.
TPG’s production resulted in a dissociation between drama–script and
theater–performance, as well as a further dissociation between theater
and performance. The model can be redrawn into utterly discrete units,
each of which may be in opposition to one or more of the others
(figure 3.4). It is this process of dissociation, and its consequent
tensions, ambivalences, and novel combinations that characterizes the
contemporary avant-garde, including postmodern dance.
An issue of importance raised by Shepard in his letter is what to do
with the author’s “vision.” To what degree ought the drama determine
the script, theater, and performance? The issue has too often been
avoided since the mid-1960s because those most deeply into dissociating
elements have written their own dramas (Foreman, Wilson),
brought dramatists into the theaters and controlled their visions
(Chaikin–van Itallie, Brook–Hughes), or worked from existing
Figure 3.4
drama, script, theater, and performance 77