Unlike some of the other post terms used in theatre studies post-dramatic is not as negative as others; it is not an attempt to move away or ignore the principles that come before it, but rather to change the focus.  It is aware of dramatic theatre/performance but doesn’t try to recreate it.  This is due to a changing point of view on how theatre should be studied.  As Liz Tomlin points out that drama and theatre studies came from ‘English Literature departments in 1960s’ (2009) meaning that the analysis comes from the script instead of looking at the performance.  As technology advanced then more and more could not be seen in just a script and the post-dramatic wanted to move any from script based performances and more to devised pieces.  This is not because they want to abolish dramatic theatre but to ‘to call theatre “postdramatic” involves subjecting the traditional relationship of theatre to drama to deconstruction’ (2006) as Karen Jürs-Munby puts it.

One of the main problems is determining when a piece of theatre or drama becomes post-dramatic.  Which is made all the more difficult as we also need to consider how theatre should be viewed.  Dan Rebellato claims that, ‘Theatrical representation as metaphorical; actors give performances that becomes metaphors for the characters, the stage becomes a metaphor for indeterminate imaginary worlds or determinate real ones.’ (2009)  This is an apt way of viewing theatre and performance and although it does still contain flaws, it seems to be one of the most complete ways of viewing it.  But the question remains, at what point does a show become post dramatic?

It is generally considered that it comes post-dramatic when the performance doesn’t rely on the script.  So other elements become more important, such as sound, lighting, movement as apposed too the words on the page.  To put it crudely, is the performance uses lighting for 78% of the performance then the script would only be used for 22% meaning that it would be post-dramatic, anything over the 50% thresh hold.  But if it still uses the original text and we still get a moment of catharsis at the end it could still be seen as dramatic.  In essence the lines a blurred and it becomes a matter of opinion and intent not a mathematical formula.

Hans-Thies Lehmann: Translated and introduced by Karen Jürs-Munby Postdramatic Theatre (Routledge: London, 2006)

Rebellato Dan, When We Talk of Horses Or, what do we see when we see a play, Taylor & Francis Ltd. (2009)

Tomlin Liz, ‘And their stories fell apart even as I was telling them’ Poststructuralist performance and the no-longer-dramatic text, Taylor & Francis Ltd. (2009)

 

When trying to find out how an audience responses to a piece of theatre, whether it be experimental, traditional or anything in-between, a number of problem arise.   The main one being that there is no way of know what they all think.  You could hand out questionnaires and hope that people fill them in and hand them back, you could ask people after the show what they thought but you’ll probably only be able to ask a few and some may be in a rush to get home, you could call them in after the event and ask them what they thought but their opinions may have changed from their initial impresses.  And any form of question asking could be leading to try and get them to give a certain answer.  Then you also have to consider whether they are regular theatre goers, are they from the local arear, have they travelled just to see this show, is this a one off treat and so on.  All these can affect the audience responses to a piece and so it is virtually impossible to get an accurate reading about how the audience would have responded.  So any experiments conducted have to be done so in controlled conditions.

For instance, there is a theory that believes that actors off stage can enhance of hinder the actors on stage when conserved with the transferal of emotion from the actors to the audience.  It goes as follows: if the actors off stage are conjuring up the same emotion that the actors are trying to portray the audience seems to feel it more and the actors find it easier to convey that emotion, and if the actors are feeling the opposite emotion the actors find it very difficult to portray the emotion to the audience.  This experiment has taken place a few times and the same results have been found every time although the reasons behind this are unclear.  I personally have not experienced this although it would be very interesting to try.

It should be noted that it was often the actors who were asked whether or not the audience was more responsive.  As far as this is concerned I have had a certain about of experience with responding and reading the audience.  During performance it can be easy and very difficult for an actor to read the audience.  Sometimes you can feel the audience’s response and other time it can be very difficult to know whether they are enjoying it.  Take comedy for example: some audience will laugh freely so you know that you are getting the desired response but other times they might not laugh, they contain themselves but this doesn’t necessarily mean that they aren’t finding it amusing, just that they are not laughing at it.

 

Reason Matthew, Theatre Audiences and Perception of ‘Liveness’ in Performance, Particip@tions Vol. 1 (2004) Available at: http://www.participations.org/volume%201/issue%202/1_02_reason_article.htm