Introduction to the Theatre

THE 101 / University of Idaho

Chapter 4 / Methods for Analyzing Theatrical Plays

     During the height of Greek civilization a philosopher sat down to record his ideas on the art of poetry.   In Greek culture there were two main kinds of poetry, one was Homeric verse - like the Iliad and the Odyssey, and the other was theatre.   In Aristotle's treatise (De Poetica), he identifies six components necessary to develop a good theatrical performance.

Aristotelian Components:

·        Plot

·        Thought

·        Character

·        Diction

·        Music

·        Spectacle.

    The first two components of plot and thought appropriately address the skills of the playwright.  Aristotle proposed that all good theatre had an identifiable plot or story and that this plot should have an identifiable beginning, middle, and an end.   In addition, a plot should be both logical and credible.   The component of thought identifies the overall theme and/or meaning of the play.   Aristotle also proposed that it should be both identifiable and serve a purpose to the plot.   Character, although clearly a creation and a function of the playwright, also includes the performance of the actor.  For Aristotle, character deals with the credibility and believability of the characters on stage and their relationship to each other.   In addition, diction addresses the ability to hear the oration (or words) of the characters and music pertains to the songs and singing incorporated into the piece.  This can also include chanted melodies or instruments played by the performers.   Both music and diction also deal with the skills of the actor.   The final component of spectacle addresses all the other elements used in the theatre of the time, which include costumes, scenery, and dance.  

     In addition to these six components, Aristotle noted several more terms that will help identify characters and various predicaments in tragedy.   The protagonist is essentially the main character.   In more proper terms, the protagonist is “the one who struggles.”   Although the role of the protagonist was rigidly established as a single individual in Greek times, modern theater has played with this notion and modern playwrights have experimented with and changed both who and what a protagonist can be.   Because of this experimentation, many playwrights define the protagonist as “the person necessary to propel the script forward.”   However, either way, without the protagonist you have no play.   The antagonist is the obstacle that stands in the way of the protagonist.   Although it is usually a character, the antagonist can be a thing, object, or thought.   In a classical tragedy, the protagonist (hero) falls from a great position of power due to a flaw in their character.   This flaw is called the harmatia and is usually some excess emotion, like pride (hubris), in the case of Oedipus.   The reversal of fortune that besets the protagonist is called peripetia and is intended to elicit our pathos or pity and sympathy.   When the protagonist understands that their plight has been brought about by their own harmatia we have reached the moment of recognition called the anagnorisis.   Although a hotly contested translation, a tragedy is complete when the audience is cleansed morally or emotionally by the closure of the tragedy called catharsis.   The catharsis is intended to fortify the ethos or cultural framework of the audience.   These main elements of tragedy, the reversal of the protagonist's fortune brought on by a personal flaw.   The eventual recognition by the protagonist of this tragic flaw followed by the resulting moral consequences of their actions.   Coupled with the final moral re-affirmation of the audience is the hallmark of great tragedy.   Although very dated, you can still easily use these components to analyze the basic parts of any theatrical performance.

Aristotle’s Elements of a Tragedy:

·        Protagonist = Main or Central Character.

·        Antagonist = Obstacle to the Protagonist.

·        Harmatia = Fatal flaw of the Protagonist.

·        Hubris = A type of fatal flaw, pride.

·        Peripetia = Reversal of Fortune.

·        Anagnorisis = Recognition of Deeds.

·        Catharsis = Purgation of Pathos / Establishment of Ethos.

     Extending beyond the basic nature of Aristotle’s notion of plot is Freytag's structural analysis, also known as structuralism.   Freytag, a German philosopher, looks more deeply into the structure of plays and presents us with a linear approach to dissecting the construction of a play.   He presents us with seven key points:

Freytag’s Structural Points:

·        Exposition

·        The inciting incident.

·        Rising and falling dramatic action.

·        Crisis

·        Climax.

·        Resolution

·        Denouement

     Exposition is the period of the play in which we learn all the necessary information we will need to follow the play.   We learn about the protagonist and the antagonist and about the other characters.   We learn who is related to who, and why.   We learn about the time of day, the time of year, the historical reference, and all the other given circumstances necessary to follow the play.   The inciting incident is the point where the major dramatic question is asked.   The major dramatic question, as its name implies, is the question that will need to be resolved or answered for the effective closure of the play.   Following the inciting incident is rising and falling dramatic action.   A well-written play has a series of peaks and valleys in its action or a series of mini crisis and conflicts.   This helps to create suspense and adds to a sense of overall action.   Dramatic action is the process of human change.   It is the desires, conflicts, choices, and changes that the characters undergo that ads fire to the events unfolding.   The crisis is the event that brings the protagonist and antagonist together.   The final conflict between the protagonist and antagonist brings about the climax of the play.   This is followed by the resolution, which is the answer to the major dramatic question.   The denouement is the wrapping up of any loose ends that the resolution has not resolved.   My favorite example is when at the end of the movie, you are shown a picture of the individual characters and a written description tells you what they have gone on to do with their lives after the movie.

Script Analysis for Production Purposes

     Since you will be working on your own mini-production you will need to begin looking at scripts as a blueprint for realizing that production.   The following list of questions should be asked by both participants and observers involved in the production.   These questions move beyond the basic components of Aristotle and the structuralism of Freytag.

     - Where are we?   These are textual references to geography, climate, and both place and setting descriptions.

     - When is it happening?   What is the day, month, and year?   Is it a special occasion, or a significant date or season?

     - Who is involved?   What are the socioeconomic and personal relationships of the characters?   What are the familial and marital relationships?   Which characters have wealth and which characters are impoverished?   Who has the power and control?

     What is the influence of the external forces of government, religion, and ethics?   Is it a democracy, monarchy, anarchy, oligarchy, or dictatorship?   Is it in stability or turmoil?   Are the characters involved?   Is there a reason why they are or are not involved?   Is the dominant religion in the play tolerant or intolerant?   Is it a national or independent religion?   Is it organized or of a pagan nature?   Once again, are the characters involved?   Is there a reason why they are or are not involved in religion?   How are moral decisions and ethics portrayed?   How are sex and the nature of gender viewed?   Are principles and ethics valued?   What power or authority exists to uphold these choices?

     - What has happened before the play begins?   To do this you will need to extrapolate the past, and imagine the chain of events that leads up to this moment in time.   You must do this using the facts and given circumstances from the text.

     - What do the characters think about their world?   Are they representative of it or are they in revolt against it?   Are the characters' insiders or outsiders?   Do they change position or their views throughout the play?   What makes them change?

     - What is the function of each character?   What are their contributions to the script and plot?   What are their needs, goals and desires?   Who or what are the protagonist and antagonist?   Why?   Identify the stereotypes, contrasting characters, and supernumeraries (crowds).

     - What is the dialogue mode?   Is it naturalistic or realistic using normal speech?   Is the dialogue literary or from a historical period like Shakespeare?   Is the dialogue poetic using intense and/or visual metaphors and symbols?   Finally, is the dialogue rhythmic like in a comedy and/or romance?

Who is the playwright?   Why was it written?   Whom was it written for?   What are the major flaws or “plot holes” in the script?   If there are any, how will you correct them (without rewriting them)?

Finally, what is the play’s TOTAL action now?   Does the above information change your initial structural analysis?   I will bet it does. 

     Analyzing anything, whether it is a germ under a microscope or a character in a play, is a continual process of questioning.  Thus, the quality of that analysis largely depends on the quality of the questions and the ability to test the answers.  It is this process, when applied to both the arts and sciences, which reveals truth and creates knowledge.