The perspective of research I would like to put forward looks at the theatre as a phenomenon of signification and communication and it is supposed to be oriented basically on the physical theatre.
In general, what I’m interested in is the function of the theatrical relationship between what happens on the scene and the spectator, starting from the point that the peculiarity of live performances lies in the very simultaneity on these two elements. The simultaneity between the production and the communication process is fundamental for the creation of the theatrical relationship generated from the physical co-presence of issuing and receivers. In this context I firmly believe that the instruments of the semiotics disciplines could be very helpful and effective to provide analysis and, even if I am well aware that on one hand the risk of a too analytic work is to limit the potential of the interpretation, on the other hand it unquestionably allows to understand better the deep mechanisms of signification.
For that reason my analysis cannot but take into consideration the Umberto Eco’s theoretical categories (or, better, textual strategies) of Model Author and Model Reader, that can be applicable to performances as significant texts . On this view, performers are communicators and the theatrical text leaves empty spaces which the spectator will fill with his interpretation. What is clear, however, that we are not in the natural world but on a stage, in which the natural world is supposed to be reproduced in a credible way.
Theatre operates a simplified re-semiotization of the real life, in which not only does the mechanisms that generate it become clearer, but also the relationships between actors and between actor and public appear more evident.
On these basis, the great question I want to start from is: what is drama and what creates drama? Which elements create a dramatically interesting situation? How are the meanings effectively conveyed?
Furthermore, the complexity and the syncretism of my object of research led my curiosity towards the physicality of the theatre. As a consequence, another starting point of mine is meant to be the Decroux’s and Arteaud’s idea that at first an actor is a physical presence. According to Etienne Decroux, theatre is the actor, actor is the body, so, it derives that theatre is the body. In addition an actor must be able to do what he wants, not only what he can. The concept of a thinking body and the attempt to portrait with the body the process of thinking by making the movements articulated as thoughts are is really fascinating to me, because it is the body the main mean humans have to communicate through. This idea is really connected to the importance of the intentions and of the subtext of thought that should lie underneath every action (or, why not, stillness) happening on the scene. In this context it turns clear, as a consequence, the relative importance of the object on the scene that, on a view like this, could be undoubtedly questioned.
Bibliography:
Bettetini, G.; Calabrese, O.; Lorusso, A.M.; Violi, P.; Volli, U.
2005, Semiotica, Milano, Raffaello Cortina
De Marinis, Marco
1982, Semiotica del teatro. L’analisi testuale dello spettacolo, Milano, Bompiani
De Marinis, Marco
1999, Capire il teatro. Lineamenti di una nuova teatrologia, Roma, Bulzoni
Eco, Umberto,
1992-93, Sei passeggiate nei boschi narrativi, Harvard University, Norton Lectures
Elam, Keir,
1979, The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama, Routledge, London and New York
Other sources:
A relevant part of my research moves from my notes taken from corporeal mime classes at The International School of Corporeal Mime in London (
www.angefou.co.uk/) by the last Decroux’s assistants Corinne Soum and Steven Wasson.
Another important source are my notes taken from the drama lessons by Alessandra Frabetti, Italian actress, director, teacher and theatrologist.
