Structuralism amp Semiotics Is this a dagger I see before me I dont know Give me a sign Approaching theory C hoosing to emphasise a concept in a new way is much ID: 336950
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Theatre Theory: Week 3" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Theatre Theory: Week 3 Structuralism & Semiotics
“Is this a dagger I see before me?”
(...I don’t know?!
Give me a sign...) Slide2
Approaching theory:
C
hoosing
to emphasise
a concept in a new way, is
much
more
important
than
discovering
a new concept
.
Simply
look
at it from a different angle. Slide3
Q.
How
might a Liberal Humanist Read this poem, as compared to a
structuralist
?
Red was your colour.
If not red, then white. But red
Was what was wrapped around you.
Blood-red. Was it blood?
Was it red-ochre, for warming the dead?
Haematite to make immortal
The precious heirloom bones, the family bones.
When you had your way finally
Our room was red. A judgement chamber.
Shut casket for gems. The carpet of blood
Patterned with
darkenings
,
congealments
.
The curtains - ruby corduroy blood,
Sheer blood-falls from ceiling to floor.
The cushions the same. The same
Raw carmine along the window-seat.
A throbbing cell. Aztec alter-temple.
Only the bookshelves escaped into whiteness.
And
outside the window
Poppies thin and wrinkle-frail
As the skin on blood,
Salvias, that your father named you after,
like blood lobbing from a gash,
And roses, the heart’s last gout,
Catastropic
, arterial, doomed.
Your velvet long full skirt, a swathe of blood,
A lavish burgundy.
Your lips a dipped, deep crimson.
You
reveled
in red.
I felt it raw - like the crisp gauze edges
Of a stiffening wound. I could touch
The open vein in it, the crusted gleam.
Everything you painted you painted white
Then splashed it with roses, defeated it,
Leaned over it, dripping roses,
Weeping roses, and more roses,
Then sometimes, among them, a little bluebird.
Blue was better for you. Blue was wings.
Kingfisher blue silks from San Francisco
Folded your pregnancy
In crucible caresses.
Blue was your kindly spirit - not a ghoul
But electrified, a guardian, thoughtful.
In the pit of red
You hid from the bone-clinic whiteness.
But the jewel you lost was blue.
Hughes
,
Ted
Birthday
Letters,
Red.
Faber & Faber. London Slide4
Structuralism
Difficult to boil structuralism down to a single ‘bottom-line’ proposition
Its essence:
the belief that things cannot be understood in isolation - they have to be seen in the context of the larger structures they are part of
(hence the term ‘structuralism’).
The structures in question are imposed by our way of
perceiving
the world and
organising
the experience.
The
structuralists
opposed the Liberal Humanists in that they believed that meaning or significance
isn’t
a kind of core or essence
inside
things: but rather, meaning is always
outside
.
Furthermore they believed that meanings are
attributed
to the things by the human mind, not contained
within them.Slide5
Structuralism
The
structurlalist
approach is taking us further and further
away from THE TEXT and into large, abstract questions of genre, philosophy and
language
.
F
or
structuralists
,
determining the precise nature of
Ted
Hughe’s
poem is
important.
Liberal Humanist would want
to
work only with the
text.
Structuralists
move away from interpreting individual literary work and look toward the abstract structures which contain them.
T
hese
structures are
abstract
:
the ‘notion’ of a play , or the ‘notion’ of ‘drama’.
Arrival of structuralism in Britain and the USA in the 1970s caused a great deal of controversy
.
Structuralism ‘turned
English studies on its
head’
Devalued ‘all
that it had held dear for around half a
century’ , asking
questions such as :
what do we mean by ‘’literature’? ‘How do narratives work?’ ‘What
is
a poetic structure?’
Traditional critics did not welcome the suggestion that they ought to switch their attention from
the individual literary work to larger philosophical notions
Remember the project of theory:
To re- establish connections between literary study and three academic fields:
LANGUAGE / HISTORY / PHILOSOPHY Slide6
FERDINAND DE SAUSSURE
W
ords are
arbitrary
. Attributed by random chance. Not logical. They bear no connection to what the word designates. Words are ‘unmotivated signs’,
this is not a new thing to say. (Plato)
HOWEVER
it is a new thing to emphasise.
What is the implication if we make this a central notion?
I
f words are arbitrary, then
language can’t possibly be a reflection of the world and experience”
An attack on Liberal humanism (trust the text).
2. Words
can’t be defined in isolation
from other words. Its meaning depends on its definition to other words.
Meanings of words are relational
THEY ARE UNDERSTOOD when look at in context of ‘how they relate to each other’ ( We have no concept of ‘day’ without the linked concept of ‘night. No notion of ‘good’ without the notion of ‘bad’).
We construct something by how we choose to ‘coin’ (name) it.
This ‘coining’ has implications on its meaning:
terrorist vs. freedom fighter
council estate vs. social housing
Language establishes our world
, it doesn’t just record it.
Meaning is always attributed to the object [or idea] by the human mind, and
constructed by and expressed through language: it is not already contained within the thing.Slide7
Signifier (sign)& Signified Slide8
Signifier (sign) & Signified Slide9
Signifier (sign) & Signified Slide10
Signifier (sign) & Signified
Slide11
Applying the ideas of structuralism to theatre:
If we ‘read’ a scene through the application of semiotics, what new questions might we ask?
Where might we find meaning?
The
signifier
is the ensemble of elements in a theatrical production that compose its meaning - the text, the actor, the stage space, the lights, the blocking, the stage directions.
The
signified
is the meaning or message which is derived from this signifier by the ‘collective consciousnesses’ of the audience
.
So, for example
,
semiotics
seeks to describe the way in which the set becomes a sign: how it signifies place, time, social milieu and mood. Semiotics also identifies and explores those elements of the actors performance that signify character and objective to the audience
.
Practical
Work:
David
Tennant's Coward Soliloquy - Hamlet - Preview - BBC
Two.
SEE LINK BELOW FOR THE EXAMPLE USED IN CLASSSlide12
Signifier & Signified David
Tennant's Coward Soliloquy - Hamlet -
BBC
Two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8VOZLjQbvQ&feature=relatedDoes your dog bite? http://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXn2QVipK2o
(
We used this example in class for a semiotic reading of why this jokes works. i.e. HOW ITS MEANING IS MADE!) Slide13
HAMLET, PRINCE OF DENMARK
ACT II, SCENE ii
Hamlet
Am I a coward? Who calls me villain? breaks my pate across?
Plucks off my beard and blows it in my face? Tweaks me by the nose? gives me the lie
i
' the throat
As deep as to the lungs? who does me this, ha?
'
Swounds
, I should take it: for it cannot be But I am pigeon-
liver'd
, and lack gall
To make oppression bitter; or ere this I should have fatted all the region kites
With this slave's offal: bloody, bawdy villain! Remorseless, treacherous, lecherous,
kindless
villain!
O, vengeance!
Why, what an ass am I! This is most brave, That I, the son of a dear father
murder'd
,
Prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell, Must, like a whore, unpack my heart with words
And fall a-cursing like a very drab,
A scullion!
Fie
upon't
!
foh
!--About, my brain! I have heard That guilty creatures, sitting at a play,
Have by the very cunning of the scene Been struck so to the soul that presently
They have
proclaim'd
their malefactions; For murder, though it have no tongue, will speak
With most miraculous organ, I'll have these players Play something like the murder of my father
Before mine uncle: I'll observe his looks; I'll tent him to the quick: if he but blench,
I know my course. The spirit that I have seen May be the devil: and the devil hath power
To assume a pleasing shape; yea, and perhaps Out of my weakness and my melancholy,--
As he is very potent with such spirits,--
Abuses me to damn me: I'll have grounds More relative than this.—
the play's the thing Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king .
[Exit.] Slide14
In review: KEY IDEAS ARISING FROM STRUCTURLAISM
(How might these points take issue with Liberal Humanism? Think your way through the different elements which make up theatre how might structuralism and semiotics bring you to a new understanding of theatre as a sign system):
FERDINAND DE SAUSSURE:
The meanings we give to words are purely
arbitrary.
The meanings of words are
relational
.
Language
constitutes
our world.
SIGNIFIER
AND SIGNIFIED
The basic operatives in the production of meaning are the
signifier
(or sign) and the
signified. Slide15
Concept Checklist
Basic
ideas of Liberal Humanism
Basic ideas of Semiotics and how this theory takes issue with that of Liberal Humanism
Signifier & SignifiedSaussure: Language as arbitrary, relational, constitutive
Decoding a theatrical
performanceSlide16
Further Reflections
Semiotics
, when applied to theatre, explores how theatre ‘communicates’, or how theatre ‘produces a meaning’.
How might the
structuralist approach to theatrical analysis allow you to ‘read’ a text from a different angle? Think your way through all the different elements which make up theatre and think about how structuralism and semiotics might bring us to a new understanding of theatre as a sign system.
Further Reading :
Mythologies
- Roland Barthes (
Palladin
1973)
Theatre as Sign System
- Elaine Aston & George Savona (
Routledge
1991)
Nice Work
- David Lodge (Penguin 1988)Slide17
Next Week
Mark
Fortier & Semiotics:
- “How open are ‘the signs’ of a drama text or performance? Can all audiences be expected to read these signs in the exact way?”
Set Reading:
Review this week’s Peter Barry: 39-60 &
Fortier: 17-36