Eli Rozik

The Functions of Language in the Theatre

Roman Ingardens publication of ‘The Functions of Language in the Theater’ (1958) was a landmark in the development of theatre theory in the twentieth century. Since its appearance several methods of research have radically influenced our understanding of the functions of language within this art, particularly semiotics, pragmatics and philosophy of language. More than thirty years after publication of Ingardens work, it is sensible to address the same question once again and to suggest a theory that reflects the state of the art today.

The Corporeality of the Actor's Body: The Boundaries of Theatre and the Limitations of Semiotic Methodology

In recent years, it has been widely suggested that the bodily presence of the actor (and actress) on stage marks the limits and limitations of the semiotic approach to theatre and determines the need for a more complex methodology of research.

Speech act metaphor in theatre

Abstract Theoretically, the existence of speech act metaphor would appear to be impossible, in that it would necessitate combining the principle of speech activity which, as a specific kind of action, is a referential entity, and the principle of metaphor, which is a standard form of predication and description of referential entities, including actions. The term ‘speech act metaphor’, however, denotes not a verbal metaphor in the propositional content (p) of a speech act, either assertive or other but, rather, a speech act in which the performative component, either verbally indicated or otherwise, is metaphorical in itself. Speech act theory has contemplated the possible explanation of verbal metaphor as a specific kind of speech act, combining literal and non-literal elements, but not the possibility of a performative metaphor. In the theatre, however, and in the so called Theatre of the Absurd in particular, there are many cases that can only be understood if it is assumed that such a combination of principles has materialized. I intend to illustrate this peculiar type of stage metaphor by speech acts in Ionescos Exit the King.

Back to ‘cinema is filmed theatre’

Abstract Following its invention, cinema was initially conceived and approached as photographed theatre. After a reasonable period of self-establishment, however, it has become commonplace that cinema essentially differs from theatre, and is thus a new and independent dramatic art form. Eventually, while the advent of performance art created the illusion of a basic affinity to theatre, on the grounds of spectators actually experiencing real bodies on a stage, there has been a broadening of the alleged gap between theatre and cinema, in which the spectator’s experience is mediated by images of actors projected on a screen. I reconsider here both the initial and eventual approaches, reflecting my own intuition that, without ignoring fundamental differences, a feature film is a recording of a fictional world formulated in the medium of theatre. It has to be decoded and interpreted, therefore, as a theatrical text, since a recording does not change the nature of the recorded text. Consequently, differences between cinema and theatre are fundamentally the result of technical constraints and advantages. I support these theses by a thorough analysis and critic of Roland Barthes’ seminal article ‘Rhetoric of the image’ on still photography.

Minimal acting: On the existential gap between theatre and performance art

Abstract Following Richard Schechner, a current view is that the common denominator of theatre and performance art lies in their encounter of live performers and live spectators; i.e., in being subspecies of “performance.” That theatre is a performing art cannot be denied. However, I suggest here that (a) the category of “performance” is too abstract in order to learn anything about each of these artistic activities; (b) in contrast to performance art, the specific difference of theatre lies in the principle of “deflection of reference” that characterizes “acting”; and (c) this is not a matter of gradation, but of an existential gap.

The Shared Cognitive Intent of Science and Theatre

Science and theatre are generally thought to share no common cognitive ground for the simple reason that the former appeals to the intellect, whereas the latter appeals to the emotions. Contrary to this view, I claim that like scientific texts, theatrical texts evince a cognitive intent and that, despite obvious differences, both types show similarities on three cognitive levels: (a) the use of equivalent systems of representation and communication; (b) the operation of a mode of thinking; and (c) the embodiment of a rhetorical structure.

Sacred Narratives in Secular Contexts

Although sacred narratives are thought to have lost their numinous aura for secular receivers (readers/listeners), their presence is evident whenever mythology, usually taken to reflect a mode of thinking typical of primeval cultures, and its associated themes are used in fictional works. This study aims at elucidating sacred narratives for people who do not subscribe to their sacredness. It attempts to show (1) that myths reflect a fictional mode of thinking; (2) that meaningful myths map the unconscious drives of secular readers/listeners, enabling them to confront them in terms of their own culture; and (3) that fictional thinking thus operates as a psychical laboratory. I illustrate these claims through myths that feature animosity between parents and children, such as the stories of Oedipus, Isaac, and Jesus.

Deconstruction of archetypal characterization: the case of Nina in Chekhov's The seagull

This study explores the Jungian notions of ‘archetype’, ‘projection’ and ‘imago’, and suggests the distinction between ‘archetypal’ and ‘cognitive’ characterization on the level of intention, and its implications regarding dramatic creativity. Whereas archetypal characterization aims at matching archetypes in the spectators’ minds, cognitive characterization aims at saying something true on the nature of real people, in the spirit of naturalism. Archetypal characterization thus offers the opportunity for the spectators to confront suppressed contents of their psyches. This study also suggests a model for the transition from the archetypal mode of characterization to the cognitive one through a process of deconstruction, and applies this model to Ninas process of individuation from adolescence to maturity in Chekhovs The seagull.

The Preverbal Roots of Fictional Thinking

This study suggests the rules that govern the fictional mode of thinking and ponders its possible preverbal roots. Fictional thinking is grafted upon the preverbal imagistic mode of representation, which reflects the spontaneous ability of the brain to produce images and employ them in thinking practices. The human brain spontaneously produces imagistic/fictional worlds that embody thoughts or, rather, bestow cultural form on the amorphous stirrings of the psyche. The creation of language probably had a dramatic impact on preverbal imagistic/fictional thinking in suppressing it to the unconscious and, by its mediation, enabling the creation of iconic media, capable of formulating and communicating fictional worlds. People revert to this mode of thinking because it enables them through metaphoric self-descriptions both to confront their psychic state of affairs and to return to the roots of thought.

Introduction: Semiotic Analysis of Avant-Garde Performance

The use of semiotics as the only analytical tool in performance analysis has been questioned by the Performance Analysis Working Group (PAWG) at the International Federation for Theatre Research since the establishment of this group in 1992. This concern has reflected a profound critique of traditional theatre semiotics for its exclusive interest in theorizing performance texts, on the grounds of abstract principles deduced from general semiotic theories, while very little has been done with respect to putting them to the test in actual analyses of productions. In contrast, the tendency of the PAWG was to develop an inductive method through the analysis of specific performances, which could both probe pre-existing theories and methods and hopefully propose alternative ones. Since then, after almost fifteen years of fruitful activity, additional methods of performance analysis have been found to be useful and even indispensable. In the 2002 edition of his Semiotics of Theatre and Drama, Keir Elam makes the correct observation that during the last fifteen years the semiotic approach to theatre studies has come “to lose its cultural and academic prominence.”1 Indeed, current scholarly attitudes toward the application of semiotic methods to performance analysis range from explicit or implicit partial endorsement to radical rejection. We estimate that the reasons for such a development lie, inter alia, in that traditional semiotic approaches (a) developed into complicated tractates without providing the necessary tools for actual analysis—thus deterring young scholars from investing limited effort and time resources; (b) was made into, in Marco de Marinis’s terms, a “totalitarian and imperialistic” semiotics,2 in the sense of appropriation of fields of research that do not fall in the domain of its charter as a general theory of signs, such as theories of fictional worlds (narratives), as illustrated by Elam