I'm Mike Rugnetta and THIS is the first episode of Crash Course Theater.

Welcome!

In the episodes to come we'll have it all: tragedy, comedy, history, pastoral, pastoral-comical,

historical-pastoral, tragical-historical, tragical-comical-historical-pastoral-expealidocious.

Yup, this series could go on forever.

And let me introduce you to Dionysus, Greek god of the theater.

[[[Maybe Dionysus belches from offstage.]]]

And wine.

They can't all be charming, genius birdmen, I guess.

In this series we'll explore the history of theater and how we can understand and analyze

it.

We'll take a look at significant plays and performances along the way, but in this episode

we're going to define theater and look at some theories about how it got started.

So, Prologue over!

Act 1, Scene 1, BEGIN!

INTRO First!

Let's define “theater, the building”: a theater is a place in which a play is performed.

If you trace the word back to its Greek origins and it literally means “the seeing place.”

It can be big or small, indoors or outdoors, purpose-built or just borrowed.

Sometimes plays are performed in spaces that aren't really theaters at all—in a park

or a parking lot, on a sidewalk, or in a private home.

Theater also refers to the performance of plays and to the body of literature and other

documentation that has accompanied it.

Some plays, known as closet dramas, aren't even written to be performed.

And that's theater, too.

So are improvised plays that don't have a script and plays that have a script, but

don't use words, like some of Samuel Beckett's shorts.

A familiar definition is that theater requires at least one actor and at least one audience

member and that definitely covers a lot of stuff.

But - what's an actor?

What's an audience member?

While most plays use human actors, there are plays performed by robots and laptops with

voice synthesizers.

There are plays performed by animals and by puppets, though usually there's a human

helping out with those.

I hope.

Sooooo … Is everything theater?

If you want a really expansive definition, the composer John Cage said that “theater

takes place all the time, wherever one is; an art simply facilitates persuading one this

is the case.”

So…is this theater?

Well, not for you.

You're watching a video recorded earlier.

But here.

In this room.

I'm performing, right?

And there's an audience if you include Stan and Zulaiha watching me.

Am I doing theater?

Want to hear my “To be or not to be,” guys?

Yorick?

Aw.

They say no every time!

A plague on both your houses.

What is and isn't theater is the kind of question that can make your head spin.

We'll come back to it a couple of times, especially when we talk about political theater

and protest theater and immersive theater, but for now we'll use a more narrow definition:

theater is a deliberate performance created by live actors and intended for a live audience,

typically making use of scripted language.

We may meet some exceptions along the way—lookin' at you, robo-actors—but this'll work for

now.

And, before we get too far, let's confront the perennial controversy: should you spell

theatre re or er?

And the short answer is, both of them are fine!

RE is more common outside of the US but for some folks, this spelling acts as a shibboleth.

You may have heard someone say “a theater is a building; but the theatre is an art!”

or “theater is a destination, but theatre is a journey”.

Here at Crash Course, we don't mind either... but have chosen to stick with er for consistency.

There's no origin story for theater that everyone agrees on, but there are some theories

we can explore.

In the West, at least, up until the sixth or seventh century BCE we didn't have theater

as we know it today, but we did have religious ritual, which can get pretty theatrical.

Rituals are often ways of mediating between the human and the supernatural.

They can serve to enact or re-enact significant events in the human or supernatural world—births,

marriages, deaths, harvests.

In ritual, according to the mythology scholar Mircea Eliade, “The time of the event that

the ritual commemorates or reenacts is made present.”

So ritual represents, literally re-presents—old stories or ideas and makes them happen now,

which is a lot like what theater does.

This doesn't mean that ritual is identical with theater.

Ritual is sacred, and theater is usually secular (though not always, as we'll see!).

Theater and ritual can draw on similar mythological sources, but ritual typically treats those

sources as fact and theater as fiction.

In ritual the audience often participates; in theatre, they usually sit politely.

Unless there's audience participation, which is universally adored.

In the late nineteenth century, a group of classical scholars decided to search for the

origins of theater.

They took an anthropological approach and saw theater as a direct evolution of religious

ritual.

This theory really got going with James Frazer, whom we also discuss in the Crash Course Mythology

episode on Theories of Myth.

In The Golden Bough, written between 1896 and 1915, Frazer and his contemporaries, the

Cambridge Ritualists (btw, this is obvs the name of my new band) tried to take a “scientific

approach” to the question of theater's origins.

He looked around at so-called “primitive” societies in Africa and Asia, societies he

didn't really “know much about,” and decided that theater had emerged as a sophisticated

refining of ritual.

According to Frazer, here's how it goes: You start out worshipping some kind of god

or practice, and that worship gets distilled into rituals to attract the attention of that

god or guarantee good fortune.

Once your primitive society really gets going, those rituals generate myths and those myths

get transmuted ... into theater.

Eventually you get jazz hands and sequins.

As the media theorist Marshall McLuhan puts it, in this view, “Art became a sort of

civilized substitute for magical games and rituals….

Art like game became a mimetic echo of and a relief from the old magic of total involvement.”

For an example of the (sometimes questionable) evidence that the Cambridge Ritualists drew

on to support their idea that ritual evolved into theater, let's look at the Greek historian

Herodotus, writing in the 5th century BCE, describing a ceremony he witnessed in Egypt.

Take the stage, Thoughtbubble: Thought Bubble

This ceremony occurs at sunset in a temple.

Some priests attend to a statue of Ares, but most of the people involved are doing something

very different: “The majority of them hold clubs made of

wood and stand at the temple's entrance while others make vows, more than a thousand men,

all holding clubs...

And those few left behind with the statue pull a four-wheeled wagon carrying the shrine

and the statue which is in the shrine, and the others standing at the front gates do

not let them enter.”

If things seem tense to you…

very perceptive!

Probably the clubs that tipped you off, right?

Herodotus says “Those who vowed to defend the god strike those resisting [...] As I

understand, many even die from their wounds...”

The ritual continues all through the night.

And, as you might if you were Herodotus, he asks some locals why the poundings?

They tell him: “There lived in this temple Ares' mother, and Ares who was raised elsewhere

came -- after having become a man -- wishing to lay with his mother, and the servants of

his mother, for not having seen him before, did not look the other way when he entered,

rather they fended him off, and he fetching men from another city handled the servants

roughly and went inside to his mother.

For this reason this fight in behalf of Ares at the festival has become a tradition, they

say.”

Thanks Thoughtbubble.

So - the Ritualists look to stories like this to illustrate their idea that worship becomes

ritual.

Ritual becomes myth.

Myth becomes performance.

Someone writes a few songs to go along with the skull-splitting, someone else turns the

battle into a dance, let it all simmer for a millennia or two, and voila “West Side

Story”!

This ritualism theory is useful in some ways and as we'll see in the next episode, it

fits very nicely with Greek drama, mostly because the whole theory was pretty much based

on Greek drama.

That's a welcome fix to how previous generations of scholars viewed Greek drama—as something

very pure and stately, not as something that might have evolved from passion and magic–but

this theory causes problems when you try to apply the history of Greek Drama to OTHER

dramatic traditions.

Turns out, Frazer and his colleagues didn't actually know all that much about the so-called

“primitive” societies whose theater they wanted to study; the rich and sophisticated

cultures the Ritualists encountered throughout Africa and Asia were lost on the Cambridge

types ... because Euro-centrism.

So they did a lot of pretty non-scientific guessing, working backward from what they

knew about classical theater and hypothesizing about what kind of rituals may have produced

it.

Frazer also operates with the underlying belief that all societies basically evolve in the

same way and that even though, in his view, so-called primitive societies are inherently

inferior, given enough time and care they'll get more and more sophisticated until they

too can produce “Cats.”

Okay, Frazer didn't talk a lot about Broadway musicals, but maybe you're starting to understand

a couple of the major problems with this theory and the assumption that all societies are

on a trajectory toward Western civilization, which in this view is getting better and better

all the time.

(This view, by the way, is known as “positivism”).

Another theory that gets going after Frazer is the idea that people create myths out of

a desire to explain and rationalize the world around them.

In ritualism, myths and theater emerge as a response to pre-existing rituals.

But in this other theory, known as functionalism, myths serve an etiological function, a way

of explaining how and why things came to be the way they are.

According to one of the leading functionalist theorists, Bronislaw Malinowski, myth “is

a statement of primeval reality which lives in the institutions and pursuits of a community.

It justifies by precedent the existing order.”

Unlike the ritualists, the functionalists didn't assume that all societies operate

and evolve in the same way or will create the same kinds of myths.

Malinowski didn't really discuss theater, but some of his followers did, and they locked

on to the idea that many early Greek dramas have their origins in myth and some of those

myths are etiological.

The “Oresteia,” explains the legal system, “Prometheus Bound,” explains that liver

is tasty.

JK.

It explains how we get fire... and technology.

So, if myths explain the world, and theatre is based in myth, we can think about theater

as a way of explaining the world to ourselves.

But such a view has some drawbacks.

Take one of the very earliest recorded plays, Aeschylus's “The Persians.

That was based in contemporaneous historical events, not in myth.

Besides the ritualists and the functionalists, there are a few other theories, too.

One is that theater derives at least in part from the clown figure – who is sort of the

secular equivalent of the shaman in early societies.

Their job was to make fun of the headman and other establishment figures and practices.

We can maybe see this influence in satyr plays, which we'll visit in the next episode.

And it's linked, at least a little, to the idea that theater may originate from games

and the playful instincts of humankind, a phenomenon called the ludic impulse.

Another related theory, which really gets going with Aristotle, is that human beings

have a “mimetic impulse”: humans have an in-built desire to imitate, to act, to

pretend--and that's how we learn.

According to Aristotle, this desire eventually gets refined and codified into theater.

To sum up: Ritual, myth, clowning, playing games, playing pretend.

Somehow out of all of this or maybe out of none of it we get “Hamilton.”

And now let's turn to our last question for today: Why should we care?

In other words, why does theater matter?

Well, that's a question we'll be coming back to throughout the series as we see how

and why people make theatre, and the impact it has throughout history.

But let me leave you with one idea borrowed from Percy from Percy Bysshe Shelley: “The

highest moral purpose aimed at in the highest species of the drama, is the teaching the

human heart, through its sympathies and antipathies, the knowledge of itself.”

Thanks for watching and ... curtain!