Theatre or Theater for Beginners | Podcast on RSS.com

Theatre or Theater for Beginners

Theatre or Theater for Beginners

by Selenius Media

Performing Arts Self-Improvement

Augusto Boal - Political Street Theatre

Augusto Boal enters the story of modern theatre the way a spark enters dry grass: not politely, not quietly, and not with any respect for the comfortable boundaries that keep “art” safely separated from “life.” If you look at the twentieth century’s theatre revolution as a long argument about what theatre is for, Boal is the figure who steps forward and says: it is for people who are not in the room yet. It is for people who don’t have tickets, who don’t have time, who don’t have training, who don’t have permission. It is for the ones who live under rules they did not write. And because of that, he becomes one of the crucial bridges between the rehearsal room and the street. Boal was born in Rio de Janeiro in 1931, into a Brazil that was simultaneously urbanizing and stratifying, modernizing and brutalizing, a society where wealth and power lived beside poverty with a kind of daily indifference. He studied engineering at first, which matters more than it seems. Engineering trains your mind to see systems: inputs and outputs, pressure points, hidden structures, feedback loops. Later, when Boal began to think of theatre not as a museum of masterpieces but as a technology of human encounter, you can almost feel the engineer underneath the poet. What happens if you change one variable in a social scene? What happens if you interrupt the pattern? What happens if the “audience” becomes part of the mechanism?

Season 1

Aeschylus – Birth of Tragedy

FOUNDATIONS Ancient to 1700s Aeschylus – Birth of Tragedy He stands at the pivot where ritual becomes literature, where the thunder of drums and the circling of dancers turn into characters with names, guilt, motives, and choices. Before him the chorus shouted and stamped and called the god into the city; with him the god is still there—dark, implacable, tremendous—but now human beings step forward and speak in their own voices, and the city leans in to hear them. Aeschylus is less a single author than a change of state. The Greeks already had festivals, hymns, dithyrambs, masks, sacred frenzy; what they did not have until him was this particular fusion of song and argument, of dance and decision, of omen and verdict. He brings onstage a second actor, and with that spare addition everything alters: the chorus is no longer the whole, but a sea against which two figures can throw their words; debate becomes possible; the distance between one face and another fills with fate. He writes not to entertain a crowd but to instruct a city about itself. Yet the instruction is not a sermon; it is blood, breath, and the hard grammar of consequence. To watch Aeschylus for the first time is to feel the air of old worship crackle and then steady into the oxygen of civic thought. His birth near Eleusis around 525 BCE places him in a neighborhood where mystery was already a word with heat in it. Eleusis, home of the rites that promised a kind of blessedness to initiates in honor of Demeter and Persephone, was a suburb of awe; boyhood there meant growing up under the rumor that the world has layers, that bread and grief and harvest and return are more than agriculture. Whether or not he knew the rites as a youth, the sensibility of Eleusis—the sense that suffering can be meaningful, that descent and return is a rhythm written into the soil—pervades his plays. He is also a soldier before he is publicly a poet. He fights at Marathon in 490, stands in the surf of Salamis in 480, likely tastes the iron taste of fear at Plataea; his epitaph will remember him not for his poetry but for his courage on the day when the barbarians came. He belongs to that generation of Athenians who learned at spear point that a city is not an accident but a discipline, and that discipline must eventually be written down in laws. The tragedies are part of that writing.

Sophocles – Classical form & fatalism

Sophocles – Classical form & fatalism He inherits a stage that has learned to argue in public and teaches it to balance on a knife. If Aeschylus is thunder cracking the air into law, Sophocles is the clear noon that shows the edges of things and refuses to blink. He comes of age in the confident decades of Periclean Athens, when the city rebuilds its temples and polishes its speech, when citizens learn to praise proportion, self-command, and lucidity. His tragedies carry that civic ideal into the mouth of fate. He accepts that the world has limits and that prophecy is not a rumor but a law of the landscape; he also insists that the dignity of a human being consists in meeting that law with clarity, measure, and unshakable speech. To say he perfects classical form is not to say he makes it cold. He turns the form into a vessel that can carry terror without spilling into rant. His heroes do not howl so much as hold their ground; their undoing is not noise but necessity. If Aeschylus shows a city inventing a court, Sophocles shows a person inventing a soul—conscience exposed under bright light, tested by the pressure of irreconcilable goods. He does not advertise innovations, and yet the art looks different after him. With him the third actor becomes routine, which seems a mere statistic until you notice what it allows: triangles of force instead of duels, triangulated arguments where the entry of a witness or prophet shatters a neat contradiction and forces a second thought; a daughter against a king with a silent sister as pivot; a beggar-king negotiating for rest while a chorus and a civic leader listen; a wounded archer, a wily general, and a boy whose loyalty must be educated in real time. He trims the chorus without disgracing it. The odes are still music, still a thinking community, but they recede at crucial moments so that the spotlight—he would never use that word, but the effect is there—falls on a single face. His diction is clean the way marble is clean: every chisel mark carries intention. He avoids the compounding thunder of Aeschylus’ coinages, preferring a syntax that moves forward with judicial calm, until, in an instant, calm becomes verdict and the verdict arrives like a blade you could have seen all along if you had learned how to look. Produced by Selenius Media

Euripides – Psychological realism

Euripides – Psychological realism He arrives when certainty is cracking, when the city that once made law out of song begins to hear its own counter-melody: cleverness, loneliness, foreignness, a household bruised by policy, a heart out-argued by its appetite and then ashamed. If Aeschylus forged the civic ritual and Sophocles perfected the form, Euripides walks through the same doorway carrying uninvited guests: the slave who thinks clearly, the woman who will not be bent, the foreigner who measures Greek virtue and finds it provincial, the god who may be only a mask for desire or panic, the hero who discovers that reputation is a costume stitched by neighbors. He is not a destroyer of tragedy; he is the dramatist who insists the tragic lives where citizens actually live—on beds where promises fail, at doors where exiles knock, in the silences between dazzling arguments. He was mocked for this. Comedians called him a household poet who taught maids to speak and wives to scheme. Audiences came anyway. He kept winning enough to continue, losing often enough to know his city liked to be scolded but not too directly. Over decades that shadow the Peloponnesian War, he turns the stage into a thinking room where suffering does not immediately become wisdom and where “gods” are sometimes only the last respectable name we give to hunger and fear. Then, at the end, he writes a god who cannot be reduced—Dionysus—and lets him break a king and a house with the kind of inevitability only denied by minds too narrow to feel it. The line across those works is not cynicism; it is a patience with the ordinary truth that people cling to comforting stories until reality seizes them by the neck. He grows up with the myths the city loves and refuses to let them remain furniture. He will keep the names—Medea, Heracles, Helen, Hecuba, Iphigenia, Orestes, Electra, Hippolytus—but he will strip the varnish and let joints and splinters show. He is the tragedian of the question “Yes, but what would it feel like?” What would it feel like to be the woman abandoned with two children in a country that is not yours, hearing whispers about your foreignness when your husband announces a political remarriage? What would it feel like to be the young man praised for chastity who cannot see that his virtue is a form of cruelty to the woman who loves him? What would it feel like to be the queen of a ruined city listening to speeches about necessity while soldiers divide spoils that include your daughter’s body? What would it feel like to discover you are the child of a god only after a lifetime of temple chores and neglect, and to realize that sacred stories are not salves but riddles that protect no one? What would it feel like to learn that the lauded “Greek cleverness” often means the ingenuity by which the strong sell their theft as justice? He writes these feelings into dialogue so precise that posterity mistook the precision for prose; he sets the scenes in rooms the audience recognized: a palace court, a threshold, a shore where ships creak and someone is always waiting. The chorus, once a communal mind, becomes a witness whose songs are beautiful and sometimes helpless in the face of talkers who know how to turn a word until it shines on one side and cuts on the other. Euripides does not abolish the chorus; he lets it say what a community would like to be true while characters insist on what is true now. Selenius Media

Aristophanes – Comedy & political satire

Aristophanes – Comedy & political satire He stands at the rowdy heart of a city that let citizens vote on everything and then trusted a poet to walk onstage with a phallus, a chorus of birds or wasps or frogs, a sack of insults, and the kind of license kings fear. If tragedy is the public ritual that teaches a people how to suffer with dignity, his comedy is the public mischief that teaches them how to blush, howl, and—when needed—change their minds. Aristophanes does not write jokes around politics; he writes politics through jokes. He is the dramatist of a democracy’s nervous system, testing reflexes, jabbing pressure points, making the body politic jump so it can locate its pain. He names names, sues reputations, drags fashionable slogans through mud until the polish comes off and the wood grain of reality shows. When the war runs too long, he stages a farmer who just wants to plow in peace and flies him to heaven on a dung beetle to negotiate a treaty with the personified goddess Peace. When demagogues fatten themselves on panic, he unleashes a sausage-seller to chase a leather-dealer off the political stage and restore some plain sense to the council. When clever men build a tower of words and call it wisdom, he draws a ladder to a cloud-house and shows them living there, thin on food and rich in air. When the city is so addicted to lawsuits that jurors are like wasps who sting for sport, he puts the old stingers in costumes with stripes and teaches them to laugh at themselves until the venom drains. He is obscene because the city is biological; he is musical because laughter needs a tune; he is topical because the polis is a person with a daily headache; he is fantastical because, under pressure, fantasy is the only test strong enough to snap a false idea clean. Selenius Media

Theater of Plautus – Farce, stock characters

He is the moment when Roman theater stops bowing to Greek prestige and starts laughing in its own accent. Plautus does not give Rome philosophy in verse; he gives it appetite with timing. He takes Greek New Comedy—neat plots about young men, strict fathers, clever slaves, prostitutes, pimps, soldiers—and translates it not only into Latin but into a Roman public’s nervous system. The scene is a festival, the performers are a troupe, the stage is a wooden platform thrown up before the temple with drums and reed-pipes warming the air, the audience is a swarm of citizens, freedmen, slaves, boys, sellers, gawkers, magistrates who paid for the show, and opportunists who have brought their arguments as well as their children. Farce is not beneath them. Farce is the civic oxygen that helps a republic breathe when law and war and debt have made the chest tight. What Plautus knows, and what you can feel even in translation, is that comedy becomes a public service as soon as it looks like mischief. He writes the laughter that releases and the laughter that instructs, often in the same scene. To name the genre is simple; to feel its pressure you have to stand in the street. The Roman “fabula palliata”—a play “in a Greek cloak”—announces itself as an import. Characters keep Greek names; cities are Athens or Ephesus; oracles and inns belong to abroad. But the import has been seasoned. The Greek cloak is flung over Roman shoulders and worn like a brag. Settings and plot bones come from Menander and his tribe; the muscle and voice are Plautus’. He roughens the texture, adds musical numbers, dares obscene adjectives, lets a line run longer than a grammarian would allow, and then makes the audience cheer the very freedom a schoolmaster will later scold. He writes under the aediles’ patronage during the ludi, the games; he knows he must hold a crowd whose attention can defect to a mime, to a vendor’s basket, to a rumor. So he builds scenes with immediate payoff. The prologue often talks to the crowd directly, cutting short the usual noble air of prologues and telling them what they need to know and what he wants back: patience, ears, applause, sometimes quiet for the tibicen, the flute player who cues the meter. This candor is not crude; it is a contract. Theater is a public bargain here, and the playwright signs with jokes. A Roman stage in Plautus’ day is all doors and conventions. Two or three house-fronts; a street; a temple or an inn suggested with a sign; an altar, perhaps. The magic is not scenery but choreography. When doors slam, farce ignites: a father comes home early; a parasite hides; a lover leaps a wall; a slave calculates; a pimp snarls; the music switches from spoken iambics to a sung canticum with the flute struggling to keep up with a tongue as agile as a parliament of birds. He uses meters like tools. The iambic senarius carries narrative and argument—the “straight” medium. The trochaic septenarius has a bounce you can march to; it lifts an audience’s feet without its consent. Polymetric songs (the cantica) let desire and panic spill. Plautus is a master of meter as mood; the crowd understands at once what kind of scene has begun because their ribs learn it before their minds do. That is craft doing civic work.

Theater of Seneca – Stoic tragedy & rhetoric

He enters the Roman stage as both a philosopher and a dramatist, a man who wrote essays to cool the blood and tragedies that make the blood run hot, and that contradiction is the point rather than the problem. Lucius Annaeus Seneca, counselor of emperors, exile of Corsica, victim of an ordered suicide, stands at the hinge where Stoic ethics meets theatrical thunder. If you want to know what Stoicism sounds like when it breathes in a city that loves spectacle, listen to the sentences that crack like whips and the choruses that plead for moderation as if moderation were a glass bowl carried through a riot. The Stoic tells us that passion is a judgment we can revise; the tragedian shows what happens when a judgment recruits the whole universe to help it burn. Between those two voices there is not hypocrisy but instruction. The dramas are laboratories for the essays, and the essays are manuals to clean up after the laboratories have exploded. He lived the double life that makes his work feel modern. In the letters to Lucilius and the dialogues On Anger, On Clemency, On the Shortness of Life, he writes like a physician of the soul with a firm hand and a soft bedside voice. Anger, he says, is a form of temporary madness, a false syllogism acted out by the body; therefore train the mind to interrupt the syllogism before it reaches the fist. Wealth is merely a loan from Fortune; therefore travel light so that the inevitable recall notice does not rip joy out by the roots. Power, even at its brightest, is a plague that flatters the patient while it consumes him; therefore speak truth to princes with a smile and a plan to survive. Then he walks to a different desk, takes up the theatrical voice, and writes Thyestes, Medea, Phaedra, Oedipus, Agamemnon, Troades, Hercules Furens—plays that seem to contradict the serenity of the treatises until you notice what they are doing to your nerves. They are not sermons; they are stress tests. You watch other people’s mistakes until you can feel your own pulse learning the shape of caution.

Theater of Zeami Motokiyo – Noh theatre

He walks onto the stage by not walking at all, but by allowing the stage to arrive under him, step after sliding step, the soles barely leaving the wooden floor, as if movement itself were a courtesy offered to silence. This is Zeami’s theater before you know his name: a square of polished cypress with a painted pine at the back, a bridge that is more than a corridor, drums whose breath is leather and rope, a flute whose high notes seem to call the past into the present like a crane calling the dawn. Long before the story declares itself, the space declares its terms: everything here will be precise, everything will be slow enough to be understood and fast enough to be alive, and the most important actions may be almost invisible unless you have trained your eyes to see. Zeami is the person who teaches you how to see. He is remembered as Zeami Motokiyo, son of Kan’ami, heir and refiner of an art that already had ritual bones and popular muscle. He is actor and playwright and theorist, the rare maker who turns a craft into sentences without draining it of blood. He grows up in the field, not in the library, and then he writes the library a field can use. A shogun’s favor lifts him and the next shogun’s suspicion exiles him, which is to say he learns early that applause is not a residence. That lesson is part of the work. Noh in his hands is not the vanity of a beautiful hour; it is a discipline for surviving the weather.

Theater of William Shakespeare – Drama as Cosmos

Imagine a king standing on a barren heath in the midst of a raging storm, his gray hair whipped by wind and rain as he cries out to the black skies above. There is no stage curtain separating him from the elements – it is as if nature itself has become his tormentor and only witness. This is King Lear, stripped of his crown and wits, railing against thunder as though the universe might answer for the injustices that have befallen him. In that harrowing moment, William Shakespeare reveals his conception of drama as something cosmic and profound. The stage is not merely wood and paint; it is a microcosm of the entire world, a place where mortal human struggles reflect larger philosophical truths. Shakespeare’s theatre makes the audience feel that human affairs are entangled with the very fabric of the cosmos. When Lear howls in vain at the tempest, we sense that Shakespeare is exploring the elemental forces of human nature and fate. And in play after play, whether tragedy, comedy or history, he crafts stories that are poetic, philosophical, and universal – dramas that frame human nature in all its sublime and terrible complexity. William Shakespeare stands as a colossus in theatre history, not just for the sheer beauty of his language but for the depth of his insight into the human condition. Born in 1564 in the small market town of Stratford-upon-Avon, he came of age during England’s Renaissance – a time when old certainties about the cosmos were shifting. Copernicus had upended the idea of Earth at the universe’s center, and the Reformation had challenged spiritual authority. Yet the prevailing worldview still imagined a divinely ordered cosmos. Every being had its place in the “Great Chain of Being,” from God’s angels down to kings, nobles, commoners, animals, and stones. Disrupting one’s ordained place risked courting chaos. Shakespeare absorbed this belief in an ordered universe, but he was too keen an observer to ignore its cracks. His plays often begin with some tear in the fabric of order – a regicide, a betrayal, a soul out of balance – and then trace the ripple effects through both the human psyche and the wider world. In Macbeth, when the title character murders his king in the dark of night, Nature itself seems to shudder: the next morning an old man reports that the day is as dim as dusk, a falcon has been strangled by an owl, Duncan’s noble horses went wild and ate each other. By violating the natural and moral order, Macbeth has unleashed something monstrous, and Shakespeare makes the audience feel it in their bones. This is drama as cosmic system: a bold crime against the rightful king tilts the universe off its axis until justice – or at least a grim facsimile of it – can be restored.

Theater of Ben Jonson – Comedy of Humours

On a bright morning in 1606, in a lavish chamber in Venice, a rich old man lies draped in silks on a makeshift sickbed. He groans feebly, as if at death’s door. One by one, the most eminent gentlemen of the city tiptoe into his room, each bearing extravagant gifts – gold plate, jewels, a luxuriously embroidered cap. They coo sympathetic words to the “dying” man, calling him noble Signor Volpone, praising his virtue, praying for his recovery. But as soon as each hopeful visitor departs, Volpone leaps from his bed with a spry grin. There is nothing sickly about him at all. It’s all a ruse, a grand practical joke to fleece those fawning legacy-hunters who lust after his fortune. Hidden behind a curtain, Volpone’s clever servant Mosca keeps a straight face as he ushers in the next greedy guest. This delicious charade continues, growing more absurd with each visitor’s flattery. Such is the opening of Ben Jonson’s comedy Volpone, a play that showcases the sharp, satirical edge of Jonson’s theatrical vision. Where Shakespeare’s dramas often soared into romantic or tragic realms, Jonson’s stage became a mirror held up to the vices of his day, reflecting them in merciless – and hilariously entertaining – detail. Ben Jonson was a towering figure in the early 17th-century London theatre, a contemporary and friendly rival of Shakespeare. A brash, learned Londoner who once worked as a bricklayer and fought as a soldier, Jonson brought to drama a combative wit and a classical scholar’s discipline. He pioneered what came to be known as the “comedy of humours,” a style of comedy where characters are driven by dominating obsessions or follies, much like bodily humours unbalancing the soul. In the old medical theory, an excess of one humour (be it blood, phlegm, yellow bile, or black bile) made a person choleric, sanguine, melancholic, or phlegmatic in temperament. Jonson seized this concept as a rich source of comedic caricature. If a person’s humor was greed, they would be nothing but greedy; if vanity, nothing but vain. In his plays, he painted larger-than-life portraits of people consumed by singular follies – misers, hypocrites, braggarts, and fools – then let those exaggerated personalities collide in tightly constructed plots. The result was satire: pointed and moralistic, yet often uproariously funny.

1 of 4