Drama 360 FALL & WINTER 2009/10/Tuesday October 13: The European Avant-Garde: Expressionism

1. [PAGES 156-163 & 192-198] in "Phadion Encyclopedia of Expressionism"

2. Kokaschka, Oskar. "On Nature of Visions, 1912." Theories of Modern Art: A Source Book by Artists and Critics. Ed. Herschel B. Chipp. Los Angeles: U of Californa Press, 1968. [PAGES 156-163]

3. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. 1920. Film. Erich Pommer, 1920. [on blackboard]

Oh Expressionism, how I love you. There is so much to talk about between the articles and the film. I love how the film shows exactly what the article on the Actor, the Word and the Language of Gesture was talking about, as though it was an instructional video on what Expressionism is. Look at the way the actors behave. They are not ashamed to "act". Every facial movement is geared to a certain end, not to be the character as Stanislavsky would want, but to show the emotion. The movement is brilliant, down to the famous expressionistic claw. The set is distorted. It made me think of a Tim Burton film. I would imagine that Tim Burton is strongly influenced by expressionism. I love the quote "the stage designer grasped the play as a whole and the vision he had of it as well as the emotion it created in him; and through his decor, he projected this into the soul of his audience." (Phaidon 194) The use of colour in a black and white film is remarkable. The heroine in pure white, the tintype colour of the past as opposed to the purer black and white of the present, all this is using colour as a dramatic element just as the article talks about. The use of light arbitrarily is blatant. Watching the film I never felt as though the light was natural; it was not sunlight shining down on the town. It was instead a way to create an eerie feel as it made shadows across the set. This was light shining in places a natural light never would and it set the mood for what was happening in the town. Light, colour, set, and actors were all used for the same purpose. As varying effects to make the audience feel a certain way.

after reading both of the books and viewing the video, the one thing that really stood out to me was pages 156-163 in the second reading. i really enjoyed the concepts brought forward by the author about how each individual expresses themselves. i particularly liked how it said that each individuals way of expressing themselves is unique and true to the individual themselves. and that these methods should not be duplicated or attempted by any one else. the only exception to this is of course if this form of expression is valid for another individual. personally i believe that people -even those not involved in the arts- should take these concepts and learn from them. the more readings like this are made available, the more people will see that even if some ones way of expressing themselves is strange or unfamiliar, it is not in any way more correct than how you would express yourself.

Lighting plays a big role in altering the mood of an audience member when they watch a presentation. I have experienced many plays that are brilliantly written and the sets are believable -but the lighting sucks and wrecks the performance. I believe that lighting choices (color and positioning) are a huge component to delivering appropriate visual settings to an audience. What an audience member considers "appropriate lighting" is their business, which then aids as their own personal interpretation of what’s being presented. Therefore, good or bad impressions on the performance may be solemnly based on the lighting techniques, rather than on the performance as a whole. (Which I don’t think is a bad thing)

The point above about the actors showing emotion and acting towards an end really struck true for me. The actors in the film portrayed their characters with a believability that was completely new and original in 1920, and made more difficult without the use of voice. The reading from Theories in Modern Art states that 'the form in the outer expression of the inner content.' If executed correctly, genuine acting occurs. In the reading from Theories in Modern Art and as stated above, one form of expressing the inner content is perfect for that person but does not have to ring true for everyon else. The interesting thing about the film is that everyone involved must work towards that same goal and form. They must still feel a necessity to express themselves in the form of the film, even though it was someone else's creation and idea.

I think that the film was very interesting, in that the body was the main source of communication. They could not use their tone of voice, volume, or nature or speaking at all in order to express the main idea. I also though that the use of music was very like films we see today, in that it mirrored the plot, and the melody was parallel to the mood of what was going on at a certain time. Even lighting is very important in portraying the overall theme of the piece. Without the use of voices, there are numerous other conventions used to get the overall message across, and it works.

When looking at this it reminds me of the importance of using actors as instruments. As an actor you don't want to hear, you are going to be cast as a rock or a tree. Most actors want to be Hamlet and not an actor as part of the set. However this reminded me of the beauty of using self to portray something. How important colours and the use of set is.It is remincient that anything can be used to push a certain emotion in the audience. If an actor knows how to use their body properly they can enhance the performance. It should not necessairly be the light or set that enhances the actor maybe it should be the actor that enhances the lighting or set?