|
|
FEATURES:Crossing the Ancient Stage
Panel Introduction
American Philological Association, December 1996
Mary-Kay Gamel
University of California, Santa Cruz
E-mail: mkgamel@macmail.ucsc.edu
Performance has been the subject of increasing interest
in many different fields, including anthropology, psychology, sociology,
linguistics, gender studies, and cultural theory. This interest reflects
a focus on acts rather than essences, on the self as constructed in
social interactions rather than determined by biology, on social interactions
as complex negotiations between role-playing and improvisation.
Performance is not an obvious concept; this term comprises
very different phenomena, each of them a site of diverse and contested
meanings. Because it involves a wider range of human behavior than writing
and reading, the study of performance displaces logocentrism. Because
of its communal dimension, performance cannot be understood apart from
its social context. The materiality and physicality of performance,
which depends on the body of the performer, locates it in a particular
time and place. Yet every particular example of performance reflects
assumptions--about the physical body, psychology, social and political
relations. As Joseph Roach says, 'When an actor takes his place on a
stage, even in the most apparently trivial vehicle, and his audience
begins to respond to his performance, together they constitute the complex
values of a culture with an intensity that less immediate transactions
cannot rival' (11). The economy and intensity of performance make it
an excellent focus for study.
Considering performance seems especially useful to the
study of ancient Mediterranean societies, in which social and cultural
transactions took place 'face to face' (even if there were many faces
present). Ancient rhetorical theory makes clear the importance of oral
and gestural components in the 'presentation of self in everyday life'
(GoffmanÕs term) and the conveying of meaning. In an important
sense ancient texts are scripts for performance rather than 'literature.'
Given the widespread practice of reading aloud even in isolation, scripts
for performance include nondramatic texts such as letters and historical
documents. Reading only the written traces of ancient performance texts
is like analyzing a film from the screenplay or an opera from the libretto.
In order to comprehend them fully, contemporary readers need to configure
the full range of performance possibilities--visual, aural, musical,
architectural--as well as their social setting and ideological context.
The performance of gender is a particular but highly
charged aspect of performance. Judith Butler and others argue that gender
is not a category fixed by 'nature' but one continually constructed
performatively in social interactions. In the immortal words of RuPaul,
'We are born naked. Everything else is drag.' Analyzing various kinds
of cross-gender performance is a way to test this hypothesis.
Cross-gender performance raises a number of different
issues. A few of them are
1.Context and purpose (social, artistic). For example,
cross-gender performance in rites of passage differs from its use in
clubs. Or does it? An analysis of gender performance at an APA meeting
(an occasion which combines some elements of both of these) would be
most interesting. In this gathering (Section 18, Sutton South, New York
Hilton and Towers Hotel, 11 a.m. 28 December 1996), for example, I see
what appear to be a number of females in male drag, but no obvious example
of males in female drag. As with many ancient documents, the absence
of sufficient context for ancient cross- gender performance creates
interpretive difficulties (and opportunities).
2. Psychology. What is the effect of cross-gender performance
on the performers and audience? Plato feared that performing female
roles in Athenian drama damaged both: 'Those we are educating to become
good men ought not, since they are men, to play the parts of women,
young or old. They should not imitate a woman quarrelling with her husband,
blaspheming against heaven, boasting and swollen in her own conceit,
or grieving and wailing over misfortunes. Still less should they impersonate
a woman who is sick, in love, or in labor' (Republic 395d). Twentieth-century
readers influenced by Freud will want to consider the eros of performance,
asking whether cross-gender performance changes erotic interactions
both onstage and between audience and performers.
3. Ideology. Does cross-gender performance maintain
the dominant masculinist hegemony, by depicting the genders as different
and unequal? Theater theorist Sue-Ellen Case argues that female roles
in Athenian drama 'are fantasies of ÔWomanÕ as ÔotherÕ
than man, as disruptions of a patriarchal society and illustrative of
its fear and loathing of the female parts' (15), arguing that contemporary
female performers should avoid these roles. Or does it destabilize accepted
categories? Here we must beware of imposing our own ideologies: whereas
we may seen gender performance as expanding the binary options of masculine
and feminine, Maud Gleason has shown how Roman discussions of gender
performance aimed to help males avoid effeminate behavior.
4. Artistry. What constitutes an effective cross-gender
performance? In her provocative reading of Plato's cave as a theater,
Luce Irigaray rejects *mimesis*, which she sees as an attempt to maintain
a stable and monolithic Truth, in favor of 'mimicry.' In mimicry multiple,
excessive representations undo the monolith, and 'ideas of essence,
truth, and origin become continually displaced onto questions of material
relations and operations' (Diamond 65). IrigarayÕs distinction
between mimesis and mimicry may be compared to the contemporary distinction
between 'passing' and 'drag.' Charles Ludlam, a great cross-gender artist,
described his art as 'real acting in drag' saying 'YouÕre looked
down on if you feel becoming a woman is something to be attained. To
defiantly do that and say women are worthwhile creatures, and to put
my whole soul and being into creating this woman . . . and to take myself
seriously in the face of ridicule was the highest statement' (19). We
might compare academic males willing to take on the personal voice and
other dangerous appurtenances of femininity. Drag, with its exaggeration,
illusion-breaking, and separation between performer and role, may seem
more 'alternative' than passing. Yet generalizations are tricky: drag
performance is often reactionary, supporting male hegemony via caricatures
of women (drag queens donÕt portray women dressed in blue jeans
and Reeboks).
5. Methodology. Contemporary examples of cross-gender
performance from avant-garde theater pieces by companies such as Split
Britches and Bloolips to popular films such as The Crying Game, Priscilla
of the Desert, and The Birdcage, offer tempting possibilities for analogy
with ancient cross-gender performance. Here, because we are have a much
wider sample of performance available to us, the differences in genre,
style, and ideology are easily apparent. But how comparable are these
performances to those in quite different social contexts? And in performance
distinguishing between style and meaning is often difficult. (This is
the opposite problem from that of having too little context.) In the
film To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar, for example,
the use of drag can be read symbolically, as a figure for vulnerability,
or technically, as a demonstration of the acting ability of straight
actors such as Patrick Swayze.
Finally, any analysis of cross-gender performance is
a reading. In his brand new book Jeffrey Henderson argues that there
are no examples of ancient dramatists calling attention to the artificiality
of cross-gender performance: 'male and female characters are at all
times understood to be respectively men and women' (17). Really? In
*The Bacchae*? Or, even more explicitly, in the KinsmanÕs inadequate
gender performance in *Thesmophoriazusae*, when the 'real' women, played
by males, disrobe the 'fake' woman, played by a male, trying to find
his phallus, played by a stuffed sock?
As a contribution to this large topic, this panel offers readings of
the forms, functions, meanings and effects of male performance of female
roles in four different theatrical contexts.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Judith Butler, 'Performative Acts and Gender Constitution:
an Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory,' in Sue-Ellen Case, ed.,
Performing Feminism: Feminist Critical Theory and Theatre (Baltimore
and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990): 270-82.
Sue-Ellen Case, Feminism and Theatre (New York:
Routledge, 1988)
Elin Diamond, 'Mimesis, Mimicry, and the "True-Real,"'
Modern Drama 32 (1989): 58-72
Maud W. Gleason, Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation
in Ancient Rome (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995)
Erving Goffman, Presentation of Self in Everyday
Life (New York: Anchor, 1959)
Jeffrey Henderson, Three Plays by Aristophanes: Staging
Women (New York: Routledge, 1996)
Charles Ludlam, 'Charles Ludlam: in his own words,'
Theatre Week, March 2-8, 1992, 12-20
Joseph R. Roach, The Player's Passion: Studies in
the Science of Acting (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1993)
Mary-Kay Gamel
University of California, Santa Cruz
E-mail: mkgamel@macmail.ucsc.edu
(Mary-Kay Gamel has directed several adaptations of
Greek tragedies.)
COPYRIGHT NOTE: Copyright remains with authors, but due reference
should be made to this journal if any part of the above is later published
elsewhere.
Didaskalia Home Page
/ Journal / Issue
4.1 Table of Contents
Didaskalia Volume 4 No. 1- Spring
1997/ University of Warwick / edited by Sallie Goetsch and C.W. Marshall
/ /ISSN
1321-4853
© This website is copyright Didaskalia.
Pages may be downloaded, printed, copied, and distributed as long as
they remain unchanged and the journal is given credit for having produced
them.

copyright © Didaskalia 2001
|
|