Oh, no! Not Hamlet, not again! Enough tragedy!
Aristotle: Easy, boy! This is what make this machine of drama work, the tragic....
PataTheatre
That's the book I want to write, the textbook for spectators, of spectators and by spectators!
But who would buy it?
Too bad.
Actors, directors, playwrights should!
We all are spectators!
Everything can be understood, if we can read the mind of Mr. Spectator!
The rest is easy!
Act, direct, write!
Take a piece of paper and draw the picture of any spectacle. Ready?
.... all right. Never mind!
Writer -- Director -- Actor -- Spectator
That would be a normal "communication" model, right?
Okay, lets take step by step.
No, you first, Mr. Spectator.
Writer = Spectator
The first equasion.
Director = Spectator
Actor = Spectator
Wow! We got the structure of this book!
But you see, those are the elements of the genesis, but not the chonotope of the show, not the experiential view. Living the spectacle puts the relations in reversed order:
Spectator = Writer
Spectator = Director
Spectator = Actor
Now you know the secret of good writing, directing and acting!
Easy, if you can write, direct and act as a spectator, for spectator and by spectator.
"By spectator"? What is that?
What do you mean, Anatoly? He is a loser and idiot, you know.
He is a child, my friend.
But this is a different topic.
Look, the show is not on stage, the drama takes in place in the mind and heart of this silent idiot. The actual place of the conflict in side this moron, we only project our dramatic "marial" on him -- and he, poor soul, puts it all together. Don't you know that movies do not exist, unless you SEE them? Why do you think dogs are interested in watching films? Because acoording to them it's just unreleated two-dimensional images (data, as we say today, but not information).
Now, I put "Writer" first only because of the linear structure of the pre-postmodern narrative. Of course, there is no first. We can take actor or director first and start our story of spectatorship.
