books.filmplus.org
filmplus.org/classes
directing.filmplus.org
meyerhord.us
Go.dot'06
1. director Acting One (M. Chekhov)
2. director page in Acting2 (Biomechanics)
3. Director and directing @ Acting III (Method)
... acting-directing as one class
|
* 2008 directing class + R/G are Dead (Theatre UAF)
books.filmplus.org filmplus.org/classes directing.filmplus.org
meyerhord.us
Go.dot'06 1. director Acting One (M. Chekhov)2. director page in Acting2 (Biomechanics) 3. Director and directing @ Acting III (Method) ... acting-directing as one class
|
|
"Theatre is not a mirror but a magnifying glass." Mayakovsky
[ advertising space : webmaster ] text LINKS  direct.vtheatre.net The textbooks don't answer them. |
Two pages in Theatre Theory -- director and directing -- about this new profession (one hundred years). Since I can't touch the "metaphysics" of directions in my classes, I moved the subject of this phenomena to The Book of Spectator, but spectator-as-director is only a part (maybe the main one) of spectatorship. I afraid that I can't get deeper, unless I am to begin the introduction of POMO (postmodern) terminology. And here is the problem: I do not have pages on the use of PM theories for theatre. You can see htmlgear with the POMO terms, but no guidelines for applications (not even in this "theory" directory). Perhaps, this is another reason, why I can't work on Virtual Theatre pages: practical use of the new mediums (live performance, film, webcast). Well, nevertheless, we have to move on...Thinking about Bergman and reading philosophy books... I talk about film-directors only because directing film is the extreme expression of this profession.
Bergman has too many talents. He writes and writes well. He directs for stage. This is not good for a filmmaker. Film director should be like an artist or a musician, they don't write or dance. Film directing asks for self-limitations. No, I don¡¯t believe in actors-directors.
If a director can express himself in words, he should have enormous self-discipline. I always wanted to stage "Wild Strawberries" -- it has a lot of theatre structure. I won't do it with 8 1/2 (unless it's an experiment like with "Potemkin" in France).
I consider the big film directors to be new philosophers, the postmodern type of discourse... feeling=thinking.
Art always had philosophy in it, but the subject of "War & Peace" is not philosophy. Films, even movies, because of the technology build-in, do have IDEOLOGY in everything.
Film is musically organized, but unlike music the last structural principle of Aristotle -- the Idea -- is the form! Film is a THOUGHT.
"Watching"? Experiencing the thinking, a living reasoning...
It's ONE idea demonstrated in two hours. They say film is dream-like, but what are my dreams if not THINKING while my brain sleeps? So, it is thinking without thinking! Pre-thinking? Or maybe PRIME THINKING, the only thought process where I do not control it -- and do not lie!
...when I am free from myself... as if God speaks through me!Ideology is one-dimensional. The Idea-Drive, excluding the rest, because it's full of desire, or WILL as Nietzsche would say. Of course, it's POWERFUL.
Each good film is a state of mind. It has to be static in order to have evolution within. Film is the STOPPED TIME (Faust), only then we can experience time (Deleuze + Bergson, time, duration and memory). Eisenstein with his dialectics called it "spiral" structure, when we return over and over again. To the same face for example (CU), as if the eternal return (Nietzsche again). How else can we keep time frozen?
The After-feeling: "lost time" (as if I didn't live for two hours). There is no time in eternity. [Eternity is a questionable idea; life denounce it.]
Film is experience (see cultural studies and Baurdaugh). film doesn't exist outside of being consumed and consuming. It's not about "understanding" -- there is nothing I do not understand because I SEE everything.
In that sense film is anti-intellectual experience as we know it. Post-human, or pre-human.
Film is language I can speak with animals (and we will when we master 3D technology). It's REAL. Not just a "reflection" of reality as it was with art before, but the reality itself. Resurrected and immortal reality.
Film is nothing but SELF. That is what resurrected world is about -- it doesn't exist outside of being SELF, i.e. it's subjective reality. There is no division between subjective and objective anymore, SELF is both. My feelings are very OBJECTIVE, pain is extremely real. The so-called "objective" world follows the logic of Kant; it is a thing-in-itself. Film is only now considered as art form, in the future it will the art-of-living. Of course, each his film is about Bergman. It is his self-portrait of inner-world. The filmmaker doesn't have to be on the screen (I do not see myself in my dreams), I am always the center of drama. Everything focused on me and about me.
Self-centered, introvert existence. Read again Heidegger: Being is Becoming and Becoming is Being. There is no Being outside of this process, no existence without being the time itself, without becoming the time.
Heidegger on Nietzsche (Chapter 8): Will as Affect, Passion and Felling. Another tupe of logic. (from Volume I: The Will to Power as Art).
"Nietzsche" -- the name of the thinker stands as the title for the matter of his thinking -- the first phrase in the Foreword.
Knowledge is supposed to be private and personal. Film in itself is the act of WILL to POWER.
Film is the pick of meditation!Greeks: psyche is "soul" -- that is the material and method of film. Heidegger (p. 61):
Will to power is never the willing of a particular actual entity. It involves the Being as essence of beings; it is this itself."My SEEING the world is outside of my will, it is The Will to Power which is I. The power of film in it. The SEEING is this resurrection (becoming=being). Hegel would say the self-realization of the Spirit ("energy of thinking, the pure ego").
That is the subject of film and Bergamn makes it into HIS subject. Not just abstract "being" but his own being equated with the Being.
There is no world without or outside this personal and private Being, no truth without THAT truth. That's is concrete enough to be true.
"I" speaks...
We say -- camera...My personal resurrection can't take place without participation of all (technology). There is not enough technology yet, we are not ready...
We are getting there... Let me get serious.
Yes, this is Director's POV: play -- director (show) -- public
Director is in the middle! Spectacle is the TEXT, director "writes" -- at the beginning of the show your public is canvas... No, better say, a piece of marble (expectations, opinions, experiences are inside -- and you have to work with it, it's you material for producing dramatic experience in their minds and hearts).
[ I fool myself, when I call the pages of this directory "Theatre Theory" -- no, this is "Directing Theory"! Every time you see the color triangle (left) -- you are on the page about directing. ]Directors Lab Lincoln Center TheatreStrange, film has 100 years of history, but the theory of film is rather well developed. Theatre has at least 25 centuries of existence, but this is mostly about DRAMA. How come?
Maybe bringing film theory in could help to establish the basics of Theatre Directing Theory. The only place where I talk about it the THR331 Directing class. The drama analysis is at script.vtheatre.net and the "Super-Text" is in The Book of Spectator.
Could we change our formula?
Directing = drama + actors + spectators
In film theory it's obvious that spectator is the final organizational mechanism of the cinema phenomena. In theatre somehow it's not established.
@2000-2005 filmstudy pages *
|
2007+
projects: Demons 2003 texts: Theatre History in focus: Taming of the Shrew Theatre Books list * reading: Theatre Theory
 Chekhov, Ibsen, Bard, scripts
play writing amazon list *
|
vTheatre: pomo project'06 * my yahoo: theatre
Film-North * Anatoly Antohin * eCitations
© 2005 by vtheatre.net. Permission to link to this site is granted. books.google.com + scholar.google.com
cite: anatoly antohin. URL + date [ my shows : 1. writer * 2. director * 3. dramaturg * 4. actor ]
