Introduction to Theatre—Who Does It Serve? What Does It Contain?

COMMENTS ON PROCESS Introduction to TheatreWho Does It Serve? What Does It Contain? Ronald A. Willis ι No course in the theatre curriculum is more susceptible to the coupling of fuzzy-minded idealism and cynical execution than Introduction to Theatre. Idealistically, intro acquaints theatre acolytes with the mysteries of a powerful art form; cynically, it skims pre-digested data while boosting undergraduate credit hour production and graduate assistant employment. (The latter employment category easily expands to include junior and/or burned-out faculty.) Idealistically, intro promotes an appreciation of theatre as a sociallybased , actively-produced, and dynamically-unfolding art form; cynically, it apes the methods of literature and history departments while scarcely, if ever, addressing the unique dynamics of performance-based experience. Idealistically, intro addresses theatre's mercurial reflection of the human condition; cynically, it recycles the cliquish body of accepted works from the canon of academic masterpieces or the over-hyped successes of commercial theatre. This bi-polar characterization of the intro course may seem contentious; it is. However, it may also provoke a reexamination of some assumptions on which various intro approaches are based. From that may come a restated idealism coupled with methods that promote rather than undercut the best of those goals. II Intro typically addresses two constituencies: students intending to major in theatre and students for whom theatre is a peripheral interest, perhaps the least threatening art form to explore while satisfying a distribution requirement. The potential major feels privileged since previous "hands-on" theatre experience implies a bonding with others who regard theatre as a worthy enterprise (read "the teacher"). Others, the uninitiated, may wish its cult-nature demystified, but seldom seek instruction in how to make theatre meaningful in their lives. After all, they have seen films, television, and maybe even a live production; they always knew what they liked or didn't like. Both constituencies feel they 143 144 Ronald A. Willis understand how theatre makes meaning, the one from having participated in theatre in high school and both from having seen theatre-like forms in abundance. However, neither is likely to claim detailed awareness of theatre history, or the inner workings of the professional theatre (by which is meant various specialists doing whatever it is they do to get a show on Broadway). Both approaches are non-threateningly data-based; students can feel free to learn without necessarily reformulating basic attitudes about theatre or theatre-appreciation skills or behaviors. The implicit (though suspect) assumption is that knowledge about theatre automatically enhances one's experience of a theatrical event. Ill Intro designed to meet its bifurcated population's data-based interests emphasizes one of four approaches. One is literary. Students read plays that, according to some criterion of importance, are worthy examples of dramatic literature. If the criterion is historical significance, representative plays from "then" until "after-then" are read. If genre diversity, the plays represent tragedy, comedy, and several forms "in between." Plays can represent worldviews or agendas of artistic or political action communities by exemplifying various artistic "-isms" or social concerns such as race, gender, class, or sexual preference inequities. The literary approach resembles drama courses in literature departments—text-centered, with production artistry ancillary, considered only as it supports the play as written. The second approach is historical. Its focus is on the social and aesthetic practice of theatre in previous eras and cultures beginning with, predictably, the ancient Greeks and progressing to the present with some possible side trips into non-western venues. This intro is a watered-down version of any upperlevel theatre history course. A subtle advantage to historical and literary approaches is that they garner academic credibility with humanists in other departments. They deal with a clearly-defined body of data—data which are the stuff of scholarly articles. The third approach details theatre's functional production categories. The playwright, director, various designers, actor, producer, and so on are studied. Although these functional roles are considered generically, the model is the American professional theatre—regional or Broadway. The post-intro theatre curriculum also explores the named role functions. Acting, directing, scenic construction, and similar production activities form the base of undergraduate theatre education. Thus this intro...