The terms play and drama are different as described by Mitsuya Mori. Play can be both a noun and a verb and implies an activity of doing something. Due to it's nature of being a noun and a verb, play can be applied to music, sports, games, and other activities. Drama is defined as a noun without a corresponding verb that means "something to be done." A drama can't be a performance without being activated by a play. Thus, a play can stand alone and constitutes a performance without being accompanied by a drama. Historically, play is the base of theatre.
The differences in actor and player correspond to the differences in play and drama. An actor represents a character and a player simply plays. According to Mori, an actor or character can't stand apart from a player in theatre. Thus, the player and actor cross with each other on stage, which is indicated in the expression "an actor plays a character." The actor includes the player (A-p-C). The triadic relationship in theatre is introduced when the performance is intended to produce a drama where the audience is another key factor in developing the structural scheme.
The audience is a key factor in examining the differences in actor and player. The question is asked: "Which of the two on the stage does the audience actually watch, the actor or the character?" The differences can be observed by the Kata in Japanese theatrical forms. The Kata is the central concept in Japanese culture. Kata is almost synonymous with morality. If the Kata is broken that it is considered immoral.
In Noh and Kabuki, the Kata is referred to most often. The Noh actor is expected to imitate the Kata of any given character. The Noh actor is best represented by form and character. The Kabuki actor can create their own pattern of acting. Thus, the Kabuki is best represented as an actor and not a character because of the pattern. The pattern for the Kabki actor is different than the rigid form of the Noh. These differences are significant for Japanese theatrical forms.
Submitted by Jenna Quinn
Could go into the significance a little more -- why is it significance? If you go see Brad Pitt in "Moneyball" how aware are you that you're watching Brad Pitt play a role? how much are you fooled that his character is just a real person being photographed? How aware are you of "tricks" (special moves or gestures, or facial expressions) he uses to sell you on the character or just to impress you? How does your awareness of any or all these things affect the way you view the movie as a whole? how do any or all these things make you more or less critical about the rhetorical message of the movie's script?
ReplyDelete