Talk:Dramaturgy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia's theatre coverage, and has come to the attention of WikiProject Theatre, an attempt to create a comprehensive and detailed resource on the art of theatre on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (just like any other article!), or visit WikiProject Theatre, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

[edit] shaping a story or like elements

"Dramaturgy can also be defined, more broadly, as shaping a story or like elements into a form that can be acted." This seems to me to be a more narrow definition, unless the elements are more broadly defined. An encylopedic article must be understandable to someone who knows little about the subject: most people do not realize that a drama consists of a lot more than "story and like elements". People don't realize that all of the various props and costumes and extras, each one of them is chosen to have a supporting role. Is there a book sitting in sight? what book is it? Does a particular character have glasses? are they on, off, sitting on the book, put away in their case... That is one tiny piece of one tiny scene, and yet the dramaturge answers these questions for every single detail in every single frame of a drama. A character does not put on glasses for verisimilitude, because that matches with what people do in the real world; a character puts on glasses when the author wants to say "murky things in this work are about to be made clear to the hero".

[edit] Shakespearean dramaturgy

my apologies for the different "feel" that my additions about Shakespearean dramaturgy have from the previous text, and for the depth accorded to a narrow area that has a number of other articles already written about it. But what I added seems dramaturgical, and is not found in those other places, so this seemed like the to put it. It's an important and widely not understood area of drama: I actually was looking for a place to put the information so I could go to the spoiler page and give people a basis to understand why spoilers aren't spoiling for everyone.

July 23. I've removed the Shakespeare stuff, troubled by the fact that its assertions are unsourced, and that attitudes supposedly held by Shakespeare's audience (but which are totally conjectural) are stated as fact. I also found the style grossly out of keeping with what would be acceptable in an encyclopedia. An analysis of Shakespearan dramaturgy would certainly be in keeping here, but I think something more professional and better documented is needed.

do you actually know anything about Shakespearean dramaturgy? Because you are dead wrong that what was in the article was "questionable"; it's completely mainstream. You're like the Taliban destroying those ancient Buddhist statues: why don't you try researching and improving, rather than just deleting things you personally don't understand. It used to be the wikipedia credo that it was better to add information even if it was not in perfect form.

[edit] deeper basis for classical dramaturgy

seems like the article could use some additions about the way ancient and traditional stories are told, like myths, the story of Genesis, the story of Jesus, etc. The stories that appealed to our ancestors in many ways fit classical forms; there is a resonance with something within us.

yes, definitely, and even today stories that fail to fit the classical forms often make for beutiful movies that we want to like and pretend we like, but which leave us feeling completely unsatisfied. That recent 6 hour epic about the Italian brothers and their families and friends, for instance.

This article sucks, you should give an actual situation and give an dramtergical analysis of it.