- This paper is the fourth in a series of essays. The first essay examined justice as an essential ingredient in the metaphors of drama. See Daniel Larner, “Justice in Drama: Historical Ties and ‘Thick’ Relationship,” Legal Studies Forum XXII: 1, 2, & 3 (1998), pp. 3–19. The second essay took a closer look at justice in relation to content and the structure of drama, specifically the tragedy. See Daniel Larner, “Teaching Justice: The Idea of Justice in the Structure of Drama,” Legal Studies Forum XXIII: 1& 2 (1999), pp. 201–210. The third essay expanded this consideration to comedy. See Daniel Larner, “Justice and Drama: Conflict and Advocacy,” Legal Studies Forum XXIII: 4 (1999), pp. 417–429.
- In this context, the English word “understanding,” seldom examined, becomes an eloquent expression of what it means to comprehend an object metaphorically—to see what metaphorical systems support its meaning.
- The essentials of this view of realism can be found in Northrop Frye's account of the dramatic forms in his Anatomy of Criticism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957).
- Two Tars, 1928.
- Tit for Tat, 1935.
- Big Business, 1929.
- Produced by Hal Roach, directed by Charles Rogers, 1935.
- See Michael Wood, “Perseverance to the Point of Madness,” New York Review of Books XLIV: 12 (July 17, 1997), p. 10.
- Big Business, supra note 8.
- See Wood, supra note 10.
- It is important to note at this point that contemporary literary theory makes it difficult to discuss this dance. Brian Richardson (“Beyond Postructuralism: Theory of Character, the Personne of Modern Drama, and the Antinomies of Critical Theory,” Modern Drama XL:1 [Spring 1997], pp. 86–99) argues that contemporary poststructural literary theory, since it denies representation, cannot give a full account of character in modern drama. “…the presentation of character in modern drama remains not only undertheorized but in principle incomprehensible as long as reigning theoretical constraints are observed” Id., at 87. The same might be said for action, plot, and theme (what Artistotle called “thought”), since each, in the poststructuralist mode, is deconstructed to the fragments of hegemonic, or subversive, ideologies or to other fragments of ideas seen to be more crucial than action or character or comedy or tragedy—like gender, race, body, performativity, and power. Sandra Tome points out (“David Mamet's Oleanna and the Way of the Flesh,” Essays in Theatre 15:2 [May 1997], pp. 163–175) that numerous critics have asked whether Mamet has ruined the play by using the first act to tell us what he thinks is “the truth” about who John and Carol are and what happened between them, loading the case for John and against Carol. This assumes, of course, that what is at stake in the play is summed up in the question of what sexual harassment is, whether it really happened in this case, and by extension, whether it happens at all. Could the play be as much about the failure of certain ideas about teaching and knowledge, about study and learning, as it is about sexual harassment and the anti-intellectual depredations of political correctness? Could it be about a connection between the two sets of ideas, each illuminating the other? In the deconstructionist, post-structural critical stance, these questions cannot be framed, let alone answered. Could it be about what happens when two people trap themselves in conflicting, stereotypical roles which flow from the institutions and the social structures in which they live? One could argue that such a description is useful for understanding hundreds of plays across centuries and cultures. Richardson argues that we need the capacities of poststructuralist analysis, but that it should be combined with elements of humanist and formalist criticism to derive a cogent analysis of the shifting, and sometimes contradictory, representations of character in contemporary drama. In pursuing this analysis, I have used largely the humanist and the formalist modes, preferring those traditions which see works of art as real entities, and forms as wholes, with power to make meaning out of their parts.
- See Mark Pizzato, “Theaters of Sacrifice: Greek, Aztec, and Postmodern,” in Bettina E. Schmidt and Mark Münzel, eds., Ethnologie und Inszenierung: Ansätze zur Theaterethnologie (Marburg: Förderverein Völkerkunde, 1998), pp. 137–167.
Law & Literature
Volume 13, 2001 - Issue 1