WeRead Powered by ReaderPub
The man who ate the popomack cover

The man who ate the popomack

Chapter 2: Note
Open in WeRead

About This Book

This four-act tragi-comedy stages the interplay of love, imagination, and social pretension through a sequence of public and private scenes. It deliberately blurs outer action and inner experience by bringing dreams and subconscious memories onto the stage, using theatrical experiment to examine desire, self-deception, and artistic judgment. Characters argue about modern art, enact romantic entanglements, and confront the gap between appearance and interior life, yielding a satirical yet melancholic study of longing and the limits of performance.

Note

I want to say a few words about the technique of this play. I have not hesitated to allow two scenes existing only in the minds of some of the characters to take their place on the stage. It is my belief that the dramatic principles inculcated by all writers on the theatre have only a narrow, logical foundation and that like the rules of harmony and musical form with which unmusical professors have always tried to throttle creative musicians, they are aesthetically worthless. I also wish to add that actors must not think that the art of acting—unlike every other art—has already reached perfection. I prophesy that ranges of expression will be developed of which the present-day European or American actor has no conception—although, as with many new things, the first beginnings of this new art may be traced back in the past, as far as the fifteenth century in Japan and, probably, further elsewhere. The actor who is not prepared to cope with the difficulty of suggesting the various states of consciousness depicted in this play—the dream, the sub-conscious memory, the imagination—is unworthy of his art. This applies equally to the producer.

For the rest I hope no one will be so foolish as to say this play is badly constructed. It may be a bad play, but it is certainly not constructed according to the rules laid down by dramatic critics.

W. J. T.