The postdramatic is a form of theatre that was first acknowledged by the German Hans Thies Lehmann’s study Postdramatic Theatre (1999). The study highlights how contemporary has moved away from traditions carved by playwright of the well made play and the ”no longer dramatic’ forms of theatre that have emerged since the 1970s’ (Jurs-Munby, 2006, p.1).

Within the brackets of the first paragraph i have already highlighted a very significant point. Lehmann wrote his study back in 1999 in Germany where these conversations had already been flourishing for several years. it was not until 7 years later that Routledge published an English translation of the book suggesting that the use of this term has one again seen the UK dramatically fall behind the continent.

Although new forms are being experimented with, despite the suggestion of the word, the prefix ‘post’ does not actually mean a total disregard for dramatic forms. Jurs-Munby in her introduction outlines that post is used ‘rather as a rupture and a beyond that continue to entertain relationships with drama’ (2006, p.2).

A contemporary postdramatic example, however debated, is Tim Crouch. Crouch fell out of love with acting and the theatre industry and after writing several productions for children found himself producing work of a very distinctive nature. Crouch in his work demonstrates ‘ that the theatre space – together with the performance of written dialogue spoken within it – had transformational possibilities’ (Bottoms, 2009, p. 65). in his opinion the theatre should be used to create illusion rather then depicting a late 19th century Norwegian house as an Ibsen would. A seminal text of Crouch is An Oak Tree. In performances of  An Oak Tree Crouch would use an actor who had never seen the script before and feed them instructions, more often then not, audible to the audience. But Crouch’s disobedience to theatrical norms do not end there with the actor. In stead of having an oak tree on stage he uses a chair. Instead of using characters he uses chairs. Crouch ask the audience not to suspend their disbelief but rather ask them to deal with the several layers of theatricality that he provides them throughout the play.

Despite all these rebellions and forms, Crouch still tells a story. It’s is a very clear and dramatic on of that : ‘a grieving father deals with the loss of his teenage daughter in a traffic accident by claiming to have turned the substance of a tree (located roadside at the accident site) into that of his daughter’ (Bottoms, 2009, p.65). As well as this he creates his own cosmos that himself and his fellow actor  are stuck in and emotions are shown and a sense is catharsis is felt. He creates both a fictive cosmos (as in a drama) as well as an allowance for other externalities, such as the audience and the performance space, to enter and exit throughout the play. For me this is where Crouch truly establishes himself as a postdramatic artist.

Works Cited

Bottoms, S. (2009) Authorising the Audience: the Conceptual Drama of Tim Crouch. Performance Research, 14 (1) 65-76.

Jurs-Munby, K. (2006) Introduction in Postdramatic Theatre. London: Routledge.

The play explores different people view and the notion of confirmation bias. Confirmation bias means that’s when we research, or listen to certain things that address one or more of our beliefs we only look out for, acknowledge or trust things that support our already made views. The play explores Chris’ relationship with a Nazi ‘but let’s not get hung up on the Germans’ (Thorpe, 2014 p. 30).

As Chris is a liberal he appears to be open and wants to give this man a voice and comes across as someone who is essentially making a documentary. The confusion comes with his quite aggressive and cut of approach to which he is investigating. He appears to be as intolerant of Glen’s view as Glen is of other cultures.

It is a solo performance with no set. He uses a microphone to distinguish between different emphasises which are also used instead of scenes. He also hands out piece of paper to audience members who become him as he performs the rule of glen. Few traditions of theatre are use as there is no real plot, it is more of a collation of stories and meetings with this man. They are used throughout whether it be for experiments or just there to listen. They are directly addressed as if the conversation is with them.

The actor is in a sense a commentator of the meetings between Chris, a liberal, and glen a Nazi. They describe both sides of view but most assume the role of Chris so this is where the relationship is muddied. Thorpe does towards the beginning of the play dress up as glen and spends a good feed pages highlight the importance of what he is wearing and why he is wearing it. Maybe in a perhaps more post dramatic play the clothing would not have been worn but merely described.

The play is very contemporary as more and more extremists come to surface from different cultures. Furthermore as I first read this play I was also watching a documentary of people who have converted to an extremist way of living and had found themselves in prison. This play is very topical as it raises all the questions that have risen up recent times and include two conflicting views within a web of similar but simultaneously conflicting views.

Thorpe constantly uses imagery and descriptive language that puts us in the various locations he discusses. His intricate detail such as the scooping of the eye in the final scene evokes images and ideology at the same time. The text of the piece is very important. The words he uses say both something about him and the themes that are being handled. As it is just a solo performance and not a lot actually happens, the text and the words are almost all that matters. Evoking a relationship from the audience is due to the text, all other aspects of the play do reflect the importance of the text and ultimate the author. The themes are overarching but would not be able to be put forward as coherently and strongly as Thorpe does with his words.