Date: February 16-18

Topic: Trendsetting and the Modernist Movement 

In Kovarik’s fourth chapter in Revolutions in Communication detailing the history of photography, a common theme is the “breakthrough” and its frequent appearance throughout the 1800s and 1900s as the science and technology behind photography progressed at a breakneck rate. Once the mechanisms behind photography were more or less well established, trends and movements began to appear and interact. A particularly interesting conflict occurred as the pictorialist movement to popularity. In response, photographers like Paul Strand spearheaded the Straight Photography movement focused on clear, sharp images, counteracting the “soft visual effects in artistic poses” of pictorialism which “did not take advantage of the new medium” (Kovarik, p. 161).

A similar reaction came from Henrik Ibsen in response to the then-popular “well-made play,” which essentially focused on a suspenseful, melodramatic plot line rather than well-developed characters (Zarilli, p. 391). The theater of Ibsen’s time was also one of increasing spectacle as technological advances sprang up. In response, Ibsen began to write plays that were relatively simple in set, but verbally complex and deep. These later developed into works like “A Doll House,” which directly confront issues in the Norwegian middle class, or the “bourgeois” (Norton Anthology of Drama, p. 719). In this way, Ibsen also parallels the trend of muckraking photography, which spread images of inequalities to expose societal evils (Kovarik, p. 163). Ibsen’s unique style, emerging from his response to contemporary theater, was a large part of the “breakthrough” of modernist theater.

However, according to Zarilli et al. in their analysis of the modernist movement, “both Ibsen and Chekhov believed that photography, the basis of realist theatre, had little to reveal about human experience” (p. 390). While Ibsen’s stylistic development mirrors that of photography, he was not a huge supporter of the art or its social impacts. He preferred to aim for a higher plane with his works, reflecting the transcendental views of Kant in which the highest achievement is non-material self-realization (Zarilli, p. 390). This is evident in “A Doll House” as Nora goes through crisis only to find that she has never been allowed to grow outside of a man’s household and social constructs, being passed “from Papa’s hands into [Torvald’s]” (Norton Anthology of Drama, p. 766). At the time, this abrupt desertion of a family and husband by a wife was completely shocking to audiences. However, in present day, it is much easier to accept this behavior as a woman finding independence, and consequently, herself.

A few questions:

While a connection between Kant and Ibsen is easy to forge, what about with another contemporary “thinker” like those we studied in class? Specifically, in “A Doll House,” are Torvald’s interactions and perceptions of Nora (much like a child) reminiscent of Freud’s theories?

If Nora had an Instagram account, what would she post pictures of? How would her feed change as she experiences this abrupt change in thinking?

Finally, I found this interesting short film (~9 minutes) from 2012 in response to “A Doll House”:

-Phoebe Thompson

Date: February 2-4

Topic: Bridging Gaps of Time with Oral Tradition

In the introduction of Revolutions in Communication, Bill Kovarik states “without a sense of the past—without some concept of the lives, triumphs, and mistakes of people who have lived before us—we are merely groping blindly into the future” (Kovarik, p. 1). It seems that the group of people in Acts I and II of Mr. Burns were attempting to weave that thread through time, post-apocalypse. They knew that civilization was experiencing an extreme loss, and in that desperation, they tried to preserve something. An episode of “The Simpsons” was perfect for that, because it’s probably the best reflection of pop culture over the past (almost) three decades. On top of that, it’s humorous, and seemed to provide them with some relief… But the episode they chose was also somewhat reflective of their situation. In “Cape Feare,” Bart is cornered and about to be killed by this menacing force… But he uses theater (specifically an unplanned reenactment of a theatrical work) as a distraction tool, and it ultimately saves him. In a way, this is what the group is doing around their campfire.

            In the first chapter of Theatre Histories, we are introduced to the concept of differing oralities. It seems that the characters and events in Mr. Burns exist somewhere between primary and secondary orality. They have encountered writing before, and they keep some notes on people in their notebooks, so their orality is not entirely primary (absolutely no encounters with writing at all). But their orality post-apocalypse is no longer “sustained by telephone, radio, television, and other electronic devices” (Zarilli, McConachie, Williams, and Sorgenfrei, p. 17). They’re in this liminal space where, again, the pressure is on to carry some thread of pop culture into the future, and they must do it completely from memory. The result of this 75 years down the road is a totally twisted and darkened version of what the episode was originally and when they were first recalling it, which shows that the apocalyptic event has definitely pushed the orality of civilization back toward “primary” on the spectrum. Otherwise, with written records as in secondary orality, the reenactment of the episode would be nearly perfect.

Some questions: How similar is this “post-electric,” apocalyptic scenario depicted in Mr. Burns to the early oral/theater traditions that first appeared in early human history? Did the apocalypse effectively set media back to such a point?

What is the point/metaphor in exchanging Sideshow Bob for Mr. Burns (Homer’s menacing boss at the nuclear plant) in the production 75 years after the apocalyptic event?​

-Phoebe Thompson