THE ORAL TRADITION

But the most important thing is that commedia dell'arte was part of an oral tradition that was hundreds and possibly thousands of years old (and still exists today in little shrinking pockets of European culture, in the former Yugoslavia for example) in which poets, singers, storytellers, jongleurs, troubadours and actors used formulas of plot, story structures and grammars, character types, little 'building bricks of language' (epithets, adjectival, adverbial and noun phrases) and memorised set speeches and speech styles, which were so deeply rooted in their professional and family inheritance they were really good at it, apparently spontaneously creating spoken text which was complex and beautiful. Homer's 'Odyssey' and 'Iliad' (though of course a much earlier part of the oral tradition) were probably produced in exactly this way, which illustrates how 'rich' the commedia dell'arte text might have been .

So although it was mainly improvised it was really rich text created from a kind of cyberspace of memory-held language from a culture that relied much less on written text than we do today. Many of the performers were also multi-lingual, highly educated and sophisticated people, but still itinerant in lifestyle and contiguous with the oral and non-literate traditions.

According to Antonio Fava the magnificent Isabella Andreini of The Gelosi was able to freely improvise sophisticated rhyme. There are of course very few commedia dell'arte performers left who have any kind of 'blood line' to this tradition - Antonio Fava is one (having inherited his father's Pulcinella show) , Franca Rama (Dario Fo's wife) is another, the Carrara family of Vicenza, another well known link to the tradition, but most of the rest of us are all 'fast tracked' in the tradition and simply do not have all this rich humus of material to improvise with in the way the Gelosi, the Intenti, and the Dediosi troupes, and great actors, like Isabella Andreini, Zan Ganassa and Tristano Martinelli, did.

USING IMPROVISATION TODAY

So let's do what the great commedia dell'arte companies did! Let's improvise! In my experience, for example at Antonio Fava's 'Internazionale Scuola dell'Attore Comico', where there were superb quick witted young physical theatre actors, totally spontaneous improvisation often resulted in an almost totally non-speaking mime, so that Fava had to remind them that they could speak. Prepared improvisations, while often brilliant physically, were often equally banal in spoken text. Some actors were better than others at it. Those from extrovert cultures such as the USA and Australia seemed to be more comfortable with it. Other work I have seen by improvising companies, while often being rich in physical performance, has equally often produced spoken text which does not even begin to be rich.

There is also a tendency in Physical Theatre to make the spoken text of less and less importance and to concentrate on the movement, although sometimes without the kind of consistent vocabulary of gesture, posture and gait which is the essence of commedia dell'arte. This isn't a criticism. It is a direction in style which is often very beautiful, but is, however, a movement away from commedia dell'arte at its best. Also, by opting for minimal spoken text performers don't make what they do say less worthy of attention. On the contrary it is more important. There aren’t many better improvisors than at Fava’s ‘Sculoa Internazionale dell’Attore Comico’, which suggests that for many improvisors there is a key point being missed.

Minimalism in all art produces a maximum of focus by its audience, so it must be crystal in its clarity, rich in its texture and profound in its depth. I would contend that it is impossible for contemporary fast-tracked commedia dell'arte actors to improvise the kind of richness of spoken text probably spoken by performers during the great period because they are not a part of the kind of oral tradition which produced it. So, if the masks don't work for our audiences and we can't improvise well enough, should we just not bother?

SHOULD WE SETTLE FOR LESS?

We could just settle for less. In the open air with robust performance, skilled articulation of the body and sensitivity to universal meanings of movement, with lots of colour and vibrancy, and in a carnivalesque ambience, people of many backgrounds will enjoy performances, including trite dialogue, but they will not be profoundly affected. A commonplace curiosity with the quirkiness and 'ugly/beautiful' nature of the masks, in this context may (probably will) give pleasure and amusement, but again not in the way that people are profoundly affected by masks which are indigenous to the meaning systems and lore of their own culture.

Bring the same performance indoors and people's expectations are greater (partly because they have paid to see the event) and it will be more difficult to achieve the same success. Masks which do not 'speak' will be alienating, body language which has no grammar will be ignored, and improvised banal text will go in one ear and out the other. The approving audience will be much smaller and will probably consist of theatre-goers who already know something about commedia dell'arte or at least like physical theatre (thinking it avant-garde). They may even suppress (because of their desperate wish that what they are watching is good) a recognition that the spoken text is nothing special and that the masks probably mean nothing to 100% of the people buying and selling in the street market outside.

THE IMPORTANT LESSONS FROM COMMEDIA DELL'ARTE

So why waste our time talking about commedia dell'arte? For those of us who are devoted to the tradition and recognize that it remains the most inspiring source of practical methodology for comic acting in Western culture, of course, that is not the end of the story.

Let's consider a tip from the Gelosi? They were professionals. They had to make a living. They couldn't afford not to speak the same theatrical language as their audiences. If we want to succeed we need to respect our audiences - that is, know who they are first (and we may have several choices) and work with them. We should take very seriously the lesson from history that if the mask doesn't speak use the white-face instead. If you put a mask on your face without serious regard to its implications for communication you do so at your peril.

But much can still be achieved with masks where proper thought has been given to what it means for the audience. Trestle Theatre & Trading Faces (among a few others) have shown us how. Anyone who has held a well made commedia dell'arte mask in their hands (such as those made by Antonio Fava) and solemnly put it on the face will know about the residual magic they have - and much is to be learnt about the power of the mask by experimenting with them with audiences who are sensitive to your experiments. New masks may emerge which do speak in our culture and profound communication might be achieved. It's worth it - worth really going for it with the mask, with the right audience.

The same with spoken text. If you want spoken text to be a major part of a substantial play for the 'public at large' and richly satisfying then for the moment (though improvisation may be part of the creative process) it has to be finally written down and learnt (unless you happen to be a part of an oral culture where improvised spoken text is still alive, in ghetto generated rap for example). If you want it to be minimal it still merits proper attention, more attention in fact. However, it is an exciting challenge to work with improvised text in the studio and with selected audiences to try and achieve richness.

For me text must always be as rich as possible - not florid, not wordy, not necessarily lengthy (although 'length' is a relative and movable concept), minimal or maximal - It's a matter of choice - but always rich. I have seen a performance recently by Tall Stories of a play for children called 'The Gruffalo' (now on video). It had the formulaic simplicity of Kipling's 'Just So' stories, yet had been partly improvised. It was beautiful. It can be done with proper attention and in short or minimalist plays - until a way can be found to rediscover the skills of the oral tradition.

Fava talks about the commedia dell'arte performer 'enclosing ... all languages in a few strong, effective phrases'. This use of a minimalist but rich spoken text derived from several languages allows essentially the same performance to cross language borders. Multi-lingualism (a common skill in the commedia dell'arte originally) is one of Fava's ideals and the ability to achieve this is an exciting, practical and achievable aim for companies who want to work in several countries. 'Footsbarn' and 'Ophaboom' have shown the way.

Also longer plays can mix text generating methods. You can have the framework of the written script, but allow it to evolve in rehearsal through improvisation, or include 'all'improvviso' passages which have set rules and guidelines for free improvisation in live performance. Actors can be set free to have more direct involvement in set speeches, working with the author, and the more actor-centred the performance becomes the better - as long as the text remains rich, it doesn't produce chaos and there's always objectivity. That's another lesson from commedia dell'arte.

But the greatest legacy of all of the commedia dell'arte is a complex, subtle and articulate vocabulary and grammar of body language (again quoting Fava) 'composed of clear and highly-expressive gestural character', which makes the actor from head to toe a whole vibrant talking organism. It's a challenge and we as a company have a long way to go, but that's our ideal.

Go back to ‘Talk about Commedia’ for more!