The New Commedia

by Jonathan Lowery • 24 Oct 2006

The Commedia Dell’arte were the landmark performers of their day. Virtually no other theatrical tradition ha equaled their power and influence. However, their art eventually did die out. Attempts have been made through the years to revive the style or to reinvent it to contemporary audiences. The fundamental concept of the commedia was that they arose out of their age, rather than coming to their age. No attempt to revive such a vibrant and dynamic style can ever work, simply because the act of ‘revival’ is anathema to the commedia style. Nor can any ‘reinvention’ bring back the audience reaction that the commedia held so dear. A new commedia must arise from its audience, from its population. In doing this, it must remove itself from the idea of the commedia dell’arte and become its own creature. This new commedia must be unafraid to go where the comedia did not and depart from the manners of the commedia players themselves. In fact, only by removing all ties to the commedia dell’arte style can we find the manner in which a similar style of theatre may evolve and thrive, thus truly continuing on in the spirit of the commedia dell’arte. It is not my intention here to write an academic treatise on who the commedia dell’arte were and what we can learn from them. Rather, it is my intention to sketch out a ground plan for a completely new style of theatrical experience that reaches to the core of the theatre’s existence and pulls out a plethora of gems that we can share with our audiences on an immediate and intimate level. But first, let’s outline the framework for this ‘new commedia’.

The era that created the commedia dell’arte was surrounded by juggernauts of ‘established’ theatre. The era of Christian theatre (morality and miracle plays) on one end and the Neoclassical dominance of the French theatre on the other put the commedia dell’arte squarely in between the world ancient theatre and the modern traditions. The commedia dell’arte began as a common man’s theatre, a theatre that everyone could enjoy and understand. Throughout the most of its existence, the commedia dell’arte performers stayed true to this calling. It was only when the companies began to become accepted and conventionalized that they began to lose the enormous power they wielded as a popular style. That original power was the reason that subsequent theatrical traditions incorporated the characters of the commedia dell’arte into their divergent styles Opera, in particular, is guilty of this abduction, as is the vaudeville tradition of slapstick comedy, clown traditions, western puppetry, and many others. The commdedia tradition has a power virtually unequaled by any other; but to really get at the heart of why the commedia dell’arte could sway so many people we must look at the how.

The most basic element of studying the commedia dell’arte begins with a list of the characters who populated the style, and it is there that we can begin our search for the ‘why’. Of course every character this study find will be a stereotype of human behavior; but a closer inspection will reveal a fact that has very interesting implications: each recurring character has a hometown. Further, each character will have a fairly predetermined social position and/or rank. This reveals a trend of commedia companies appropriated their characters from the people they performed for. Admittedly, these positions were extremely mobile, depending on the needs of a given company or performance. However, we must also remember that each company adapted most of the generic characters to their own abilities and needs, thus making an identifiable character fit into a unique niche and allow a large amount of variety to be found amidst the multitudes of troupes over the years. So the characters were generic, yes, but they were specific to the point of easy identification to audiences. This is most readily apparent in the earlier commedia troupes where the audiences were very familiar with both the traveling troupes and the regions depicted by each character. It is only in the later eras of the commedia’s influence, particularly after the French adoption of the troupes, that characters begin to morph into ‘higher’ versions of their originals (in the sense that their characters became less dependent on personal demographics and more upon unique character traits only). The continued influence and mystique of the commedia was due in large part to these ‘higher’ versions, but their popular roots remained as the foundation of their characters.

Particularly of note in the roots of the commedia was their decentralized and uninhibited approach to theatre. The only goal of any given company was to make end meet in order to continue to perform. Either this, or to continue to perform to make ends meet. The paradox of the commedia’s existence extends into their legacy. The commedia dell’arte performed for common street festivals, they performed for royalty, they performed on commission, they performed in fields, they performed in theaters, they performed anywhere and everywhere. There was never a ‘way’ to perform that covered every single commedia company, whether in a single era or across the years. Certainly there were common factors and shared techniques and philosophies, but by a ‘way’ I am referring to a controlled method and style. Content, especially, varied from troupe to troupe as players and mores added their own unique fingerprints to each company’s plays. Individual performers were allowed to unleash themselves on their material and explore their personal heights in each company. If there was a trick in the book, some commedia troupe either used or invented it. Nothing was beyond them and, unfortunately, not much was below them either. In essence, the commedia troupes were the ultimate rebels; defying even their own tradition in the search for newness and engagement. Of course, the commedia dell’arte did eventually lose that free spirit, which became the root of their demise and absorption into other forms of theatre.

If the commedia dell’arte lost their spirit of rebellion, the what chance does any attempt to ‘revive’ or ‘reinvent’ the commedia have? The very nature of these ventures makes them merely academic attempts at best. Museum theatre has a great value in the right place, but in terms of ability to ignite a theatrical movement, it has none. So it is by completely abandoning all conscious attempts to revive the commedia that we can find their spirit once again. Hundreds of years before the commedia, there were roving troupes of Greek mimes that provided the initial inspiration for the commedia troupes. But the commedia bore little resemblance to those Greek mimes, even though that former tradition was given a vague nod of gratefulness. Now we are again hundreds of years after the commedia dell’arte have died out. We can give that vague nod in their direction, but we must follow our own path in creating our own, new style. So, we study the commedia dell’arte, we learn their techniques, their origins, their characters, and their ideas. Then we take all of our knowledge and study, and stuff it in the back of our minds while we do something else. And there lies the conception of the magic for the ‘new commedia’.

A free spirit cannot be found in a devotion to an ancient tradition. Nor can this spirit be held in thrall by fear of any tradition. If we want to find another way to engage audiences today, we must ignore the theatrical mores of the day. This is not to say that these mores are bad, but simply that they should not be regarded as a significant factor in determining a style for this ‘new commedia’. I would hesitate to even call this new method a challenge to other methods, because that implies a controlling aspect. Rather, a new controlling factor should consume our endeavor: our audience. How can we, as proprietors of a ‘new commedia’ engage our audiences and share our joy of living with them? This should be the heart of our efforts, not a bid to re-awaken an ancient system.

Intellectual challenges to the current trends in theatre are irrelevant. Popular or political challenge should never be a concern of our style. Surely, there will be some aspects that proponents of ‘new commedia’ will be required to address, but those events cannot be transferred into the determining factors of the style - merely obstacles to be navigated or made fun of. ‘How?’ should be a question addressed after the ‘Why?’. We cannot be afraid to adapt to any culture or environment in order to meet our audiences where they are. Communication or, in higher words ‘communion’ with our audiences is our goal.

Communion with an audience is a fundamental goal of the theatrical art form in general, the ability to bring a group of human beings to a central point of connection and then move, as a group, to another is fundamental the theatrical experience. The ‘new commedia’ seeks to achieve this goal as directly and simply as possible. Particularly, this means having an open mind specifically tuned to the desires and struggles of our audiences. Modern culture has created a huge diversity in cultural identity, but there are common themes and everyday occurances that abound because of this. Avoiding the difficulties of translation and artistic interpretation by the use of those common themes and symbols gives our ‘new commedia’ a connection that is immediate and impactful, because it’s influence travels into the common world of the everyday. Traveling through the symbols of the everyday into new realms of communication and common experience is the essence of the new commedia. So there is no room for consideration of the ‘right’ way to perform, only the way that works for every single performer who decides that the magic of the theatre is something more important than their academic and professional competence. There was a magic in the Comedy of Professionals and should we find the desire, there will be no stopping the New Commedia.