Vol. 1, No. 1, Fall 2002

Of course, theatre often protests against community standards, the status quo, and the gods themselves. This antagonistic stance, particularly evident over the past hundred and fifty years, might lead some to question the idea that theatre serves religion's purpose of relating human beings to superhuman forces. In fact, however, the range of attitudes in theatre from celebratory joy to hostility are also found in formal, sectarian religions. Just as in religion, relating doesn't necessarily mean pious resignation, so in theatre the relationships fostered may have considerable variety. Relationships with God validated by religion include protests against the divine and attempts to manipulate God. To take just two samples from the Judeo-Christian tradition with which I'm most familiar: Job protests against God, "What do I do to you, you watcher of humanity? Why have you made me your target? Why have I become a burden to you?"(6) And Jesus cries out from the cross in the words of the Psalmist, "My God, my God! Why have you forsaken me?"(7) So Gloucester's declaration, "As flies to wanton boys, are we to th' gods/They kill us for their sport"(8) sets Shakespeare's King Lear squarely in the tradition of religion's dialogue with the divine.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly of all these observations of theatre's religious characteristics, the experience of theatre is similar to the mystical experience of religion. The practice of religion may result for the worshipper in ecstasy, insight (epiphany), inspiration, attachment to the community, or a sense of apotheosis. Or as Stanley Kauffmann said in a recent cinema review, sometimes religion simply comforts the worshiper: "As writers on religion have often noted, the very form of religion itself, apart from its content, is a solace, a surety".(9)

In theatre, we bundle together all of those same psycho-emotional impacts under the word we borrow from Aristotle, "catharsis." Theatrical catharsis and the mystic experience of [page 7] religion are practically indistinguishable. Perhaps Lenora Inez Brown put it best in an article in American Theatre:

To summarize, then, theatre shares with religion the same kinds of accoutrements, the same approach to the creation and modification of myth, an identical setting in community, a similar immediacy, a parallel scope of attitudes toward superhuman forces, and an identical effect on its devotees. It is time we acknowledge the breadth and depth of these similarities by declaring, yes, theatre is religion.

Viewing theatre as religion will affect the way we think about theatre, the way we practice it, and the way we evaluate it. This viewpoint calls for a more holistic theory, practice, and criticism of theatrical art.

To begin with, accepting theatre as religion can enliven theatre theory. The pursuit of cross-disciplinary studies of theatre and religion will stimulate clearer understandings of both partners in the endeavor. For instance, the mystical experience in religion and the artistic experience in theatre may help explicate each other. Aristotle's katharsis, Abinavagupta's rasa, and Zeami's yugen each have both theatrical and religious overtones that would best be investigated by scholars conversant with both the art form and theology.

Furthermore, attention to the formal study of religion can help explicate theatre. Some aspects of theology that might be especially productive to apply to theatre include the theory of myth, the study of religious ceremony or "liturgics," and psychology and sociology of religion. In particular, theatrical design, an area which theorists have been all too willing to delegate to [page 8] practitioners, might become an exciting area for theoretical investigation if studied in combination with religious iconography.

Another area of fruitful interdisciplinary enquiry would be the comparative study of formal religions and their related theatrical expressions. A fair amount of this has already been done—such as V. A. Kolve's The Play Called Corpus Christi—but scholars able to combine theatrical acumen with a theological depth will find much left to be accomplished.

Turning from interdisciplinary endeavors to focus solely on the art form, the religious identification of theatre should impact the way theatre theory is pursued. For instance, just as religion ought not be studied in isolation from its worshippers, so theatre theory must include theatre participants including both producers and audience members. This viewpoint calls into question the limited internal dramatic focus advocated by the New Criticism and radical "Aristotelians." In particular, the community in which theatre is practiced, its relationship to its theatre, and what it stands to get from a given play—these are valid and necessary areas of inquiry.

Considering theatre as religion adds support to the openness theatre theorists have evidenced toward new theatrical modes. Just as religions must tolerate and dialogue with their heresies or atrophy, so must theatrical orthodoxy accept and dialogue with new artistic perspectives and approaches such as postmodernism, feminism, and performance art.

Furthermore, theatre theorists should seek models for dramatic theory in religion. Just as the poetic identification of theatre led theorists to focus on internal dramatic structures, and just as the rhetorical concept of theatre focused on effectiveness of message conveyance, so the religious nature of theatre should yield productive models for understanding the nature of dramatic art.

Finally, realizing theatre's identification with religion may provide insights into other art forms and their relationship to theatre. For instance, does this religious connection also apply to cognate arts such as dance and film? Is music religion in the same sense as theatre? What about visual art? In my viewpoint, the idea "theatre is religion" doesn't necessarily transfer to "cinema is religion." This observation suggests that understanding theatre as religion may help further clarify theatre's essence and relation to cinema. It may, for instance, give new overtones to Growtowski's idea that the essence of theatre lies in the actor-audience connection.

[page 9] In addition to having implications for theory, understanding theatre as religion can have an impact on the practice of the art. For instance, this viewpoint suggests that theatre practitioners are priests. In European theatre, consciousness of the sacral nature of acting pretty well vanished with the demise of Servants of Dionysus. Recapturing this concept would bring a new element to actors' self-concepts, to their understanding of their relationship to their audience, and to their perception of their art form. It seems to me that these shifts might in turn result in new ways of approaching the actor's self-development, techniques of characterization, management of the performer-audience connection, and even career building. I believe the concept of acting as a vocation—a calling—differs significantly and positively from thinking of acting as a passion or obsession, trade or way of making a living. And what applies to actors in this regard also fits their fellow artists from designer to director to technician.

Furthermore, just as liturgy, ritual, architecture, visual and aural elements, priest, and laity are inseparable and equally validated in religious practice, so the work of playwright, director, actor, designer, and technician become equally important in theatre practiced as religion. This viewpoint brings a new holistic vision to all elements of theatre praxis.

The concept of theatre as religion also can impact the work of theatre's front-of-house personnel. Just as formal religion seeks to incorporate all members of the community where it is practiced, so it becomes crucial to bring marginalized segments of society into the theatre partly in order to enrich the participating community and art form and partly in order to extend the benefits of theatre to new audiences.

And finally, in addition to theory and practice, the concept of theatre as religion has implications for criticism. What makes a good play? To begin with, a play is better when it eschews diversion and instead pursues its true purpose. The best theatre is not escapism any more than the best religion is an opiate. Instead, the best theatre is a tool for introspection, for relating the audience member to a community, for clarifying for audiences their relationship to God, the world, the way things are. And the best critic doesn't just ask if the script was well constructed, the directorial concept inventive, the acting believable, or the design coordinated but rather did the play serve its proper religious purpose of relating human beings to themselves, their community, their culture, and the forces beyond their control.

Specifically, it seems to me that critics should ask if a play uses ritual effectively. If theatre is religion, if scripts are myths, if a production is cultic, an act of worship, then the best plays embody and use ritual. The point of ritual is to involve the audience at a level beyond rationalization, a level that involves cognition, rational processes, feelings, lusts, and needs but that engages all of these in an experience that can best be described as spiritual. A good play arouses reason, emotion, and hunger in a manner that causes these faculties to transcend themselves. Indeed, a play may arouse reason, emotion, and hunger only to frustrate them and deny their fulfillment in order to tease and drive them into the realm of the ineffable, into a truly spiritual experience, the ultimate goal of art. Does the play transcend commonplace imitation in such a way that raises the experience to the level of the spiritual? The best critics address this question.

To conclude: Unlike its sister "pure" arts such as music, painting, and sculpture, theatre has usually been considered as poetry, rhetoric, or entertainment. None of these analogous disciplines adequately, holistically deal with theatre. Religion provides the best system for understanding, practicing, and responding to theatre.

[page 11]

Endnotes

Works Cited

Aristotle. Aristotle's Poetics. Tr. S. H. Butcher. New York: Hill and Wang, 1961.

Brown, Lenora Inez. "Writing Religion: Is God a Character in Your Plays?" American Theatre 17:9 (November 2000), pp. 29-32.

Kauffmann, Stanley, "Profane Rites." The New Republic. December 11, 2000. pp. 24, 25.

Langer, Susanne K. Feeling and Form. New York: Scribner's, 1953.

Eliade, Mircea. Myth and Reality. Tr. Willard R. Trask. New York: Harper and Row, 1963.

Patai, Raphael. Myth and Modern Man. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972.

Vogler, Christopher. The Writer's Journey: Mythic Structure for Storytellers and Screenwriters. Studio City, CA: Michael Wiese, 1992.