1. Pavis, Patrice, ‘From Page to Stage: A Difficult Birth’, Theatre at the Crossroads of Culture (London: Routledge, 1992) p. 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. He is referring here to Mukarovsk's term for the total context of social, political ideological factors informing an aesthetic text. See Pavis, , 1992, p. 27.Google Scholar

3. For Pavis's notion of metatext, see the chapter ‘Towards a Semiology of the Mise en Scène’, Languages of the Stage: Essays in the Semiology of Theatre. (New York: Performing Arts Journal Publications 1982), p. 149 ff.

4. Pavis, , 1992, p. 37.Google Scholar

5. Pavis, , 1992, p. 38.Google Scholar

6. Zeitschrift für Semiotik 11: 1 (1989), pp. 29–49.

7. Lehmann, , p. 35.Google Scholar

8. Lehmann's example is Jürgen Flimm's production of von Kleist, Heinrich's Käthchen von Heilbronn, Cologne 1979.Google Scholar

9. Lehmann, , p. 37.Google Scholar

10. Lehmann, , p. 40.Google Scholar

11. As Brook himself points out, economic considerations forced him to abandon the idea of a freshly conceived film. Instead he transplanted his theatre production to a film studio where it was recorded with several cameras. See Brook, Peter, The Shifting Point: Forty Years of Theatrical Exploration (London: Methuen, 1987), p. 189Google Scholar. For a detailed discussion of the two versions and the analytical problems the transposition poses, see Pavis, Patrice, ‘From Theatre to Film: Selecting a Methodology for Analysis. On Marat/Sade by P. Weiss and P. Brook’, Understanding Theatre, ed. Martin, J. and Sauter, W. (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995), pp. 212–30.Google Scholar

12. Brook, , p. 190.Google Scholar

13. ‘Notes on the Theatre of Cruelty’, Tulane Drama Review 11:2 (T34) (Winter 1966), p. 171.

14. Marowitz, , p. 171.Google Scholar

15. It is interesting to note in this context how the (film) actors physically present madness. Patrice Pavis has identified four models of bodily presentation in Marat/Sade; see Pavis, 1995, p. 221 ff.Google Scholar

16. This reading is backed up by Marowitz, : ‘Although [Brook] has a firm intellectual grasp of a play's ideas, his natural instinct for violence and stark effects seduces him into irrelevant sensationalism’, p. 170Google Scholar. In a recent interview Brook interpreted his production as an attempt to reveal the in teresting contradictions in the play: ‘I did Marat/Sade because I sensed that Peter Weiss who considered himself a Communist had formulated his own contradiction: He was for both Sade and Marat. Out of this strong, tragic conflict between two contradictory forces arose very good theatre. Weiss thought he was for Marat, against Sade; but his play was different. That's the way I directed it.’ Sucher, C. Bernd, ‘Das stärkste und reichste Instrument ist der Mensch’, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 12–1306 1993, p. 13.Google Scholar

17. Quoted in an interview with Schechner, Richard, ‘Karen Finley: A Constant State of Becoming’, The Drama Review 32: 1 (T117) (1988), p. 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18. Schuler, Catherine, ‘Spectator Response and Comprehension: The Problem of Karen Finley's Constant State of Desire’, The Drama Review 43: 1 (T125) (Spring 1990), p. 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19. The text is published in (Schechner, 1988Google Scholar; see note 17), which also contains a descriptive analysis of the performance and an interview with Finley. I also had access to a film sequence from The Constant State of Desire contained in the film New York Il Mondo.

20. Schuler, 's study (1990)Google Scholar on spectator response is primarily performance-based as it is an analysis of a survey of spectators who had attended a specific performance. Yet Schuler also makes frequent reference to the published text in her own reading of the piece. See also the extensive essay by Pramaggiore, Maria T., ‘Resisting/Performing/Femininity: Words, Flesh, and Feminism in Karen Finley's The Constant State of Desire’, Theatre foumal 44 (1992), pp. 269–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Although including references to a specific performance, Pramaggiore's study is almost entirely a text-based, psychoanalytic reading.

21. See Schechner, , 1988, p. 155.Google Scholar

22. On spectator response, see Schuler, , 1990Google Scholar; on her problems with venues, see Schechner, , 1988.Google Scholar

23. Pramaggiore, , 1992, p. 274.Google Scholar

24. Schechner, , 1988, p. 157.Google Scholar

25. Pramaggiore, , 1992, p. 282.Google Scholar

26. Pramaggiore, , 1992, p. 282.Google Scholar

27. Schuler, , 1990, p. 137.Google Scholar

28. Schuler, , 1990, pp. 137–8.Google Scholar