MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388951205 · doi:10.1080/10486801.2023.2249395

Theatrical Affordances to Stage the Perceived-Experienced Reality of People with Dementia: Florian Zeller’s Dramaturgy of Porosity in <i>The Father</i>

2023· article· en· W4388951205 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Heunjung Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Theatre Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheatre and Performance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDramaturgyAestheticsPersonhoodDementiaSociologyNarrativeArtPsychologyLiteraturePhilosophyEpistemologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article investigates how French playwright Florian Zeller positions his writing with respect to realism in his play The Father (Le Père, 2012) and what his dramaturgy of porosity adds to the representation of dementia in contemporary theatre. Through an analysis of the text of The Father and its West End theatre production (2015), this article demonstrates the ways in which this play challenges the dominant perspective in theatre that depicts dementia from the perspective of the outsiders – i.e., those who do not have dementia. On stage, the perceived reality of persons living with dementia has often been portrayed as an illusion, in contrast to the ‘true’ reality perceived by neurotypical people. This article examines how Zeller’s dramaturgy of porosity, by making the audience see the reality from the perspective of the protagonist living with dementia, generates encounters with alternative ways of perceiving and relating to the world. While drawing on theoretical discussions on neurodivergent aesthetics, this paper argues that contemporary theatre can evoke divergent consciousnesses of persons with dementia by using dramaturgical and theatrical strategies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContemporary Theatre ReviewSame topicTheatre and Performance StudiesFrench-language works237,207