Identify and apply the conventions of major theatre styles such as naturalism, realism, expressionism and absurdism to making and analysis.

What this dot point is asking

The course defines style as the manner in which drama is performed, the consistent set of conventions and intentions that shape how a piece looks, sounds and means. Where genre describes what kind of story is told, style describes how it is told. Drama 3 expects you to apply styles in devising and scripted work and to recognise them in live theatre, so you need a working grasp of the major options and what each is trying to do to an audience. A piece that mixes styles carelessly reads as confused; a piece that commits to a style reads as deliberate.

Naturalism, associated with the late nineteenth century and practitioners building on Stanislavski, aims to show life on stage exactly as it is, governed by environment and heredity. Its conventions include detailed, believable sets, psychologically truthful acting, ordinary everyday speech, and the convention of the fourth wall, an invisible barrier through which the audience observes the characters as if spying on real life. The intention is the illusion of reality, so the audience forgets it is watching a play. Realism is closely related and often used interchangeably at school level, presenting believable characters and situations but with somewhat more selective, shaped staging than strict naturalism.

Non-naturalism is the broad opposite: any style that openly acknowledges it is theatre rather than maintaining the illusion of reality. Brecht's epic theatre, physical theatre, and much devised work fall here. Non-naturalistic conventions include direct address, narration, multi-rolling, transformation of objects and bodies, song, exposed staging and non-linear structure. The intention is usually to make the audience think, feel or respond in a way that immersion in illusion would not allow.

Expressionism, emerging in early twentieth-century Germany, distorts the external world to express a character's inner emotional or psychological state. Its conventions include exaggerated, angular sets and lighting, heightened or fragmented language, dreamlike or nightmarish atmosphere, and acting that externalises feeling rather than hiding it. The world on stage is reality filtered through a troubled mind, so a corridor might lean, shadows might loom, and a crowd might move as a menacing single mass. The intention is to make the audience feel a subjective inner experience from the outside.

Theatre of the Absurd, associated with the mid-twentieth century, dramatises the idea that human existence is without inherent meaning. Its conventions include circular or static plots that go nowhere, repetitive and broken dialogue, characters who wait or fail to communicate, and bleakly comic situations. The intention is to make an audience confront meaninglessness, often through unsettling humour, rather than to tell a resolving story. Recognising the absurd stops a student wrongly judging such a piece for lacking a conventional plot, because the lack is the point.

Applying a style well means committing to its conventions across every element. If you choose naturalism, the acting, set, speech and the maintained fourth wall must all serve the illusion; a sudden direct address would break it. If you choose expressionism, the lighting, movement and design should all distort toward the inner state, not sit naturalistically. Examiners reward stylistic consistency and a clear understanding of why the style suits the material, and they notice immediately when a piece borrows a striking convention without grasping the intention behind it.

When you write about style, name the convention and the intention together. Saying a piece was expressionistic proves little; explaining that the leaning set and harsh red light distorted the world to express the protagonist's paranoia shows you understand the style as a means to an audience effect, not just a label.