my experience

What has really stuck with me in Fletcher's Performance Theory class is the concept of phenomenology...and how all the topics we studied help to create that phenomenological experience.  What, I think, the term means to me is creating a certain kind of experience we want to leave with the audience.  And how we need to balance that objective by remembering to look through a "binocular" where we see the semiotics, or the signs and symbols that inform, as well as what we sensitively take in from the experience. 

I've thought about this term throughout the semester--especially since I am tasked to create a solo performance thesis.  Not only do I explore what my character experiences moment by moment, but I've thought about what the audience would feel as well.  And I've set the goal for myself to create an experience for the audience that parallels my character's truthful experience on stage.  But I've also come to realize that there needs to be a balance between the two.  For example, the isolation and violence I want the audience to experience complements Saeed's experience in his solitary confinement cell.  I've discovered that some of the pauses, moments of isolation, that I thought would create tension and uncertainty, really just sucks the life out of the rhythm and overall experience of the piece.  Discovering the balance between the two is difficult, and reinforces the importance of the director. 

Phenomenology is something I never considered, or even heard about, as a director.  Yes, directors want to create an atmosphere.  But phenomenology seems to mean much more than that to me...Foucault's ideas about space, the work of the environmental theatre articles we read, the fascinating idea of dark matter in a play, the hyper real quality of verbatim/documentary theatre, and even some of the moment work the MFA ensemble did with Leigh Fondakowski all seem to influence this concept of creating an experience, rather than just a story.  I want to create experiences, not just stories.

A Tour with Madame Tussaud

So, Dr. Fletcher wanted the undergrads (or interested MFAs) to think of an uncanny experience created purposely for performance.  But since creepy, horror flicks are out of the question--darn!--I suddenly remembered my time, when I lived in NYC, at Madame Tussaud's Wax Museum. My friend flew up to the City to visit me for a few days, and I promised her I would take her to all the sight-seeing attractions.  We visited the Olive Garden, where I worked in Times Square, to have a nice lunch (with too much Bianca Princiapato wine I might add).  She begged me to take her inside the over-crowded museum, and even offered to pay for my ticket.  I was feeling pretty toasty after our lunch and was up for anything...so I followed her all around the showroom.   See the video below for a tour.  FYI, this is not my friend, but some random lady who posted her experience on YouTube.
She gives a lengthy tour of the attraction...don't feel like you have to watch the whole clip.  Notice which figures look more real than others.

NYC Time Square Madame Tussaud's Wax Museum

Supposedly Madame Tussaud began making death masks for the wealthy in her day, but she later decided to sculpt statues of wax for display.  You can find YouTube videos of artists sculpting famous figures with the exact technique that Madame used herself.  I watched the making of Lady Gaga and it was fascinating.  Every little detail is addressed from her "real skin tone" to her "iconic looks" to even her tattoos.  The hair is made with real hair and designed/created individually by strand.  You hear the artists talk about their work and reference the wax figure as "she" or "her style", etc. It is eerie how much these figures look like their real muses. 

But here is where the performance comes in.  The tour is set up like a social event "...where all the stars are here to mingle with us"(from the happy tour guide in the clip).   Music is cranked up, a concession area with drinks, snacks, and alcohol are available for a fortune, and the public is participating in a celebratory event.  I remember tourists all around me standing by the figures, taking pictures, talking to them, touching their hands, stroking their hair...I had a mixed experience.  Some wax figures looked more life-like than others as you will see from the video clip.  I remember walking with my friend and stopping by each wax statue, but there were times where I found myself spooked by all the uncanny replicas of past and present stars.  I guess I couldn't stop thinking about the campy House of Wax horror flick.  Might one of these figures start talking to me?  Will one of them actually be an employee of the museum who suddenly scares the CRAP out of me?  I was fascinated by the realistic, aliveness of the sculptures.  The attraction was made to enjoy and celebrate the accomplishments and lives of influential people.  Artist people made copies of famous people to mingle with tourist people...weird.  I wasn't drawn in as much as I expected, but somehow oddly distanced from the whole experience.  Perhaps the uncanny creates an alienation...or perhaps it allows a constant tug and pull during a performance.  It captures our attention yet allows us to remain objective.

  

All you need is LOVE...

Good theatre is powerful.  I'm not simply talking about an actor's performance, but a message that is communicated in a specific, provoking manner.  The direction of a piece that is clear and evokes the message in a visceral way.  The company involved with a work that is passionate about the cause.  Through our journey in Performance Theory class, that is a common theme among new movements and styles.  An artist or company was excited about a cause or message, and literally pushed the bounds and explored ways of performance to express those ideas. 

Maggie's personal story of the gang members storming the tour bus really made me stop and rethink some instances in my life where I could have spoken up or resisted a wrong.  What can be done in the face of genocide, terrorism, disaster, injustice? And is theatre the answer?  Yes and no. In the moment of such an experience we are shocked, terrified, justifying our "cop in the head", numb, or even insensitive to the circumstances and people around us.  But I would venture to share, from my Christian point of view, that love and respect for others overcomes that.  "Love is a strong as death," writes Saeed Abedini, American citizen imprisoned in Iran, in a letter to the Christian Church in 2012.  Or as I quoted Ray Comfort in my last blog post, "Maybe everyone is made of individuals..." He was referencing the tragedy of the Holocaust when a woman, he was interviewing, wondered where the world was and why everyone didn't unite sooner to save the victims. How can this be translated into theatre since everyone doesn't share my same worldview, you say?  The love of creating something powerful and new to cause the world to think not only about themselves, but the social and political landscape that envelops them--simple.

What is the next step?  Maybe we need some more Brecht.  Maybe we need to throw some guerilla-type invisible theater into the mix.  Maybe we need to do some more community-based work in schools and community centers.  Maybe we need to hold forums in the public square.  Or perhaps we need to do something shocking that grabs the attention of the world, like sit in an art museum and slap someone's face or be present with someone.  There isn't a definitive answer yet, and that is why all these forms and ideas emerged. Theater is subjective and affects its audience in different ways.  But we need to continue TO DO...to do work that means something to us as artists and to the community.

America's Holocaust

A topic that I feel strongly against is abortion.  I know this is a very sensitive subject that still pervades our political backdrop today.  I believe human life is a gift from God, and no one has the right to kill off babies in the womb--sorry, not even the mother.  I am aware that my conservative stance to abortion is not a popular view.  According to the ALL (American Life League) website, the total number of abortions in the United States alone from 1973-2011 is 54.5 million+ babies. ALL’s statistics break it down as:

234 abortions per 1,000 live births (according to the Centers for Disease Control)              
Abortions per year: 1.2 million
Abortions per day: 3,288
Abortions per hour: 137
9 abortions every 4 minutes
1 abortion every 26 seconds

These statistics include only surgical and medical abortions.

Ray Comfort, Evangelist and Director of Living Waters Ministry in California, produced an award-winning documentary, 180, in 2011.  Ray begins by asking random people on the street who Hitler was.  Amazingly, many young people had no idea who Hitler was or what the Holocaust entailed.  He continues with a series of “what would you do” scenarios that ultimately lead the interviewees to the question, “Do you value human life?” When they answer, “Yes, of course”, Ray counters with another question, “How do you feel about abortion?”  He shockingly compares the Jewish Holocaust to an American “Pro-choice” Holocaust.  He spins the reasoning of the interviewees by connecting their remarks to the Nazi agenda…which makes for a very powerful, thought-provoking experience.  A young woman who seemed moved by Ray's questions about the Holocaust remarked, “What can one person do…I mean everyone needed to rise up against him [Hitler]...”  Ray illustrates his stance by answering, “Maybe everyone is made up of individuals who would say I could never bury human beings alive…” Many of the participants of the film seem to have changed their views on abortion, or made a 180.  It was Ray Comfort's hope that the film would be viewed by millions online to change their view from “pro-choice” to “pro-life”.  Below is a clip from the movie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcPG4UAo0Ys

My demonstration is a mixture of activist techniques to include some community-based reenactments, die-ins, and hauntings.  I would organize the demonstration in a crowded, public area, like university campuses or public parks and arenas, to get the most response. I would surround the sidewalks and pathways with children who haunt passing spectators as they walk past--perhaps holding signs like "I would have been such and such years old if I wasn't aborted" (depending on the child), or other sayings to that effect. I would have an actor dress up as a Nazi soldier and hold a fake gun.  Every four minutes, a line of nine people (including children and adults of the community) would line up and get “shot”, with a powerful sound effect, and fall to the ground.  Then I would have a bulldozer on standby roll in and dump confetti-like paper onto the victims, not all dead from the massacre.  I'm assuming I have any means at my disposal. Meanwhile, other participants of the demonstration would be interviewing the public, in the spirit of the film, with similar questions and objectives.  This demonstration would illustrate the scenario Ray Comfort asks his interviewees to consider. As the demonstration continues every four minutes, the public watches and talks with “pro-life” defenders.  Having this demonstration in a very public area would definitely stir a debate that might attract the media to participate in the event.  The effect of the media would actually multiply the message, and get the nation’s attention and thoughts towards the issue…hopefully changing the minds of many “pro-choice” voters to “pro-life” advocates.  There wouldn’t be any real violence, but just the strong imagery from the demonstration.  It is very important that the public and media see a peaceful, but concerned group of activists talking with the nearby  audience.   This demonstration would be considered successful if spectators changed their pro-choice beliefs.  However, this would probably have to been reenacted several times, quite quickly due to the many deaths every four minutes, over a long period of time to see an effect with voters and influence current policy.  Below is the link to the thirty minute documentary, 180, if you are interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI

Post-Modern Cocktail

What really drew my attention this past week concerning the subject of time in the theatrical realm were the durationals mentioned in Kalb’s excerpt from Great Lengths.   In many instances, these were pieces of improvisational, game-like experiments, favored towards the “story of the process”, which played out for many hours.  They departed from the conventional dramatic structure (beginning, middle, and end) primarily concerned with plot and character, and delved into what Etchells described as “…fluid dramas of attempt and struggle” that “…abandoned the rhetorical power of the stage, refusing the shelter afforded by theatre, preferring simply to be there”(Kalb 130).  Durationals not only played with theatrical conventions of time and pace, but also with the space and audience relationship in the works themselves.  The simplistic, intimate ambiguous spaces somehow influenced the audience from merely being “spectators” into becoming “witnesses”, as Ashley mentioned in her prompt. Durationals become voyeuristic engagements that involved both the performer “pretending to be themselves” and the “witness”. These pieces were not originally intended to keep the attention of the audience during the whole process of the work, but surprisingly riveted the interest of Kalb and other spectators who were afraid to leave and not be able to return again.  It seems as though the durationals complemented a naturalistic “slice of life”, but in real time, to the idea of time and pace; life itself has its slow and rushed moments or its boring and dramatic events. Another day and another evening is experienced as the sun sets—whereby the natural light changes the atmosphere of the piece. Durationals illustrate the struggle of human connection and life’s redundancies.  They emphasize the reality effect since we are all “witnesses” to these aspects in everyday life. 

Real people in real time, really pretending. The pretence acknowledged at all points. Or the pretence flickering in and out of acknowledgement . . . Costumes. Props. Sets. Not because one “believes” in these things. But because their processes of transformation and pretence are what the culture is made of (130).

I’m not totally sure what the next step is concerning performance in the “right here, right now” of theatre.  I tend to think theatre will become a mixture of traditional and avante garde (more so than now), a sort of post-modern cocktail made to order depending on the “flavored” experience.  I seem to continually be drawn back to Hudes’ Water by the Spoonful (which we studied in Fletcher’s Play Analysis class). I wonder what would happen if we incorporated a mixture of durational, futuristic, and virtual “twitter” moments.  Hudes’ theatricality of the piece would be changed; playing with the form will, I’m sure, change the playwright’s concept by departing away from the “free jazz” musicality of the play.  But what would happen if, after we introduced all the characters in the play, we continue only with twitter plays during the support group scenes?  Would the audience effectively imagine what Hudes intended?  What if we began the process early on the performance day with separate, character durationals interspersed with Futuristic episodes of certain succinct moments in the script?  Would the story and relationships, Hudes so beautifully created, still be understood?  The story of the play may really become a completely different story of the new experience…or perhaps bring a new dimension to her work.  Either way, I’d be game to find out.  Below is an interesting trailer from a German production of Water by the Spoonful.  It reminded me of some of the durationals described in Kalb’s excerpt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCJq9xsMb2Y

What is ART

I’ve always liked the play Art, by Yesmina Reza, and hope to someday be able to play Yvan, Marc, or Serge.  Maybe I like the play because it really explores the concept of “best friend” dynamics.  It is a play about friendship and questions how one behaves when someone close does something unexpected or immature to our specific values.  This dark comedy is centered on three best friends who debate whether an expensive painting is really a piece of art.  I’m not sure if this concept has been done before, but I would really love to play out this piece in the middle of an art gallery…perhaps at an opening event.  The whole space would be used as the “stage” for Marc, Yvan, and Serge to debate and fight about the white painting that is considered to be a true work of art.  Or perhaps they can use an obscure piece of art from an installation and have the audience question with them whether it is truly art or not. Usually, the play is set in the apartments of the three friends, but I would want to place the action in the art gallery.  Each character has asides to the audience in the play, and I would want these characters to grab the attention of specific spectators in the gallery and really talk to them—recruiting them, on their side if possible, as part of the debate.  I would want it to be a piece that’s duration is flexible with what actually happens in the gallery; there would be multi and local focus moments during the event.  Spectators would see characters interact in the scenes, but then separate into different areas of the galleries after a heated argument.  Spectators could choose who they want to follow and interact with them until another scene ensues when the characters run into each other again.   This could be the type of performance where a spectator needs to see the event three different times to follow the journey of each character throughout the evening.  Not only will it be a play about friendship dynamics and what art truly is, it will become a piece about what performance is considered.  Spectators will intermittently wonder whether this is a performance or a real event taking place in the art gallery.  There will be periods of intense action but also periods of stillness and reflection.  The script of the play will be used, but also whatever improvisation naturally happens with the spectators present. It will be a “night-filling” play!  Here's a scene from the play with women in the roles:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c6Op9q7sas

This type of experience would force the spectator to side with a particular character; whereas a normal staging of the play allows the audience to understand each character’s point of view and eventually determine which point of view they identify with.  I think this approach will enhance the piece into a more visceral experience for the audience. It becomes a different experience than the already compelling experience a normal staging of the play produces.  The themes of the play are put into action with the spectators. They will find themselves agreeing or disagreeing, as well as reacting or not reacting to the performance.  How involved will the audience become?  How far will they allow the characters to interact the way that they do?  How will they interact with other spectators?  What points really unnerve them into action?  The experience turns a public, sacred space into more of a public, private space.   

I agree with Kantor’s thoughts, however, there is still merit to traditional theatrical productions.  In some aspects, found environmental spaces remind me somewhat of naturalistic elements.  As artists, we are expected to think outside of the box.  When a concept or production really pushes the boundaries, meanings, and concepts--and it works--it changes the experience of the audience as well as the performer.  We want to give a new experience and change the audience somehow in the arts.  We want to inspire but can only do so with inspiring work. There is nothing more exciting than experiencing something new or unexpected because it produces something new and unexpected in myself.  The theatre is a social medium that can affect us in such a meaningful way, both the performer and the audience.       

Our Cross to Bear

 

Why do people go to the theatre or attend performance art pieces?  There is something special-- something electrifying--in the air during a compelling theatrical performance.  This is because the audience and performers share the experience together.  Peggy Phelan writes in her article that    “…technologies can give us something that closely resembles the live event, but they remain something other than live performance…streaming video functions in the way a still photograph works: it conveys the work but it is not the live event itself”(575).  Cinema may move us but live performance, compelling works, literally change us because we experience it with the performers…there is a give and take during live performance.  During the run of our recent production of Frankenstein, a woman was moved in the audience when the creature accidently killed little William.  She shouted, “He’s only a child!”, and Brendan Averett told us back stage that it jarred him and affected his performance.  Another recent example was during rehearsal.  Nick Erickson was working with Tim and Brendan.  As Brendan “threw” Tim over the chaise lounge, many of the cast members grimaced and audibly reacted to Tim’s landing.  It sounded as if Tim hit his head on the chaise before he made contact with the ground.  Tim looked out into the house and wondered why we reacted in such a way.  He assured us he didn’t hurt himself.  Both performer and artist share what happens in the space.

When I lived in New York City, I was lucky to come across some comp tickets to see a Wooster Group production, “House/Lights”.  I don’t pretend to understand what I saw, but I cannot forget the experience.  It was an eclectic production of voice overs, sound and special lighting effects, physical theatre, some intermittent text, moving set pieces, and probably more.  Without the performers, the piece would not have the same effect I don’t think.  The juxtaposition of the performers with the multi-media effects moved me.  I felt chilled, aroused, spooked, intrigued, and even guilty for seeing what was before me.  When used correctly, technology can be an invigorating element to theatre or performance art, but I don’t believe technology could ever replace live performance.  Even if it does, the lively spark we experience in the space, those moments from a live performance will be lost and never experienced…which would be very sad.  Phelan goes on to say:

The potential for the event to be transformed in unscripted ways by those participating (both the artists and the viewers) makes it more exciting to me…The possibility of mutual transformation of both the observer and the performer within the enactment of the live event is extraordinarily important, because this is the point where the aesthetic joins the ethical. The ethical is fundamentally related to live art because both are arenas for the unpredictable force of the social event.

Try to articulate your experience during this clip of the Wooster Group in performance.  Then imagine the event multiplied ten times (x10) since you are not experiencing it live:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqd3kLN12oA

The tragic event of 9/11 comes to mind when thinking of a “media-built experience”.  At the time of the incident, I was still a sophomore in college.  All day, the news stations were playing the recorded footage of the planes flying into the World Trade Center.  One of our theatre professors rolled out a TV in the lobby for everyone to watch the footage throughout the day.  The image of the planes crashing and the towers collapsing are still burned in my head.  When I moved to New York four years later and visited the World Trade Center Memorial, I was moved by a single steel cross—attached to a cement block--that was left on site from the rubble.  I suddenly remembered all the news media clips and photographs from the event, the anniversary ceremonies, and coverage about 9/11 all at once. I’m not sure I would have had the same reaction without the prior exposure to the live footage. Technology can be very powerful.  I think it can have a dramatic effect in live performance and should be used smartly.  Otherwise, all that will be experienced is white noise…