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…