Archive for the ‘Theater Culture’ Category

#437 – Puppet Regimes

Friday, February 25th, 2011

a string theory of two recent puppet shows.

Wonderboy and choreographer Joe Goode.

The self is not an organic thing that has a specific location, whose fundamental fate is to be born, to mature and die; it is a dramatic effect arising diffusely form a scene that is presented.

— Erving Goffman

Just as choreographer Joe Goode’s use of electronic vocal effects and masks distorted the human voice in order to humanize a puppet (see CR #436), his very interest in adding a puppet itself to his dance troupe was rich with humanistic implications. For what is a dancer if not the puppet of the choreographer, a kind of dummy for the bodily manipulations of a gestural ventriloquist?

By adding a puppet to his piece, Wonderboy, Goode dramatized the question of desire in motion. He made apparent the social origins of the self, the ways in which the individual takes shape from the outside as much as the inside, from forces, often invisible, that push or pull us in certain directions, down certain paths, over to certain fates.

And yet, as the puppet himself, Wonderboy, learned to interact with those around him, as the dancers gave him life, made him animate, in a carefully-choreography bildungsroman, he also found his own story. Wonderboy became embodied, a personality, a being in the world, with feelings. Held in sway to others, he held his own.

Joe Goode Performance Group with Wonderboy.

The use of puppetry was quite different in Betontanc and Umka.lv’s Show Your Face! Their puppet was nothing more than a sack of clothes, with a hood stitched on top.

The goal of Betontanc and Umka.lv was not to humanize a puppet in order to meditate on human nature, but rather to decry the dehumanization of the individual by larger systems of power. This was a puppet on the run, panicked and scared, hunted down rather than held aloft. This puppet confronted moments of coarse pleasure among monstrous terrors, and became a new kind of invisible man, not even a man at all but rather a missing person, bullied about by invisible forces themselves seeming out of control.

There was no social self here, only a faceless bag of nothing, strung out and strung up in a rendition made chilling by the absence of even a puppeteer in charge. No one in control anymore, only a faceless, Kafkaesque series of trials, with no strings attached.

Betontanc and Umka.lv, Show Your Face!

Links:

#436 – Vocal Discords

Saturday, February 19th, 2011

two ways of throwing your voice.

In recent visits to Chicago, both performer Laurie Anderson and choreographer Joe Goode toyed with vocal masking and manipulation, but to almost opposite ends.

Anderson performed material from her recent album, Homeland, by adding a voice-lowering effect to her voice. Taking on the role of her alter-ego, Fenway Bergamot, she created an odd distance between body and voice, appearance and sound. The result was a strange, rather disturbing dehumanization. As the audience moved back and forth between Anderson’s pixie-ish looks and the monstrous baritone emerging from the speakers, there was a sort of disembodiment. A gap or rupture burst forth in the space between Anderson’s lips and the microphone that not only amplified, but also transformed her words into electronic signals.

If Anderson became a robot, Goode moved in the other direction. His dancers performed with a puppet, Wonderboy, whose voice was created by dancers once again speaking through various electronic effects. The voice moved higher and lower, spoken by male and female dancers; it was distorted, wavering, twinkling. The effect was not a momentary dehumanization, a roboticization, of a person, as in Anderson’s performance, but rather something more like blowing human breath into the inanimate: a puppet given the gift of feeling and life. There was wonderment, a kind of breathless leap as Wonderboy’s voice gave him a body, and his chants, made real, turned enchanted.

Links:

#429 – The Making Of…

Friday, January 7th, 2011

superamas’s empire (art & politics) @ mca, 10/2/10 — big dance theater’s comme toujours here i stand @ mca, 11/7/10.

Big Dance Theater, Comme Toujours Here I Stand.

Two of the most frustrating but intriguing theatrical performances in Chicago during the fall of 2010 were Superamas’s Empire (Art & Politics) and Big Dance Theater’s Comme Toujours Here I Stand. These two plays had much in common. They both focused—or better said, avoided focus—on questions of achieving authentic art. In the process, they retrofitted postmodernism for the digital age.

Empire (Art & Politics) begins as an awful recreation of the Napoleonic Wars. But quickly, it turned out that we were watching a film shoot of a big-budget blockbuster version of the Napoleonic Wars. Then we found ourselves at an outlandish, Fellini-esque or Antonioni-like party where actors, the director, starlets, moguls, politicians, ambassadors, and the cast members of Superamas themselves mingled. The play wore its artifice on its sleeve. The closest it came to projecting reality was when an actual film interrupted the gauche proceedings. In the film, Superamas traveled to Afghanistan to find a “real” war about which they might make a play. The film was a fake too.

Superamas, Empire (Art & Politics).

Comme Toujours Here I Stand turned to film as well. It was a theatrical remake of Agnès Varda’s 1962 film Cleo From 5 to 7. While Superamas concentrated on the difficulties of speaking authentically about the politics of war, Big Dance addressed obsessions in certain quarters with retro-hipness, probing whether vintage New Wave style could sustain true explorations of character. Once again, as with Superamas’s production, there were screens upon screens, with video and film and photographs surrounding the actors, scrims and rolling equipment and the bare stage itself continually undercutting any attempt to create a sustained realism. The play cut itself up into a montage, disjointed and ironic, as if refusing to grant any sense of verisimilitude whatsoever.

Both Empire (Art & Politics) and Comme Toujours Here I Stand adopted the age-old tactic of placing a play within a play. Except that the play within the play in each case was a film. It was as if each production was a “Making Of” documentary, some DVD extra wherein “the real” now resided, or some series of unauthorized YouTube clips that seemed, somehow, more authentic than the very authorized thing that makes them appealing in the first place.

Perhaps the two plays most of all responded to our emerging digital culture. Superamas and Big Dance replayed replays of replays. They took up now-familiar questions that have been labeled postmodern, that sought to strike through high modernism’s pretensions with playful irony and artifice, that accepted, even celebrated, the banal, the offhand, the amateurish, the trashy, pop instead of art—pop as art. But if Superamas and Big Dance are developing a (good god!) post-postmodern art, they are not asking us to return to modernism. Theirs were not returns or rejections of the postmodern turn, but rather restagings of the turn.

(*Spoiler alert*.)

That was, until the end of each play. Both productions ended with a character erupting out of the almost-crushing environment of superficiality when they learned that they might have a life-threatening illness. Death, not the thing itself, but the not-knowing whether one will die—or when—seemed to crash through the hyper-ironic surfaces of the respective plays.

The relentless suspicions about authentic theatrical representation fell away and we were confronted by people. We were no longer watching the disjointed youtube clip of the making of the making of a film, but just two souls who, in a stark light or a shimmering digital wall of yellow leaves, shivered before us, alive in the quiet of their mortal stage.

Links:

Images: Big Dance Theater, Comme Toujours Here I Stand—Mike Van Sleen; Superamas, Empire (Art & Politics)—Giannina Urmeneta Ottiker.

#426 – The Place of Characters in a Characterless Place

Thursday, December 16th, 2010

Detroit @ Steppenwolf Theater, 11/4/2010.

Steppenwolf Theater claims that its current season is devoted to the theme of public lives and private lives, however in Lisa D’Amour’s Detroit, the character’s lives, both private and public, are more accurately described as vessels for exploring place.

The play tells the story of two couples, one struggling but still hanging on to middle class status, and the other drifters, perhaps even grifters, decamped in their uncle’s abandoned house next door.

The acting is excellent, but the actors are dwarfed, quite literally, by the set, which features the back yards and facades of two suburban homes. Home is where the heart is, right? Except these characters seem to find these homes alien places, everything broken, falling apart, never quite repaired or maintained. The play even updates the old Chekhov’s Gun adage: in Detroit, if an umbrella collapses in act one, a roof will surely cave in by play’s end. The two houses loom over the stage like intimidating bullies more than welcoming abodes, and ultimately they seem more like sinkholes of the soul than heart-warming hearths.

The last speech of the play is given by the uncle who once lived in the home next door to the vaguely-middle-class couple. In a rambling trip down memory lane, he nostalgically reminisces about the post-World War II years, when there were community dances and neighborly relationships in this anonymous housing development somewhere in the first-ring suburbs of Detroit, that once-grand arsenal of democracy.

But now, long after the decline of Detroit, the play’s place has vanished. A neighborhood whose streets were playfully named after various kinds of lightness has become so emptied of solidity that its characters almost float away. There’s just locks on falling-down doors in this place; zombies struggling to find their way out, but they can’t find their footing. The streets of sunny optimism have turned to nothing more than dust motes in sunbeams. The old sense of community has been left to the brambles, which is where, as one of the main characters explains, a sign that once celebrated the locale has become buried in the bushes.

The main couple in the play listen to the sentimental ramblings of the man who once lived next door to them, at once fascinated and bored out of their minds. It’s as if his sepia-toned memories are at once precisely what they long for and totally irrelevant to their own times, lives, and, most of all, place.

Nothing seems to matter anymore in this neighborhood of the lost. There’s a kind of numbness not even the raunchy, penultimate scene can cure. Indeed, in a somewhat critical review, Catey Sullivan wrote on the Chicago Theater Blog that though the play is filled with great writing and acting, “there’s never much at stake” in Detroit.

Perhaps, though, this is precisely the point. These are forgotten, forsaken fellow Americans for whom our society, all of us, dimly remember some kind of vague affinity and commonality, but only in a remote way. They’ve even forgotten themselves. Not even their homes can keep them from floating away. All that was solid has melted into air.

We live after the conflagration, now, in the charred brambles of a collective culture whose neighborhoods have become placeless places, leftover ashes sifted by the winds. People smolder there, in the detritus of Detroit, we think we can see them, but there’s a haze. There’s no place, just dreams of home overshadowed, paradoxically, by invisible nothingness.

Without place, the play seems to suggest, we can’t quite remember why they matter, or where our sense of the stakes of their lives—or our own, for that matterless matter—went.

Links:

#413 – Going the Distance with the Distancing Effect

Friday, October 15th, 2010

pansori project za, pansori brecht sacheon-ga @ mca, 9/25/10.

Jaram Lee and Pansori Project Za.

Pansori Brecht Sacheon-Ga by the Pansori Project ZA featured a Korean group using a modernized form of the traditional Korean storytelling style known as pansori to present Bertolt Brecht’s A Good Woman of Szechwan, a European modernist play set in the traditional East.

The oscillations between old and new, east and west, were so dizzying, the hybridities so intense, that they generated a powerful forward motion, a forceful message about the baffling suffering produced by global economic pressures whose origins seem invisible, but whose effects always strike close to home.

Jaram Lee, a successful singer in South Korea, took on the central role as sorikkun or singer and narrator. Along with the wild accompaniment of the musicians—drummers and a bassist—and the playful gestures of three dancers, her virtuosic vocal style criss-crossed between Brecht’s famous effort to intensify the artifice of theater and pansori’s own magically-jarring movements between direct address and character acting.

Vast distances proved surmountable—even advantageous—when it came to the distancing effect.

LINKS:

#409 – Candide Shrinks to Fit

Monday, October 11th, 2010

the goodman theatre tends its own (miniature) garden.

Candide @ the Goodman Theatre.

Like the recent production of The Comedy of Errors at the Court Theatre, the Goodman Theatre’s current revised revival of Leonard Bernstein’s Candide revels in a casual amateurism, expertly delivered.

As Voltaire’s optimistic title character explores this farcical “best of all possible words,” director Mary Zimmerman offers us dinky, summer-camp props in place of fully-staged spectacle: small boats on sticks and handheld waves portray epic journeys, painted canon balls on poles convey bloody wars, and little red sheep dolls from the land of the Incas are the play’s greatest treasure.

The reduction in scale results in an enlargement of theatrical magic: the storytelling grows more evocative precisely by leaving more to the imagination. The sense of clever innovation reinforces the seriousness of Voltaire’s farce, which undercuts grandiose hopefulness without giving up all hope.

LINKS:

#391 – A Short Organum for the Strawdog Theatre

Sunday, May 30th, 2010

giving brecht a new identity.

“[The spectator] can for instance hear a woman speaking and imagine her speaking differently, let us say in a few weeks’ time, or other women speaking differently at that moment but in another place.” – Bertolt Brecht, “A Short Organum for the Theatre”

Michaela Petro and John Henry Roberts in Strawdog Theater Company’s The Good Soul of Szechuan.

The danger in Strawdog Theatre’s recent production of Bertolt Brecht’s The Good Soul of Szechuan is that the festive style might leave the audience with only a shoulder shrug of existentialist absurdism—“life, whattya gonna do? Mine as well just have a good time.”

But, of course, the alienation effect of Brecht’s epic theater is not supposed to do this; it is supposed to spark audiences to act when confronted with the impossible and shocking contradictions of capitalism. One might leave Strawdog Theatre’s raucous production resigned to just kickin’ it individualistically, when you’re supposed to leave resolved to kick out the jams collectively. We are not, in other words, supposed to shrug our shoulders and party but exclaim, “hey, capitalism, damn, let’s overthrow it now, why don’t we!”

Fortunately, the acting allows the play to have its absurdist joys and dialectically materialize them too. It does so through shape-shifting stylization. In particular, Michaela Petro, who plays the central character Shen Te, never stays in one place. Her acting as Brecht’s hooker with a heart of gold (the cast playfully calls Shen Te “Shan-tey” over porno soundtrack music, something I think Brecht would have appreciated) suggests that the idea of collectivity—in particular, collectivity as the range of personalities and character-types that a social system produces—can in fact lurk within one individual.

Some of this shape-shifting is in the play already. Brecht has Shen Te adopt the alter ego Shui Ta—a ruthless businessman cousin who is the polar opposite of the good soul Shen Te (Petro plays Shui Ta as a kind of hip-hop gangsta). So too, like most actors in Brecht’s plays, Petro must step out of her fictional roles to address the audience directly, explaining repeatedly what her character is doing at the moment.

Under the direction of Shade Murray, however, Petro takes the instability of her three roles much further. She moves continuously through different voices, gestures, mannerisms, movements, and personae to the point that we can never quite pinpoint whom she is performing when. She is never herself. Which is to say, she never acts Shen Te as a stable personality. This is just as Brecht prescribes. He advises actors to maintain a distance from their roles in order to alienate audiences and enliven their senses of critical awareness.

So there are many, many more characters in Petro’s version than just Shen Te, Shui Ta, and the Actor. Another way to say this would be that she is performing everyone. She is an Everyman. Or, more appropriately, Everywoman. Or, maybe best said, Everyperson.

Watching from the audience, this becomes like gazing at a blur. Girlish, macho, comic, tender, tough, mean, lovelorn, hateful, tragic, devoted, doubtful, lost, found, defeated, poised…Petro whirls through expressive modes until the audience is pulled into the vortex. By the end of the play, we are not only no longer certain what a “good soul” is in capitalist society, but also what constitutes a “soul” at all.

Society and social revolution might not be up for grabs in this updated version of Brecht’s classic, then, but the self certainly is. Instead of sweeping capitalism into the dustbin of history, we get caught in the tangled strands of identity within capitalism.

Moreover, the production suggests, the broom has lost its handle. The soul in Strawdog’s The Good Soul of Szechuan has neither beginning nor end. Instead, we witness a seemingly endless motion of selves. They bristle and brush against each other, none of them ever becoming the essential Shen Te.

To put it another way, there is no wellspring of the self in this play’s worldview. There is only a torrent of social forces out of which we conduct a furious mop up operation, soaking up possible selves, slashing and splashing our way through the muck. Petro’s performance suggests that at least one of the problems of capitalist society—it prevents us from being whole—might be a canard. Rather, the uncertain selfhood produced by capitalist dilemmas might itself be productive of new possibilities.

In the whirl of manipulations and compromised ethics that Shen Te confronts—that we all face—the self-made man of capitalism gives way, in a blurry, fleetingly-glimpsed moment, to the continuously and inventively self-unmade person. There’s no broom here anymore, and no dustbin either. But there is still a sweeping gesture. By continually dissimulating, Petro’s Shen Te brilliantly rifles through selves and sorts the scattered remains in search of the good that might unify people.

Whereas Brecht’s original play might have emphasized that the liberated and good soul would only emerge after capitalism was vanquished, Strawdog’s incarnation reverses the order: only out of the free-wheeling motion of identity through improvisatory wit might a new and robust collectivity to oppose capitalism’s impossible choices emerge.

It’s a daring implication. Though not really an answer to the material woes of capitalism, it does open up cultural space for the investigation of potential responses to the social, moral, and indeed religious dilemmas of the system. And this new space erupts from the ability of drama to show how collectivity lurks within us as well as without.

At the end of the play, Shen Te is frozen in the afterglow of the glaring spots. The self becomes projected onto a stage—of both theater and history—beyond which she asks us to go. This is an act, and a good one.

#382 – Crocus Behometh Strikes Again

Friday, April 16th, 2010

America’s “crank prophet” puts the pere ubu into ubu roi.

Andrew Hultkrans has a wonderful review of Pere Ubu henchman David Thomas‘s latest mad work of punk-theater, Bring Me the Head of Ubu Roi.

Favorite line:

Thinner than in the old days, though still physically imposing, he resembled Rush Limbaugh as a homeless flasher.

There is so much going on in that comparison I don’t know where to start! But forget about starting, I’m glad to follow Hultrans as he follows Thomas, even if they might be taking us off a cliff. Such pratfalls and swan dives have always been there when listening in to David Thomas’s brilliant, disturbing rants and Pere Ubu’s careening mutant-rock.

#337 – Bowery B’hoys as Frat Boys

Friday, October 16th, 2009

the steep theater’s history of frat boys in america.

America is tense with latent violence and resistance. The very common sense of white Americans has a tinge of helplessness in it, and deep fear of what might be if they were not common-sensical. – D.H. Lawrence, Studies in Classic American Literature

hollowlandslogo

The best part of Steep Theater’s production of The Hollow Lands was how the actors Jonathan Edwards and especially Boyd Harris played their characters as corn-fed frat boys in the mythic, misty history-scape of America.

Their choice to play these bowery-b’hoy-turned-frontier-ruffians as displaced Alpha Beta Deltas mingled youtful entitlement with an angry, violent undercurrent. These frat boys in America were happy-go-lucky, tolerant, and open to strangeness and yet, on a dime, could turn rageful, reactionary, and close-minded. They reminded me of the boys on spring break with Bruno who will go along with anything until Sasha Baron Cohen’s character asks them to say hi to Austrian gay TV.

It was a brilliant way to link the present to the past in this epic play squeezed into a tiny performance space: fraternity brothers lost in America, alive and innocent and virile, on a death trip, haunted by guilt, and creepily intolerant and unempathetic.

They were on Whitman’s Open Road and locked in Limbaugh’s closed-circuit demagoguery all at once. They were, as D.H. Lawrence famously wrote in his Studies in Classic American Literature, trying to get away, most of all from themselves — pursuers of freedom and recoilers from its wild implications.

6a00d8341c58f853ef011570a4b550970c-500wi

Jonathan Edwards and Boyd Harris (center figures) play frat boys in the misty, epic American past.

Images: Steep Theatre

#317 – My Baby Don’t Care

Monday, June 8th, 2009

when “i don’t care” is caring deeply: tom stoppard’s rock ‘n’ roll & the sixties.

If the genre of rock ‘n’ roll proposed that pop music could be theater, then Tom Stoppard’s play Rock ‘n’ Roll proposes that theater could be rock ‘n’ roll. At least in Charles Newell’s staging at the Goodman Theatre in Chicago this was the case. Featuring rows of stacked amplifier speakers and stage spotlights behind all the scenes, whether they took place in Cambridge, England cottage gardens or Communist-era Czech flats, the set hinted at how rock music suffused the most informal spaces of everyday life with an energy of the theatrical.

As the play conveyed quite well, rock circulated a pulsating dreamworld light that was at once semi-secretive, a glow concealed in the grooves of LPs and hidden within inner sleeves of record covers, and roaringly present, exploding the listener into an alternative universe of drama, comedy, and catharsis. Not unlike its precise opposite — state surveillance — rock was both always there, lurking in the shadows, and front and center, mesmerizing the citizenry.

stoppardrocknroll

Rock ‘n’ Roll, by Tom Stoppard.

“I don’t care,” is the final line of the play. It is spoken by the middle-aged English daughter of a Cambridge Marxist philosopher to her father’s ex-student, a Czech lover of Western rock who stumbles into becoming an anti-Communist dissident. She declares “I don’t care” after she runs off with the student decades after they first met in the months after the 1968 Prague Spring. By play’s end, it’s 1990, the year after the fall of communism, and she says the line moments before she and her new lover witness the Rolling Stones performing in Prague.

In the immediate context of the scene, the line teeters between an admission of failure and a shout of astounding victory.

Most directly, “I don’t care” is about the daughter finally forgiving herself for her own sense of a wasted youth.

But it also sounds like Stoppard himself finally giving up on the conventional Marxist politics that guided key characters in the play, such as the daughter’s father, a stalwart Stalinist and CP member. At the same time, “I don’t care,” also sounds like a suspicion that, even when rock music kept the spirit of dissidence alive in the Eastern Bloc, the Rolling Stones’ performance feels surprisingly like a shallow victory over communism. Thrilling, yes, but anything more than that? Knowing that the fall of communism only presented the new, and deeply troubling, problems of global capitalism in Eastern Europe, we’re not sure.

As the play ends, the spotlights turn up and glare into the audience’s eyes. We’re blinded for a moment. We care deeply, and in a blast of bass, guitar, and drums, are swept up, carefree.

But there’s more.

“I don’t care.” This line is spoken, I think, in the spirit of the Plastic People of the Universe, the Czech rock band who haunt the play along with the ex-Pink Floyd singer and Cambridge, England, recluse Syd Barrett. Like so many counterculturalists, the Plastics just wanted to be free. They sought self-expression and group experimentation and a space for art-making. The Plastics merely wanted to play their music and thought of themselves as apolitical. They “didn’t care.” Yet they became dissidents, co-conspirators with Vaclav Havel, and a cause célèbre in the West, simply for not caring.

Not caring, when you get to thinking about it, actually turns out to be a complex idea. Stating that “I don’t care” is, oddly, a declaration of caring. In negating concern, it winds up communicating concern. Intentionally foregoing control, the speaker of this declaration asserts a strange kind of autonomy. Far from apathy, “I don’t care” comes across in Stoppard’s play as a carefully-wrought carefreeness rather than carelessness. The choice not to choose is to care enough not to care.

Okay, so it all starts to make sense, perhaps, the more stoned one gets. Fine, so be it. That does not make it any less intriguing as a speech act or the staking out of a position. To not care is to ask whether any of one’s past was worth it at all. To throw in the towel. To cease to matter. And yet, to not care is also the encapsulation of what Stoppard notices as the strange politics of the sixties counterculture: the refusal of “I don’t care” is what, in fancier language, the historian Julie Stephens has called, an “anti-disciplinary protest.”

“I don’t care” becomes a kind of paradoxical statement close to the heart of the sensibility that guided the sixties counterculture. If not exactly political, then the declaration “I don’t care” was certainly public.

It was, after all, a declaration of independence — one with all the dangers of living in, and living out, the paradox of caring not to care.

Addendum: “Can theatre and rock music ever mix?”

Image: Goodman Theatre