Freedom to express Cruelty as effectively as possible

For some bizarre technology-related reason this didn't post last time, so here goes in attempt number two... hope it reaches you. I hate computers.

Many elements of Artaud’s First Manifesto suggest that the use of written texts would not be an element of the Theatre of Cruelty: “We shall not act a written play, but we shall make attempts at direct staging, around themes, facts, or known works” and “the old duality between author and director will be dissolved” are but two of the examples.

Although Artaud states that the program would be performed “without regard for text”, it seems an impossible task when adapting Shakespeare, other Elizabethan works and an extract from the Zohar for example, without the pieces completely losing their essence. Leon-Paul Fargue’s play may give “extreme poetic freedom” but it is still a previously written text, the same applies to a tale by the Marquis de Sade. This has lead me to the conclusion that a piece based on the tale of Bluebeard would be the best choice (am I right in thinking that the “historical records” Artaud spoke about do not exist and it is just a fairytale?); whatever the outcome, this choice leaves much room for interpretation.

Artaud would have the freedom to experiment with movement as a kind of code, a new way of recording language; he could test the effectiveness of having actors, costumes and mannequins representing set as opposed to having physical scenery; Artaud as the “unique Creator” could try his acting technique in which the actor is “rigourously denied all personal initiative”. Whereas the other pieces could work, this gives him more freedom than the rest to really implement the elements of spectacle he discusses in his First Manifesto.

Yes, it probably wouldn’t be a very good production, but its nature offers a lack of restriction.

Ben