Just a couple of things I was thinking about during the debate and afterwards (on the pro side).
Considering the view of thinkers such as Sasz, Laing etc etc that perceived 'madness' as an attempt to express 'disapproved' thought led me to wonder if in fact part of the wonder of art is the ability and opportunity it affords the artist to express and explore ideas that might not otherwise be acceptable or understood by society. The use of art as a medium through which to express these ideas does not by any means indicate that an artist is mad, merely that he or she chooses this medium through which to express ideas he or she may otherwise struggle to. I would suggest that in some cases art becomes an acceptable arena for what could otherwise be unacceptable, or perhaps inexpressible. In this case 'madness' or the accusation of madness appears to me the result of incomprehension or 'blinkeredness' (really really not a word, but never mind....) on the part of the audience.
Considering also the question of inaccessibility to 'normal' society: I believe that really, pretty much all art is going to come from a place essentially inaccessible to any one part of society; one person's imagination is not the same as another's and in this sense all art comes from a different place, a different mindset than the one with which an audience will then view the piece. It is surely almost impossible for an audience to fully understand an artist's motives- the fact that this is the case in no way indicates either that the work is the result of madness or is pointless and useless within the medium. Personally I believe that one of the greatest things about art remains the fact that, whatever an artist's motivation and/or message, it is possible to interpret the same work in countless different ways.
Wednesday, 24 October 2007
Shakespeare without his verse
With a playwright now so universally acclaimed and interpreted, why not get rid of the language that makes up Shakespeare’s masterpieces? Yes, they are classics and masterpieces, and Artaud indeed stresses the anachronistic nature of them in a modern society, renouncing them as ‘fit for the past’ and incomprehensible to the masses, but Artaud also makes the suggestion that masterpieces can be made conscious to the masses if their ideas are spoken in their language. As Artaud says: ‘theatre is the only place in the world where a gesture, made once, is never repeated in the same way’. I believe it is possible to recreate Shakespeare in an Artaudian language, that goes deeper than one’s intellect and touches on the sensualities and emotions of all people across the world, through what Artaud calls a language somewhere between thought and gesture, which lies outside the restricted nature of words. Instead of actors focussing on the complex nuances of Shakespearean verse, they would make use of the language’s symbolism and interconnections to speak of a world they live in. Last year I saw ‘Richard the Third’ recreated into an ‘Arab Tragedy’, where Shakespeare’s text was cut and edited and translated into Arabic. The English geography, images, conceits and religious framework were reworked into the world of the Gulf today. English history was used to explore contemporary political anxieties in the Gulf and Arab region. Language was not the focus of the play; it had been rewritten. The play was created by a historical idea, much like what Artaud championed, and a theatrical language was created where Arabs as well as English (and I’m sure other nationalities) in the audience could connect with the sensuality, emotion and rhythm contained in that language, whether or not the words were understood.
Artaud's theory in relation to Shakespeare's 'Othello'
Artaud continually stressed the restrictive nature of language, campaigning against traditional masterpieces. He sighted Shakespeare as a key culprit whose work he claimed was ineffectual with the audience, undoubtedly seeming to contradict his idea of staging a Shakespeare in conjunction with his theories. However, perhaps dependent on the fact that Shakespeare plays are what I know more about, there are moments in these where I can imagine the Artaudian theory being exploited. There are parts to‘Othello’ which to me seem an obvious choice through the degeneration of the principle character’s mind. Not only does the play portray physical violence, (predominantly in the blood bath that is the final scene), but also internal torment within Othello climaxing in Act Four Scene One. The stage directions indicate ‘He falls down in a trance’, indeed a production I saw explored convulsions and physical distortions in the actor’s body, both unnerving to watch, and likewise suggesting a move into the unconscious, looking to the inner world or ‘metaphysical man’. The last scene is, fundamentally, violent in action, a literal take on the word ‘cruel’ which Artaud did not necessarily intend. However in the production I saw the audience became central to the action. They were surrounding the actors as the plot unfolded and almost became part of the carnage as blood splattered onto them. Indeed Artaud wanted his audience to be central to the action, ‘true’ theatre he claimed was dangerous, he wanted it to be immediate and completely encase the audience so as to have a profound, long term effect. Whether or not this latter idea is the case, the feeling of being trapped and immersed in the violence was prominent. Finally, I agree with Nick’s point about language for Artuad looked to the oriental way of considering the voice, where words become almost incantations arresting our sensibility and inducing trances. The rhythm, structure and continual flow of Shakespeare’s words, on one sense aligns with this, highlighting how I believe there are at least moments which suggest ‘Othello’ could be produced in an Artaudian style.
Tuesday, 23 October 2007
The Story of Rabbi Simeon
Many people seem to have discussed many areas of interest with regard to other programme suggestions and it appears this work has been overlooked.
This work is intruiging as (similar to Artaud's other suggestions) it creates a paradox by containing both what he is attempting to avoid and what he is attempting to achieve!
The Story of Rabbi Simeon as I understand is a late encounter one night between the Rabbi and someone who is later discovered as the Angel of Death.
"The rabbi enquired of this character who he was, and the latter replied thai he was God's messenger. "Why is it that you look so strange," the rabbi continued. On account of the talk of human beings who say "this and that we will do," and yet not one of them knows when he will be summoned to die, was the answer. When Rabbi Simeon asks to be told the date of his own death, the Angel explains that he does not have jurisdiction over righteous people. The midrash then supports this statement with this quotation from Proverbs 10:27, "The fear of the Lord prolongs life."(38) Though death may be postponed, yet none will escape this end."
This contains many of Artaud's principles regarding his idea of a Theatre of Cruelty. The work itself does not necessarily need to be restricted by the published text but rather engross itself with the subject matter, "The fear of the Lord prolongs life."
The representation of the Angel of Death can be greatly physicalised in order to prompt the question as to why the angel does look so strange and the unknown/devised quality of the angel's appearance leaves an opportunity to introduce Artaud's "objects, masks and props...stressing the physical aspect of all imagery and expression."
The stage language along with the overall style of the piece gives words "the significance they have in dreams."
This production would be the most likely candidate due to it's openness to interpretation & change and it's topicality.
This work is intruiging as (similar to Artaud's other suggestions) it creates a paradox by containing both what he is attempting to avoid and what he is attempting to achieve!
The Story of Rabbi Simeon as I understand is a late encounter one night between the Rabbi and someone who is later discovered as the Angel of Death.
"The rabbi enquired of this character who he was, and the latter replied thai he was God's messenger. "Why is it that you look so strange," the rabbi continued. On account of the talk of human beings who say "this and that we will do," and yet not one of them knows when he will be summoned to die, was the answer. When Rabbi Simeon asks to be told the date of his own death, the Angel explains that he does not have jurisdiction over righteous people. The midrash then supports this statement with this quotation from Proverbs 10:27, "The fear of the Lord prolongs life."(38) Though death may be postponed, yet none will escape this end."
This contains many of Artaud's principles regarding his idea of a Theatre of Cruelty. The work itself does not necessarily need to be restricted by the published text but rather engross itself with the subject matter, "The fear of the Lord prolongs life."
The representation of the Angel of Death can be greatly physicalised in order to prompt the question as to why the angel does look so strange and the unknown/devised quality of the angel's appearance leaves an opportunity to introduce Artaud's "objects, masks and props...stressing the physical aspect of all imagery and expression."
The stage language along with the overall style of the piece gives words "the significance they have in dreams."
This production would be the most likely candidate due to it's openness to interpretation & change and it's topicality.
As Joe said earlier on, the Fall of Jerusalem seems to be a possible performance from the programme if I was trying to achieve at least some of Artaud’s ideas in a practical sense (I don’t think it’s possible to use them all and not be contradictory). Although it is not entirely clear what Artaud is referring to in his description of what he would present from the Bible and the Scriptures of the Fall of Jerusalem (the blood flowing from it and also the prophet’s metaphysical quarrels), there are a few possible texts that he could have had in mind. One of these is in Jeremiah, a book in the Old Testament where the prophet Jeremiah prophesies and warns against the coming fall of Jerusalem. It was most likely written 6 years before the actual fall (586BC), and gives a rich visual language from the time. For example, Jeremiah 6v6-7:
This is what the LORD Almighty says:
"Cut down the trees
and build siege ramps against Jerusalem.
This city must be punished; it is filled with oppression.
As a well pours out its water,
so she pours out her wickedness.
Violence and destruction resound in her;
her sickness and wounds are ever before me.
(you can read more at http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%206;&version=31;)
I think that a staged performance of this could be effective if I were to the Bible as a stimulus rather than a script, and refer directly to Artaud’s notes on musical instruments in his ideas on subjects. Here he talks about musical instruments evoking ‘sensibility through the senses’ through ‘utterly unusual sound properties and vibrations’ and using ‘ancient instruments’. Of course, instruments were used much more often in warfare in this in history, and an experience of an extreme nature could be created through the use of instruments, rhythm and vibrations alongside movement and gesture to depict the fall of Jerusalem, without necessarily using words.
This is what the LORD Almighty says:
"Cut down the trees
and build siege ramps against Jerusalem.
This city must be punished; it is filled with oppression.
As a well pours out its water,
so she pours out her wickedness.
Violence and destruction resound in her;
her sickness and wounds are ever before me.
(you can read more at http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%206;&version=31;)
I think that a staged performance of this could be effective if I were to the Bible as a stimulus rather than a script, and refer directly to Artaud’s notes on musical instruments in his ideas on subjects. Here he talks about musical instruments evoking ‘sensibility through the senses’ through ‘utterly unusual sound properties and vibrations’ and using ‘ancient instruments’. Of course, instruments were used much more often in warfare in this in history, and an experience of an extreme nature could be created through the use of instruments, rhythm and vibrations alongside movement and gesture to depict the fall of Jerusalem, without necessarily using words.
Programme Selection
After reviewing Artaud's proposed programme I think Buchner's Woyzeck could be the most successfully recognised in terms of the 'Theatre of Cruelty'. The play follows the protagonist Woyzeck, a military barber, who stabs to death his beloved wife in a jealous rage. The obvious violence of this play aside, what makes it, for me,a clear choice is the way Buchner focuses on the themes of maddness, the sub-conscious and the hallucinations Woyzeck suffers from, at the hands of the doctor. The emphasis on the subconscious and the psychological torment the protagonist undergoes, is almost similar to the effect Artaud wishes to evoke in his audience, and the inclusion of hullucinations could give the performance a dream-like quality; it goes beyond the conscious. This play also looks at the themes of violence and lust, socially controversial subjects that would demand the attention of the audience, and questioning their morals. I also believe Woyzeck could be just a successful if the language was indeed, disregarded, and a 'unique language' based around the body and gesture was used as the images depicted are so powerful.
For example when Woyzeck watches Marie dance with the Drum Major, it is noted that Woyzeck embodies the beat of the music and the heat of the dance, and his line 'Stab, stab the bitch dead' refrains. This could be a physically grotesque image, in which the performer is evidently tormented by the beating music, in close proximity to the audience, by using distorted, uncomfortable body movements , the characters inner suffering could be realised without the use of 'dead language'.
For example when Woyzeck watches Marie dance with the Drum Major, it is noted that Woyzeck embodies the beat of the music and the heat of the dance, and his line 'Stab, stab the bitch dead' refrains. This could be a physically grotesque image, in which the performer is evidently tormented by the beating music, in close proximity to the audience, by using distorted, uncomfortable body movements , the characters inner suffering could be realised without the use of 'dead language'.
Titus Andronicus - Exploring Mutability
While I agree with Yann that Artaud is essentially contradicting himself in suggesting an exploration of a classical playwright like William Shakespeare, I think that Shakespeare's earliest text 'Titus Andronicus', being one of his most unknown works, is also a text that can easily apply itself to Artaud's ideas of a unique language of theatre. Perhaps the most poignant and shocking stage direction in this play comes in Act II, scene IV -'Enter the empress' sons with Lavinia, her hands cut off, and her tongue cut out, and ravished.' The fact that a leading character is created a mute by the violent and brutal actions of others fits well, I think, with Artaud's ideas of language and cruelty. Lavina's distress and pain is subsequently expressed through physicality and this comes as a stark contrast to the lyrical and poetic language employed by Shakespeare when conveying the emotions of his other charaters. An Artaudian interpretation of this text could draw out this contrast by forcing the audience to become part of Lavina's physical torment, perhaps by presenting the action not on a conventional stage, but in a crowd of people. I think to remove all language from a Shakespearian text would be to destroy it, but Titus Andronicus allows space for a 'mute' and physical exploration of pain and self-ruin in a way that most of Shakespeare's texts do not.
I saw a production of this play in 2005 at the Globe, and a similar concept was employed whereby the most brutal acts of rape and revenge occured not on the main stage but in amongst the audience members in the pit. The audience was forced to respond naturally to the effects of violence, rather than to witness them from the safety distance of conventional theatre seating.
The Staging of Bluebeard
As many of you have already noted, Artaud's manifesto for The Theatre of Cruelty appears, at times, confusing and contradictory. He is insistent on the notion of creating a new language, 'somewhere in between gesture and thought' and yet, alludes to the deconstruction of Shakespearean works in order to re-stage them. Even though the practitioner intends to re-write and revise Jacobean and Elizabethan texts, this appears to undermine his opinion that we should no longer be invested in 'mastepieces'. For this very purpose, I propose that the staging of Bluebeard would be suitable in accordance with the manifesto.
Bluebeard is a fairytale, a genre which is already fluid in structure, theme and thus, interpretation on the stage. It is quite a sinister account of a violent, dark man, who marries many young, virginal women, whom he kills in a torture chamber on their wedding night. The last bride-to-be discovers the room and attempts to flee. Artaud stressed that his Theatre of Cruelty was not to be explicitly violent or a spectacle for merely aesthetic purposes; despite the fact that Bluebeard is, indeed, physically volatile, he could deeply explore the notion of psychological torment and fantasy. Artaud's focus on 'jouissance' emphasises a clear link between the binaries of pleasure/pain, sex/violence, and many more.. Staging of a fairytale allows for the exploration of dream-like states: physical jerks, groans, exaggerated gesture and unintelligble language would create an unnerving experience for the audience, but one that would make them investigate the realms beyond real life and cultured humanity. This, I believe, was at the forefront of Artaud's intentions.
Bluebeard is a fairytale, a genre which is already fluid in structure, theme and thus, interpretation on the stage. It is quite a sinister account of a violent, dark man, who marries many young, virginal women, whom he kills in a torture chamber on their wedding night. The last bride-to-be discovers the room and attempts to flee. Artaud stressed that his Theatre of Cruelty was not to be explicitly violent or a spectacle for merely aesthetic purposes; despite the fact that Bluebeard is, indeed, physically volatile, he could deeply explore the notion of psychological torment and fantasy. Artaud's focus on 'jouissance' emphasises a clear link between the binaries of pleasure/pain, sex/violence, and many more.. Staging of a fairytale allows for the exploration of dream-like states: physical jerks, groans, exaggerated gesture and unintelligble language would create an unnerving experience for the audience, but one that would make them investigate the realms beyond real life and cultured humanity. This, I believe, was at the forefront of Artaud's intentions.
Monday, 22 October 2007
Possible selections from programme
Whilst Artaud's comment about staging shakespeare without using any of the text was no doubt deeply ironic, it may be possible to draw parrallels between his concept of the theatre of cruelty and Shakespeare's work. What I mean by this is Theatre of Cruelty's need to immerse the audiance and appeal to all the senses. When listening to Shakespeare i would argue that one of it's main forte's is to immerse the audiance member in the language. The tone, flow and highly poetic language serves to ingross the listener almost to a trance like state. This is however only a singular comparison, but throughout the works of shakespeare cruelty is experianced and portrayed in many different ways. In Hamlet there is physical violence but also an air of death and decay about the play. We also see through his works see scenes of implied incest which Artaud was very intersted in. In both I think we see a critique of the human condition without a sense of escapism.
Sunday, 21 October 2007
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
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
Jerusalem!
It could be a direct conversion from history, and would escape the boundaries you would encounter by operating through any historical 'masterpiece.' It's also about a struggle for culture, between two very different groups, and could easily be represented as a struggle that's more ideological, religious and cultural than simply a war of greed and politics. Such a battle maybe could be displayed as a hunger for an Artaudian style culture that includes and yet overrides the cultures of both of the two warring sides?
The gruesome physical horror of war is also trumped by the cruelty of the emotional pressure faced by the Jews under seige who (at least in one historical instance?) took their own lives rather than surrendered themselves and their ways of life.
Plus, I think Jewish music and ritual would fit the mould perfectly.
It could be a direct conversion from history, and would escape the boundaries you would encounter by operating through any historical 'masterpiece.' It's also about a struggle for culture, between two very different groups, and could easily be represented as a struggle that's more ideological, religious and cultural than simply a war of greed and politics. Such a battle maybe could be displayed as a hunger for an Artaudian style culture that includes and yet overrides the cultures of both of the two warring sides?
The gruesome physical horror of war is also trumped by the cruelty of the emotional pressure faced by the Jews under seige who (at least in one historical instance?) took their own lives rather than surrendered themselves and their ways of life.
Plus, I think Jewish music and ritual would fit the mould perfectly.
The Seige of Jerusalem
Looking through Artaud's programme list, i find some of the choices confusing (as Yann mentioned), however, some also seem to be entirely fitting and logical. For example, the Fall of Jerusalem seems, to me anyway, to be the most appropriate selection. The Theatre of Cruelty is looking for something with relevance; something that still has a bearing on contemporary society. What Artaud remarks about Sophocles is that his language has lost touch with 'the rude and epilectic rythms of our lives', but the themes about man's fallibility are universal. This is applicable to the Fall of Jerusalem, where the notions of 'intellectual agitation' and 'metaphysical disputes' are present, but there is no restriction by a text. Artaud would be free to take a historic event and story, as widely known as the tale of Oedipus, without being limited by out of date language or stangnant dialogue.
The story has all the elemets of an Artaudian piece of theatre; the chaotic spectacle that could quite easily 'surround' the spectator and the sense of 'abandon' and 'panic' that would allow for an dramatic and intellectual piece of theatre. It is expressive in its themes and could equally be as expressive in its execution. It begins with a tall city and ends with destruction, which is a suitable metaphor for Artaud's intentions to break down of the audience sensiblities (both emotional and physical). When the audience leave the space, a physical change would have taken place, 'i propose a theatre in which violent physical images crush and hypnotise the sensibility of the spectator seized by the theatre as by a whirlwind of higher forces'.
Also, is anyone else having trouble finding the Van Gogh reading? I have tried the library and the electronic resources (Project Muse, JSTOR, Google scholar) and i cann'y seem t' find it! Any one had any luck thus far?
Love
The story has all the elemets of an Artaudian piece of theatre; the chaotic spectacle that could quite easily 'surround' the spectator and the sense of 'abandon' and 'panic' that would allow for an dramatic and intellectual piece of theatre. It is expressive in its themes and could equally be as expressive in its execution. It begins with a tall city and ends with destruction, which is a suitable metaphor for Artaud's intentions to break down of the audience sensiblities (both emotional and physical). When the audience leave the space, a physical change would have taken place, 'i propose a theatre in which violent physical images crush and hypnotise the sensibility of the spectator seized by the theatre as by a whirlwind of higher forces'.
Also, is anyone else having trouble finding the Van Gogh reading? I have tried the library and the electronic resources (Project Muse, JSTOR, Google scholar) and i cann'y seem t' find it! Any one had any luck thus far?
Love
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)