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.
Tuesday, 23 October 2007
Titus Andronicus - Exploring Mutability
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:
Posts (Atom)