The Art of Being Off-Task

I’m not trying to derail the progress of the scene breakdown. I was cleaning a room and got distracted. Maybe this is more appropriate for the Lichtenbergian site since it represents divided attention; I don’t know. It does touch on theatre art, however, so…

I wrote a speculative little thing a while ago in which I tried, yet again, to synthesize two of my interests: performance and psychoanalysis. Yes, I know; I’m pretty predictable, but don’t begin chanting the Te Dium just yet. And no pained sideways glances. Have a look at it and see what you make of it.

I’m not much interested in being asked questions beginning with What did you mean by…. or entertaining editorial observations; as exposition and improvisation, it is what it is. Rather,I think there are occasional passages I’m quite proud of because of the way they articulate some pretty arcane Lacan concepts in everyday language. Also, I want to inspire new thinking on performance issues. To my mind, nothing I’ve offered is shattering original, just another stirring up of the familiar into a slightly unfamiliar brew.

Useful for Coriolanus? Not a bad question. It’s not my agenda in encouraging you to read it, but if it inspires, why not. Too eccentric? We can only hope.

Another way to look at it

I’m going to start out more simply. As usual, Marc has amazing things to say, but he writes at such length that one hardly knows which part to respond to. (Pardon, Marc.)

I do appreciate Marc’s comment that what we do onstage does not need to detract from the music/poetry. That said, I think we have plenty of opportunity to dazzle the audience, and may develop more: I can always make more music to stretch things out.

Case in point: “Two Sunflowers Move into the Yellow Room” probably should contain minimal dazzlement during the main song, but there’s nothing that prevents us from adding a Ballet of the Sunflowers which takes the main theme and extends it into a bigger piece.

Two things happen there: it lengthens the program a little bit, and I do think 34 minutes is too short, and it gives more children stage time. That’s the thing we’ll explore over the next few months.

But to make this brief and open up for comments, I don’t think we need any kind of plot/script/frame to make it work. There’s a sense of movement through about a day and a half in the whole piece, and I really think that’s all we need to offer the audience. I think I’ve said this before, but one instructive model is that of Cirque du Soleil. They may set up a barebones storyline at the opening, but the following two hours is just one visually arresting image after another. Connectivity? Not so’s you’d notice. Logical plot? None.

It’s best to work with what I know: Work Forum

Let’s let this be a place where we can start to respond to the material.

Having just begun to listen and read along, something I haven’t actually done with the material in a long time, I am gratefully reminded of the sad limits of conceptual thinking when set beside the magic of the verse (and the music, of course).

A few random observations. The task of the production with such material is to situate the audience’s attentiveness so that they can really listen to the words. The magic of the event is in hearing the verse, in the way the fanciful play of words conjures a larger realm. The stuff of the everyday is pulled into this transformative process. We want to hold a child’s attention and let the images, the play of thoughts and images and notions, blossom.

I can’t see the songs as ever being just background for something else. They are too rich, too dense. You can’t afford to miss anything. All stage craft and performance issues need to back up the songs. I don’t think we want the audience’s attention distracted with a question of “what just happened?”

The decision: do we create a presentation world with some kind of story frame, some reason for people to be gathered together doing the songs in some fashion; or a neutral container we fill with each song and we don’t assume a need to find framing movtivating impulses? Of course it doesn’t have to be either/or. That’s just one of the tensions we have to negotiate as we go.

From the titles of the songs on, I kept thinking about the songs as responses to a playful challenge, almost as if a child proposed each title and then expected the singers to rise to the challenge and invent. The songs as the result of a kind of high order imaginative game played by the children. Are the singing adults participants in the game or figures from some other realm conjured by the imaginative forces?

With this idea of each song being a deliberate challenge, I could see other elements (puppets, dance, scenic, etc) offering a kind of “musical” underscoring for each song, trying to tap into feelings and latent ideas. But I also thought, and I didn’t think I would find myself thinking this, all the stagecraft, all action, could attempt to quite literally meet the challenge of portraying the content of the songs. Two levels of playful challenge at work: the challenge of “composing” each song and then the challenge of rendering the imaginative improvisations in some kind of palpable form. I guess I’m thinking it’s more honest to imagine children attempting both things. Or children laying down the challenge to the “adult” of making something up (tell me a story) and then playfully taking the next step of trying to “make it real.”

But I don’t want to clog things up with too much conceptualizing…

I do think, however, that it might be inspirational to look into forms of late 18th century domestic children’s amusements. I wonder if the industrial clouds Blake saw on the horizon could be found reflected in a change in the kinds of toys and distractions available to children. But I’m not saying it’s necessarily a bad thing. Just wondering about what kind of “stuff to play with” might have existed. How did children and adults gather for amusement? The notion of “the poet” as a kind of convention for imaginative elaboration, a familiar narrative frame. “Father, could we go to Wm. Blake’s Inn this afternoon while Uncle Tim is visiting?” “Perhaps, child.” “I would like Mr. Blake to bake something in the kitchen?” “What?” “William Blake bakes a thundercloud pudding.” “Ah, hurumph, a thundercloud pudding, eh…alright, let’s see…hmmm…wait, don’t start clapping yet, I need to think…” “Come on, Uncle Tim, a thundercloud pudding, a thundercloud pudding, William Blake bakes a thundercloud pudding!” And so poor Uncle Tim would extemporize to the clapping rhythms of the children a rhyming verse fantasy in which the magical poet, Mr. Blake, would bake a thundercloud pudding, while the other children would playful respond to his words with the stuff around them, often successfully finding a way to portray it, and often collagpsing in laughter over the impossibility of “stoking the stove with stars plucked from Mars…”

Contact Improvisation Workshop

Attention adventurous performers,

Saturday May 6, from 2 to 4, Newnan School of Dance will offer a workshop introducing Contact Improvisation to interested dancers and actors and citizens (and as of this writing, it’s free). Annette Tomassi will teach it.

What is contact improvisation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_improvisation

It was invented in the late sixties by Steve Paxton and Nancy Stark Smith, dancers connected, at that time, with the Judson Street/Grand Union group in NYC-(one of Twyla’s early stomping grounds, too). –Paxton trained as a gymnast and a Merce Cunningham company member. Nutshell definition: the active and passive giving and taking of weight with Newton’s Universe having the last word. Continue reading “Contact Improvisation Workshop”

Marc’s handbook

In some other comment, Marc has mentioned the handbook he put together for his GHP students. I’ve been reading through it, it’s more like a textbook!, and beginning to work with him to edit it into a web-based document for our use. The more I read, the more excited I get about our potential as a theatre collaborative. Continue reading “Marc’s handbook”

Don’t dream it, be-e it…some short performances around the question of how to stage the Rocky Horror (Picture) Show

You can do the script (which I’ve never read) and let it inspire your decisions. But how can you be free from the film version? How could you be free from the film if you decided to do The Sound of Music?

RHPS is an interesting case since the fans tend to know every frame of the movie. And part of being a fan is being able to stage perfect lip-syncable facsimiles which run in tandem with the screen action. Any fan, therefore, could direct a great production if reproducing the film is the goal. And as a goal, why not?

Can you do an updated version? Continue reading “Don’t dream it, be-e it…some short performances around the question of how to stage the Rocky Horror (Picture) Show”

An example of what I hope to get out of Lacuna

I’ve been asked to share an ensemble experience I had as it relates to Lacuna. In 1997, we were doing A Midsummer Night’s Dream. It was the second time I had directed this play, and I wanted to try something very different. I had brainstormed with Marc some ideas about the play that I had, and had settled on doing it in a kind of environmental setting. In fact, we moved the audience around: they started in nice, neat rows for the Athens scenes, but when we moved to the wild and woolly woods, we asked members of the audience to move their chairs out into the woods with us: they could chose where to put their seats anywhere in the oval-shaped playing area.

Before we began working on the script itself, we spent a couple of weeks with Marc trying to teach us some of his weird stuff, some of which sunk in and we were able to use. I taught ways to approach and play Shakespearean text. Everybody participated. We had a large cast, ages nine to 40+, and everyone learned what was being taught, weird or not. Continue reading “An example of what I hope to get out of Lacuna”

Show, Recollect, Recapitulate

In an effort to clog the arteries with even more pretentious pablum, I thought I’d suggest a way to think about both this blog and our meetings. I want to tempt you to think of them both as sites for creative play and performance. At Governor’s Honors we have developed a rehearsal process for creating original work which reflects, in part, my experiences working with experimental groups in Washington, DC, eons ago. And those experiences and methods, to embed footnotes in the text, were inspired by my intellectual mentor Herbert Blau, who simply asserted–and I risk a triteness by encapsulating–the notion of thought and performance being the same thing.

So at GHP we rehearse by both performing what we are thinking and thinking about what we are performing (by then performing it as we are continuing to think it). And those of you familiar with Gödel, Escher, and Bach will detect a use of recursive and imbedded loops leading, we can only hope, to the possibility of beauty and something which smacks of mind and art. And so the thought continues to perform in the turning over and over (and the lacuna is the widening gyre?–sure, why not).

At GHP we meet and we show one another what we want to

  • show (as I hope we will do at our meetings and on this blog),–and showing may just mean telling in many cases–then we take some time to
  • recollect what happened during that span of time while we were showing (after a meeting, in our case, or after reading something in a blog), and then we
  • recapitulate what we remember, to share it and offer it as possible material for future work (rather than one person taking “minutes” or documenting what happens at a meeting, everyone could create accounts of what happened, emphasing what struck them as interesting or important and post those accounts on the blog). This may be a way for the “cross pollinating” to occur without us risking the spread of anything which could compromise our health.