| Author | Post |
|---|
Nate88
Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 11th, 2008 01:47 am |
|
ok, im in my first year of my degree course doing Contempoary Theatre Practice...
just composing my second draft of my essay due to loss of paper from having work stolen (most likely missplaced with my head where its at so far...)
could someone please give me some crit on the first half please, i would be very greatful as i sit here at quarter to two in the morning with cigerette in hand and coffee cooling...
Artaud demanded that theatre focus on the visual, the sensory, and the spectacular. Discuss.”
Antonin Artaud according to Styan’s “Modern drama in theory and practice 2” (1981) was born in 1896 in France, is known world wide in theatre circles as a cult figure, a revolutionary in contemporary performance, and equally as for his stints in and out of clinics to battle severe mental anguish and his love for Opium. Being in and out of clinics from an early age it wasn’t until leaving one of the clinics in 1921 he started acting first and foremost, in theatres all around Paris. Though not being one of the easiest actors to work for defying the rules to the Realism in theatre that was in full swing around that time. In the early Twenties he quickly became a part of Surrealism movement that was blossoming at that time around 1924, after a year he became the Director of the Bureau of Surrealist Research, but keeping with the surrealist tradition he wasn’t there for long and quickly left for reasons which are still up for debate today. Artaud now free to pursue other ideas and forms which ultimately became his “Theatre of Cruelty.”
Artaud clearly states that his theatre, the “cruelty is not sadistic or bloody, at least not exclusively so. I do not systematically cultivate horror.” (The Theatre and its Double, 1970: p79) Having been widely influenced by Asian and Balinese theatre traditions and watching many other Eastern forms of theatre that seemed much more ritualistic and very much more the essence of what Artaud wanted create, coupling this with what Peter Brook implies in the Holy theatre section of his book The Empty Space, shock tactics, and states “There is a joy in violent shocks.” (1968: p61) The theatre that Artaud wanted to create focuses on utilising every aspect of the human condition, smell, taste, touch, sight, and sound. Shocking was just one of them. Coming from the school of surrealists he kept with the frame of mind that wanted to explore the unconscious state of being. His first play he wrote in this form of theatre he proposed was called “The Spurt of Blood” a one act play where Artaud single handily creates a piece of theatre able to not only shock but alienate every member of an audience though not produced until Peter Brook’s “Theatre of Cruelty” season in the 1960’s. The play has an intrinsic focus on the sensory and spectacular he envisioned limbs falling from the sky and grotesque images throughout, finally in the last few moments having a prostitute biting God on the wrists, which could easily be linking with his later work entitled “To have done with the judgement of God”.
“HUGE VOICE: Bitch, look at your body!
[The Bawd's body is seen to be absolutely naked and hideous beneath her blouse and skirt, which become transparent as glass]
BAWD: Leave me alone, God.
[She bites God in the wrist. An immense spurt of blood lacerates the Stage, and through the biggest fiash of lightning the Priest can be seen making the sign of the cross. When the lights go on again all the characters are dead, and their corpses lie all over the ground…” (http://www.cis.vt.edu/modernworld/d/artaud.html)
I was at the “New territories: National Review of Live Art festival” in Glasgow on February 2008 and saw a piece by a group of artists named La Pocha Nostra lead by Guillermo Gomez-Pena which encapsulated a lot of Artaud’s theories and placed them in practice, creating a in the sense “Cruel” interaction between audience and performer focusing on the visual and sensory aspects of Artaud’s Theatre, as you walked into the space, the three personas where stood, stationary, three very different images. Centre you had Gomez-Pena himself, in drag. Lifting his gown up with his male genitalia tucked neatly between his legs to resemble female genitalia. Posing very much as a leader, a saint, a king or some sort of deity. To the left a beautiful woman, with her mouth held open by a contraption one might find in a dentist, to a point where to watch, it hurts. The spit and blood from having it be forced so wide and watching fall down her cheek and onto her body was brutal yet very sexual. And to the right in a dentist chair again, unable to move while holding equidistant two eggs, with live leaches sucking away at his bare flesh. One must imagine all very potent images indeed. I tried to step out and look at the piece objectively but couldn’t. with every other movement of every seprate image I was drawn towards it. I was sucked into a cosmic trance. “Caught in the drama as if in a vortex of higher forces” (Antonin Artaud, Theatre and its Double, 1970: p63)
But it wasn’t until the focal point came onto what Gomez-Pena was doing, handing out jalapeño’s to members of the audience, of such a size that is would be easily imaginable as a pear, nevertheless they where handed out, to audience members and one by one a feeding of sorts was a stunning visual with a audience relation which was truly, ritualistically, the cruellest moment in my history of theatre, stunningly Artaudian in every sense, that moment the performer handed the spectator a pepper and his face exploding with the head, his eyes a blur and a moment of pure intimacy with the piece as a whole…
The ‘Season of Cruelty’ in 1964, in my opinion one of Peter Brook’s greatest achievements with the R.S.C brought out the stunning and spectacular in Artaud’s work, being that Artaud was never able to place his ideas and theories into a formidable practice. Putting on “Spurt of Blood” by Artaud, “Screens” by Genet and what is hailed as the spectacle of the season the “Marat/Sade” by Peter Weiss published in 1963, was the real tour de force within the three, though some say it used more Brechtian elements than Artaud’s. I was only able to see clips on the YouTube website, and read the play as a whole; the “Marat/Sade” is about an insane asylum around the time of the French revolution in the 18th century. The Marquise de Sade approaches the overseeing guards about staging a play, the haplessly agree (an agreement they quickly regret). As the play progresses and de Sade writes, directs and performs this play with the rest of the inmates the vortex like trance Artaud talks about overcomes the inmates, and possessed by the violent nature of the play all hell and turmoil brakes loose, becoming very, very brutal. Criticised for being somewhat shocking and amoral for its violence and sexual nature that in that time where the theatre has this bourgeois feel to it, and the middleclass is the only ones with there bums on seats where bound to find it a little risqué, The story is one of brilliance, the whole play within a play works perfectly and a lot stronger than just the story of Jean-Paul Marat, it brings a forth dimension to it, a sort of entanglement one must of felt being in the audience of the time and witnessing the first show must have been nothing short of spectacular.
dont know what to next...i want to go into what P.B says about Grotowski's work linking with Artaud's exploration though Grotowski giving no credit to the troubled genius....
ideas?
|
in media res
Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 11th, 2008 04:06 pm |
|
One of the first plays I did professionally was about the life of Artaud.
Artaud was more interesting than his theatre. However, as someone once said, "You would never invite Artaud to a cocktail party." He was nuttier than a fruitcake.
Never went back to Artaud again. I said "Artaud did that kind of theatre so I didn't have to."
And anyone who says they KNOW what the heck Artaud was talking about is making it up. He didn't even know what he was talking about! They each take some element and bend it to their own truth. Which is what we all do in the theatre, anyway. That is why it is so wonderfully mutable.
I like your piece. Though the first part seems/reads very much like a paraphrase of research books. When you get into your own experience, I found it much more interesting. It reads as if you are writing it as you see it, rather than parroting the dry writing of a textbook.
Hey, go in the direction you are thinking. Why the heck not? Good luck with it. Let us know how it goes.
Mind you, I would have loved to have seen Marat Sade, but that was not Artaud, that was Brook and Weiss. I have heard it was brilliant!!!!
I've seen below mediocre production of it. Probably the way Artaud would have directed it!
best,
in media resLast edited on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 04:27 pm by in media res
|
Basso
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | Canada |
| Posts: | 109 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Wed Mar 12th, 2008 03:38 am |
|
I have a daughter in the third year of a degree program. The first year, being that she was just 16, I molly-coddled her, and helped her a good deal with her essays. She would email them to me, and I would dutifully (and codependently) fix the mistakes, and sort out the formatting. Finally, I got tired of doing it, and the next time sent her back an email..."You are S.O.L.," she got an F, I believe, on that paper. Anyway, now she is getting good marks, all on her own, and she is not the writer that you are.
The above paragraph is a long-winded way of saying to you that your formatting is awkward, and there are many mistakes in terms of grammar and spelling. That's fine if you are making a forum post, but not so good for your essay. You have some great ideas, AND you are a writer, so you have all that you need to write the quintessential kick-ass essay. I know that you were in a hurry and had lost the first draft, and you are probably up to your eyeballs in work, but I had trouble following the thread of your essay. I also know that you are just asking about ideas and such, and that is great, but I think if you sorted out the writing a bit, it would be easier to comment on your content.
was born in 1896 in France, is known world wide in theatre circles as a cult figure, a revolutionary in contemporary performance, and equally as for his stints in and out of clinics to battle severe mental anguish and his love for Opium.
I don't think that he is still a revolutionary in contemporary performance, and I would say "widely," rather than world-wide. I would switch the two around, in any case. "Artaud, born in France in 1896, revolutionized the performance practices of his time, and was of renown, in theatre circles, as a cult-figure. Of equal notoriety was his predilection for opium, and his battles with severe, mental anguish; which landed him in and out asylums." Just a few suggestions.
A very interesting topic, and biting God on the wrist...how cheeky.
Basso
|
Nate88
Member
|
Posted: Wed Mar 12th, 2008 05:14 pm |
|
to In Media Res...
iv only seen clips of what Peter and Peter did from the film...i can only imagine the stage version being great.
thank you for taking the time to have a look at it...handed the full version in this morning which i may post up later if anyone would like to look at the foul piece?
i will let you know how it goes! :)
to Basso
"You have some great ideas, AND you are a writer" - cheers pal,
I thought I may have put you off reading my posts after the rant on the manifestos!! haha.
I have a few more years on your daughter being 20 now, and dont let me off because of other works I may have, i know it should be a lot, lot better...
Grammar is never my strong point either...
it is probabley why i can get away with writing diolouge so freely...same with spellings aswell...
I must of slept through High school english.
anyway thanks for the time, both of you! :)
Nath
|
Basso
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | Canada |
| Posts: | 109 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Mar 12th, 2008 07:49 pm |
|
Sleeping was my mantra in High School. Sleeping-in, sleeping in class, trying unsuccessfully to sleep with a girl. There is very easy grammar book called "The Elements of Style," by Strunk and White. Strunk was a professor from Cornell University and E.B. White, of course, was the author of Charlotte's Web, among others. It is very easy to take, and to take with one, as it is a slim book. I found a link online that has at least some of it's contents.
http://www.bartleby.com/141/
There are many people of talent, but what separates the good from the mediocre is craftsmanship, this is true in any art form. How can we communicate effectively with the audience, if what is on the page lacks clarity! I'm not talking about Academic clarity, either, for most of what passes for Academic Writing is couched in buzz words and bullshit. No, just the simple clarity of declaiming a sunny day. Complexities exist all on their own, and if we have learned our craft well enough, these complexities will layer our writing as though it were an onion.
Basso
|
Current time is 02:35 pm | |
|
|
|
