Comments

Comments

Comments

John Smythe November 21st, 2006

Very well said Mr Morley. Let me hasten to clarify that in comparing ‘alternative’ theatre to the ‘well made play’ I am not for a moment suggesting they should be anything but very different from each other. My point (not very clearly made, I concede) is that when such ‘well made’ plays as those I mentioned, because they traverse similar ground, are more engaging on all levels than something that purports to be so “cutting edge in its innovations it breaks the boundaries of audience expectations”, it’s time to take stock. How can it be innovative and cutting edge if it engages us less than ‘ordinary’ theatre? Your penultimate par enumerates powerful elements I would dearly love to have seen represented – touched on in some way – in arcane. I looked for upsides, you’ve added downsides, but what we got was the bland bit in the middle: mum on Mogadon with no insight, within the work itself, as to why. While I think it is wonderful – inevitable in fact – that people bring their own life experience and awareness to a work, I say it’s a cop-out to rely on that solely to add a third dimension to something we hoped might explore fourth and fifth dimensions of being human (or trans human, for that matter). Why? Because work we have complete to that extent can only remind us of what we already know rather than take us to places we’ve never been. (“Innovation” implies something new.) The STAB commission offers recipients a great deal more money and time to develop their work than anything else at BATS. Rather than ignore the fundamental principles of engagement, that apply whether we like it or not, I’d like to see results that take all that in their stride then move on beyond the norm, rather than fall short in the name of ‘experimentation’. (“Cutting edge” implies something that takes us beyond where we’ve already been.) Yes I know: there is nothing new under the sun. Yet it also remains true that there are more things in heaven and earth than we – as individuals, especially – have dreamed of in our philosophy. This is the paradox that pumps the heart of all art. And by the way, I wouldn’t be bothering to say any of this if I didn’t have great respect for the skills and talents of the people involved in making arcane. It’s because I believe they are fully committed that I assume they are up for this level of challenge. As am I. Hey, this is STAB: it comes with the territory. Thanks again.

bruce morley November 21st, 2006

By a fine coincidence, a culture-starved Aucklander happened to be in Wellington last week, and saw "Arcane"... ...and was still mulling over the provocations of this neuro-spatial construction (my phrase) when I read John Smythe's review, in which he asked, inter alia: "...is this a true evocation of such a life? Where are the hints of her family - the piles of dishes, large meals to prepare....Was there no upside of love?...What about...portals to the wider world?...etc". These observations might have been more pertinent had Mr Smythe not gone on to compare "Arcane" to "well-made plays" (his phrase), and to lament the lack of answers to those questions. But if "Arcane" provoked Mr. Smythe into contemplation of the lacunae enumerated in his review, surely this suggests that it actually achieved its purpose in the first place? I found that my discomfort at being left rudderless was actually a positive theatrical experience; that I could be man enough to form my own conclusions about what had been presented to me; and, it being a gender issue, that those conclusions might differ from the author's. While "well-made plays" supply all the audience wants; plot, character, drama, denouement and (particularly) answers, as I understand it this is neither the STAB brief, nor "Arcane"'s brief ' in particular. Should we expect the author (creator?) to supply answers if she did not consider that to be her mission? Mr Smythe should have reviewed the piece he was presented with, not the one it seems he would like to have seen (presumably a "well-made play"). Otherwise, it's rather like sending the gardening correspondent to review the races. As for the queries themselves: those of us old enough to remember the period remain well aware of the absolute role-modelling and demarcations of daily life then (one aspect of which could be aptly summed up as: people-possessing-a-penis-are-not-found-in-kitchens... even if they would like to be); the sense of isolation, within the house, from the outside world; and, most insidious of all, the constant role-bargaining/sex-for-security/sex-for-labour trade-offs that, despite attempts to cover the tracks, often led the young to conclude that, indeed, there may be no "upside of love" to these Faustian bargains (and, incidentally, that Queen bees should be avoided - men were as trapped in the honey as women were). In this, "Arcane" got it dead right, and with a frightening resonance underscored by the incessant humming of the metaphoric hive, at turns innocent or malevolent. Those (of either sex) that grew up there, know. Bruce Morley 17 November 2006

sam trubridge November 15th, 2006

Dear John, What you describe sounds quite similar to the work of Signa Sorenson, in particular the Black Rose Trick Hotel production in Malmo (Sweden) last year. First of all I would like to applaud you for setting up this invaluable forum on NZ performing arts. I really believe that discussion such as this one on Arcane, and the ongoing debate that this website can create around performing arts in New Zealand can only help to improve the quality of the work we produce, and help educate and excite our audience. I guess it is thus necessary for us as practitioners to keep ahead of what is happening and keep finding ways of pushing the arts in our country – and not just give the audiences what they expect. This is where I find your response to Ain’t Nothing But… particularly confusing and concerning – since it so obviously failed to deal with a promising concept, and instead deferred to familiar and derivative models, done badly. I think Rhys has argued this point very well, so I needn’t add more. But what Arcane does, very bravely, is set out to explore the concepts it proposes. I have to agree that it was not successful in every respect – but it is nonetheless on a entirely higher level to Glimmer… due to the fact that its creators actually tried to make use of the concept, and were willing to push it, explore what it offered, and believed in what it was. After seeing the work by Societas Raffaello Sanzio at the Melbourne Festival last month, with someone who had never seen performances like this before, I realise we don’t need to always give our audiences what they expect. We play it safe here in NZ, but what the SRS show proved to me was that people CAN understand, and moreover can enjoy, “slow”, non verbal performance. What Jade and her collaborators are doing is bravely seeking out methods that theatre can speak to the live embodied audience in ways that other media (in particular film) never can. We need this, and we need this more. I sincerely hope that Theatreheuristic continues working in this way, and gets the support to do so, because it is work like this that begins to address concerns in theatre that are contemporary with international movements in the performing arts. It prevents our country from being a theatrical backwater, where conventional colonial models of theatre are sustained beyond their sell-by date. I think it is invaluable that we are discussing this, and I only lament the fact that we don’t have commissions like STAB more regularly, so that the development of our performing arts can proceed more rapidly and with more support. Also with the occupation of Shed 11 by a new photography gallery it is sad to lose another large flexible space and further limit our options for producing theatre in Wellington.

Rhys Latton November 15th, 2006

Great pitch John! It is often said that theatre critics are frustrated directors – do it! I’ll come along more than once. Reminds me of 24-hour improv’ marathons they performed in Paris. I would agree that this show seems unfinished – as though, like Lepage, the creators need to go away and add another few hours to it. But by wheeling out the "Is it ART?" challenge, you really indulge a conservative, Palaeolithic part of the faculty. What is theatre? Here is a ritualistic event situated in focussed time and space before the gaze (and other senses) of an audience. It is amazing that 40-odd years after Peter Brook said that all that is needed for an act of theatre to be engaged is a person to walk across an empty space while another is watching, that many are still addicted to consumerist narrative-on-a-platter. Perhaps it is because this is New Zealand (...don’t wander too far from the flock…) In Europe theatre works more bizarre and revolutionary that arcane are gobbled up by Opera House-sized audiences. These shows are self-assured and intelligent, with impeccable production values (something I would applaud theatreheuristic for in this production). They provide the audience with a mystery, a riddle – and the critics rave. Over here we still refer to Ibsen’s well made plays as though there isn’t any other way to express the questions of life, the universe and everything. You mention some of the programme notes John, but seem to miss a vital clue by Robert Temple: "oracles … were stimulating fresh mental associations by a means which was essentially non-logical; they were … stirring up the creative and non-rational faculty of man." As you point out, we are told of 3 primary strands that the work descends from (farmer’s wife, bees, oracles), which don’t seem to have any obvious ‘1 +1 = 2’ logic to their association. The treasure clearly lies in participating as the second part of the creative equation. How does it fit? Is it the world’s navel or a sphincter? What can this eternal dance of housewife buzziness have to do with the future-telling oracular ceremony? These questions may continue into the following week or month after the production – it simply won’t be neatly wrapped up and put away, which is to me, in principle, a great theatrical success. We see a lot of works being made for theatre and dance these days which evoke the mysterious, the unknowable, the arcane. Why is this? In hive society, chemical signals make it clear when there have been enough workers produced, when to create more drones, when to lay down a new queen. My theory is that our society currently is in need mythological space. The time of rational domination and conscious certainty has waned. We are subconsciously calling in the night. Thanks for this forum for discussion. By provoking these philosophical questions, 'arcane' is clearly pushing some buttons. PS. I didn’t read Lepage in this creation. He is still mostly working from linear narrative and being respectfully laid out in fashion history like dress shorts with diamond pattern walk socks. I look forward to your STAB!

John Smythe November 13th, 2006

Here’s the thing. I have this basic belief that any performance work, no matter how ‘innovative’ or ‘unexpected’, has structure. It’s inevitable. Because it happens in time and space, it begins, it ends, and the bit in between is inevitably in the middle. Beginning – middle – end: as immutable as gravity. Maybe short works can simply leave an abiding impression. But the longer they last the more we hope – okay, expect – to be rewarded for our investment of time, attention and empathic concern. All I’m saying is that I engaged with arcane as far as it went, accepted the tedium as part of the point but cannot say I felt stimulated by being left wanting something more … Feeling short-changed is unexpected but not what I’d call innovative. So, in confronting my apparent limitations and shortcomings, I’ve come up with a pitch for a STAB show: BATS is fitted out with a range of gathering environments: the bar, the foyer, a waiting room, kitchen, dining room, bunk room, TV room, an office, a place to party/dance, an open microphone perhaps … The environment is open 24/7 over about a week and people can come and go as they please – they choose when to arrive. And when they do they get a card that says what time they arrived. No-one knows who the ‘performers’ are. But those that are ‘performers’ insinuate themselves into the spaces and sit around, stand around, converse, sing, dance, engage in any kind of social activity … But whether they tell jokes, anecdotes, shaggy dog stories, or sing songs, dance, move, or make something, they never do it all. At different times they might do the beginning middle OR end but never the lot in sequence, in one place. And they do what they do in ways that encourage the ‘audience’ to engage in similar activities, without any sense that a performance, as such, is under way – and with no requirement on them, of course, to limit themselves to dislocation. They can tell whole stories or jokes, sing whole songs, make a whole sandwich, whole a whole letter or email … No-one tells them when its over or when to go – they choose that themselves. And when they do, they pay according to how long they’ve stayed ( i.e. It works like a parking building). So there we are: a concept that demolishes the idea of structure in performance and puts the onus on the audience to make of it what they will, decide when they've had enough of one thing, move on to another ... A bit like life, really. Yes. And …? Is it theatre? Would it get an ‘audience’ – or is that not important either?

helen varley jamieson November 12th, 2006

hi john, i'm having trouble reconciling your assessment that "arcane" fails to live up to the STAB mission of works that are "so cutting edge in their innovations they break the boundaries of audience expectations", with your verdict of "i ain't nothing but a glimmer in the dark, she said" as being "right up there with the best" of the STAB commissions. as someone who was there when the STAB concept was born, i understand STAB to be about giving theatre-makers the chance to experiment, to take risks, perhaps to fail; and to offer audiences something outside of a "normal" night at the theatre. applying this criteria to the 2006 STAB commissions, my assessment is the opposite of yours: arcane has met the grade, while i ain't nothing ... has fallen somewhat short. "i ain't nothing ... " started with a promising concept, but disappointingly emerged as something one might expect to see in a "normal" night during the fringe, for example. there was plenty of potential for innovation but every time they came close to doing something interesting, they shied away from it in favour of a safer option (such as using pre-recorded video instead of live, and sticking to predictable characters and story). "arcane" may not be perfect, but from the moment we entered the theatre i was intrigued, and didn't know what to expect. as in "i ain't nothing ... " there was also a time where i found myself becoming bored - but the difference here was that it was intentional. to deliberately take your audience to a place that is boring, to let them feel that discomfort then push them through it, does break the boundaries of our expectations. whereas to let your audience feel like the actors are filling in time until someone comes through a door, as happened in "i ain't nothing ...", is just boring. i also felt dissatisfied at the end of "arcane" - similar to your "Yes - and ... ?"; but isn't this what it was about? the realisation, just when it's too late, that that's all there is: jars of carefully preserved memories and a spotless, empty house. Yes. And. i left the theatre with a sort of troubled feeling that's still niggling away somewhere in the back of my brain ... STAB isn't about creating "successful" theatre, huge hits, or shows that the mainstream theatres will want to import. It isn't about entertaining the audience or having a good time (contrary to the programme for "i ain't nothing ... " which was at pains to reassure us that it WAS all about being entertained and having fun). I don't go to STAB shows to be entertained - if I happen to be entertained at the same time then that's great, but I go to a STAB show to be provoked, pushed out of my comfort zone, to see something different - even to see something fail. experimentation is about trial and error; failure is as much if not more a part of it as success and STAB allows us a rare opportunity to fail. STAB shows (as with most NZ theatre ... ) are premiers of new work - barely finished, the paint still wet, revealed to an audience for the first time - and it's important to acknowledge this in our responses to the work. But to come back to whether either of this year's commissions lives up to the STAB ideal - "i ain't nothing ..." offered us entertainment, "arcane" offered us a riddle. i'm not sure that either was truly innovative, but only "arcane" broke my expectations in that respect.

Michael Wray November 12th, 2006

The entry point for me did not evoke a "back to the womb" connotation, as much as standing inside a brain experiencing fragments of memory. However, I must admit this did not occur to me until after the show when I was trying to make sense of what I'd just seen. I decided that the silhouette near the entrance, which at the time looked like it was dropping an egg, must have represented the dropping of an apple in to a jar; that the writing represented a diary to tie in with the sole verbal element that took place in the Bats theatre proper. Ultimately, I felt disappointed. Perhaps I was not "in" on the various elements enough, but during the scene where the multiple-mother figures carried out domestic chores I grew restless and bored. I switched off way before the end of that long sequence. My final impressions were similar to one of last year's STAB show, Demeter's Dark Ride - some clever elements with interesting moments, but what was the *substance*. It's all well and good being innovative and different, but it all felt a bit self-indulgent and gratuitous. I'm afraid I haven't left a STAB show feeling really satisfied since Sniper.