Reactions to "The Accidental Activist"
6/13 Reactions to The Accidental Activitist
OK, so I just watched this dvd, The Accidental Activist, an expertly produced video of a one-woman show by one of the woman who conceived "The Lysistrata Project". My reactions are mostly negative but I want to analyze them a bit. As a solo theatre piece, the form was predictable and mostly boring, the usually "this is the story of me" business; as acting, it seemed to me to be utterly false (except occassionally when she was playing someone other than herself, which is interesting), a real example of "look at me, I'm acting, oh, look at me now, I'm feeling really deeply" (only it was all indicated); as a political statement, it seemed difficult to argue with, strong, and, in the end, sentimental--which undercuts most of the good stuff, to my mind. I'm probably being more critical and negative than the piece deserves, but it makes me made and makes me cringe, all at the same time, because it wasn't about the war and the victims of war, it was about her.
Of course, what have I done?
On the positive side, I guess you could say that the piece was actually completely honest, because she was absolutely demonstrating herself. She is that showbizzy actress (I guess). Well, maybe not, maybe she was characterizing herself, because in the two extended scenes in which she played other women, she actually seemed like quite a good actor, if in a quite conventional sense.
But the paradox that I really want to get at is the fact that, as she demonstrated herself and "re-stored" or reproduced behavior from her stories, the style seemed to me to rob the event of authenticity. She wanted us to believe that she was really talking to us, that something was actually happening at the moment, but it wasn't. Somehow, not even the reproduction (storytelling) was actually happening (granted, this was a video of a live performance). Her talking to us was supposed to be real and wasn't; her acting out of other characters (when it was developed) was far more authentic because it was clearly artificial. In other words, the same old paradox.
So I think part of the lesson, as far as creating a performance piece, is this: heighten the artificiality and avoid any suggestion that the fictional event is "really happening". Only then will it be real. I need to remember this the next time I try to write a scenario. And avoid sincerity at all costs. It's only the most basic idea in theatre, the one I pretend I've been trying to teach all this time.
Oh, and one more thing about her piece, the "content" part that really spoke to me: She satirized herself as only able to describe the result of the piece she wanted to make, what it would do to the audience, but utterly unable to describe what it actually would be. That seems to be pretty much where I am with this current piece.
OK, so I just watched this dvd, The Accidental Activist, an expertly produced video of a one-woman show by one of the woman who conceived "The Lysistrata Project". My reactions are mostly negative but I want to analyze them a bit. As a solo theatre piece, the form was predictable and mostly boring, the usually "this is the story of me" business; as acting, it seemed to me to be utterly false (except occassionally when she was playing someone other than herself, which is interesting), a real example of "look at me, I'm acting, oh, look at me now, I'm feeling really deeply" (only it was all indicated); as a political statement, it seemed difficult to argue with, strong, and, in the end, sentimental--which undercuts most of the good stuff, to my mind. I'm probably being more critical and negative than the piece deserves, but it makes me made and makes me cringe, all at the same time, because it wasn't about the war and the victims of war, it was about her.
Of course, what have I done?
On the positive side, I guess you could say that the piece was actually completely honest, because she was absolutely demonstrating herself. She is that showbizzy actress (I guess). Well, maybe not, maybe she was characterizing herself, because in the two extended scenes in which she played other women, she actually seemed like quite a good actor, if in a quite conventional sense.
But the paradox that I really want to get at is the fact that, as she demonstrated herself and "re-stored" or reproduced behavior from her stories, the style seemed to me to rob the event of authenticity. She wanted us to believe that she was really talking to us, that something was actually happening at the moment, but it wasn't. Somehow, not even the reproduction (storytelling) was actually happening (granted, this was a video of a live performance). Her talking to us was supposed to be real and wasn't; her acting out of other characters (when it was developed) was far more authentic because it was clearly artificial. In other words, the same old paradox.
So I think part of the lesson, as far as creating a performance piece, is this: heighten the artificiality and avoid any suggestion that the fictional event is "really happening". Only then will it be real. I need to remember this the next time I try to write a scenario. And avoid sincerity at all costs. It's only the most basic idea in theatre, the one I pretend I've been trying to teach all this time.
Oh, and one more thing about her piece, the "content" part that really spoke to me: She satirized herself as only able to describe the result of the piece she wanted to make, what it would do to the audience, but utterly unable to describe what it actually would be. That seems to be pretty much where I am with this current piece.
posted by Graham at 10:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home