7/20 Reactions to "Butoh & Beyond"

7/20 Brief thoughts and reactions to “Butoh and Beyond”, BeBe Theatre, Asheville (curated by Julie Becton Gillum):

Six different (very different) butoh pieces, many performers; interesting how I reacted to each of them, very subjectively categorizing them as to who seemed to be able to “do it” and who didn’t (me not even really knowing what “it” means in terms of technique, only in terms of how they reached me or didn’t). Actually, I think “it” means being totally present and totally exposed. I think Julie is almost always that way when she performs: somehow, she creates an open image by appearing to be totally possessed by the character; yet “character” is the wrong word. But it’s no longer Julie, either. But whatever it is, it is so exposed and available that it sucks me right in even when I am repelled by the grotesquerie.

I keep thinking of Grotowski (early) talking about the actor as sacrificial victim, choosing to undergo something for us (not the same as performing for us). Butoh is really pure Artaud, I think...

Not everyone seems to be able to do that, and some of the performers weren’t able or chose not to risk it all. They were “representing” something rather than inhabiting it. They were playing it safe (even though I’m sure they wouldn’t agree). Probably what I would do if I were to try butoh. Though maybe it has everything to do with training.

Two other performers seemed to be at Julie’s level, though I responded differently to each of them. One seemed to me to be doing it all, and I was drawn in to a degree, but most of the time I found myself watching him go through something without caring so much. I admired what he was doing but was uninvolved. In the end, it seemed masturbatory.

The other performer really seemed to have the same “transparent” quality. Even lightning fast changes of expression were authentic, were really reflections (not representations) of something she was undergoing. Though her piece seemed to contain butoh clichés (or conventions, I guess you’d say), it worked for me.

Then there was one other performer who upset all my neat theories. When she began, I thought she was extremely representational, playing characters, unauthentic, dancey even (she played against projections of Katrina victims, lots of very strong images). However, while images of New Orleans alternated with old-fashioned stills of black stereotypes from old films (I think), she blacked her face--she was African-American--and proceded to perform an amazingly disturbing parody of white stereotypes of black people (minstrelsy) which included hip-hop and very eroticized images. The funny thing was, it seemed to me to be absolutely authentic, maybe because it was performed with such gleeful rage, and her eyes we glued to her white audience. I felt absolutly complicit in the performance, absolutely accused. Incredible.

I found these performances fascinating and provocative (still not tired of butoh, I guess), in part because they seemed to get right at the question of what is going on in performance. Who is the performer and what do I want/expect of her/him? What is the relationship between performer and character? Between performer and spectator? What is communicated? Where does meaning lie? Why does it succeed and why does it fail? How can something actual be made to happen in a performance situation?

7/17 Notes on meeting with Peter Carver

7/17 NOTES FROM MEETING WITH PETER CARVER


Met at City Bakery. Talked for three hours! Great conversation!!

PRISON WORK:

His work in prisons (one in Mitchell/Avery counties? another one in a different location) is through the UNCA Distance Learning program (Elaine Fox)

Scott Walters and Laura Facciponte have been teaching in prison, and Rob Bowen doing it now. (all UNCA Drama Dept. folks)

In both cases, project became making a play with one of the inmates as playwright. In first case, authorities prevented performance at last minute, demanded that script be stripped of all bad language and violence, then never let it go on even bowdlerized; in second case, Peter didn't try for public performance--just did a reading with the members of the class and one invited guest.

Peter now asking if he can teach a playwriting class to formalize the process; waiting to hear which institution he'll be sent to.

Talked about seeing "culture of violence" that prisoners come from--how far from that culture we are, how little we know, how enthusiastically they respond to violent images in plays, etc.; how he gained trust partly just by his obvious dedication, returning week after week; teaches one three-hour (two-hour?) session per week for 16 weeks; at times gruelling; would begin by showing half of a recent, good film (much better quality than they usually get, but then administration told him had to be PG-13 rated); first group started out numbering 16, ended up about 12 when those not really interested dropped out--still a large group.

Talked about how into it most of the prisoners became, how excited they were when they thought they were going to perform (and how the performance being cancelled confirmed their expectations of the administration), and--most interestingly--how much they enjoyed the idea of performing, of being seen.

Contrary to Curt Tofteland, Peter said he didn't expect that doing theatre was going to fundamentally change the people he worked with; for him, what was most important was that they be heard, that their story get told. That's why getting the script out (public reading at Arts Council) was vitally iimportant even after performance cancelled.

Peter seemed to have far less cooperation from prison administrations than Curt found (Curt had allies in high places as I recall). His sense was that, with a few exceptions, prison staff not at all interested in rehibilitation issues, only punishment. Didn't want prisoners to "get away" with anything; mistrusted prisoners and Peter himself (what's in it for him?)

Possibilities: 1) bring Peter to WWC to talk to theatre students (and others);
2) talk to Scott, Laura, Rob about their experiences;
3) contact Jane Sobie who is interested in working with teenage girls in prison;
4) take Peter up on his offer to join him for one teaching session;

Peter said there seem to be a number of Asheville theatre folks interested in doing prison work; maybe something collaborative can come of it. Keep talking.

OTHER MATTERS:

Peter brought one of his AB Tech. productions to Reed Center. They have pretty active program there (talk to head: Levonne Griffin, 350-2048; good person)--could be a good "test audience" for Oroonoko Project or FYS projects.

Good person to contact: Lloyd Weinberg, AB Tech's Service Learning person. Taught jazz at UNCA for a long time. Knows a lot of local groups/organizations (mentioned a group of war veterans who meet weekly as one example).

Mentioned two guys at AB Tech doing digital media--I should check them out.

Book to check out in UNCA Library: Medea Project (working with female prisoners)

Website of local guy doing multi-media in spheres (MountainX story?): themap.org

Scapegoat Theatre (Karen ?) local group did The Exonerated; tried & failed to get it into prisons, but she's interested in doing more...

New Orleans connection! Peter went to UNO and worked for Asheville Lyric Theatre. Also worked closely with Buzz (went to Oklahoma Shakespearean Festival with him to do a Henry V--incredibly boring state but a great production). Also knew Dane Rhodes and other folks.

reactions to: bobrauchenbergamerica (7/12, Asheville)

Reactions to final dress rehearsal of local production of Charles Mee's bobraushenbergamerica
July 12, 2006
North Carolina Stage Company (Catalyst Series)

directed by Treavor Gouge and Amy DeGiralamo

What I liked most about this production was first, that these people decided to do this very interesting play (first in the four-part series, second of which is Hotel Cassiopeia), and second, that they didn't do too badly with it. It wasn't the visual feast that it would have been with the SITI Company, but it also didn't have that annoyingly self-conscious, self-congratulatory presence. The actors weren't bad--some were quite good in a conventional sense, though they lacked the sense of space and physical control they needed (most annoyingly, they didn't know how to hold still, nor to use stillness--except the woman playing Bob's Mother). But they connected when they needed to connect, and they found a simplicity that worked more often that I would have thought.

I was a little disappointed to discover that Mee suggests most of the non-verbal actions that I had thought were found by the actors and director. (His scripts are online: http://www.charlesmee.org/html/plays.html.) Looking at the script, I think this production didn't take the kinds of chances that Mee seems to be asking for. However, what might have been the most "alive" moment for me was invented (Mee calls for a 600 piece brass band, or a bagpipe): a man came onstage with a saw and bow, sat, the cast gathered to watch as he played "The Star Spangled Banner" on the saw (excellently). It was just great, mainly because it was exactly what it was. And it sounded wonderful, of course.

I think I like the play more than Hotel Cassopeia. It doesn't have that "twee" quality (though that had much to do with the lead actor in the SITI production). It's a very different play, though in the same non-linear style. Actually, this play was much less obviously connected to the artist, less representational, more of a collage (both plays seem to be constructed to mirror the style of the artist). Whether it's the script or the production, I think it was too long and seemed to rely too much on a series of monologues toward the end, one after another. And--although it seemed long and a bit shapeless toward the end--I kept thinking that it needed more stillness, more space to breathe.

Moments I remember well:
-- playing national anthem on saw
-- man welcomes us (halfway through) and says he'll talk about how the show was put together; but then we realize that the "show" he's talking about is a gallery opening and he's the curator.
-- and then the art show (which makes a point of saying anything can speak of the point of view of the person who made it, and be valued for that as art) turns into a yard sale just by the Mother putting tags on all the objects on stage--which relates back to her saying earlier that her grandmother's possessions were all gotten rid of at a yard sale, when she would rather have thrown them against a wall to see what they made broken up.
-- look and attitude of Ryan as pizza delivery guy/murderer: geeky, innocuous, totally alienated from the act he tells about.
-- actress eating cupcakes as she talks through her full mouth about trying to find love: great idea and very well-acted.
-- contrast between frenetically joyful squaredancing/clogging interrupted by actor getting shot, followed by another actor telling chicken jokes.

Other thoughts: Made me think (as every performance does these days) about whether anything was really happening for me, even as I enjoyed the performance more than many. Mostly: no. What do I want from a performance? Just to be amazed, gobstopped, to have my life changed (if only for a time). Is that so much to ask?