Prompt 5: Dark Matter

What first comes to mind when thinking about dark matter is, the elephant from Elephant's Graveyard.  It was the best choice to not show or even abstractly represent the elephant onstage because it would have been distracting, plain and simple.  It also would have been complicated and time consuming to visualize and create something so large that the whole play would be revolving around.  It would have been the most important set piece, central to the whole show, and what else would have gone with it?  Would there be a sound it made?  What would that sound be?  Lighting would have had to make adjustments for it finding a happy balance between it being lit and the actors.  It also would have also hindered the actors' movement onstage.  Not physically representing it gives the audience a chance to use their imaginations, not everything needs to be hand-fed to them.  The circumstances are so bizarre that it should be up to the audience how real or how out there they want to believe it to be.  Either way would have been appropriate for the show, but I think it's more important to let the audience make up their own minds by making the elephant dark matter.

I believe that there is a way to represent the Holocaust.  Just because the piece could be beautiful or entertaining does not mean at all that it redeems those actions and what occurred.  If it is represented in a manner like such, it would be unforgettable, and that should be the goal.  Represent it in a way that people will never forget.  Using abstraction to approach this would also be very helpful.  The piece could still jar and make people feel uncomfortable, but without certain things being represented and just eluded to, it could make it easier for society to digest.  Of course, not everyone will be willing to accept something like this, and that must always be thought of while creating it.  Making the most horrifying aspects of the Holocaust dark matter would still show all the terrible occurrences that took place without crossing a fine line.

Naturalism: Pickering and Thompson

1.  Two shows that stand out in my mind would have to be The Laramie Project by Tectonic Theatre Company and SE-PA-RATE= which was an original work.  I was an audience member for Laramie, and I was involved in the production of SE-PA-RATE= (dramaturge and assistant director).  Funny enough SE-PA-RATE=  was created by NOCCA drama students after a two month workshop with Tectonic.  Both of these plays were very informative.  Laramie was all about the hate crime which Matthew Shepard was a victim of, and all of the dialogue and characters in this show came from interviews with the people who were involved.  SE-PA-RATE= was created based on Plessey v. Ferguson.  Brief history lesson... Homer Plessey was a black man, but he was so light-skinned he could easily pass as white.  On June 7th, 1892, to make a statement, he got on a train in New Orleans and sat in a "whites only" car instead of the "colored" car.  He then announced the fact that he was actually a black man.  The train had only moved two blocks before stopping, and Plessey was escorted from the car and arrested.  Judge Ferguson was the man who resided over his trial.  In the play created, that was the basis of it... separate but equal.  All dialogue used came from court and police records and testimonials.  This play extended past just the trial however and brought to light all the ways separate but equal play a role in our lives, whether it be skin color, sexual orientation, gender, etc.  Now, plays of this nature are extremely different from let's say Spamalot.  I saw that at the Mahalia Jackson when it was touring.  The play was hilarious!  I laughed and even cried, from laughing so hard that is.  Spamalot is clearly for entertainment purposes only and does not shed light on sensitive subjects like the other two plays.  The other two plays awaken an awareness within you.  The audience should leave the theatre asking questions.  While leaving Spamalot, people will just keep talking about how a man lost all his limbs on stage in sword fight (I know that's what I did)!


2.  I believe that plays that strive for documentary "verbatim" do offer a new/clarified truth.  The two go hand in hand.  If something is important enough, that you feel the need to go as verbatim as possible, then it will most likely offer some kind of truth that might not have been thought of before.  It will show you a new way of looking at things because you only have the words of certain people, so their experiences and opinions will influence what this truth becomes.  I don't feel that naturalism quite fits into this category, though.  Example, in Chicago at Steppenwolf, I saw Time Stands Still by Donald Margulies.  This play had a kitchen-sink drama set, literally... the sink worked, the fridge and freezer were functioning, etc.  To the audience, it looked and functioned like a real apartment.  See here http://youtu.be/_wrprwOdQa4.  They play itself was very real and based on circumstances that could happen in modern society too.  It was, also, enlightening seeing these people deal with their struggles.  However, I don't think every play like this has to be enlightening or show you something new, so that's why I wouldn't include it in the same category.

Performativity

Here is a link to The 1975'a music video for "Girls"  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkubQCI4Fxo.  This is a pop video intentionally made to be not-so-typical.  The band takes very common things that are seen in pop videos nowadays like close up singing shots, only lip shots, attractive girls, bright colors, provocative outfits, etc. and uses them to mock what they normally are in other videos.  The un-amused faces of lead singer Matt Healy in his close up shots, the moments where he actually stops singing the song and comments about what is happening around him, like when there are girls dressed up and playing instruments by the pool (which has nothing to do with what he was singing), the complete lack of interest the band has in doing this video, all of these things contribute to what makes this an anti-pop pop video.  Did you follow that one?  In the very beginning, Matt Healy even points out how everything seems to be too poppy, and they aren't a pop band.  BUT ACTUALLY, they are a pop band!  Indie pop to be exact.  Now, this performative act (in this case, the entire music video) that they created was tweaked from its mainstream counterparts to say something about pop culture.  I believe that this does count as a performative act that was intentionally performed to mean something else because it has all the usual conventions of pop videos, but it isn't what you'd typically expect.  It is instead making a statement about how nonsensical these videos normally are and how their main purpose is to lure in viewers with the simplicity of loud colors and attractive women.  The scenes around the pool ring Katy Perry, the short clips of lips with cigarettes, pill bottles, and the girl spitting up pink goop relates to Miley Cyrus, the car crash scene speaks of an earlier Lady Gaga, and the rest of it where the band is playing, singing, and dancing reminds me of just about any One Direction music video or boy band video to be completely honest.  The 1975 took all of these images and ideas that had been seen before from these artists and did exactly like what they did in their videos and made it into something with a brand new meaning.  If they had just taken the events that occurred in the video seriously and tried to be charming and appealing, then this music video would have just been like all the others.  But, they chose to make it different, even though they incorporated these mainstream ideas.  

What Is Performance?

In Carlson's introduction to Performance:  A Critical Introduction, he does not give a definitive definition of performance.  The closest he gets is giving part of definition (which honestly is all the definition that is needed), and that is that performance is an "essentially contested concept."  I completely agree with this statement because people will always have differing opinions about what performance means.  There cannot be one set definition that is agreed upon, and if there was, it would be extremely limiting and rather depressing truthfully.  Performance being an “essentially contested concept” makes it that much more interesting and engaging of a topic.  Some of the examples that Carlson gave in his article were a display of skills, the keeping up of a standard, and patterned or “restored behavior.”  I relate to the last example the most because this is what I find to be closest to theatre, and that’s the first thing that comes to mind when I think of a performance.

Now, it is stated that there must be a consciousness present for a performance to exist.  The individual must be aware that he/she is in fact performing.  This is the part of the article that I resonate most with; I think it is an excellent point because it helps to make a clear line as to what is and isn’t performance on a day to day basis.  I do not believe that people are constantly performing; their whole life is not a performance.  However, there are certain moments (throughout one’s life and even throughout one’s day), when one can become aware that he/she is being watched and then he/she starts behaving (I want to stay away from the word “acting” at this point) a certain way based on someone else.  For example, if I suddenly realize that someone is watching me as I walk from point A to point B on campus, I consciously decide that I want to change my walk so that it looks more interesting.  I am now performing my walk for this individual instead of it being unconscious choice in the back of my head.  I always had my own idea of what a performance was and how to define it, but I could never quite put it into the right words.  I know we’ve all had those moments!  But, this idea of consciousness really helps me to solidify what makes a performance.

Growing up as a theatre kid, I always had my idea of what a performance, in terms of theatre, was and what was needed for it to happen:  costumes, a set, a script, sound, a space that could be turned into a stage and audience seating area (we didn’t always get an actual stage, can’t forget those good ole’ gym floor performance days in middle school!), etc.  These ideas have developed over the years as I’ve realized how much more abstract and experimental theatre can be.  However, there are still some things I see that just make me think, “This is in no way a theatrical performance!”  That happened to me as I was watching this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEcCa330R7U.  Four people sit in the middle of a busy walkway and one by one grab a bucket, put it on their head, sit down, and then one by one remove the bucket from their head, sit down, and then they all leave together.  No dialogue is spoken, there is no clear story, and I am unclear of any purpose.  The four individuals are aware that people are watching and clearly this was discussed and planned by them, so it does qualify as a performance as far as an air of consciousness is concerned.  In a theatrical sense, there is an audience (it is a forced audience as we discussed in class earlier), costumes, a script (no dialogue, just blocking), but a story is lacking.  For me, that is where I draw the line here; for it to be a performance, in a theatrical sense, I need there to be a story.  Normally, an audience can even make up a story for more abstract pieces, but I did not find that to be true here.

BONUS SURPRISE!!
Remember that video we saw the 2^nd day of class? The strangest theatre performance ever as YouTube put it. Well, I found the whole performance for you guys.  Here it is! I hope you enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYS1PG6RoyY