Can't live without em; can't live without em.
These passages put forth the immense value of fostering well-informed, thoroughly-exposed audiences. At the same time, we must not assume the ineptitude of an audience, however "green", at being able to tell - instinctually - when something works or doesn't work; that is objectively discernible.
It might seem un petit paradoxical, but I think this is really where it's at. Check it out:
My first response to any performer's improvisation or exercise is to make observations, which are not to be confused with opinions. When a car tyre bursts, that's not an opinion, it's a fact. I observe. Opinions can be formulated afterwards, based on this observation of reality. The critical comments one makes about the work do not attempt to distinguish the good from the bad, but rather to separate what is accurate and true from what is too long or too brief, what is interesting from what is not. This might appear pretentious but the only thing which interests us is what is accurate and true. Aesthetic elements... can be sensed by anyone and an audience always knows perfectly well when something is accurate and true. They may not know why, but it is up to us to know, because we are, after all, specialists. (19-20)
From the simple lifting of an actor's arm, the spectators must be able to sense a rhythm, a sound, a light, a colour. The challenge for the teacher is to observe with a practiced eye that can distinguish, among the different gestures made, which ones are explanatory, which are formalized, and which are both truthful and poetic. Gradually, the students themselves begin to acquire subtlety in observing gestural nuances. If theatre audiences were to acquire this same subtlety of observation, they would discover untold riches. But the banality of what they are given as a rule makes this almost impossible. To train people's ability to look and see is as important as to train creative artists. (52)
This is perhaps especially relevant in our small town, where folks may not be super exposed to alternative styles of theatre. Funny, though, that JLC was writing in Paris. PARIS! Maybe we can take comfort that ours is a universal struggle, confronted by excellent artists everywhere. Or maybe that's depressing.
They won't know what hit them, right?
4 comments:
Excellent stuff, Kat! Thank you for doing all this reading and posting the "Le Coq for Dummies" version for us! I love this: "Aesthetic elements... can be sensed by anyone and an audience always knows perfectly well when something is accurate and true. They may not know why, but it is up to us to know..."
What a crazy coincidence; this totally jives with some reading on believability in performance that I was doing last night in, "At Work With Grotowski on Physical Actions," by Grotowski student Thomas Richards. A snippet: "Grotowski would often ask us two questions when analyzing the work. First: What did you understand?... and second: Did you believe? Sometimes [a piece] might work when, despite the fact that we did not understand, we believed, and as a result we felt we received something from the work."
From the seminar I took many years ago with Eugenio Barba, one of my biggest lessons was this: It really doesn't matter what the actor feels. He can be devastated at the climax of the tragedy each night on stage. He can be utterly emotionally destroyed by his method of getting into the moment. If the audience doesn't feel it, it isn't honest and it means nothing.
For our project, simplicity and sincerity will be everything.
Thank you so much, Kat! You have brought life and light to this project and I am sooo grateful.
Thank YOU for jammin on this with me! It gives such a sense of purpose to the work to motivate it with a theoretical understanding of why & how this medium works! I REALLY get excited by looking at how we can maximize every moment; every movement. Thankfully there are brilliant people who wrote about it! These texts provide such good reminders of what I think we instinctually understand about making work.
(Also it brings out the nerdy drama student in me... which is fun, too!)
I can relate to this in filmmaking. I wouldn't dare dumb down my story because I think some people may not follow. Audiences are generally smart. Those that are not are probably trying to be. Dumbing it down doesn't help them learn. And those that do get it can be insulted by getting beat over the head.
I remember this one trailer for some Hollywood garbage comedy:
~shot of the slapstick comedy actor looking silly "Jim"
~serious looking guy with glasses says, "Whatever you do, don't let Jim drive the bus."
~shot of Jim driving the bus and children bouncing around.
~shot of some big dude eating a sandwich and standing beside glasses guy says, "Oh no"
~far away shot of bus ploughing into a building
~glasses guy says, "Oh man, I knew we shouldn't have let Jim drive the bus!"
Seriously screenwriter? I can't even guess this movie was for children. We wouldn't want kids growing up thinking this is a good way to talk and think. It's more like a movie for people who just don't give a shit about life anymore... ugh.
Anyways, thanks for the good read!
So true...! And we seem to have a very high tolerance for those low standards in the movie industry. What an excellent example... painful, in fact :)
Post a Comment