Category: ARTS & THEATER

  • Roma Heroes International Theater Festival, Sixth Edition

    Roma Heroes International Theater Festival, Sixth Edition

    [ad_1]

    Independent Theater Hungary presents the Roma Heroes International Theater Festival, Sixth Edition, livestreaming on the commons-based, peer-produced HowlRound TV network at howlround.tv from Wednesday 20 March to Wednesday 27 March 2024 at 10 a.m. AKDT (Juneau, UTC -8) / 11 a.m. PDT (Los Angeles, UTC -7) / 1 p.m. CDT (Chicago, UTC -5) / 12 p.m. EDT (New York, UTC -4) / 18:00 GMT (London, UTC +1) / 19:00 CET (Budapest, UTC +1) / 20:00 EET (Bucharest, UTC +2).

    At the VI. Roma Heroes International Theatre Festival the Independent Theater Hungary had the opportunity to get to know untold stories of generations through the productions of five different Roma theaters. Italian, Swedish, Romanian, and Hungarian creators draw from their own experiences to present the less-known aspects of European history.

    Continuing the tradition of the European Union’s first international Roma theatre encounter, the sixth edition of the Roma Heroes International Theatre Festival took place in Budapest from 27 November to 3 December. The festival program, which combines different art forms—music, literature, and performing arts—is for all those who go to the theatre to get to know new worlds and question their own usual points of view.

    Wednesday 20 March

    Live performer with a projected image behind them.

    Giuvlipen: Viral on Tiktok
    (Romania)
    10 a.m. AKDT (Juneau, UTC -8) / 11 a.m. PDT (Los Angeles, UTC -7) / 1 p.m. CDT (Chicago, UTC -5) / 12 p.m. EDT (New York, UTC -4) / 18:00 GMT (London, UTC +1) / 19:00 CET (Budapest, UTC +1) / 20:00 EET (Bucharest, UTC +2).

    In the performance by Giuvlipen Theater Company, we witness a deeply moving overview of the lack of sexual education affecting Romanian society, particularly the Roma communities, and its tangible societal consequences. TikTok, as the currently most popular social media platform, provides an excellent framework for the play. The production, navigating at borders of various genres, portrays the life of two teenage girls discussing the contradictions surrounding female sexuality, the abuses associated with the myth of virginity, the traps of oversexualized beauty ideals, or the sins committed by religion and forced marriages against women.

    Writer and Director: Mihaela Drăgan
    Cast: Nicoleta Ghiță, Bianca Mihai
    Music: Andrei Horjea
    Choreography: Răzvan Rotaru, Corina Platon
    Set Design: Ileana Zirra
    Costume Design: Zita Moldovan
    Photo: Amalia Drăniceanu

    Thursday 21 March

    Two stage actors sit in front of a projected image.

    Independent Theater Hungary: Rotting Birds
    (Hungary)
    10 a.m. AKDT (Juneau, UTC -8) / 11 a.m. PDT (Los Angeles, UTC -7) / 1 p.m. CDT (Chicago, UTC -5) / 12 p.m. EDT (New York, UTC -4) / 18:00 GMT (London, UTC +1) / 19:00 CET (Budapest, UTC +1) / 20:00 EET (Bucharest, UTC +2).

    The tearful-laughing punk opera written and directed by Rodrigó Balogh is based on a true story, focusing on the forgotten Roma author, József Holdosi. Imre, the grandfather, sues his grandson, József. The grandfather believes that József has offended him, his deceased relatives, and his current wife in his novel. His social relationships have suffered, his personality has been damaged, and he even contracted a fatal illness due to the content of the book in question. According to József, the novel is only fiction, a figment of his imagination. Who is right? The performance reveals the story of a family torn apart by generational curses. Is there a limit to creative freedom? What effects can be triggered in our families and communities, if we dare to talk about the ugly stuff?

    Writer and Director: Rodrigó Balogh 
    Cast: Dávid Varga, Orsolya Balogh 
    Dramaturg: Tímea Éva Bogya 
    Music: Dávid Varga 
    Music Collaborator: István Babindák 
    Set: Péter Gyenei 
    Photo: Zsófia Sivák

    Friday 22 March

    Two actors speak to each other.

    Independent Theater Hungary: Builders of a Country
    (Hungary)
    10 a.m. AKDT (Juneau, UTC -8) / 11 a.m. PDT (Los Angeles, UTC -7) / 1 p.m. CDT (Chicago, UTC -5) / 12 p.m. EDT (New York, UTC -4) / 18:00 GMT (London, UTC +1) / 19:00 CET (Budapest, UTC +1) / 20:00 EET (Bucharest, UTC +2).

    Although many see the majority of Roma people as unemployed, Roma workers have always played an important role in building houses. A long time ago whole generations of Roma built houses from mud bricks. In the 20th century many Roma started working in brick factories. Today many Roma work in the construction industry.

    The performance written and directed by Rodrigó Balogh and Márton Illés narrates the societal changes in socialist and later free Hungary through the struggles of three generations. It celebrates the unseen builders of Hungarian history. The production is inspired by real events and individuals, but leaves plenty of room for imagination. What can a Roma people keep and what must they give up to find their place among the majority? How do the many sacrifices affect their family and personal relationships?

    Writer and Director: Rodrigó Balogh and Márton Illés
    Cast: Dávid Csányi, Ramóna Farkas, Nóra Nemcsók, Tamás Szegedi
    Dramaturg: Tímea Éva Bogya 
    Music: Dávid Varga and István Babindák
    Set: Péter Gyenei
    Photo: Zsófia Sivák

    Photo: Amalia Drăniceanu

    Monday 25 March

    Three actors each sit on a chair on stage.

    Rampa Prenestina: Romnia
    (Italy)
    10 a.m. AKDT (Juneau, UTC -8) / 11 a.m. PDT (Los Angeles, UTC -7) / 1 p.m. CDT (Chicago, UTC -5) / 12 p.m. EDT (New York, UTC -4) / 18:00 GMT (London, UTC +1) / 19:00 CET (Budapest, UTC +1) / 20:00 EET (Bucharest, UTC +2).

    In the performance titled “Romnia” by the Italian Rampa Prenestina Company, the societal roles of Roma and non-Roma women take center stage. At the heart of the story stands the statue of Saint Sarah, which the inhabitants of the small community depicted on stage are required to dress and prepare for a traditional procession. During the ceremony, personal stories come to life, where the statue becomes a mirror of dreams and the experiences of social pressures for the female members from different generations. It is a celebration in which rituals of love, expectations, and the transformation or preservation of identity are revealed. When the procession reaches its end, the statue becomes sacred, and a collective prayer for freedom is recited.

    Adaptatated and directed by: Nino Racco
    Music: Sebastian Spinella
    Cast: Demila Durmis, Roxana Ene, Catherine Di Carlo Campaz, Erik Nikolic, Sebastian Spinella
    Photo: Amalia Drăniceanu

    Wednesday 27 March

    A group of actors acting on stage.

    Heart Voice Company: Great Expectations
    (Hungary)
    10 a.m. AKDT (Juneau, UTC -8) / 11 a.m. PDT (Los Angeles, UTC -7) / 1 p.m. CDT (Chicago, UTC -5) / 12 p.m. EDT (New York, UTC -4) / 18:00 GMT (London, UTC +1) / 19:00 CET (Budapest, UTC +1) / 20:00 EET (Bucharest, UTC +2).

    The performance by the Heart Voices Company was created in collaboration with Parfórum, Sajátszínház, Szomolyai Hungarian Roma Association, and the Emma Association, with the guidance of sociodrama leaders Eszter Pados and Kata Horváth. The creative process was preceded by comprehensive research focused on abuses related to sexism and racism experienced by Roma women, mothers, healthcare workers, and institutional systems revolving around female existence and motherhood. What we see on stage is nothing but the stories and experiences of different generations in the real world.

    Director: Edit Romankovics
    Sociodrama Leaders: Eszter Pados and Kata Horváth
    Cast: Báder Renáta, Csörgőné Polgár Andrea, Horváth Barbara, Horváth Rita, Horváth Róbert, Horváth Zsanett, Juhacsek Ildikó, Kádár Szonja, Kárpáti Liza, Lakatos Anett, Lakatos Marianna, Lakatos Rudolf, Szabó Róza, Szitai Natália
    Set Design: Gabriella Kiss
    Photo: Gabriella Csoszó

    Wednesday 27 March

    An actor gestures with their arms as they speak into a microphone.

    Lindy Larsson & The BonBon Band: Tschandala/Tattaren
    (Sweden)
    10 a.m. AKDT (Juneau, UTC -8) / 11 a.m. PDT (Los Angeles, UTC -7) / 1 p.m. CDT (Chicago, UTC -5) / 12 p.m. EDT (New York, UTC -4) / 18:00 GMT (London, UTC +1) / 19:00 CET (Budapest, UTC +1) / 20:00 EET (Bucharest, UTC +2).

    The  Swedish award-winning actor, singer and Roma activist artist Lindy Larsson, along with the multi-award-winning BonBon Band, explores an undisclosed part of Swedish history in their joint performance titled Tschandala/Tattaren. The production, which recently won the Swedish Critics’ Award, delves into various genres. The foundation of the show is August Strindberg’s anti-Roma novel “Tschandala,” as well as Larsson’s personal and familial history. The artist himself hails from a Swedish traveling Roma family, who experienced unimaginable atrocities against the Roma in Sweden, which have never found their way into history books.

    Writer: Lindy Larsson, Stefan Fross, August Strindberg
    Directed by Lindy Larsson
    Performer: Lindy Larsson
    Music: Bon Bon Band
    Design: Delaine Le Bas, Stefan Forss
    Photo: Per Bolkert



    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Roma Self Representation Series | HowlRound Theatre Commons

    Roma Self Representation Series | HowlRound Theatre Commons

    [ad_1]

    The staff of HowlRound Theatre Commons at Emerson College wish to respectfully acknowledge that our offices are situated on land stolen from its original holders, the Massachuset and Wampanoag people. We wish to pay our respects to their people past, present, and future. Learn more



    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Aerial Performance in a Wheelchair 

    Aerial Performance in a Wheelchair 

    [ad_1]

    Tjaša: And so are you now based in New York or are you still based in the Bay Area?

    Laurel: Kinetic Light rehearses a great deal in New York at this time. We are truly a national company. My home is Atlanta. Michael is in Oregon. We are coming together from all over. Right now the needs of our work, particularly when we’re rehearsing the aerial work, we have to have a home for that. So at this point in time, that is New York. Yes. But everyone is traveling a great deal to make this work.

    Tjaša: And so Wired was really your company’s first aerial work. And you guys started developing this in a residency really during the pandemic. Can you speak a little bit about the practice, the rehearsal? How did you come to this idea? What was the need or the decision to involve aerial? And then really you created this together with Chicago Flyhouse, who was helping with the bungees and with the aerial tracking systems, with the rigging. So how did you figure out what you needed and what was the process of developing this technology together?

    Laurel: Very long. Very long, very detailed, and with a massive number of people involved over time. This actually started well before the pandemic. Wired was originally supposed to be a 2020 premiere, so we already had a substantial amount of time in on it prior to lockdowns. We thought we were going into polish rehearsals quite shortly really. I tend to say aerial started out as a joke, at least I was about half joking. As we were working on Descent, as we were working on the ramp, we were actively having to develop new technique for working, not just on a slope, but on a curved and constantly changing slope. And once you’re doing one thing, how do you push it further? So I was always saying, “Okay. Next piece, aerial.”

    In my head, this was maybe bungees, maybe straps or rings or something. And of course, Wired turned out to be bungees and hard line and so many more things. Chicago Flyhouse did come in to assist with rigging automation and to provide our automation equipment. Alice and I worked with them in Chicago and they took us on as a project. We worked with so many riggers over the course of this in order to develop the completely custom harnessing techniques that we use and which are only possible because of the very particular engineering of our chairs. And we had to again, develop an entirely new set of techniques in order to fly in the way that we do embodied in our wheelchairs and maintaining that full embodiment, the fullness of the choreography in air. That was really absolutely critical to us.

    And then when New York went into lockdown, I was actually on what was supposed to be a one night turnaround in Atlanta. I’d just flown home to basically drop one set of bags and grab another and come straight back. So we were very much midstream. And after a few months we figured out how we could go into bubble residency, bring the full team together. We added some additional folks. We brought in more rigging and automation expertise. And really that gave us the opportunity to go much deeper and really dig in on the development of the piece. So the work that finally premiered was most certainly not the work that would’ve premiered had it come out as planned in 2020. It was something much more extensive. Of course, much more polished and also more satisfying.

    Tjaša: Yeah. So when you watch the performance, it looks like magic. And so you ask yourself, is this is programmed? Are they doing this? Are they pulling themselves in some way or is there a handler backstage? What does this really look like from a creator’s and dancer’s perspective?

    Laurel: That is exactly what we want it to look like. There are elements of it that should look like magic. There are pieces in any production where we give away, where we show you what we’re doing and how we’re doing it and then there’s pieces of it that should just be like we’re floating. I have to note, I had absolutely nothing to do with the automation software or the automation hardware. That is entirely Chicago Flyhouse’s responsibility. My part of making us fly is the chair design. But yeah, there are some parts of the show where we are entirely under our own power. There are some parts that are being operated by one of our flight operators who are sitting just in front of the stage. There’s a lot of different parts going on. And while you may only see a few people on stage, there are four times as many people actually involved in the production with our flight crew, our stage management, our production support team, our design team, and so forth.

    Tjaša: How did you thread the very thin line between risk taking and between safety? Did you maybe fly dummies first before people actually got into the wheelchairs and into the bungees and the setups?

    Laurel: Well, so this is an interesting question because this is something that was new to all of our riggers as well as to us. Honestly there was a lot of math involved. When you’re working in aerial or in any field where safety is an issue, you know your loading strengths of all the equipment. There are equations for the load that things can take at certain angles and in certain configurations. And of course, all of our riggers, our harness experts and our flight supervisor were experts in those equations. And I knew the tolerances, I knew the material strength and what our chairs are designed for as well as being an expert in strapping and functionality and performance and the kind of physical limits of strapping. And as dancers, as athletes, we are very much accustomed to having to constantly listen to our bodies, be aware. Feel. If we’re moving into a situation that could have some physical risk. We go very slowly and very carefully and piece-by-piece monitor, listen to what our body is telling us, feeling as best we can, things like joint alignment and the amount of force being placed on us in different ways.

    And so then we had to train to it. We certainly didn’t just leap into the air and begin swinging about wildly. That takes training and practice among other things. Not to become so dizzy that you can’t focus. That is actually a matter of training. So yeah, we moved slowly and carefully with supervision from our trusted, certified, qualified, insured, et cetera, et cetera, professionals at every possible stage. And yes, we were doing something very much completely new.

    Tjaša: And did the automation software already exist or was it adjusted or written specifically for you and for this project?

    Laurel: This is something that is already in existence and is very well tested. And when I say automation, that’s easy to misunderstand. In this context, automation just refers to operating the machinery. It doesn’t actually mean that it’s pre-programmed. As a matter of fact, almost everything you see in Wired is happening live either under the control of an artist on stage or under the control of one of the flight operators. A real live person in the audience. We have a lot of debates about the best way to do it, and this was the solution that all of the personnel in charge of our safety were happiest about.

    Tjaša: Fantastic. So you were never really the mercy of a program of a machine. There was somebody absolutely live and alert handling this.

    Laurel: Yes. Or you could say we’re always at the mercy of a machine which can stop and they do sometimes. It is possible. As much care as we take and as careful as everything is, it is possible for example, that one of the winches will stop, which is not dangerous. It just stops. But that’s a good reason to have that live person in order to make appropriate adjustments whether to get things going again. And that’s actually also a situation that we practice if, for example, the power to an entire venue should go out, and suddenly we’re just hanging out there swinging in the middle of the air. So our team periodically drills exactly what to do in that situation. And again, those are very well practiced, well-known rigging techniques that anyone who flies humans can study and practice.

    Tjaša: So this is almost like fire drills.

    Laurel: Yes. Although we sincerely hope that that’s never the cause of needing to actually run one of these of course. But rescue drills.

    Tjaša: Rescue drills. Yes. Because these winches are very heavy on the taking of the electricity. You can’t be in certain older buildings that don’t have the infrastructure to really support that kind of electricity intake.

    Laurel: They are specially wired for that. Like other production technology, we’re not just going in and plugging a man into the wall. They have to have their own particular power drops, high power conditioned safe power. But it’s possible that, for example, if the entire block loses power, of course our equipment is also going to lose power. I think everyone who’s been performing for a while has a story about that happening. There’s one show somewhere in your career where you’ve lost power, right?

    Tjaša: Has that happened to you?

    Laurel: Oh, certainly. It’s just that usually like it’s only the lights going out and hopefully it comes right back on. But what if it didn’t? So we practice those drills for that just in case.

    Tjaša: I have to ask, what was a happy accident? What was the best thing that happened during this process of making and performing Wired? And then maybe what’s the most unpleasant experience that you’ve had that you’re willing to share?

    I focus both my choreographic and technical practices on working in the unknown and working in the new and trying things that haven’t been done because that moment of discovery is just sheer joy. 

    Laurel: It’s really impossible, I would say to pick just one happy accident. Because we were setting off into the unknown into something completely new there were so many things that we just discovered. And I love being in that place. I focus both my choreographic and technical practices on working in the unknown and working in the new and trying things that haven’t been done because that moment of discovery is just sheer joy. There’s one moment… And we filmed this for a short video, and we’ve done it a few times since where I had been intending to do something that we do in one moment in Wired where Alice is being lifted from the stage on her line, and I sprint in and reach for her and we swing together. And on that day, I was just… We were going for a little bit of show here and actually trying to see if I could jump off one of the little baby ramps we use for our Under Momentum show. And when I came off the ramp and went for my hold, I had just a little bit of sideways momentum. So we start spinning and going in this circle that was just stunning. And that’s something that we’ve certainly kept, but there are so many moments like that.

    Tjaša: I love that.

    Laurel: And yeah. Again, on the unpleasant side, aerial is really hard and all dance is hard. And certainly so much of dance involves serious discomfort, shall we say. But anyone who’s done aerial work is deeply familiar with the kinds of bruises when you’re being held in the air by a bar or by a couple of nylon straps. It is potentially quite painful. And in training, in rehearsal, when you’re spinning about, particularly if you’re spinning… Imagine you’re swinging around your own center and now you’re spinning while you’re swinging around your own center, and then you’re upside down. So your middle ear is getting sloshed around in all three dimensions at once very erratically. You can get quite ill. There are definitely some moments of the rehearsal and the practice that are not wholly comfortable and it’s still worth it.

    Tjaša: Yeah. And you were able to train yourself with that, through that, out of that? Or do you still get ill when you’re rotating and spinning?

    Laurel: I think everyone… You can always figure out a way to make yourself nauseated. If you’re spinning fast enough or in a weird enough direction. But you do train for it to be less so to manage it.

    Tjaša: So you become better at managing it.

    Laurel: You learn not to spin too quickly, shall I say.

    Tjaša: I was really struck, when I watched the performance of Wired, by the beautiful audio narration. Everything was described in detail, and it felt like that was poetry. And obviously that this was very much intentional and on purpose. And I’m just curious about how you develop this text.

    Laurel: So our approach to audio description is one that strives for both richness and choice. Had you been in the live theatrical performance in the app, you would’ve had multiple choices of what to listen to, either in a specialized environment as if there were actual speakers in space with you so that you could go closer to the speakers that you wanted to listen to, or through a menu environment that would allow you to just select in isolation the tracks that you wanted to listen to. And this comes from our blind and low vision colleagues way back when we were doing our very first showing of Descent, who expressed to us that the audio description at the time, very conventional method of providing audio description with a live describer, speaking live during the showing hadn’t conveyed all the information about the artistry of the show. They could hear people gasping and feel them leaning forward in their seats in ways that simply wasn’t reflected in the audio description.

    So our practice now is that the audio description is a part of the art itself. It is developed with the choreography and with the production because it’s really no different, no further away to listen to a dance than it is to watch it. Dance isn’t a visual art in the first place. So the visual experience of dance is already a translation. So understanding the non-visual experience of it, the many ways through soundscape, poetry, conventional or non-conventional description through our breath and heartbeats, or the sounds of us moving through the dance. We try to create all of these. Now in the recording that you’re talking about, we offered I think three versions. One without audio description, one with that single track, and one with a mixed multi-track. Because offering that live, fully choice-full experience is considerably more difficult in a recorded medium.

    But yes, we work really, really closely and deeply with our describers as collaborating artists. This isn’t something where we’re giving them a finished performance and saying, here, describe it, but something where they are in the process with us and we’re going back and forth about this. And that feedback is making it into the choreography, into the lighting, into the projections, into the tactile and haptic experiences if someone’s coming to this primarily through touch. Yeah. It is something that is just such an enormous part of our practice for our non-visual audiences.

    Tjaša: It was an incredible experience. This was my first, and I just felt… I don’t know. I could feel the richness on a totally different level. I was amazed at how much I’m seeing without maybe having descriptives for it or rationally thinking about it. There was a whole other component. I think that I’m a very auditory person. So it was just incredibly helpful to have that. And it was so beautiful. It was beautifully narrated with a beautiful language. It was super descriptive too. So definitely super impressed with what you’ve created. Did you call them art describers? Art descriptors? What was the term that you used? Audio describers.

    All access methods is art in and of themselves… What does it mean to have an “accessible” experience of art? It means you’re just having the experience that is in the way in which you primarily interact with the world. 

    Laurel: Yeah. That’s the most common professional term. We’re seeking to push the boundaries where we recognize audio description as an art form. All access methods is art in and of themselves, and that there’s no difference between, as I said, the kind of core of the thing and the “accessible.” What does it mean to have an “accessible” experience of art? It means you’re just having the experience that is in the way in which you primarily interact with the world. So watching dance is an access method for some people, and listening to it is an access method for others. But all of this is about working with collaborating artists and really pushing what people understand that to mean from the outside.

    Access is often regarded as a service, something that you come along and tack on after the fact. Like you build a building and then you shove a wheelchair ramp somewhere around the back, probably going past the dumpsters, probably to a door that’s locked until you sit out on the sidewalk and yell until someone comes out and stands at the top of the stairs and goes: grumble, grumble, grumble, fine, we’ll unlock the stupid door. That is not access. Access starts from the beginning. It’s something that you’re thinking about all the way through. It’s assuming that there are people in your audience coming to you in a range of different ways of being, moving, experiencing the world, and you’re giving all of them consideration. That you’re creating these equitable experiences rather than saying, okay, my art is only for people who can see and people who can see in this certain way. Why would we impose that limitation? We’re greedy. We want everybody.

    Tjaša: That’s great. That’s great. Yeah. I’m curious more about the app that you have, that you have built, that you have developed. How did you go about it and how many collaborators are there, and how are you really creating these multisensory experiences in multisensory tracks for this app?

    Laurel: So Audimance, as I said, came about at the instigation of our non-visual colleagues, and at every stage, working through advisors, working through testers. Trying out different facets of it. Now at this point, this is something that we always implement in our live performances, and the content for each new show is developed as a part of the creation. So for us, it’s very plug and play. Development is ongoing, on the app so that we can move it out and have more people begin using it. We currently have a few test companies who are implementing it in their own performances, and we’re actively looking for sponsors and additional developers to help us move this to a native mobile app. So right now it’s a web application. It’s something that you get into the theatre and you load. Ideally this would be something where you go to the app store, you download it, and when you get your ticket, that just automatically goes to the app and it starts downloading all of that content in the background so that when you arrive at the theatre, it’s just ready for you.

    And it’s worth noting also, I think that this isn’t just about the show description. This also includes things like the spoken version of the program, which is something that we find people often don’t think about. Your program’s not accessible if you have to have eyes to read it, if it only comes on paper. It can include things like an audible map of the venue if you’re coming into a venue that you’re not familiar with. Where’s the box office? Where’s the quiet space? Where are the restrooms? How do you get to your seat? And we often include things like any additional materials we may have available about the show, descriptions of the tactile objects, essays or commentary, or if we have an additional access guide for the show, that might include a roadmap or might include notes. For example, if there are any notable moments in the sound or in the experience. Wired, for example, uses a very light water-based haze in one section. And while we have fans pointing it away from the audience, we do note that there may be some people who do not want to be seated in the first three or four rows. That’s an example of something you might put in an access guide.

    Tjaša: Yeah. I’m really interested in haptic interpretation. I’m just curious if there is a unified code for that. I know that David Eagleman developed his own haptic vest. I know that there’s been other companies developing haptic vests, but I guess my question is there… There’s a braille for blind people. Is there something that’s similar in the haptic world?

    Laurel: Haptics is a super exciting and newer area of development in dance interpretation in particular. And for folks who aren’t as familiar with it, that little vibration that your phone gives you when you touch it to let you know you’ve done something good, that is haptic. We’re just talking about vibration. We have tested all of the vests and all the made devices on the market, and none of them were quite right for our needs. We need something that allows a great deal of nuance.

    For example, in Wired, we actually work with wire itself that is placed in the audience that you can take in your hands, your fingertips, or that you can touch to the cheek, or I’ve seen people lay it across their chest or wrap it around their shoulders. And using the wire medium in this way allows us to give a very nuanced version of our sound score where you can feel the different frequencies, the chords, and the melody singing through the wire. So the wire itself becomes an enlivened lively object. Just as we’re livening it on stage through movement, it’s singing in your hands in the audience. Other ways of interpreting movement through vibration—this is really just such an open and fertile field. You can of course, create the actual sensation of movement. Using vibration you can create the feeling of water or earth or grass in your hands. So something I’m exploring is actually interpreting the dance as if you’re touching different objects.

    There are really just so many ways of approaching this, but we are primarily building our own devices in order to get this very fine control and very nuanced experience. This isn’t the same kind of thing if… Like if you’re a gamer and you have a haptic vest or the haptic wristbands where you are just getting that kind of… Or maybe if you’ve ever gone to a club and you get a vest or a belt where you’re feeling that heavy base. But where we’re really trying to get these super detailed effects. And again, in each one of these methods, these aren’t add-ons. These aren’t things for people who are coming in with an expectation that they’re going to “see a show,” and then there’s this other thing. These are for, and these are developed centering people for whom this is their way of being in the world. This is developing a primary experience of the art just as rich, just as detailed.

    And for someone for whom this is not their experience, it is never going to be the same. For example, we often have sighted, non-disabled people, people who do not use audio description, who want to turn on all the audio description tracks. And your brain’s not actually built for that. It becomes sensory overload very quickly because that is not their primary experience. That is not their skilled practice of experiencing art. So each one of these things demands the same care and attention and skill as each of the others. None of them are just, “oh, hey, this is a cool extra.” They are each an equal experience coming into it.

    Tjaša: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Fantastic. I feel like I have a million more questions. Thank you so, so much. I feel like this was so joyful and so informative. Any last thoughts? Any last words from you?

    Laurel: I think we covered quite a lot of it. I’m laughing because it seems like always we get to about this point and every interviewer says, “Oh, I have so many more questions.” So it goes.

    Tjaša: So it goes.

    This podcast is produced as a contribution to HowlRound Theatre Commons. You can find more episodes of the show and other HowlRound shows wherever you find podcasts. If you loved this podcast, I sure hope you did, post a rating and write a review on those platforms. This helps other people find us. If you’re looking for more progressive and disruptive content, visit howlround.com.



    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Virtuosity of Black Storytelling with Tarell Alvin McCraney

    The Virtuosity of Black Storytelling with Tarell Alvin McCraney

    [ad_1]

     

    Leticia Ridley: Welcome to Daughters of Lorraine, a podcast from your friendly neighborhood Black feminists exploring the legacies, present, and futures of Black theatre. We are your hosts, Leticia Ridley—

    Jordan Ealey: And Jordan Ealey. On this podcast produced for HowlRound Theatre Commons, a free and open platform for theatremakers worldwide, we discuss Black theatre history; conduct interviews with local and national Black theatre artists, scholars, and practitioners; and discuss plays by Black playwrights that have our minds buzzing.

    Leticia: Tarell Alvin McCraney is a playwright, screenwriter, and former chair and professor in the practice of playwriting at the Yale School of Drama. He is also a member of Teo Castellanos D-Projects theatre company in Miami, a member of the Steppenwolf Theatre Ensemble, and co-wrote the 2016 film Moonlight based on his own work In Moonlight, Black Boys Look Blue, for which he received an Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay.

    Jordan: McCraney’s numerous awards include the Whiting Award, Steinberg Playwright Award, Doris Duke Artist Award, Windham Campbell Prize, the London Evening Standard Award for Most Promising Playwright, the New York Times Outstanding Playwright Award, the Paula Vogel Award, and a 2013 MacArthur Genius Fellowship. Currently, McCraney is the artistic director of the Geffen Playhouse in Los Angeles, California. In today’s episode, we are delighted to share our conversation with Terrell about his journey as an artist and on the future of the American theatre industry for Black theatremakers.

    Thank you so much for tuning in to another episode of Daughters of Lorraine. We are so honored to be joined today by a very, very special guest, and that is Terrell Alvin McCraney. Terrell, thank you so much for joining us.

    Tarell Alvin McCraney: Thank you. Thank you. It’s been a very honor to be here. To be even honored to be speaking in this space is really dope, and I’m so excited to have a conversation.

    Leticia: Yeah. I think this is so dope. I feel like we got [the] equivalent of LeBron James on the podcast today in the Black theatre world. You’re shaking your head, but I would say that at least for me, as a lover of Black theatre, I am just so honored to be in your presence and just echoing what Jordan said. Thank you for joining us today.

    Tarell: Oh, no worries. No worries at all. And again, I just think the space that you all are continuing to make in honoring of Lorraine’s name or Ms. Hansberry’s name, particularly for some respect or her name, it’s always been important to me, and the legacy, and to be a part of that legacy, and to be a beneficiary of that legacy and have ways to give grace back I think is important. So I do know that I have done some things in the theatre, and I feel very proud of that, but the humility you see is that we’re talking about an artist who has shaped the American theatre, not just the silos in which her work is often placed as queer, as Black, as feminine, but a person whose play is done almost every single year by a major theatre in this country and has since it premiered on Broadway.

    So that legacy is only shared by a very handful of folks, and some of those folks are being called the sort of fathers of American theatre when in truth we know that if there is a parent of the American theatre and the modern theatre that we celebrate now, we know it’s Lorraine Hansberry, and I know a lot of what Jordan has brought to light has been recognizing that every element that is a part of contemporary American life is in A Raisin in the Sun, and that even now when we do those plays, the subject matters, political, spiritual, and personal are all still so relevant even though they are set in a time that has now passed.

    So I mean I could go on speaking about that, but I don’t take that lightly. That’s something that both it is a great tragedy that the world has not moved on past the one that Lorraine was trying to aspire better to and that her enduring legacy is a direct conversation with our world.

    Jordan: Absolutely. And that is something that we wholeheartedly believe as well here and so thank you for also being a steward of her legacy in many, many, many ways.

    Leticia: So to jump off our questions, we just want to ask about your journey to theatre. How did you get into it? What was the first play you’ve seen, and why did you gravitate to the theatre as a form of storytelling?

    Tarell: I mean what’s interesting is that I don’t know that I saw a formalized theatre production until I was a late teen, although I had been in plays probably all my life and the cultural awakening that was happening for Black folks and Black nationalism in the late eighties allowed me to have a great education in the arts and a free education in the arts.

    I don’t remember paying for an art class until I went to college, and then I paid a lot of money for art class. But prior to that I don’t remember finance or money being a barrier of entry to all the incredible programs that I had. And again, I attributed particularly to this place called the African Heritage Cultural Arts Center, which was started in the seventies, again, based off the Black nationalist movement to create a center for cultural learning and exploration in the heart of Liberty City where I grew up.

    Some of Moonlight we actually filmed in that very center. And so, for all the good and bad, the magnet programs were introduced and were really strong. And so, I was in middle school for drama immediately. And I had after school programs, again, that were free. And then my mother was in rehab at this place called the Village South. And they started improv troop for the children of some of the people who were in rehab at the time, and I was one of those kids.

    And so I had this really robust, varied education in the arts and read more plays than I saw, because again, and even now, Miami has more plays now than it’s ever had at the time, but there was one place to see a play, and I wasn’t really going to see it or being invited to see it. I saw a lot of dance. I saw a lot of live performance. The Alvin Ailey second company had come through. There were a lot of folks who were in my dance classes who were going off to be in Alvin Ailey company or Dance Theatre of Harlem.

    So I experienced a lot of live performance that had a lot of music and dance to it before I experienced theatre. But the kind of theatre that I knew was the kind of theatre that was pageant plays and church plays, and of course, we read Raisin in the Sun and August Wilson, but most of that was in school and in school projects. And what felt right to me was that I was always being asked to use theatre as a mechanism towards something larger.

    It was never like, “Hey, just do theatre because you like it.” It’s like, yeah, that too. But even when I was in Santa Goes to Oz, which was this play written by a professor who ran this company called the M Ensemble in Miami, who was a graduate of Howard and also taught there. He started this theatre company in Miami called the M Ensemble, which was about representation and making sure that Black culture had representation.

    And so even doing that play and playing left guard number two at twelve years old, I knew the ethos behind it. Every time I was in something, it was about something. So when I did dance performances at school, it was about looking at Black masculinity, and everything had a purpose always. And when we did peer education through the rehab center, the Village Improv Troupe, it was about doing peer to peer education about drugs prevention, rehabilitation, awareness around drugs and HIV and AIDS. And it was… we had to have a whole training about that and marry it to our theatre education.

    So by the time I got to college, I didn’t know what it meant to do theatre for fun, just for fun. Right? It was fun. It was exciting and thrilling, but everything always had to have a purpose to it. So a direct engagement with the audience in some way that was about educating and forming, scaring, shocking, bringing joy, bringing healing. There was another group—there’s so many groups I was a part of—but this other group called Voices United started by Katie Christie in the late eighties after she had gone on a trip to Russia. It was one of the first exchange of students to Russia at the time, breaking some old war.

    And she, being of mixed race heritage, she came back and was like, “Look, the only way we’re going to get world peace is that if people feel like they can work together on something.” So every May from 1989 on and still, she would take a group of students. I think it started off with fifty and it’s grew to two hundread, all kinds of all backs, all walks of life. They would come together and make a play, and they would perform it in May, and it would be on issues that they thought were important.

    And so it was a multicultural, multi-art form theatre practice that allowed young people to have a voice about the issues that were important to them. So I knew you could do theatre for just for fun, but it didn’t make any sense to me. It all needed to be embedded in the purpose of connecting to community and that we were vessels being used or being channeled through to do that.

    Jordan Ealey: That’s absolutely incredible. And so even when thinking about theatre broadly, how do you kind of think about your craft as a playwright? What is the kind of way you think about the structure once you write and why you choose the forms that you… I think I recently taught The Brothers Size in my contemporary Black theatre class, and we placed in conversation with things like the choreopoem. And so I’m curious about the way you think about form.

    We look at the ways in which the story was told to us, was handed down in the oral tradition and the embodying, even the embodying of the narrative who you know—that is the person down the way who stays in the village community with you.

    Tarell: Yeah. Again, the background I come from is a kind of choreopoem in Ntozake Shange world of thinking. And again, the artists that were my mentors were of that seventies, eighties Black arts movement where they did everything. They sang, they danced, the Melville Morris of the world, the people who did everything, who were connected to a deeper tradition too. They were connected to that early Chitlin’ Circuit/Moms Mabley who would get on stage, and, like there was a song part, there was a comedy part, and it all hinged on a kind of connectivity with the audience.

    And so in all of my plays, regardless of their structure—Brothers Size, Head of Passes, Wig Out!, Ms. Blakk—there is a kind of connectivity the audience that, or outward connectivity, that is necessary for them to work, right? They don’t really work unless they acknowledge the fact that somebody out there is listening and I’m talking with or directly to them. And that’s just born out of that tradition of those artists who were very close to me and very close to my upbringing.

    And even when I was an actor, I never thought of myself as just an actor because again, the way I was trained was, well, you’re going to do this monologue, but you need to write the transition that goes into that monologue, or you’re going to do this dance step, but what song is that and how does that get… Like everything from the way you introduce yourself in the slate to the way you bow at the end is connected to the purpose of being in front of people.

    I mean I remember once one of my students said, “Black people are always on stage.” And so, if we’re intentionally and purposefully getting in front of people, we need to… The curation of that and the choreography of that is almost ten times more important, right? Because we’re always performing. Right now I’m performing. And when I get in front of white people to perform… The pitch of my voice changes exponentially, right?

    And I think there’s very little study about why… Well, there’s lots of study from us about why, but there’s very little study about like the actual restraint and I don’t know if the word is quieting that one needs, because there’s a point where I have to go, okay, I’m actually not trying to perform when I create this thing. I’m actually trying to do what Beyoncé does, which is like create something on the stage that is actually more vulnerable and more raw in real life by giving it more precision. Right?

    I’m giving it more precision and more guardrails, more boundaries, right? bell hooks teaches us boundaries are actually love, right? They actually give us the container to which we can pour a kind of boundless free love in, right? And so how do I craft a freedom that I can get in and go, right? How do I craft something that I can put my whole self in and not have the societal pressures and worries that I do when I’m performing in my everyday life?

    And so it almost starts to become a practice of reverse engineering. What do I need to put in this space that makes me more intimate and more in touch with what I know I am spiritually? I keep saying myself because I know if I can do it for me, I’m doing it for the actor. I’m doing it for the audience.

    So for example, in a play called Head of Passes, it was really important to me that we watch the destruction of respectability politics put in front of us. Owning a home and how much we pass on to our kids and the secrets of our lives that we keep away, the dangerous things about our family’s history that we keep. All of that needed to just be out and open in order for this unbraided conversation with God to happen.

    And one can say that there’s success in that or not, but I knew that the only way that I would get to a place where I was vulnerable enough on stage to really cry out, “My God, why have you forsaken me?” Is if I had taken a character through all of those things and that as an audience member, a Black audience member, particularly, I had to put us in that point.

    So I wasn’t trying to trauma trigger anybody, but I wanted to bring us to a point where I went, “Do you understand why now this is probably an actual raw call for God and it’s happening in front of you right now?” And the success I felt by were there were a bunch of mothers, particularly, who would be like, “I’m still thinking of the words to figure out how to express to you that journey that I’ve been through, and I had not seen it in space until you just put that there.”

    And I was like, “That’s the recognition. That’s the affirmation I needed, right?” When we talk about form, it more often than not is informed by this idea of “how do I get to that thing that is most open and true for me and for the audience while also recognizing that we’re always performing?”

    Leticia: I love that. This idea of catharsis and the ability for theatre to do that, specifically for the Black audience member, who I think is often de-centered in a lot of American theatre—

    Tarell: Oh, yeah.

    Leticia: Even when there might be a Black play on stage. So I love that. And I have to ask you, since I have you on the podcast, specifically, I’ve seen In the Red and Brown Water when I was an undergrad at UCSD, they did it. And at that time, I was taking a playwriting course, and my instructor at the time had a list of plays, and I was like, “There’s no Black playwrights on here, can you give me a list of Black playwrights?”

    And she gave me a list of Black playwrights, which you were on, but they were also doing your production at UCSD. And I remember going to the theatre, and the reading of the stage directions was never an experience I ever had in the theatre. And it took me a process of unlearning of the expectations that had been set up with me of what Black theatre could look like, because I was ushered in to the usual suspects of what theatre was, right?

    And I remember I seen that play nine times when I was at UCSD, because I was just so moved by the percussion of the drums. Drums at the beginning. And I felt seen in a way that I hadn’t felt in the theatre for a long time since my original play, which was Two Trains Running by August Wilson. So can you just talk a bit about where did the idea of speaking the stage direction come in, and specifically in The Brother/Sister Plays, how are you thinking about that in connection to the audience, and in conversation with the piece itself?

    I don’t know that other species tell each other stories, but we do. And we learn from them. 

    Tarell: Yeah. I mean you disadvantaged me, because you just answered the question, which is that the power… The audience is not fooled, right? And particularly the audience around the time that those actors are coming out. Black people have seen plays. They know what plays look like. They’ve gone to August Wilson plays. In fact, I remember writing at least two of them while I was August Wilson’s assistant, right?

    So they had a legacy. They knew how to operate at a play, and some of the truth that I wanted to get at was that, like, “No. We know you are actually not this character.” You know what I mean? We know you Phylicia Rashad, you know that. But what is exciting, some of the reason why we’re here is because we also know that you have the power to be both who you are right now and transform who you are right in front of us.

    So the moment you say, “I enter.” And I walk in the way that that character does, we just did magic together. Not I didn’t hide it, I didn’t put it behind some backdrop. I did it in front of you. In the way that, again, the old vaudeville, Chitlin’ and Biscuit Circuits used to do. I’m not going to hide the trick I’m going to do, I’m going to do it right in front of you. I’m going to tell you this story in front of you, I’m going to embody it like your uncles and aunties did when they told you, “Let me tell you a story about it.”

    So she came in, and the minute you do that, everybody gets excited because you’re like, “Oh, she tells the best stories and her characterizations are so great.” And that again, it just distills us right down to what is… or about and wholesome and necessary and juicy, nutritious about the storytelling tradition. It takes away… And so even though that we’re speaking English and we’re saying lines like “So-and-so enters,” and when it’s done right—because again, there’s a way to do shit wrong. We do shit wrong—but when it’s done right, the actor is fully recognized and like, “Look, I know I’m here doing this thing. And after I say this to you, my job is to connect to you directly and say this thing.”

    But the thing you’re here to see is how fast I can say this thing and be in that thing at the same time. That’s what you’re here to see. Just like watching Redd Foxx jump into a character or Richard Pryor telling the story and automatically he becomes that thing, or your pastor telling you the story of Lazarus and that he’s laying prone on the ground, right?

    You are here for the virtuosity of Black storytelling in that way. And the quicker people can get into it and out of it… And there are other traditions that do that. I mean you think of John Leguizamo, you think of Robin Williams, but again, the virtuosity of that, that is a part of the American ethos of storytelling and mostly because of the way in which we have always told stories, right? That’s what we’ve done. And we look at the ways in which the story was told to us, was handed down in the oral tradition and the embodying, even the embodying of the narrative who you know—that is the person down the way who stays in the village community with you. And that community member has put on the dress, and it’s thick, and you can’t look under it because you know that nobody’s pretending that’s not a person, right?

    It also allows the actor to figure out ways in which on this night, in this moment, I’m going to engage you in the best way that I know how and for this time. So say the audience is just rowdy who is acting up. Best way to get them to calm down is to go, I have to sigh. Right? Because there’s contracts… Giving them full autonomy to tell this story and given the way in which… Again, I grew up in the theatre or the theatre practices that I grew up in, I know if they were going to have money for lights or not. I know if they were going to… And I don’t want them to have to worry about that. I want them to worry about a capable performer being in front of people and being able to tell this very ancient story. And they evolve. Again, in most of my plays, there’s some way that the audience is being addressed, and even in Head of Passes, she doesn’t say stage directions, but when she’s talking to God, she’s looking at you. So she’s talking to the God in you, right?

    And I didn’t make that up. Those are traditions that have been passed down to us from every side of the American performance landscape, from England, from Germany, from West Africa, from the Caribbean, from our Indigenous brothers and sisters, right? Like it’s in how we storytell in this country. And it’s always so funny because people are like, “That’s so unique. It feels so European.” And I was like, “I don’t know. Have you’ve ever heard Caribbean people tell a story? Have you’ve ever heard…”

    I mean even now when we listen to some of the music that has come over from Afrobeats, the way in which there is an acknowledgement of, and a naming of in the break of the song. I mean you talk about the drums—when I was in African dance class, all West African dance class all the time, particularly works from Senegal and classes from Nigeria. There’s a break in the music. There’s a (singing). That break is them going “Your turn.” Right?

    And if it’s in the music, which is so scientifically sound in terms of art, music is so together. Somebody is communicating to you, “Hey, hey, hey, there’s space in here for you to get in here. Right? We’re not pretending like you’re not there. We’re not going to keep playing this way. There is a moment and a break in this… You were learning the sort of when can you get in? Where’s the space for that connectivity?

    There’s a call and response, right? And all of that was identifiable by me because I’d grown up in it. And so when I saw it in Shakespeare, I was like, “Oh, they’re just doing the same thing.” When I saw it in story theatre with Paul Sills in Chicago, I was like, “Oh, yeah. This is the same thing we do like this.”

    The need to tell stories and engaged storytelling that unique need that humans have, I don’t know that other species tell each other stories, but we do. And we learn from them. Again, we’ve mourn with them, we joy with them. And I want to give the tools to get to that truth.

    Leticia: I love what you said about there being multiple performance landscapes because one of my biggest pet peeves as a scholar of theatre and performance is specifically when white scholars will study a Black artist’s work and often attribute it only to certain theatrical figures such as Brecht, for example. Like, “Well, this Black playwright is using these Brechtian techniques.” Which is not to say that those are not influences, but that there is a plethora of places that they’re pulling from. And what work are we doing when we uplift certain performance landscapes as the primary one in which they’re working from and what that emission does to these other places that their work is being influenced by? So I just want to say that.

    Go ahead, Jordan. Sorry.

    Jordan: I was just going to comment. I loved your comment of virtuosity of… Oh, my goodness. Our listeners can’t see, but it’s like the balloons, it’s so funny. But the virtuosity of Black storytelling is so interesting that I love that phrase because something I often joke about, and I’ve joked by this with Leticia as well is like, I do… It’s actually not a joke where I love Black storytelling in the sense that we know how to do transitions.

    For example, it’s like, “Now, mind you…” Or it’s, “Whole time dah-dah-dah.” Like Black storytelling is unmatched.

    Tarell: Yeah. The way in which we predicate things… Now I’m going to tell you this, right? And it’s this idea that, like, “Wait, as if you would just told me it wouldn’t be equally as important, right?”

    Jordan: Right.

    Tarell: But it would have been, right? There is a world—

    Jordan: Exactly.

    Tarell: Where it wouldn’t have been that equally as important if I didn’t go, “So look, so boom.” You know what I mean? And again, it goes back to the fact that what you’re bringing up is that there is something specifically American also about the way in which we have braided that into the world we live in, right? Because some of it is filmic, right? It’s irising in. It’s allowing us to, like, “You caught that?” Right?

    And that I never want to over-sophisticate any of the language that we use in storytelling because it all comes from the same… Similar to the same needs in storytelling. I mean, again, as we start to expand how storytelling is happening, there are definitely retentions from Asian American storytelling, how that storytelling happening. And again, we haven’t even begun to uncover the way in which Indigenous storytelling has shaped the Southwest in this country, right?

    That being said, we can all link them to, like, “Well, why did people… Oh, because we all love an anti-hero every now and then. We all love a good disrupter every now and then.” And there’s one in every cosmology in every form of storytelling. And again, keep going back to those things that are so specific and/or while also acknowledging that they exist elsewhere is really important, so important. But that’s what white supremacy does, which is flattens even whiteness to one thing, right? Whiteness is all one thing.

    When it’s like, “Well, there are white Latin people who tell stories in a certain way. There are white Italians who tell stories different than white Scandinavians, right?” But again, if you allow it to, the need to categorize and capitalize on the categorization that happens in commercialization of art, particularly, is like, “I need to track this directly to the most popular thing so I can say something about it and then move forward.”

    And that doesn’t really work to keep the work exploratory. It doesn’t work to keep the work messy. It’s like, we should be able to pick up a whole bunch of things from the lab and go put a little bit of this and see if that does the thing. We’re all after something similar. How about we keep putting all of those in there so we can figure it out?

    And then who cares where it came from as long as it’s effective, right? But I shouldn’t say who cares. I do care where it comes from, I just don’t know if it needs to just be totally attributed to one place, as you’re saying. It is messy, and it should be.

    Jordan: Yeah. And so much of the Black diasporic experience is working in these fragmented ways, right? Because of like you said, that flattening of white supremacy, its erasure, its marginalization, its discrimination. And it’s like, we have learned how to quilt these stories as you do as a playwright, right? It’s… we’re quilting a lot of these experiences together to create something totally new. Because sometimes we don’t even know where the origin is.

    Switching gears just a little bit: working as an artist and having your own works in TV and film and in theatre and then also working as an artistic leader, right? Chairing the department at Yale and now also in your new position, which congratulations [on] the Geffen, leading that theatre space. And we’re curious about the similarities, differences in working in a space as a leader and bringing that sort of artistic ethos into these spaces. And I don’t know, what are your hopes for this position and the direction maybe you might want to take this theatre?

    Tarell: Yeah. I mean I think I want to do what I have always done, which provides space for early career artists to thrive and to lead us into the next phase of what we’re doing. I mean it’s just that simple. I want to work with artists who are excited about a laboratory and give them space to do it. And I also want to invite, engage, inform, give insight to our next generation of audience members, because they have to come up together.

    The problem is that we keep thinking like, “Audience members over here. Artists over here.” I’m like, “No. No.” The way it works is the audience goes, “I love that artist.” And then they, they engage each other at an early state so that they grow up in the art together, right? They tell each other what they need, how they need it. And we often forget how shaped by audience some of our artists are, right?

    Can you imagine if Richard Pryor’s audiences kept being like, “Richard, sing every time.” Right? This man started out as… He did. He started out as a balladeer. You could go online right now and look up Richard Pryor’s early performances. And he came out there singing these sad ass songs, and his voice was beautiful. He grew up in a brothel, so he knew what it meant to do those kind of vaudeville, juke joint shows.

    And so one night started with some jokes, and that audience leaned in; and the jokes started being about his own life, and the audience leaned further. And then they fell out, and then they started… So the songs got less, and so even if you watch his television series, which came later in his career, it’s full of that leaning into the live audience to find out what it… How am I going to make you scream with laughter? Or how am I going to make you actually be in this space and be present?

    And so we have to remember how my vision—I have to remember, not gonna talk about anyone else—I got to remember how it is important to keep artists with their peers in the audience, and so that they have a back and forth that is healthy and not just on opening night, before that, when they’re doing a reading of a thing. How do I get folks to go, “Hey, this artist is going to read. I’m really excited about it. Why don’t you come on in and see it? They want to hear want to hear it with you around.”

    Now not everybody, but enough for you to get a sense. And that process of allowing an artist to take in what his peers are telling him and work on the page or sometimes work on the stage in the middle of it is so important. And we’ve truncated that for commercialization.

    We truncated that for like, “Yeah. Two and a half weeks, three weeks in a room rehearsing. It’ll be better be perfect. If not, you’re going to open it in seven performances. Good luck.” And when it isn’t like the best thing ever or the playwright is trying to take like, “What is happening? I don’t get it. They’re not engaged here. What…” Or the actor’s like, “Well, I’m trying this thing, but I need more time.” We’re like, “No. Too late.”

    It either needs to be a smash hit and critically acclaimed or not. And I had the good fortune of just flying under the radar for a long time with a lot of things. And then, of course, the story is that Brothers Size came out one night. And I was like, “I wrote Brothers Size in 2003.” We didn’t do a premiere of that play until 2008. We was definitely working on it in between.

    I wrote Moonlight in 2003. It didn’t get filmed until 2015. They are tricking you. They are lying to you, telling you that it happens overnight. It does not. Things need time. They do need audience feedback. You do need to curate how you are engaging with your peers. Your peers need to say, “I don’t know what that means, bro. That seems weird to me, right?” You need it so that you can go, “Okay.” And without a cultural embarrassment that then allows, that makes you have to go, like, lose all confidence. Right?

    Because every early dancer at the family cookout has gotten sat down by the auntie who was like, “Let me show you how this really…”

    Jordan: Right.

    Tarell: Right? And every kid has started to try to tell like, “Oh, I heard Uncle so-and-so tell this story. I’m going to get up and tell it like them.” And everybody’s like, “Oh, that’s nice, baby.” And you, you realize, “You know what? Next time I need to shut the fuck up or I need to figure out another way to tell this story.” Right?

    And that it builds character. You know what I mean? It builds your expertise. So, my hope is to give that experience without sort of obliterating the faith and confidence that a person who has been called to do this has. So those are the things I’m thinking about. Now I’m having a great time now. I don’t know how long that’ll last. I also know that the not-for-profit is not sustainable for folks. And so I’m going to stick with it as long as I can, but you can tell I’ve never tried to get into a position of leadership in the for profit space for a reason. Right? Because I may have a work ethic, I think I have a pretty good work ethic. I don’t have a love ethic for some of the industry, and that is commercial and not-for-profit.

    And in those instances, I try to really honor that I do have a love ethic for it. Again, as described by bell hooks. I do have a space where I can extend myself for the nourishment of my community and others and the energy is bound. I get energy from doing it. I get energy from thinking. I get energy from extending myself for that. Now for profit and commercial work feels like it asks you to sacrifice yourself. And that doesn’t feel good. And it doesn’t replenish, and it doesn’t feel sustainable. But in these other environments where I know money is not the object, and I know it is the actual community and the growth of other, I can use my love ethic. I can use my love for what this thing is and what it does to, to move through it.

    So that’s what I’m hoping to instill, hoping to put that center and model that.

    Leticia: I love that. We recently just did an episode on Black Theatre: The Making of the Movement, the documentary created by Woodie King, Jr. And in that documentary, Benett Carroll talks about creating a space for Black artists to fail and where they can actually have an opportunity to do in community and to do safely. Like you said, that’s not trying to put down their confidence or usher them into a different field, right? I think that’s so important, and those spaces don’t exist in the capitalistic system in which we are all embedded within.

    Tarell: Yeah. And again, it gets harder because again, I think for the past TWENTY years or so, we in the non-for-profit theatre making section have been gearing ourselves towards a model that is more corporate than not. And we’re facing the fact that that actually doesn’t work to do what we want, which is really lean into the relationships and the love we have of this thing. It’s not sustainable because all it does is make us chase the money. And we’re never going to make enough money. We’re never going to make enough.

    It’s in the name. It’s a not-for-profit. It doesn’t make any sense. Again, if we were in a commercial theatre, totally understand the need to be chasing the profit, the bottom line. But the commodification of art—and again, this ain’t my business, so I’m not going to try not to bind it—but in film and television, the commodification of art making is not doing them any favors either.

    So I don’t know why we thought it would be great over here, considering the fact I was like, “Bam, we can make commodity all we want and put it up for sale.” We’re not supposed to be making money. We’re supposed to be literally figuring out a way to sustain ourselves. Yes. But the congratulations mode, the the goal, the success model has to be based on we launched the thing that is now in the world.

    Now sometimes that means that we launched a thing or two or four or how many into the world, and now the sort of run of that is exhausted itself. And that’s okay. We find other ways to put that energy back into the ground and it grows up again. But we all sort of have been told we’ve got to institutionalize. And the only way the Americans know how to institutionalize is through business.

    We literally are closing libraries. You’re trying to tell me that we don’t… We don’t know any other institutional model, except business, because those are the ones that brought us here and those are the ones that are lasting today. Those are the ones that have blood on the dollars that are still in existence and still work from the founding of this country till today.

    And even public schools, libraries, any institution that are free, museums, all of that has been suffering for the past hundred years because we don’t know any other model but to corporatize it. And then when we do that, it’s like, “Well, is it really a free library then or is it a bookstore?” Right? And then when the competition moves in and makes that obsolete, then we don’t have an investment of like, “Oh, but that helps us, nourishes us in our spiritual practices.”

    No. It’s a bookstore. So some of us go, “Oh, man. That bookstore went out of business.” Other people go, “No. Amazon gets my books here faster.” And it becomes about transaction rather than the connectivity of the place and what it does for the quality of life of the people around you. So I hope to help us divorce ourselves from that, but we might be too far gone. It’ll be fun to try.

    Jordan: Yeah. I love that. And I think the thing about theatre is so much of it is predicated on the imagination, right? Because we don’t have all the bells and whistles sometimes that a camera can do. Right? It’s what we have in that shared simultaneous space for a period of time and that’s what makes it such powerful…

    The sustainability has to be a part of it, because if the people get exhausted trying to reach, then what do we do?

    Tarell: Well, yeah, it’s faith and action, right? And there are only a few places that we enact faith, right? We know faith to be the belief in something unseen, right? And so when you get into a theatre like we had in the earlier part of this conversation, we know that when you went to see Two Trains Running, you were not in Pittsburgh, right? You know what I mean? You weren’t there, but the power was that these folks in front of you were going to go, “Hey, we’re in Pittsburgh. Here are the circumstances. Here are the pressures. Here’s how the Hill District looked. Here’s how it feels. Can you imagine it?”

    And as they’re asking you to do that, you are saying, “Yes.” And that acceptance puts us in an act of faith together. Right? I’m asking and you are agreeing to, you are enthusiastically agreeing to engage in this way. And that doesn’t happen everywhere. I talk about Beyoncé often because I think she had—even with the bells and whistles of what happens on stage—what she has the ability to do is to say to you, “Hey, I’m going to sing a song about a woman who’s been scorned. You want to hear it?” And you go, “Yeah.” Right?

    And then she opens up that channel in her and does it. And then you start crying because you may not even be a woman scorned, Tarell, and yet somehow you fully feel and understand the necessity of this song, right? And somehow the lyric and you… So that agreement that is happening is what’s necessary. And I thought for a second that like, maybe, “Oh, I’d only been to four concerts in my life and three of them were Beyoncé.” So I was like, “Yeah. That’s all I really know.” Right?

    So that makes sense that she has all the lights and sounds and that’s what’s doing it, and they do help. But then the other concert I went to, it was a Solange concert, and it was in a museum and there was nothing on stage except her and like some backup singers and like a band. And it was in the Pamm Museum’s lecture room. So there weren’t like lights and sound.

    And Solange was singing to me about my life in those moments, right? And again, that act of connectivity from a performer in the live space to you, doesn’t mean I have to be anywhere. I don’t need to be an actual crane in the sky, but her making the illusion to it made me go there, right? Made me know that it was important. And I walked away feeling full of that imaginative part of my brain had opened up.

    I had aspirations for the exploration of things good and bad, right? Well and unwell. And that is what happens in the theatre. And so my hope is that we keep curating and getting audiences and folks who not just new, but older folks who have been to the theatre to remember like, “Hey, what we’re actually doing here is providing you a space to practice that. That we’re creating an institution here for you to come in and be able to do that.”

    Like a public pool. You come in here, get your laps in, you get stronger at the breaststroke and the backstroke. Well, get stronger at the imagining a world without racism. Get stronger at imagining a world where you are in the center of a terrible choice and you have to make it, right? And you have to figure out if you leave your whole family behind and do this other thing. We get practice in doing inhumaning, right? Where you can’t. You can’t act out these things on the bus just for fun.

    I mean you could try. I think there will be some repercussions that we wouldn’t want, right? But like here is the space that we could help you get out some of that exercise and that you want to do. And if we invest in that as a quality of life, right? As a healthy means of finding, locating things and anger and parts of ourselves, then we invest in that in a way that we do a cultural institution that we need, not necessarily a business that we want to patronize.

    Leticia: Yeah. I just think that you are absolutely right. And I think your ambition of creating this world via theatre is so important and crucial to, one, just Black life and living. And not just only for Black folks, but all of our brothers and sisters.

    Tarell: Oh, for Black folks, but for Black folks, yeah. Well, I think we got to start singularly. And I think the Geffen is not a Black institution. I want to make sure there is space for Black folks in that theatre and the community of Westwood. And so this is not a corrective. This is a me going, “I don’t know that I can do it for the world. I do know that I can do it for the four blocks in which is the radius around the Geffen.” And that’s life’s work, right? Even that takes a lot.

    And hopefully there will be others who find that important enough to do it further. But if I can do it for that block, my God, you know what I mean? Like if I can do it for the people on that block… Again, that’s why I say, there’s this idea, “manifest destiny,” we should have spread everywhere and everywhere. And I’m like, “Cool. I hope to God that is true.” My barometer of success has to be, you walk around this corner, you go, “Hey, right there. That’s a place where I go in and I change some stuff around when I went in there one time.” You know what I mean?

    And if I can make sure that the folks in the vicinity feel that way or can resonate in that way, we’ve done the job. But the moment we started going, “We got to get them in Australia.” It’s like, “Well, that takes resources, and it pushes us to start, again, not thinking sustainably.” And one of the things I’ve said to my poor staff, I know they get tired of me saying it, but I’m like, “Whenever we’re deciding to do anything, anything, mop the floors, can we do it well? Can we do it that it brings in and opens our doors and invites our immediate communities?” Right?

    And when I mean immediate, I mean the people down the street who may not have access to pay for it, or the people we have to step around to get into this. Like, does it help bring in those folks? Because we have a serious problem here in LA, right? And can we do it sustainably? Right? So that we do it the one time, but then we don’t go, “Whew. Shit, I’m tired. That took everything out of me. I don’t know if I’m going to be able to do the next production. I don’t even know if I’m going to be able to work here next year. In fact, I’m going to have to go do something else that’s a little less taxing and a little more pay.”

    You know what I mean? The sustainability has to be a part of it, because if the people get exhausted trying to reach, then what do we do? Right? My poor staff, they’re like, “Tarell, you say that every day.” I’m like, “Look, I’m reminding you too, I’m reminding myself too.” You know what I mean? Because, again, none of us are being paid. You know what I mean? None of us are being paid to be like, “Okay. I can do this one year and then I can take a year off and then I can come back.” None of us are being paid enough to do that. Right?

    And if we know this is soul work, we’re going to get soul tired. And so how do we make sure there’s enough planning in that to go, “Cool. All right. Cool. I know I got at least three weeks before I have to get back in there and let me read, let me eat some snacks, let me get my nails done.” Whatever it is that you need done.

    Jordan: Right. And that’s so important, and it just reminds us, right? Like Lorraine Hansberry and the weight of the world on her shoulders. And James Baldwin even saying things like, “I think that the weight is part of what contributed to the fact that she is no longer with us and so early on in her life, in her career.” And so just those questions are so important and they’re so crucial, even if they keep saying it over and over again. It’s just like, this is the affirmation, it’s the affirmation.

    Tarell: Until they say it to me first, I’m going to keep saying it to them. That’s my job to be like, “I’m going to keep reminding you.” So that you’ll be like, “Hey, Tarell, we actually can do that sustainably.” And I’ll be like, “Oh, good catch. Good catch. Thank you.” It’s a good catch… Well, I believe it was Lorraine in her journal or her listing about never be afraid to sit a while and think. And it’s so scary how we don’t… I was like, “We need to put that in the plan.” It needs to be like, “We do this, we do this, we do that, we do that, great.”

    And now we sit around. We sit and think. That’s what we do. We got a week to do that so that we come back and we have metabolized some things, and especially for, again, I’ve said, I’ve been fortunate enough to have many a Black woman writer in my cohorts and the amount of like, “Come on. We got to… You get out of here, it’s this, this and this and your work is going to be here. You need to apply for this and be a…”

    And I was like, “Oh, yeah. Yeah. Hey, you get a chunk of change? Sit down somewhere.” You’re going to get so much more out of the ability to just check out for a second.

    Leticia: I will say that if there’s any way that Daughters of Lorraine can be a steward to the work that you’re doing at the Geffen, please let us know.

    Tarell: Well, you already are, you already are. Keep providing. Keep having these conversations. Keep providing access to this legacy, keep allowing your academic study, which is… Again, I told Jordan, I was like, “You’re doing the work. You really are doing the work. You’re providing a scholarly academic look in a very visceral way about the legacy of women writers, particularly Black women writers in this country, and they have been holding us.” I mean look at that Essence spread, that bizarre spread that was up the other day.

    I was like, “This is important.” I mean there were names there, I was like, “Everybody’s here.” And there’s a couple of others I think I need to throw up there. And there’s some dramaturgs that have been out here on the field. So many of those women have been mentors and are mentors to me even now. I mean they say they’re not, but I’m like, “No, Dominique, you are. You absolutely…” Before I took this job, I was like, “Let me have a conversation with Dominique Morisseau.” And if she would have been like, “You shouldn’t take that job.” I’m like, “No.”

    I talked to Lynn Nottage almost every day of my first days of becoming Chair of Playwriting. She was my teacher at one point. I was constantly… Jackie Sibblies [Drury] was on staff. And I was like, “Jackie, please don’t… You can’t go anywhere. We need you here. We need you a part of the process.” Katori Hall was another person, and Patricia McGregor. These are folks who just pour into this work, a vision of true generosity that I’m sometimes distracted by, by not Black women peers, right?

    They like, “We got to get this paper. We got…” And I’m like, “Yo.” They are showing us the way. And so anyway, I don’t mean to go on, but I really find it important. I found it so important that conversation we had back at Howard about this legacy.

    Jordan: Yeah. It’s part of our work. And so we’re so grateful that we had a chance to have you on the podcast to talk to us about like just hearing more about your ethic, your ethos, your craft and going to have this conversation. We’re so happy and it’s great to talk to you again and hear about it. And good luck with the next step here, the Geffen. And we are so looking forward to continuing to follow your work in all of its facets.

    Leticia: All right. Thank you all for listening.

    Tarell: Thank you all for listening.

    Leticia: This has been another episode of Daughters of Lorraine. We’re your hosts, Leticia Ridley.

    Jordan: And Jordan Ealey. Thank you so much for joining us for our fourth season. We are so glad that you all tuned in for such an exciting collection of episodes and interviews. In the meantime, if you’re looking to connect with us, please follow us on Twitter @dolorrainepod, P-O-D. You can also email us at daughtersoflorraineatgmail.com for further contact. Our theme music is composed by Inza Bamba. The Daughters of Lorraine podcast is supported by HowlRound Theatre Commons, a free and open platform for theatre makers worldwide. It’s available on iTunes, Google Play, Spotify and howlround.com. If you’re looking for the podcast on iTunes, Google Play or Spotify, you’ll want to search and subscribe to “Daughters of Lorraine podcast.”

    Leticia: If you loved this podcast, post a rating or write a review on those platforms. This helps other people find us. You can also find this transcript for this episode, along with a lot of other progressive and disruptive content, on howlround.com. Have an idea for an exciting podcast, essay or TV event that the theatre community needs to hear? Visit howlround.com and submit your ideas to the comments.

    Jordan: We’ll be taking a short break, but we cannot wait to come back and give you more Black feminist theatre content.



    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How LUNG Is Breathing Radical Joy into Theatre in the United Kingdom

    How LUNG Is Breathing Radical Joy into Theatre in the United Kingdom

    [ad_1]

    verity: Matt, you were born in Penistone in Yorkshire, England, which is down the hill from Silkestone, where I come from. I think that being from the Barnsley area has impacted me in terms of my politics. Can you talk about if and how where you have grown up has had an influence on how you make theatre?

    Matt: Penistone is an interesting place because it is a farming area, but also you are surrounded by people who are political and people who contradict traditional narratives about what it means to be in an ex-mining community. But what has more meaning for me is that my family were artistic but did not have the same opportunities as me to pursue it. So now in the work that LUNG does, we believe we have a responsibility and a duty to find people who may not feel that the arts is for them—not just because of their class but because of other characteristics too.

    verity: LUNG’s focus on verbatim campaign theatre was not so straightforward, was it?

    Matt: No. We formed at the University of Sheffield as an initial response to arts cuts in the area (and nationally) and started going into schools to run workshops on Lord of the Flies. The workshops were a work in progress, but it felt like the things the young people were saying in them were more interesting than the things being put on stage. Then our producer Gemma Wilson said, “There’s this thing called verbatim theatre,” and I said, “What’s that?”

    At the time we were aware that the anniversary of the fire at Bradford City Football Club was approaching, and Gemma was aware there was a story to be told about this, but people didn’t necessarily want to speak about it. This is how The 56 came into being, commemorating the 56 fans who died and using verbatim theatre to do it.

    It was a formative show for us for different reasons. There was a Bradford City Fans Forum that was shut down because people were saying, “how dare you tell this story?”—even though Gemma was born in Bradford and her family were regulars at City games and knew some of the people who were affected by the tragedy. There were death threats and nasty comments aimed at us. This made us realize the power this kind of work has. We learned a valuable lesson: there is no one way to make a verbatim project that is community driven. In the end it was a woven tapestry of sixty voices that was embedded in the community.

    We believe that verbatim is not a tool to present one side and then the other and then you make up your own mind as an audience member—that is creating an illusion of balance. We want to platform the voices that aren’t being heard and create a campaign that runs alongside it. 

    verity: The campaigning did not begin until E15, did it? How did this change your relationship with the audience, given that the audience coming to see E15 probably already knew about the campaign?

    Matt: E15 was already a movement and already had a call to sign the petition and join the campaign. And there was a change in us; we became more overt in our intention about why we were making this piece of work and how. We believe that verbatim is not a tool to present one side and then the other and then you make up your own mind as an audience member—that is creating an illusion of balance. We want to platform the voices that aren’t being heard and create a campaign that runs alongside it.

    verity: So, are you saying that you do have a political standpoint before you start a show, or does that standpoint and the campaign come out of your research?

    Matt: There are three existential questions that we ask ourselves before we embark on a project: why this play, why now, and why us? Before we begin, we always have a hunch as well. So with Who Cares we already knew that young carers in the United Kingdom needed more support; Chilcot was about how devastating the war with Iraq was; with Woodhill the question was, why are all these young men dying in prison?

    In terms of the campaign, it evolves when you pick at the scab and realize how deep something goes. More and more we are really shifting into how we can serve the vision of the groups we are working with and what they want to campaign for.

    verity: Helen, join us. We are talking about political stances and campaigns.

    Helen Monks: I finally got a connection!

    One of the gifts of what we do is that the show is one element and the campaign is another that continues and carries on beyond the show. We have always aimed for campaigns to be part of and generated by the shows, but also able to stand independently.

    We toured Who Cares after we had done Trojan Horse, and so we were able to talk to the same teachers and governors we talking to about Prevent about young carers as well. It is definitely an aim of the company to connect people more. We keep in touch with everyone, and it makes sense that those people from different community groups and activists are aware of each other.

    verity: Helen, you are from Birmingham and went to school there. I’ve already talked to Matt about being from Yorkshire and how that influences him. Can you say how it influences you in terms of what you want to make a show about?

    Helen: I think that there are two approaches we employ. One is where we know a specific story, like Trojan Horse, which took place in Birmingham Schools and their communities and which was already in the media, and we examine it with a worm’s eye view to see if it speaks to a wider issue. The second approach is that we want to make a show that is about a wider issue with a bird’s eye view, like the housing crisis, and then explore who has the life experience to inform and work with us on it. We aim for all our verbatim pieces now to reflect something live, active, and continuing to have impact.

    The idea that politics is twinned with hope runs through our projects.

    verity: In two of your shows, the team had strong connections to the communities and issues they were about –you, Helen, with Trojan Horse and Gemma Wilson with the Bradford City Fire. Would you say you are closing the gap between theatremakers and the work on stage?

    Matt: It depends what you mean by “connected.” You sometimes don’t realize you are connected until you investigate it yourself. Woodhill is all about grief and losing someone, so a pop psychologist might say this is Matt’s play about Matt’s dead sister (she died before I was born) and the impact that had on my parents. Or you could say Who Cares is about me having the privilege of caring for my grandparents when I was growing up. I think you find pieces of yourselves naturally in the work anyway. There are so many overlaps you don’t see.

    Helen: We don’t go, “What are the big issues of the day?” Instead, it is a really personal and emotional response to something, and the plays are an extension of our response. Just on a personal level, every project we do totally changes my life through the people we meet and work with.

    verity: Yeh. And the personal is political as well, isn’t it? Artists I talk to say you should not mix art and politics, but you are a very political theatre. It is at the heart of what you do…

    Helen: The art is one part. It shows the reason, and then the campaign shows the hope. The process of meeting people who are campaigning for social justice is a deeply political act. The United Kingdom gets very easily depressed about the state of the nation, but we would not be talking about the campaigns or the shows if we didn’t believe that there was hope for change. The idea that politics is twinned with hope runs through our projects.

    Matt: “England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality.” I love this quote from George Orwell. I think you have a responsibility as a British (and English) person in theatre to be political, because our country has a lot to be ashamed of… Otherwise, you are in some ways complicit in the horror show of the last thousand years.

    verity: Have you seen positive change from your campaigns?

    Matt: With Who Cares over 200 young carers were identified and signposted to support from their local young carers services. During COVID we orchestrated Digi Fund, a project to support young carers facing digital poverty. More than thirty of them received laptops and phones, things for schoolwork. With Who Cares, one of the young people whose stories are included in the play decided he wanted to study political science at university as a direct result of it. The impact of the young carers speaking their truth in that show is still rippling.

    Change is a long game, and you don’t always get credited for that change when it happens.

    verity: You’ve performed Who Cares and Woodhill at the Houses of Parliament. Have you seen any impact from this?

    Matt: Barbara Keeley MP invited us for Who Cares, and Lord Toby Harris invited us for Woodhill.

    In terms of Who Cares it was a mistake that we did not go with an ask, and so we’re not sure about the political impact in terms of policy. The profound thing—and we saw this with Who Cares—is that when change happens it is far more subtle than a change in policy. For policy you need consultants and the right people in the room and change makers and parliamentarians to go on that journey with you as well. Sometimes you need to force their hand.

    But with Woodhill, we are actually meeting the prisons minister with the families, and we have our list of demands. We have a clear timeframe of what we want to achieve in terms of our aims and ambitions. We are getting smarter as we get older. Change is a long game, and you don’t always get credited for that change when it happens.



    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Black Patience: Performance, Civil Rights, and the Unfinished Project of Emancipation

    Black Patience: Performance, Civil Rights, and the Unfinished Project of Emancipation

    [ad_1]

    Dr. Julius Fleming visits the Segal Center to discuss his recent book, Black Patience: Performance, Civil Rights, and the Unfinished Project of Emancipation, which argues that, during the Civil Rights Movement, Black artists and activists used theater to energize this radical refusal to wait. Participating in a vibrant culture of embodied political performance that ranged from marches and sit-ins to jail-ins and speeches, these artists turned to theater to unsettle a violent racial project that Fleming refers to as “Black patience.” This talk will be followed by a conversation with Hillary Miller.

    To purchase the book, click here.

    Biographies:

    Julius Fleming, Jr. is an Associate Professor of English at the University of Maryland, College Park, where he also serves as Director of the English Honors Program. Specializing in Afro-Diasporic literatures and cultures, he has interests in performance studies, black political culture, diaspora, and colonialism, especially where they intersect with race, gender, and sexuality. Fleming is the author of Black Patience: Performance, Civil Rights, and the Unfinished Project of Emancipation (NYU Press, 2022), which won the Hooks National Book Award, received Honorable Mentions for both the John W. Frick and the Association for the Study of the Arts of the Present Book Prizes, and is a Finalist for the George Freedley Memorial Award and the Barnard Hewitt Award.

    Hillary Miller teaches twentieth- and twenty-first-century dramatic literature and performance in the English Department at Queens College, City University of New York and is an affiliate faculty member in the Theatre and Performance doctoral program at the Graduate Center (CUNY). She has published essays and reviews on numerous topics related to theater post-World War II in the United States, including performance and urban space; racial, ethnic, and geographic inequalities in the arts; activist theater traditions; and the politics of producing. She is the author of Drop Dead: Performance in Crisis, 1970s New York (Northwestern University Press, 2016) and Playwrights on Television: Conversations with Dramatists (Routledge, 2020).



    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Recasting, Restorying, and Restructuring Shakespeare for Liberation

    Recasting, Restorying, and Restructuring Shakespeare for Liberation

    [ad_1]

    Recasting refers to giving a metal object new life by melting it down and reforming it. By taking Shakespeare out of the classroom and putting the experience of Shakespeare into the hands of those working with the text with a focus on embodiment, we give a new form to the old work.

    Restorying is positioning the stories in relation to ourselves and taking liberty with our own interpretations of characters, plotlines, and subtexts to make the story meaningful to a modern community.

    Restructuring the current power inherent in Shakespeare’s works allows us space to practice envisioning the world in which we wish to live. Not only do Shakespeare’s themes and stories uphold structural power, but Shakespeare is often used as a tool of western, imperial, white supremacy. For instance, Shakespeare’s first role in the classroom was as public speaking practice in rhetoric and elocution, which we know has been used to maintain control over Black children’s speech patterns. However, by restructuring the norm of putting Shakespeare on a pedestal, we can begin to dismantle larger systems of power.

    My project built upon many traditions of reimagined Shakespeare, and applied theories across educational disciplines to a performance project with the goal of deepened self-awareness and sense of self-in-community. I specifically focused on the role of embodied exercises not as a tool for understanding the text, but for understanding the self and community. Through the lens of Brazilian Marxist educator Paolo Freire’s “liberating education,” I argue that grappling with historical power structures deepens understanding of modern power structures and personal-political identities. And so, the touchstone guiding my work is a quote from Freire. In the seminal Pedagogy of the Oppressed, he posits “there’s no such thing as neutral education. Education either functions as an instrument to bring about conformity or freedom.” Or, to paraphrase Hamlet, “There is nothing either good or bad, but [teaching] makes it so.”

    The Process

    Macbeth has been at the forefront of my mind for a few years; I was particularly interested in Macbeth as a “rehearsal for the revolution,” watching an attempt at government-overthrow go wrong and watching characters fight back against fascism. In Macbeth, the characters are royalty—princes and lords. How did the proletariat fight back?

    The rehearsal process was divided into three parts: exploration of themes/community identity, creation and workshop of material, and compiling material and polishing the show. While a lot of the curriculum I drew upon stemmed from positive experiences interviewees had with Shakespeare education, I held their negative experiences in my mind too. Many of the participants in the project had studied theatre at the high school or college level, some even working as theatre professionals for a period of time. Many of them had experienced marginalization from their Shakespeare education and/or the professional theatre industry in some way. The most important outcomes of my project were for participants to have a joyful time being in community, and to feel like they had something unique and important to add to the Shakespearean tradition. To do this, I set an expectation from the first rehearsal that this was not an adaptation of a Shakespeare play, but a response to it. I was clear with participants that I was interested in their thoughts and experiences more than the original text. When a participant expressed dissatisfaction with something that happens in the original play, I reiterated that disagreeing with the text was celebrated. I also didn’t participate in reflective writing or scene creation, but drew others’ writings together as a facilitator and organizer. I didn’t want to guide the conversation more than I already was as the leader of the project. These principles allowed us to position ourselves as experts in relation to the text—not because of any official Shakespeare training, but because of everyone’s own experiences. We were co-constructing an understanding of the play anchored in the community identity that had formed. As radical doula adrienne maree brown says in Emergent Strategy, “There is a conversation in the room that only these people at this moment can have. Find it.” The story told in the devised piece was a reflection of individual and group identity, which rejects conformity in Shakespeare education.

    Before rehearsals even begun, we had recast the play into something uniquely ours.

    Recasting

    The first phase began in February 2023 with monthly “text parties.” Participants came to my house and I cooked a meal for everyone. We sat in the living room and played with, manipulated, rearranged, discussed, and rejected monologues and quotes from Macbeth. In an exercise I learned from JD Stokely—a self-described “trickster-in-training” and theatre studies scholar—called “aggravating the text,” we manipulated original Shakespeare text into found poems. This was an informal gathering with friends and strangers, some of whom continued with the process and signed up to participate in the show, others who didn’t. The poems written at the text parties were used in the final show and as source materials for dialogue. Shakespeare was played with and changed to tell the story the participants felt was most important. Before rehearsals even begun, we had recast the play into something uniquely ours. Positioning the play as a jumping off point rather than a final product changed the goal from understanding Shakespeare to understanding the self and community, which is the goal of liberatory education.



    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Gore and Myth in Theatre Mitu’s (holy) BLOOD

    Gore and Myth in Theatre Mitu’s (holy) BLOOD

    [ad_1]

    Rubén Polendo: I believe, as human beings, we’re designed to pursue impossible questions. We pursue love. Nobody reaches a given Thursday and says, “I found love, I’m done, cool. Friday, I’ll find happiness.” The idea is, those goals change, you change, the landscape around you changes. It is this impossible goal that then sets you on a journey.

    Tjaša Ferme: Welcome to Theatre Tech Talks: AI, Science, and Bio Media in Theatre, a podcast produced by HowlRound Theatre Commons, a free and open platform for theatremakers worldwide.

    Today’s guest is Rubén Polendo, who is the founding artistic director of Theater Mitu. He and his company work towards expanding the definition of theatre through rigorous experimentation with its form. His practice investigates transglobal performance, interdisciplinary collaborative models, the performativity of non-violence, the geopolitics of objects, contemporary mythology, investigations of the ritual and the sacred.

    Oh my God, Ruben, it’s such a pleasure to have you here. This sounds so beautiful, and so appealing, and I feel like why I do theatre, too. I’m also interested in all these things.

    Rubén: Fantastic. I’m excited to be here too, for exactly that reason. Your work is so exciting, and there’s such a beautiful overlap that it’s always inspiring to be in a room with an artist, so thanks.

    Tjaša: Thank you. This podcast is all about creating new technologies, inventing new stuff, and using these technologies in theatre, so really, the intersection of what new tech is offering, and what we can take for ourselves, and for the human interaction within the bounds of theatre. I’m just curious, where does your drive and impetus to do this come from?

    Rubén: That’s such a great framing for the use of technology in art, and in theatre performance. For me, it’s a very simple route. My training of many moons ago doesn’t come out of art, or theatre, or performance. It comes out of science. I have an undergrad and a grad degree in biochemistry, and my entire framework has to do with the interjection of innovation, of looking at systems, and of the role of technology in that. When Theater Mitu was started almost twenty-five years ago, it really was started from that point. It was started legitimately as a biochemistry laboratory. It just happened to be that our medium was not biological and chemical systems, it was image making, and storytelling, and arts practice. The framework, from the beginning, was really a deep engagement with technology, less as an aesthetic principle and more truly as a tool, as a tool of investigation, as a tool of interrogation.

    By definition, I think when one interrogates really diligently with those tools, they in time become part and parcel of the work. In biochemistry, there’s a way that certain results can’t be shown without the technology at play. Similarly, the technology started entering the performativity, and the aesthetic palette, but it was always a little disorienting. Whether it’s critically, or review wise, folks will speak of technology as a design element, which is not at all how we approach it, for us, it’s actually, again, a tool, and then it itself either bakes itself into the work or not. For me, it really starts from the point of science.

    Tjaša: I love that you said that. I love that you brought in the critics, because I have a critique of our theatre critics whose approach seem to be that they’re critiquing the design, or the show aspect of it. I think that I can say for your work, and for our work, certainly we’re interested in not only how the sausage is made, but can we make a new sausage, and what is the process? Can we be inventive, and collaborative in this way? If I wanted to create gimmicks and tricks, it’d be much cheaper, and easier, and less time-consuming to do them. If any theatre critics are listening to this, we would like you to step up and get educated in how to properly look into works like that. What has been your personal experience in this realm, of receiving criticism?

    Rubén: I think there’s two things. One, as a company who really is structured… the entirety of organization is structured as a laboratory. I like extending the “How the sausage is made” metaphor to making new sausage, or new ways of making sausage, because I think our work is best read as a whole. In other words, we are, of course, interested in engaging an audience in a meaningful way, and impacting an audience, but our hope is that one work seeds the next one seeds the next one. Looking at it in that whole framework becomes, in some ways more compelling, some ways more interesting, which is why I think we as a company set our own space up at Mitu580, which is the warehouse that we inhabit in Brooklyn, because we want to be in conversation with a community. We don’t want to have a transactional space where you come and see our showmanship, and then you leave.

    We actually want to be in a relational space. The most meaningful critical space has been that critical space, which, as somebody who’s been in relationship with our work, who’s seeing that what we’re attempting is actually interjecting perhaps differently, or more meaningfully in the next piece, and then radically different in the next one, so that there’s a continuum of the conversation, versus an individual who comes just to see the showmanship quality. Again, there’s no interest in creating work that isn’t impactful and effective, but we are in a constant state of discovering. That’s another reason that our technology is part and parcel of how we work as a company. We are a permanent group of artists, because we have a whole training methodology which is both in how we make work, how we engage leadership, and how we train in technology so that our collaborators in the company are as much generative creatures as they are technologists, as they are arts practice aesthetic-leaning individuals.

    Tjaša: This is amazing. I am interested if you could speak a little bit, if you can share this with us, about your methodology? I’m sure that came out of a need for somewhat of setting of ritual, really, of how humans work together.

    Rubén: Yeah, that’s right. I think there’s three parts to our training. One is what I’ll term our research as a company. How do we train as artists, researchers? It’s not just research in preparation for our work, but it’s research in how we build our company, how we make our systems, how we further grow our training. That can look like conversations with fellow artists, that can look like conversations and engagements with folks in other fields about their own systems of creation, how they hold space, how they generate collaboration. That also includes global conversations. We get so myopic in our own landscape, and so to me, it’s interesting to see a whole range of other artists interrogate similar things. There’s that aspect of it.

    Then there’s a physical training that we do as a company, of how we come together in physical space and work. When we first started really delving deeply into technology, there was this inheritance of, “I’m not going to touch it, because it’s not what I do,” or “I don’t have enough training to engage in that system, or that coding, or that programming, or that hardware.”

    For us, the idea is to remove that, and to know that what I can bring is my expertise as a theatremaker, as a director, as a designer, and in fact, begin to misuse it. In that misuse comes a new use. One of my favorite things is when folks come and see some of the technology that we’re using, and they go, “Wait, you’re doing what with it? That’s not what it was designed for.” I love that. Of course, it wasn’t designed for it. We’re artists. There’s a whole premise of misbehaving, and misusing it. There’s a bunch of technology that, of course, we use at its best, but I love that, again, transdisciplinarity of bringing your discipline into a discipline outside of your comfort zone, or of your expertise, and knowing that something new is born. Technology is so ready to be misused in that way.

    Tjaša: I love this. This actually reminds me of Naveen Jain, who is an entrepreneur, and he always delves into something he doesn’t know anything about, and then develops, launches new companies and new products, but from the beginner’s perspective. He says that basically, if you keep working around the problem that has been established thirty years ago, and finding ways around it, there is no creativity. If you approach it as a beginner, and ask the stupid questions, you actually have an opportunity of getting to a new place.

    Rubén: That’s right, and acknowledging that, in fact, you do have expertise from another area that you can bring into it. I’ll go to fine art for an easier metaphor, but the idea is, a filmmaker can bring all of their filmmaking skills, and actually make a painting. That painting will not at all look like the work that someone with a pedigree and training in painting does, but it is still something, and there is a possibility that that filmmaker, in interjecting those disciplines, might engage with a whole historied field in a new way. You may look at that and say, “That painting is really cinematic.” I’m being reductive, but I think the idea is, in crossing those spaces is interesting.

    Something worth noting is, I’m Mexican. I grew up in Northern Mexico. My entire life I grew up in this borderland state, in the north of Mexico, the U.S. is very present, this crossing back and forth. I realized that, even though a long time ago I certainly acknowledged that’s part of my identity as a borderlander, I realized that’s actually also part of my identity as an artist, which is the idea of actually crossing borders. The minute that you tell me as an artist, “Oh no, you can’t do this because you don’t have the training,” I immediately want to build a bridge and cross it. If you tell me, “Ruben, you didn’t go to a dance school, so you can’t choreograph,” I would bring all of my expertise, and choreograph with that. When you tell me, “That technology is a little past your training,” I feel like, “Give it to me.” I actually want to build that bridge. This borderlander stance really becomes a way of approaching not only my own identity, and not only collaboration, not only art making, but also the engagement with technology.

    Tjaša: It feels like the extreme point of view and commitment that you bring to trying something is exactly what makes it good, regardless of your pedigree, and of the institutional building blocks of what we consider education, and the correct approaches to start something.

    Rubén: That’s right, and again, there are an incredible number of folks in the company who are so wonderfully trained in a whole host of technology. It certainly begins with sharing knowledge, not negating it, for sure. If someone sitting next to me can show me how to use this, then great. I’m not going to negate that knowledge, and say, “No, let me misuse it.” Again, I think it’s about not inventing limits, particularly in a creative stance. If we were talking about the use of technology in medicine, then don’t give it to me, give it to someone who has a training. The use of technology in art, to me, it’s about discovering. I think really, it’s about looking at it as a tool, it really is, and it goes back to my own training as a biochemist. Really, that’s the work of the company, but that extends to theatre as well.

    To us, theatre is a tool. I don’t have a romance with theatre. In other words, I don’t necessarily feel like I love the smell of the theatre seats, and the curtain, and the stage. To me, it’s a tool. It’s a tool that invites that transdisciplinary. It’s a tool that invites the collaboration that creates innovation. It all feels really rich in its possibility when you interject the tool of theatre, the tool of technology, the tool of performance and so forth.

    Tjaša: I wonder if there was one core question that you had, that led you from biochemistry to theatre? I remember, when I self-reflect, for me, when I first started doing science theatre, that was for The Female Role Model Project, I really wanted to know how my consciousness works as an actor. How am I different when I’m playing Lady Macbeth versus when I’m playing Kate from Taming of the Shrew? How does the character inform my own brain, and what does that mean in terms of consciousness? Of course, my question was insane, and extraordinarily ambitious, and it turns out that nobody knows anything about consciousness, and there are all these different schools, but ultimately, still nobody knows for sure anything about consciousness. I can really say, this was my core question that led me to science theatre. What was the core question that led you from biochemistry to theatre?

    I believe as human beings, we’re designed to pursue impossible questions. We pursue love. Nobody reaches a given Thursday and says, “I found love, I’m done, cool. Friday, I’ll find happiness.”… It is this impossible goal that then sets you on a journey.

    Rubén: Yeah, it’s a great question, and thank you for sharing yours. I’m into your question, and actually, mine is related to it. For me, it comes from the idea of a whole moment in the engagement between an audience and art. What I mean by a whole moment is, that moment, and we’ve all experienced it, I think everyone’s experienced it at least once, if not many times, which is this moment where the artwork in whatever shape, form, space, you name it, it engages the intellectual part of who you are, it engages the emotional part of who you are. It engages your eyes, it engages your ears, but it also engages your spirit. When all of those things happen in the same moment, when the syncopation of viewing, in other words, I’ll speak of performance, which is, I’ve used something funny and then I laugh. There’s syncopation, a back and forth.

    When something happens, and all of those melt, it literally is a snap, and you feel it, you get the chills, there’s an eruptious laughter, there’s a gasp, it’s a moment that goes “swoosh,” something happens, and you feel it. When I say the spirit, I don’t mean in any religious or theological way, I truly mean something that transcends the limits of your own human body. You feel connected to the people there. For me, in my biochemistry language, the research question is, how can you create an artwork that is that moment from beginning to end? Is that even possible? Would the audience collapse, and say, “Get me out of here?” Would the artist be like, “I can’t do this anymore.” What would happen? Like you, for me, that question became an impossible question, and I like that, because it aligns with a deep belief of mine that, I believe as human beings, we’re designed to pursue impossible questions.

    We pursue love. Nobody reaches a given Thursday and says, “I found love, I’m done, cool. Friday, I’ll find happiness.” The idea is, those goals change, you change, the landscape around you changes. It is this impossible goal that then sets you on a journey. This idea of this whole moment really becomes the drive of the company. It really is the foundation of the company. One of the first things that I introduced was that, in order to do that, we couldn’t function as a contractor company that hired people per project. There was a need for this biochemistry model, which is that you are working with the same individuals. You can bring in different experts, and different collaboratives, but there’s a core group that is obsessing about this research question. How do you prepare for that whole moment? How do you train? What do you generate? How do you engage audiences? That continues to be the drive of the company, and at this moment, technology has played a huge role.

    I jokingly often tell my students, check back with me in twenty years. We might be obsessed with dirt, and rocks, and technology has gone out the window. For me, it’s again, not a romance around technology. At the moment, it’s a tool to investigate that question. I’ll join you in the impossibility of your question, because it sets the journey. It has set us on this journey.

    Tjaša: Absolutely, totally agree. On the sidelines, you mentioned your core company, and just a little bit from a producorial perspective, I’m curious, how do you nourish a core group of actors and collaborators through, usually your works take about two years of prep and investigation until they’re ready for a performance. In American theatre, we mostly know the model of either repertory theatres, huge theatres, or actors that are, for the most part, compensated around the time of performances. How do you navigate this, and how do you nourish your actors?

    Rubén: Thank you for that question. I’m always very proud of that aspect of our organization. I think for us, there’s a framework as artists engage in the company, and ultimately, become company members. One of the first is that every artist in Theater Mitu really identifies as a hyphenate. There’s already an inherent interdisciplinary in them, and then a transdisciplinary interest.

    The other is, people will ask me, what’s the difference between someone who’s in the company and someone who you work with that’s not in the company? Which sounds a little, you’re in or you’re out, which is not the intent. To me, the difference is a very straightforward one, which is, the individuals who are part of the company have decided that making and building the company is part of their arts practice. That opens up a whole other system of support, because what that means is, as an organization, Theater Mitu not only creates this new works, but we actually have five other programs that we run that are education programs, they’re development programs, they’re interdisciplinary collaborative programs, they’re technology support programs. It is the company that runs that organization. All of a sudden, your livelihood isn’t simply coming from the making of a show.

    I’ll give an example. A dear company member, Monica Sanborn, is of course a key collaborator in this work, but she’s also the producer of our hybrid arts lab work, and also functions as one of the support systems for our artists at home. All of a sudden, it begins to create the tapestry that, as artists, a creative livelihood, but it becomes an in-house. By definition, there are company members… this is not monastic, so company members are also working on other projects, but that framework allows for a flexibility that allows company members to engage in other projects but still have a home that can, over the year, be their support structure.

    I’m very proud of the fact that it creates a really meaningful support structure, and you have a home to depend on. We also have full-time company members who are full-time staff, and that’s another structure. For the company, from very early on, when we started, I made a commitment to paying the company a living wage in any engagement, even if it meant we developed the work more slowly, which is really what happened. That became a boon, because then we could percolate on the work. Livelihood is really just time. It just gives people time and focus. That’s a little bit of the patchwork, and it’s an ongoing practice for me and for the rest of us. How do we make it more robust? Moving into our space added a whole host of other beautiful needs that are answered by staffing for the company members, and so forth.

    Tjaša: Brilliant structure. I’m also super proud of you. That’s beautiful, and that’s rare.

    Rubén: Thanks.

    Tjaša: I’m curious about Utopian Hotline. You performed it at BAM, in partnership with SETI Institute, Arizona State University’s interplanetary initiative, and Brooklyn Independent Middle School. I love all of your partners. Can you speak a little bit about how you got these partners, and how they were actually involved in creating this project?

    Rubén: Really, our work is born from a very pure instinct, or from very pure instincts. As we were all, as a world, navigating the pandemic, we started a practice as a company of coming together every Friday as a company on Zoom, just to check in with each other. Really, just to be like, “Are you washing your apples? What’s happening?” It was that moment. As things began to calm down, and either we began to normalize or the situation normalized, we started talking just about art, and about how we were feeling. One of our great concerns was hope, and the loneliness that was being created by this fractured moment. Was there an absence of hope? A company member, Dennis, had this really almost embarrassingly naive instinct to set up this hotline inspired by these 1980s hotlines, that told you, “Call this number, and tell us what you think about this radio station.”

    He was with family in Portland, and he went around Portland on his bicycle in the dead of winter, and put up these signs that said, “How do you imagine a more perfect future? Please call this number.” It didn’t say art, it didn’t say Theater Mitu, it didn’t say anything. In fact, the poster was very eighties, seventies looking, put it all over the place. We were sure nobody would call, and then, people called. Tons and tons and tons of people called, and the Friday meetings with Mitu became us listening to these voicemails. The voicemails were beautiful, hilarious. People cried on it, people prayed for us. People sang to us, people told us jokes. People put their kids on the phone. It was literally humanity saying, “There is hope.” Even thinking about it makes me very emotional.

    We felt like we were holding this really beautiful archive, this snapshot, not of the future, but of the futures, and felt like, how do we hold an art space that can share these with audiences? That really began Utopian Hotline, which is really a theatrical installation that invites you to almost sit inside this archive. Those texts are musicalized, spoken, technologized, visualized, and even the way you do it is, you’re on headphones. It’s this installation with four performers. You’re on these comfy white cushions on a pink carpet. One of my favorite things is, people don’t like leaving when it’s over. It’s about an hour long, and people just stay, because the voice messages keep going in your head. Everybody feels really taken care of in a continuing moment, where I think that’s important.

    When we started dreaming up the project early on, we do this with all Mitu projects, the question is, what are the windows that we’re opening that are letting in new ideas, and new imaginations? Who are our partners? I think for us, we are the group of artists who are bringing the art question. Who’s bringing the other questions? Who’s bringing the science question, the community question? We truly dream up partners, and it’s the silliest game, I’ll call it, which is, if we could work with anyone on this, who would it be? Then we reach out, we just reach out. Trust me, we reach out to one hundred people, and out of that we get responses. Some become, “Not now.” Some become, “How interesting, let’s stay in conversation. Some become, “We were just talking about that.”

    We developed this really beautiful conversation with Seti, which is the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, which is born out of NASA and MIT, and has a really incredible collection of astrophysicists, of astronauts, of scientists, of physicists who come together, not really to look for aliens per se, but they’re looking at sound waves, and what’s bouncing through the universe. They were big in the conversation of the golden record that was sent with humanity’s message. That started that conversation. We also felt we wanted to speak to what I think are the greatest keepers of hope, which are children. We partnered with Brooklyn Independent, which is a charter school here in Brooklyn. If you want to hear an astounding and visionary look at the future, ask a ten-year-old. Truly, we spoke to astronauts and astrophysicists who gave us these incredible answers, and then a sixth grader told us the same thing in clearer terms.

    Tjaša: I love that, and I am not surprised. There’s just this new research that’s coming out that basically, 98 percent of everybody born are geniuses, and that eventually, the school system just suffocates the genius out of you by the time you are ten. Thank God you spoke to ten-year-olds. If you spoke to an eleven, you might’ve been too late.

    Rubén: Yes, it’s true. We have this beautiful recording of a younger student, she must be maybe seven, and she tells us, very in a sassy way, she doesn’t understand the confusion about the future. She says the future is right now. Every moment is the future, and she’s really adamant about it. When we speak to an astrophysicist who’s talking about our perception of time, and the idea that the future is an illusion, and in fact, this moment is the future, we live in the future, they’re saying the same thing, which is, pay attention. Be hopeful now, not just be hopeful that you’ll be hopeful. It was this beautiful call to action, and our partners have been really wonderful.

    I’ll tell you, as a little footnote, through a collaboration with SETI, we are part of something called lunar codex. The lunar codex is a really exciting project that, with one of the small shuttles that are going to be the moon, it will have an archive of contemporary artwork. We are sending Utopian Hotline to the moon.

    Tjaša: Beautiful.

    Rubén: The idea is that, when that detaches from the moon, it’ll travel through space, and it’s intended to be received either by other sentient beings or by us hundreds and hundreds of years from now. To me, to send out the question about the future, and about hope into the future has been a really moving thing. Look up the lunar codex. It’s beautiful, and it’s a gorgeous project.

    Tjaša: I will. Wow. This project that we are going to talk about now is not really out yet. It’s still in the making, it’s still in its growing stages. It’s funny how I got to it. I was a juror on Belle Getty’s grant, and when I saw the proposal for (Holy) Blood, I just fell in love with it. Basically, (Holy) Blood explores inherited cultural trauma through the history of a young boy who grows up to be a murderer. What causes people to commit violent acts? How do we escape from the traumas of our past? Holy Blood draws freely from Alejandro Jodorowsky’s film, I love Jodorowsky, Santa Sangre, and director Ruben Palendo’s childhood experiences attending Pentecostal revival churches in Juarez, Mexico. So amazing. Tell me more. What have been your childhood experiences in Juarez, Mexico?

    Rubén: All the projects are, of course, very personal projects, but this is a particularly personal project for me. As I mentioned, I grew up in Mexico. I grew up going to Pentecostal churches my whole life, and these are really interesting spaces because they’re, of course, religious spaces. They’re, of course, very set in a fundamental read of the Christian Bible, but they’re also community spaces. Though it is a faith and a belief system, with a lot of respect to my parents, that I have walked away from, there is still this bittersweetness to the memory of that community, and how a child sees that memory. From very early on, I think I was in high school maybe, I saw Jodorowsky’s film, Santa Sangre, and was floored. Was floored because it is dealing with a child’s lens, in the case of the movie, through seeing his mother engaged in this deeply consuming faith, and his love for his mother makes him love that faith.

    It’s also about, between his mother and his father, this community that’s created around. When those spaces become injurious, I think the adult version is, you just move away from those communities. As we all know, through the lens of a child, it’s a very different framework, because that’s the only community you have. There’s both this knowing repelling to that damage, but also this magnetization, because there’s love, and there’s community. Jodorowsky does this brilliant thing where in the narrative, the child’s able to attempt to hold both of those realities, which of course, become too much. Jodorowsky then finds us into a second chapter of the film, where the young boy has grown up, and we come to learn that he has committed and continues to commit these horrible actions.

    Jodorowsky does something interesting, which is, I think to not make it such a direct psychological drama, he really hyper-theatricalizes both those horrific acts as well as the memory space. It enters the realm of mythology. You’re no longer having a reaction for this poor kid, and the horrible things. You begin to almost see yourself in the nuances of it, not necessarily in the actions of it. The film was really effective, and resonating. Over many years I’ve been bringing it to the company, to see how we interject with it.

    The last thing I’ll say is that Jodorowsky, very much aligning with his own beliefs, the film really explores, by the end of it, how do we heal from that? Is there healing? In that moment, you realize that little boy, and that man is actually a proxy for society. Can something break so much that you let go of the belief that it can heal, or do you take a stance where you hold on to the belief that it can heal, even while the thing is still cracking, even while the thing is still injurious? That started resonating to us in this moment. It isn’t just hope about the future, but it’s hope that healing is actually part and practice of the future, even again, as more and more things are fracturing our world, our society, our environment.

    It really spoke, and so we started delving into, how do we theatricalize that and how do we take Jodorowsky’s material and begin to engage with it? Again, technology becomes part and parcel of that. We started engaging with sensors and reactivities, because the film, the characters and narrative are so reactive from one to the other that we were trying to mimic that, and to create proxies for some of the characters by way of what we term puppets, but are actually these technological inventions of screens and boxes, and so forth. If you hear me being a little clumsier about it than Utopian Hotline, it’s because we are literally making it. I just feel like, check back with me in six months, because I might be saying, “Never mind, it is now a dance with microphones.” For now, I think the exploration continues to reveal something about that healing space.

    Tjaša: No, I get it. By being immersed in it, you see the multiplicity of it. You see this kaleidoscopic image of all these perspectives that coexist, and even the paradoxes coming at each other, but paradoxes always need to coexist.

    Rubén: Yeah, that’s right. For folks who may not know the film, as I mentioned, the film follows a little boy. His father owns a circus, runs a circus. His mother is part of a Christian cult that venerates a saint who’s lost her arms. Already, we start with that. Through a series of really violent interactions between his mother and his father, the father kills the mother, and trigger warning for folks, as it gets a little gory, in so doing, he replicates what’s happened to the mother saint, and removes her arms. This is a very violent moment. That’s the core trauma. What happens is, when we meet the young character as an adult, he’s been institutionalized. When we meet him, it’s because there’s a call to his window, and it is his now armless mother who helps him escape. In so doing, he must become her arms.

    For the rest of the movie, again, for folks who haven’t seen it, he is actually behind her being her arms. It’s actually the mother who kills people, and particularly, he kills any woman that the male character is attracted to. Whenever he tries to be romantic, the mother appears, takes over his arms, and proceeds to kill that woman. She’s not going to let anyone hurt her little boy. Number one, the theatricality of those scenes is incredible, because the arms really belong to the mother, so much so that you believe it. He is literally saying, “Don’t make me do this.” What happens, and this is a spoiler alert, and I’m so sorry, by the time we reach the end of the film, this male character discovers love, real love, and he can’t bring himself to harm that. He actually would come to realize that in fact, the mother died when she lost her arms, and the rest has been a figment of his own trauma, and his imagination, and he’s been haunted to do that.

    You realize that what Jodorowsky has done has created this really intense metaphor, and I’m not suggesting that all of us are haunted in this way, of the way that childhood trauma haunts us, and the way that we actually invent a narrative where that is what’s controlling us. Jodorowsky’s invitation is, these are your arms, not the arms of that child, but these are your arms. Yes, the process of healing, and yes, the process of reclaiming them is difficult. The film ends with that revelation, and so much so, again, the spoiler alert is, he’s captured by the police and so forth. In this very simple moment, the police say, “Put your hands up,” and the character looks at his hands and says, “They’re my hands.” It’s the first time he realizes, and he both takes responsibility for the horrors, but also frees himself.

    Again, Jodorowsky does this magical thing where somehow, it does not become ripped from the headline news. It becomes mythology, it becomes this ancient text of some sorts, or it reads like a myth. For me, I think the entire alchemy of that story, and how do we not pornographize the violence, but actually continue to mythologize it, otherwise, we get too much blood on us. It actually wants to be this metaphor, and Jodorowsky does a really elegant job, which is why we’re not necessarily leaving the film in the dust, but using parts of it, and engaging it. That’s really the core experiment of it.

    Tjaša: You’re also using puppets in it, that have these sensors and cameras embedded in them, which will be then projected, basically, as their point of view. All of a sudden, these puppets are humanized, and have a point of view. Can you tell us a little bit about, what’s the relationship between these robots, these puppets versus humans? Who are the characters?

    Rubén: Yeah, I’m glad to hear you call them puppets, robots, because we ourselves don’t know what to call them. In our last workshop, which we call a laboratory, one of them has grown to be what would best be described as this huge box that is twelve feet wide by five feet… sorry, twelve feet tall by five feet wide. Has sensors inside it, and it bleeds on you fake blood. It’s a whole theatrical thing, and it has a front that’s just… we looked at it, and we were like, “That puppet has grown. I don’t know what it is anymore.” I think it’s exactly what you just said, it’s about affording different points of view.

    I think the thing that theatre can do so successfully is invite a range of points of access. In the most traditional sense, if I am staging a scene from Hamlet on stage, the invitation is really to the entirety of the stage. I cannot control what your access point is. You may be looking at Ophelia, the person next to you at Hamlet, the person next to you at the light. To me, that’s a really democratic engagement with the artwork, because everybody has the different entry points. Someone can be focusing on the music.

    Our hope is to engage, with (Holy) Blood, with the original film, and create these multiple access points, and to create these range of points of view, so that the music is a point of view. The screens are point of view. The puppets, and I use the term quite capaciously, the puppets are a different point of view. The cameras are a different point of view, so that one begins to have some complete empathy that the situation is not a forward-facing situation, that injury is not a one point of view situation, that harm is not a one point of view situation.

    Again, none of it is really didactic in terms of proposing life, so therefore, feel bad for it, or understand it. It really is, just see it in its fullness, and perhaps that begins to decode it. Point of view is the gorgeous touchstone, and access for the audience.

    Tjaša: Beautiful. You also have gyroscopes in these puppets, robots. What’s really the story of proximity and distance here?

    Rubén: Distance is a really important thing. It’s funny how we use that in our poetics in the world. Somebody is emotionally disconnected, and we’ll say, “Hey, you’re very distant right now.” We’re really obsessed with the relationship between both bodies in space, and object and body, and so forth. How can we as an audience experience that? Therefore, we as artists dilate it. On its most simple level, the idea is, here’s an object. The closer you get, if we attach a sensor that has a sound, it’ll go louder, louder, louder, louder, a little less loud. That sensitivity with sensors can exist in a 360, so we can begin to locate the object, the puppet or the box. Therefore, actually manifesting the emotional, I can curate that sound to let you know that object does not like it when you get close to them, but that doesn’t have to be a sound. That sound could be fake blood, it could be water, it could be something reactive, but the intensity of it can be in relationship to proximity. How do you begin to create emotional and character sketches with that idea? Stay tuned.

    Tjaša: Yeah, I love it, because all of a sudden, it’s so complex. All of a sudden, you have 360 points.

    Rubén: That’s right.

    Tjaša: Which can be completely different. You approach me from my back, and actually, I pee on you. You approach me from my left, and I want to kiss you.

    Rubén: That’s exactly right. To me, it’s actually about… really, by image I mean both sound and image, but it’s about creating images that invite the audience to be a storyteller, to be like, “Ah, therefore.” This is a stance that I love when our work does to our audiences. It isn’t a passive engagement, where you’re simply receiving a story from us, but it’s actually quite an active one, where you’re receiving images that are inviting you to actually bring those fractures together. This idea of multiple experiences is really exciting. Yeah, the gyroscope does that 360, and again, I have a big smile on my face, I think you can attest to this, which is, it’s just so tasty to begin to get an emotional impact from these technological tools.

    We’ll be exploring, exploring, and then all of a sudden I look at the rest of the company and we’re crying, because somebody chose a sound, and the shape of the puppet, and the proximity, and you’re like, “I am so moved by that.” Then it’s up to us to then contextualize that, and give it a lift, so that it becomes a really gorgeous image to hold.

    Tjaša: Beautiful. Are all characters puppets, or do you also have some human actors on stage?

    Rubén: Yeah, so this is how Mitu talks about new projects: These are the things that we know.

    Tjaša: Okay.

    Rubén: There are these reactive structures, we’ll call them puppets for now. Stay tuned, they may be twelve feet tall and four feet wide, or they may be the size of my hand. There are performers on stage. We have re-scored the entire musical soundscape so that it aligns with that reactivity, so that it’s baked in there. There is some language that we have interjected that will be sung. There is this fairly immersive fracture of multiple screens, so that we’ve fractured parts of the film into this three-dimensionality. At the moment, there is some manifestation of other characters as disembodied voices, that are voiced and manipulated by the performers. These are the things that we know. There’s a lot of fake blood, I’m excited to say.

    Tjaša: Is it minty?

    Rubén: It’s minty, it’s fresh. There is an extraordinary amount of fake blood.

    Tjaša: Wow.

    Rubén: The space is covered in plastic from top to bottom. It is very intentionally very fake blood, because we want to stay in this myth space. It has a lot of tongue in cheek to it, but I think still makes an impact. Therefore, that’s why I mentioned that some of those puppets react by way of that blood. Again, it doesn’t mean that they bleed, it means that it may bleed at you as another performer engages, or if they are inside the puppet. We’ll see.

    Tjaša: The puppet could bleed on the operator. She’s like, “You are not the boss of me.”

    Rubén: Well, that’s what just happened in the last laboratory, the large box that you can go inside of them. It just bled on the person inside as an allergic reaction to that which controls the—

    Tjaša: Wow, autoimmune disease system.

    Rubén: Kind of a social set of autoimmune, which is interesting.

    Tjaša: I’m so excited. I can’t wait to see it. Oh my God.

    Rubén: It will premiere at the end of April and May of next year, of 2024, at Mitu580. I’ll send the link, and please join us for a really bloody adventure with Theater Mitu’s (Holy) Blood.

    Tjaša: Perfect, fantastic. Thank you so much, Ruben. This was so beautiful, and I’m just so excited about your work.

    Rubén: Oh my God, thank you for having me. Really inspiring to talk to you.

    Tjaša: Likewise.

    This podcast is produced as a contribution to HowlRound Theatre Commons. You can find more episodes of this show, and other HowlRound shows wherever you find podcasts. If you love this podcast, I sure hope you did, post a rating and write a review on those platforms. This helps other people find us. If you’re looking for more progressive and disruptive content, visit howlround.com.



    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Gore and Myth in Santa Sangre Where Puppet-Robots Bleed

    Gore and Myth in Santa Sangre Where Puppet-Robots Bleed

    [ad_1]

    Rubén Polendo: I believe, as human beings, we’re designed to pursue impossible questions. We pursue love. Nobody reaches a given Thursday and says, “I found love, I’m done, cool. Friday, I’ll find happiness.” The idea is, those goals change, you change, the landscape around you changes. It is this impossible goal that then sets you on a journey.

    Tjaša Ferme: Welcome to Theatre Tech Talks: AI, Science, and Bio Media in Theatre, a podcast produced by HowlRound Theatre Commons, a free and open platform for theatremakers worldwide.

    Today’s guest is Rubén Polendo, who is the founding artistic director of Theater Mitu. He and his company work towards expanding the definition of theatre through rigorous experimentation with its form. His practice investigates transglobal performance, interdisciplinary collaborative models, the performativity of non-violence, the geopolitics of objects, contemporary mythology, investigations of the ritual and the sacred.

    Oh my God, Ruben, it’s such a pleasure to have you here. This sounds so beautiful, and so appealing, and I feel like why I do theatre, too. I’m also interested in all these things.

    Rubén: Fantastic. I’m excited to be here too, for exactly that reason. Your work is so exciting, and there’s such a beautiful overlap that it’s always inspiring to be in a room with an artist, so thanks.

    Tjaša: Thank you. This podcast is all about creating new technologies, inventing new stuff, and using these technologies in theatre, so really, the intersection of what new tech is offering, and what we can take for ourselves, and for the human interaction within the bounds of theatre. I’m just curious, where does your drive and impetus to do this come from?

    Rubén: That’s such a great framing for the use of technology in art, and in theatre performance. For me, it’s a very simple route. My training of many moons ago doesn’t come out of art, or theatre, or performance. It comes out of science. I have an undergrad and a grad degree in biochemistry, and my entire framework has to do with the interjection of innovation, of looking at systems, and of the role of technology in that. When Theater Mitu was started almost twenty-five years ago, it really was started from that point. It was started legitimately as a biochemistry laboratory. It just happened to be that our medium was not biological and chemical systems, it was image making, and storytelling, and arts practice. The framework, from the beginning, was really a deep engagement with technology, less as an aesthetic principle and more truly as a tool, as a tool of investigation, as a tool of interrogation.

    By definition, I think when one interrogates really diligently with those tools, they in time become part and parcel of the work. In biochemistry, there’s a way that certain results can’t be shown without the technology at play. Similarly, the technology started entering the performativity, and the aesthetic palette, but it was always a little disorienting. Whether it’s critically, or review wise, folks will speak of technology as a design element, which is not at all how we approach it, for us, it’s actually, again, a tool, and then it itself either bakes itself into the work or not. For me, it really starts from the point of science.

    Tjaša: I love that you said that. I love that you brought in the critics, because I have a critique of our theatre critics whose approach seem to be that they’re critiquing the design, or the show aspect of it. I think that I can say for your work, and for our work, certainly we’re interested in not only how the sausage is made, but can we make a new sausage, and what is the process? Can we be inventive, and collaborative in this way? If I wanted to create gimmicks and tricks, it’d be much cheaper, and easier, and less time-consuming to do them. If any theatre critics are listening to this, we would like you to step up and get educated in how to properly look into works like that. What has been your personal experience in this realm, of receiving criticism?

    Rubén: I think there’s two things. One, as a company who really is structured… the entirety of organization is structured as a laboratory. I like extending the “How the sausage is made” metaphor to making new sausage, or new ways of making sausage, because I think our work is best read as a whole. In other words, we are, of course, interested in engaging an audience in a meaningful way, and impacting an audience, but our hope is that one work seeds the next one seeds the next one. Looking at it in that whole framework becomes, in some ways more compelling, some ways more interesting, which is why I think we as a company set our own space up at Mitu580, which is the warehouse that we inhabit in Brooklyn, because we want to be in conversation with a community. We don’t want to have a transactional space where you come and see our showmanship, and then you leave.

    We actually want to be in a relational space. The most meaningful critical space has been that critical space, which, as somebody who’s been in relationship with our work, who’s seeing that what we’re attempting is actually interjecting perhaps differently, or more meaningfully in the next piece, and then radically different in the next one, so that there’s a continuum of the conversation, versus an individual who comes just to see the showmanship quality. Again, there’s no interest in creating work that isn’t impactful and effective, but we are in a constant state of discovering. That’s another reason that our technology is part and parcel of how we work as a company. We are a permanent group of artists, because we have a whole training methodology which is both in how we make work, how we engage leadership, and how we train in technology so that our collaborators in the company are as much generative creatures as they are technologists, as they are arts practice aesthetic-leaning individuals.

    Tjaša: This is amazing. I am interested if you could speak a little bit, if you can share this with us, about your methodology? I’m sure that came out of a need for somewhat of setting of ritual, really, of how humans work together.

    Rubén: Yeah, that’s right. I think there’s three parts to our training. One is what I’ll term our research as a company. How do we train as artists, researchers? It’s not just research in preparation for our work, but it’s research in how we build our company, how we make our systems, how we further grow our training. That can look like conversations with fellow artists, that can look like conversations and engagements with folks in other fields about their own systems of creation, how they hold space, how they generate collaboration. That also includes global conversations. We get so myopic in our own landscape, and so to me, it’s interesting to see a whole range of other artists interrogate similar things. There’s that aspect of it.

    Then there’s a physical training that we do as a company, of how we come together in physical space and work. When we first started really delving deeply into technology, there was this inheritance of, “I’m not going to touch it, because it’s not what I do,” or “I don’t have enough training to engage in that system, or that coding, or that programming, or that hardware.”

    For us, the idea is to remove that, and to know that what I can bring is my expertise as a theatremaker, as a director, as a designer, and in fact, begin to misuse it. In that misuse comes a new use. One of my favorite things is when folks come and see some of the technology that we’re using, and they go, “Wait, you’re doing what with it? That’s not what it was designed for.” I love that. Of course, it wasn’t designed for it. We’re artists. There’s a whole premise of misbehaving, and misusing it. There’s a bunch of technology that, of course, we use at its best, but I love that, again, transdisciplinarity of bringing your discipline into a discipline outside of your comfort zone, or of your expertise, and knowing that something new is born. Technology is so ready to be misused in that way.

    Tjaša: I love this. This actually reminds me of Naveen Jain, who is an entrepreneur, and he always delves into something he doesn’t know anything about, and then develops, launches new companies and new products, but from the beginner’s perspective. He says that basically, if you keep working around the problem that has been established thirty years ago, and finding ways around it, there is no creativity. If you approach it as a beginner, and ask the stupid questions, you actually have an opportunity of getting to a new place.

    Rubén: That’s right, and acknowledging that, in fact, you do have expertise from another area that you can bring into it. I’ll go to fine art for an easier metaphor, but the idea is, a filmmaker can bring all of their filmmaking skills, and actually make a painting. That painting will not at all look like the work that someone with a pedigree and training in painting does, but it is still something, and there is a possibility that that filmmaker, in interjecting those disciplines, might engage with a whole historied field in a new way. You may look at that and say, “That painting is really cinematic.” I’m being reductive, but I think the idea is, in crossing those spaces is interesting.

    Something worth noting is, I’m Mexican. I grew up in Northern Mexico. My entire life I grew up in this borderland state, in the north of Mexico, the U.S. is very present, this crossing back and forth. I realized that, even though a long time ago I certainly acknowledged that’s part of my identity as a borderlander, I realized that’s actually also part of my identity as an artist, which is the idea of actually crossing borders. The minute that you tell me as an artist, “Oh no, you can’t do this because you don’t have the training,” I immediately want to build a bridge and cross it. If you tell me, “Ruben, you didn’t go to a dance school, so you can’t choreograph,” I would bring all of my expertise, and choreograph with that. When you tell me, “That technology is a little past your training,” I feel like, “Give it to me.” I actually want to build that bridge. This borderlander stance really becomes a way of approaching not only my own identity, and not only collaboration, not only art making, but also the engagement with technology.

    Tjaša: It feels like the extreme point of view and commitment that you bring to trying something is exactly what makes it good, regardless of your pedigree, and of the institutional building blocks of what we consider education, and the correct approaches to start something.

    Rubén: That’s right, and again, there are an incredible number of folks in the company who are so wonderfully trained in a whole host of technology. It certainly begins with sharing knowledge, not negating it, for sure. If someone sitting next to me can show me how to use this, then great. I’m not going to negate that knowledge, and say, “No, let me misuse it.” Again, I think it’s about not inventing limits, particularly in a creative stance. If we were talking about the use of technology in medicine, then don’t give it to me, give it to someone who has a training. The use of technology in art, to me, it’s about discovering. I think really, it’s about looking at it as a tool, it really is, and it goes back to my own training as a biochemist. Really, that’s the work of the company, but that extends to theatre as well.

    To us, theatre is a tool. I don’t have a romance with theatre. In other words, I don’t necessarily feel like I love the smell of the theatre seats, and the curtain, and the stage. To me, it’s a tool. It’s a tool that invites that transdisciplinary. It’s a tool that invites the collaboration that creates innovation. It all feels really rich in its possibility when you interject the tool of theatre, the tool of technology, the tool of performance and so forth.

    Tjaša: I wonder if there was one core question that you had, that led you from biochemistry to theatre? I remember, when I self-reflect, for me, when I first started doing science theatre, that was for The Female Role Model Project, I really wanted to know how my consciousness works as an actor. How am I different when I’m playing Lady Macbeth versus when I’m playing Kate from Taming of the Shrew? How does the character inform my own brain, and what does that mean in terms of consciousness? Of course, my question was insane, and extraordinarily ambitious, and it turns out that nobody knows anything about consciousness, and there are all these different schools, but ultimately, still nobody knows for sure anything about consciousness. I can really say, this was my core question that led me to science theatre. What was the core question that led you from biochemistry to theatre?

    I believe as human beings, we’re designed to pursue impossible questions. We pursue love. Nobody reaches a given Thursday and says, “I found love, I’m done, cool. Friday, I’ll find happiness.”… It is this impossible goal that then sets you on a journey.

    Rubén: Yeah, it’s a great question, and thank you for sharing yours. I’m into your question, and actually, mine is related to it. For me, it comes from the idea of a whole moment in the engagement between an audience and art. What I mean by a whole moment is, that moment, and we’ve all experienced it, I think everyone’s experienced it at least once, if not many times, which is this moment where the artwork in whatever shape, form, space, you name it, it engages the intellectual part of who you are, it engages the emotional part of who you are. It engages your eyes, it engages your ears, but it also engages your spirit. When all of those things happen in the same moment, when the syncopation of viewing, in other words, I’ll speak of performance, which is, I’ve used something funny and then I laugh. There’s syncopation, a back and forth.

    When something happens, and all of those melt, it literally is a snap, and you feel it, you get the chills, there’s an eruptious laughter, there’s a gasp, it’s a moment that goes “swoosh,” something happens, and you feel it. When I say the spirit, I don’t mean in any religious or theological way, I truly mean something that transcends the limits of your own human body. You feel connected to the people there. For me, in my biochemistry language, the research question is, how can you create an artwork that is that moment from beginning to end? Is that even possible? Would the audience collapse, and say, “Get me out of here?” Would the artist be like, “I can’t do this anymore.” What would happen? Like you, for me, that question became an impossible question, and I like that, because it aligns with a deep belief of mine that, I believe as human beings, we’re designed to pursue impossible questions.

    We pursue love. Nobody reaches a given Thursday and says, “I found love, I’m done, cool. Friday, I’ll find happiness.” The idea is, those goals change, you change, the landscape around you changes. It is this impossible goal that then sets you on a journey. This idea of this whole moment really becomes the drive of the company. It really is the foundation of the company. One of the first things that I introduced was that, in order to do that, we couldn’t function as a contractor company that hired people per project. There was a need for this biochemistry model, which is that you are working with the same individuals. You can bring in different experts, and different collaboratives, but there’s a core group that is obsessing about this research question. How do you prepare for that whole moment? How do you train? What do you generate? How do you engage audiences? That continues to be the drive of the company, and at this moment, technology has played a huge role.

    I jokingly often tell my students, check back with me in twenty years. We might be obsessed with dirt, and rocks, and technology has gone out the window. For me, it’s again, not a romance around technology. At the moment, it’s a tool to investigate that question. I’ll join you in the impossibility of your question, because it sets the journey. It has set us on this journey.

    Tjaša: Absolutely, totally agree. On the sidelines, you mentioned your core company, and just a little bit from a producorial perspective, I’m curious, how do you nourish a core group of actors and collaborators through, usually your works take about two years of prep and investigation until they’re ready for a performance. In American theatre, we mostly know the model of either repertory theatres, huge theatres, or actors that are, for the most part, compensated around the time of performances. How do you navigate this, and how do you nourish your actors?

    Rubén: Thank you for that question. I’m always very proud of that aspect of our organization. I think for us, there’s a framework as artists engage in the company, and ultimately, become company members. One of the first is that every artist in Theater Mitu really identifies as a hyphenate. There’s already an inherent interdisciplinary in them, and then a transdisciplinary interest.

    The other is, people will ask me, what’s the difference between someone who’s in the company and someone who you work with that’s not in the company? Which sounds a little, you’re in or you’re out, which is not the intent. To me, the difference is a very straightforward one, which is, the individuals who are part of the company have decided that making and building the company is part of their arts practice. That opens up a whole other system of support, because what that means is, as an organization, Theater Mitu not only creates this new works, but we actually have five other programs that we run that are education programs, they’re development programs, they’re interdisciplinary collaborative programs, they’re technology support programs. It is the company that runs that organization. All of a sudden, your livelihood isn’t simply coming from the making of a show.

    I’ll give an example. A dear company member, Monica Sanborn, is of course a key collaborator in this work, but she’s also the producer of our hybrid arts lab work, and also functions as one of the support systems for our artists at home. All of a sudden, it begins to create the tapestry that, as artists, a creative livelihood, but it becomes an in-house. By definition, there are company members… this is not monastic, so company members are also working on other projects, but that framework allows for a flexibility that allows company members to engage in other projects but still have a home that can, over the year, be their support structure.

    I’m very proud of the fact that it creates a really meaningful support structure, and you have a home to depend on. We also have full-time company members who are full-time staff, and that’s another structure. For the company, from very early on, when we started, I made a commitment to paying the company a living wage in any engagement, even if it meant we developed the work more slowly, which is really what happened. That became a boon, because then we could percolate on the work. Livelihood is really just time. It just gives people time and focus. That’s a little bit of the patchwork, and it’s an ongoing practice for me and for the rest of us. How do we make it more robust? Moving into our space added a whole host of other beautiful needs that are answered by staffing for the company members, and so forth.

    Tjaša: Brilliant structure. I’m also super proud of you. That’s beautiful, and that’s rare.

    Rubén: Thanks.

    Tjaša: I’m curious about Utopian Hotline. You performed it at BAM, in partnership with SETI Institute, Arizona State University’s interplanetary initiative, and Brooklyn Independent Middle School. I love all of your partners. Can you speak a little bit about how you got these partners, and how they were actually involved in creating this project?

    Rubén: Really, our work is born from a very pure instinct, or from very pure instincts. As we were all, as a world, navigating the pandemic, we started a practice as a company of coming together every Friday as a company on Zoom, just to check in with each other. Really, just to be like, “Are you washing your apples? What’s happening?” It was that moment. As things began to calm down, and either we began to normalize or the situation normalized, we started talking just about art, and about how we were feeling. One of our great concerns was hope, and the loneliness that was being created by this fractured moment. Was there an absence of hope? A company member, Dennis, had this really almost embarrassingly naive instinct to set up this hotline inspired by these 1980s hotlines, that told you, “Call this number, and tell us what you think about this radio station.”

    He was with family in Portland, and he went around Portland on his bicycle in the dead of winter, and put up these signs that said, “How do you imagine a more perfect future? Please call this number.” It didn’t say art, it didn’t say Theater Mitu, it didn’t say anything. In fact, the poster was very eighties, seventies looking, put it all over the place. We were sure nobody would call, and then, people called. Tons and tons and tons of people called, and the Friday meetings with Mitu became us listening to these voicemails. The voicemails were beautiful, hilarious. People cried on it, people prayed for us. People sang to us, people told us jokes. People put their kids on the phone. It was literally humanity saying, “There is hope.” Even thinking about it makes me very emotional.

    We felt like we were holding this really beautiful archive, this snapshot, not of the future, but of the futures, and felt like, how do we hold an art space that can share these with audiences? That really began Utopian Hotline, which is really a theatrical installation that invites you to almost sit inside this archive. Those texts are musicalized, spoken, technologized, visualized, and even the way you do it is, you’re on headphones. It’s this installation with four performers. You’re on these comfy white cushions on a pink carpet. One of my favorite things is, people don’t like leaving when it’s over. It’s about an hour long, and people just stay, because the voice messages keep going in your head. Everybody feels really taken care of in a continuing moment, where I think that’s important.

    When we started dreaming up the project early on, we do this with all Mitu projects, the question is, what are the windows that we’re opening that are letting in new ideas, and new imaginations? Who are our partners? I think for us, we are the group of artists who are bringing the art question. Who’s bringing the other questions? Who’s bringing the science question, the community question? We truly dream up partners, and it’s the silliest game, I’ll call it, which is, if we could work with anyone on this, who would it be? Then we reach out, we just reach out. Trust me, we reach out to one hundred people, and out of that we get responses. Some become, “Not now.” Some become, “How interesting, let’s stay in conversation. Some become, “We were just talking about that.”

    We developed this really beautiful conversation with Seti, which is the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, which is born out of NASA and MIT, and has a really incredible collection of astrophysicists, of astronauts, of scientists, of physicists who come together, not really to look for aliens per se, but they’re looking at sound waves, and what’s bouncing through the universe. They were big in the conversation of the golden record that was sent with humanity’s message. That started that conversation. We also felt we wanted to speak to what I think are the greatest keepers of hope, which are children. We partnered with Brooklyn Independent, which is a charter school here in Brooklyn. If you want to hear an astounding and visionary look at the future, ask a ten-year-old. Truly, we spoke to astronauts and astrophysicists who gave us these incredible answers, and then a sixth grader told us the same thing in clearer terms.

    Tjaša: I love that, and I am not surprised. There’s just this new research that’s coming out that basically, 98 percent of everybody born are geniuses, and that eventually, the school system just suffocates the genius out of you by the time you are ten. Thank God you spoke to ten-year-olds. If you spoke to an eleven, you might’ve been too late.

    Rubén: Yes, it’s true. We have this beautiful recording of a younger student, she must be maybe seven, and she tells us, very in a sassy way, she doesn’t understand the confusion about the future. She says the future is right now. Every moment is the future, and she’s really adamant about it. When we speak to an astrophysicist who’s talking about our perception of time, and the idea that the future is an illusion, and in fact, this moment is the future, we live in the future, they’re saying the same thing, which is, pay attention. Be hopeful now, not just be hopeful that you’ll be hopeful. It was this beautiful call to action, and our partners have been really wonderful.

    I’ll tell you, as a little footnote, through a collaboration with SETI, we are part of something called lunar codex. The lunar codex is a really exciting project that, with one of the small shuttles that are going to be the moon, it will have an archive of contemporary artwork. We are sending Utopian Hotline to the moon.

    Tjaša: Beautiful.

    Rubén: The idea is that, when that detaches from the moon, it’ll travel through space, and it’s intended to be received either by other sentient beings or by us hundreds and hundreds of years from now. To me, to send out the question about the future, and about hope into the future has been a really moving thing. Look up the lunar codex. It’s beautiful, and it’s a gorgeous project.

    Tjaša: I will. Wow. This project that we are going to talk about now is not really out yet. It’s still in the making, it’s still in its growing stages. It’s funny how I got to it. I was a juror on Belle Getty’s grant, and when I saw the proposal for (Holy) Blood, I just fell in love with it. Basically, (Holy) Blood explores inherited cultural trauma through the history of a young boy who grows up to be a murderer. What causes people to commit violent acts? How do we escape from the traumas of our past? Holy Blood draws freely from Alejandro Jodorowsky’s film, I love Jodorowsky, Santa Sangre, and director Ruben Palendo’s childhood experiences attending Pentecostal revival churches in Juarez, Mexico. So amazing. Tell me more. What have been your childhood experiences in Juarez, Mexico?

    Rubén: All the projects are, of course, very personal projects, but this is a particularly personal project for me. As I mentioned, I grew up in Mexico. I grew up going to Pentecostal churches my whole life, and these are really interesting spaces because they’re, of course, religious spaces. They’re, of course, very set in a fundamental read of the Christian Bible, but they’re also community spaces. Though it is a faith and a belief system, with a lot of respect to my parents, that I have walked away from, there is still this bittersweetness to the memory of that community, and how a child sees that memory. From very early on, I think I was in high school maybe, I saw Jodorowsky’s film, Santa Sangre, and was floored. Was floored because it is dealing with a child’s lens, in the case of the movie, through seeing his mother engaged in this deeply consuming faith, and his love for his mother makes him love that faith.

    It’s also about, between his mother and his father, this community that’s created around. When those spaces become injurious, I think the adult version is, you just move away from those communities. As we all know, through the lens of a child, it’s a very different framework, because that’s the only community you have. There’s both this knowing repelling to that damage, but also this magnetization, because there’s love, and there’s community. Jodorowsky does this brilliant thing where in the narrative, the child’s able to attempt to hold both of those realities, which of course, become too much. Jodorowsky then finds us into a second chapter of the film, where the young boy has grown up, and we come to learn that he has committed and continues to commit these horrible actions.

    Jodorowsky does something interesting, which is, I think to not make it such a direct psychological drama, he really hyper-theatricalizes both those horrific acts as well as the memory space. It enters the realm of mythology. You’re no longer having a reaction for this poor kid, and the horrible things. You begin to almost see yourself in the nuances of it, not necessarily in the actions of it. The film was really effective, and resonating. Over many years I’ve been bringing it to the company, to see how we interject with it.

    The last thing I’ll say is that Jodorowsky, very much aligning with his own beliefs, the film really explores, by the end of it, how do we heal from that? Is there healing? In that moment, you realize that little boy, and that man is actually a proxy for society. Can something break so much that you let go of the belief that it can heal, or do you take a stance where you hold on to the belief that it can heal, even while the thing is still cracking, even while the thing is still injurious? That started resonating to us in this moment. It isn’t just hope about the future, but it’s hope that healing is actually part and practice of the future, even again, as more and more things are fracturing our world, our society, our environment.

    It really spoke, and so we started delving into, how do we theatricalize that and how do we take Jodorowsky’s material and begin to engage with it? Again, technology becomes part and parcel of that. We started engaging with sensors and reactivities, because the film, the characters and narrative are so reactive from one to the other that we were trying to mimic that, and to create proxies for some of the characters by way of what we term puppets, but are actually these technological inventions of screens and boxes, and so forth. If you hear me being a little clumsier about it than Utopian Hotline, it’s because we are literally making it. I just feel like, check back with me in six months, because I might be saying, “Never mind, it is now a dance with microphones.” For now, I think the exploration continues to reveal something about that healing space.

    Tjaša: No, I get it. By being immersed in it, you see the multiplicity of it. You see this kaleidoscopic image of all these perspectives that coexist, and even the paradoxes coming at each other, but paradoxes always need to coexist.

    Rubén: Yeah, that’s right. For folks who may not know the film, as I mentioned, the film follows a little boy. His father owns a circus, runs a circus. His mother is part of a Christian cult that venerates a saint who’s lost her arms. Already, we start with that. Through a series of really violent interactions between his mother and his father, the father kills the mother, and trigger warning for folks, as it gets a little gory, in so doing, he replicates what’s happened to the mother saint, and removes her arms. This is a very violent moment. That’s the core trauma. What happens is, when we meet the young character as an adult, he’s been institutionalized. When we meet him, it’s because there’s a call to his window, and it is his now armless mother who helps him escape. In so doing, he must become her arms.

    For the rest of the movie, again, for folks who haven’t seen it, he is actually behind her being her arms. It’s actually the mother who kills people, and particularly, he kills any woman that the male character is attracted to. Whenever he tries to be romantic, the mother appears, takes over his arms, and proceeds to kill that woman. She’s not going to let anyone hurt her little boy. Number one, the theatricality of those scenes is incredible, because the arms really belong to the mother, so much so that you believe it. He is literally saying, “Don’t make me do this.” What happens, and this is a spoiler alert, and I’m so sorry, by the time we reach the end of the film, this male character discovers love, real love, and he can’t bring himself to harm that. He actually would come to realize that in fact, the mother died when she lost her arms, and the rest has been a figment of his own trauma, and his imagination, and he’s been haunted to do that.

    You realize that what Jodorowsky has done has created this really intense metaphor, and I’m not suggesting that all of us are haunted in this way, of the way that childhood trauma haunts us, and the way that we actually invent a narrative where that is what’s controlling us. Jodorowsky’s invitation is, these are your arms, not the arms of that child, but these are your arms. Yes, the process of healing, and yes, the process of reclaiming them is difficult. The film ends with that revelation, and so much so, again, the spoiler alert is, he’s captured by the police and so forth. In this very simple moment, the police say, “Put your hands up,” and the character looks at his hands and says, “They’re my hands.” It’s the first time he realizes, and he both takes responsibility for the horrors, but also frees himself.

    Again, Jodorowsky does this magical thing where somehow, it does not become ripped from the headline news. It becomes mythology, it becomes this ancient text of some sorts, or it reads like a myth. For me, I think the entire alchemy of that story, and how do we not pornographize the violence, but actually continue to mythologize it, otherwise, we get too much blood on us. It actually wants to be this metaphor, and Jodorowsky does a really elegant job, which is why we’re not necessarily leaving the film in the dust, but using parts of it, and engaging it. That’s really the core experiment of it.

    Tjaša: You’re also using puppets in it, that have these sensors and cameras embedded in them, which will be then projected, basically, as their point of view. All of a sudden, these puppets are humanized, and have a point of view. Can you tell us a little bit about, what’s the relationship between these robots, these puppets versus humans? Who are the characters?

    Rubén: Yeah, I’m glad to hear you call them puppets, robots, because we ourselves don’t know what to call them. In our last workshop, which we call a laboratory, one of them has grown to be what would best be described as this huge box that is twelve feet wide by five feet… sorry, twelve feet tall by five feet wide. Has sensors inside it, and it bleeds on you fake blood. It’s a whole theatrical thing, and it has a front that’s just… we looked at it, and we were like, “That puppet has grown. I don’t know what it is anymore.” I think it’s exactly what you just said, it’s about affording different points of view.

    I think the thing that theatre can do so successfully is invite a range of points of access. In the most traditional sense, if I am staging a scene from Hamlet on stage, the invitation is really to the entirety of the stage. I cannot control what your access point is. You may be looking at Ophelia, the person next to you at Hamlet, the person next to you at the light. To me, that’s a really democratic engagement with the artwork, because everybody has the different entry points. Someone can be focusing on the music.

    Our hope is to engage, with (Holy) Blood, with the original film, and create these multiple access points, and to create these range of points of view, so that the music is a point of view. The screens are point of view. The puppets, and I use the term quite capaciously, the puppets are a different point of view. The cameras are a different point of view, so that one begins to have some complete empathy that the situation is not a forward-facing situation, that injury is not a one point of view situation, that harm is not a one point of view situation.

    Again, none of it is really didactic in terms of proposing life, so therefore, feel bad for it, or understand it. It really is, just see it in its fullness, and perhaps that begins to decode it. Point of view is the gorgeous touchstone, and access for the audience.

    Tjaša: Beautiful. You also have gyroscopes in these puppets, robots. What’s really the story of proximity and distance here?

    Rubén: Distance is a really important thing. It’s funny how we use that in our poetics in the world. Somebody is emotionally disconnected, and we’ll say, “Hey, you’re very distant right now.” We’re really obsessed with the relationship between both bodies in space, and object and body, and so forth. How can we as an audience experience that? Therefore, we as artists dilate it. On its most simple level, the idea is, here’s an object. The closer you get, if we attach a sensor that has a sound, it’ll go louder, louder, louder, louder, a little less loud. That sensitivity with sensors can exist in a 360, so we can begin to locate the object, the puppet or the box. Therefore, actually manifesting the emotional, I can curate that sound to let you know that object does not like it when you get close to them, but that doesn’t have to be a sound. That sound could be fake blood, it could be water, it could be something reactive, but the intensity of it can be in relationship to proximity. How do you begin to create emotional and character sketches with that idea? Stay tuned.

    Tjaša: Yeah, I love it, because all of a sudden, it’s so complex. All of a sudden, you have 360 points.

    Rubén: That’s right.

    Tjaša: Which can be completely different. You approach me from my back, and actually, I pee on you. You approach me from my left, and I want to kiss you.

    Rubén: That’s exactly right. To me, it’s actually about… really, by image I mean both sound and image, but it’s about creating images that invite the audience to be a storyteller, to be like, “Ah, therefore.” This is a stance that I love when our work does to our audiences. It isn’t a passive engagement, where you’re simply receiving a story from us, but it’s actually quite an active one, where you’re receiving images that are inviting you to actually bring those fractures together. This idea of multiple experiences is really exciting. Yeah, the gyroscope does that 360, and again, I have a big smile on my face, I think you can attest to this, which is, it’s just so tasty to begin to get an emotional impact from these technological tools.

    We’ll be exploring, exploring, and then all of a sudden I look at the rest of the company and we’re crying, because somebody chose a sound, and the shape of the puppet, and the proximity, and you’re like, “I am so moved by that.” Then it’s up to us to then contextualize that, and give it a lift, so that it becomes a really gorgeous image to hold.

    Tjaša: Beautiful. Are all characters puppets, or do you also have some human actors on stage?

    Rubén: Yeah, so this is how Mitu talks about new projects: These are the things that we know.

    Tjaša: Okay.

    Rubén: There are these reactive structures, we’ll call them puppets for now. Stay tuned, they may be twelve feet tall and four feet wide, or they may be the size of my hand. There are performers on stage. We have re-scored the entire musical soundscape so that it aligns with that reactivity, so that it’s baked in there. There is some language that we have interjected that will be sung. There is this fairly immersive fracture of multiple screens, so that we’ve fractured parts of the film into this three-dimensionality. At the moment, there is some manifestation of other characters as disembodied voices, that are voiced and manipulated by the performers. These are the things that we know. There’s a lot of fake blood, I’m excited to say.

    Tjaša: Is it minty?

    Rubén: It’s minty, it’s fresh. There is an extraordinary amount of fake blood.

    Tjaša: Wow.

    Rubén: The space is covered in plastic from top to bottom. It is very intentionally very fake blood, because we want to stay in this myth space. It has a lot of tongue in cheek to it, but I think still makes an impact. Therefore, that’s why I mentioned that some of those puppets react by way of that blood. Again, it doesn’t mean that they bleed, it means that it may bleed at you as another performer engages, or if they are inside the puppet. We’ll see.

    Tjaša: The puppet could bleed on the operator. She’s like, “You are not the boss of me.”

    Rubén: Well, that’s what just happened in the last laboratory, the large box that you can go inside of them. It just bled on the person inside as an allergic reaction to that which controls the—

    Tjaša: Wow, autoimmune disease system.

    Rubén: Kind of a social set of autoimmune, which is interesting.

    Tjaša: I’m so excited. I can’t wait to see it. Oh my God.

    Rubén: It will premiere at the end of April and May of next year, of 2024, at Mitu580. I’ll send the link, and please join us for a really bloody adventure with Theater Mitu’s (Holy) Blood.

    Tjaša: Perfect, fantastic. Thank you so much, Ruben. This was so beautiful, and I’m just so excited about your work.

    Rubén: Oh my God, thank you for having me. Really inspiring to talk to you.

    Tjaša: Likewise.

    This podcast is produced as a contribution to HowlRound Theatre Commons. You can find more episodes of this show, and other HowlRound shows wherever you find podcasts. If you love this podcast, I sure hope you did, post a rating and write a review on those platforms. This helps other people find us. If you’re looking for more progressive and disruptive content, visit howlround.com.



    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Existentialism | HowlRound Theatre Commons

    Existentialism | HowlRound Theatre Commons

    [ad_1]

    About HowlRound TV

    HowlRound TV is a global, commons-based, peer-produced, open-access livestreaming and video archive project stewarded by the nonprofit HowlRound. HowlRound TV is a free and shared resource for live conversations and performances relevant to the world’s performing arts and cultural fields. Its mission is to break geographic isolation, promote resource sharing, and develop our knowledge commons collectively. Anyone can participate in a community of peer organizations revolutionizing the flow of information, knowledge, and access in our field by becoming a producer and co-producing with us. Learn more by going to our participate page. For any other queries, email [email protected] or call Vijay Mathew at +1 917.686.3185 Signal. View the video archive of past events.



    [ad_2]

    Source link