So, by the grace of my job, I do get to go to some wonderful events. Yesterday, I was at the announcement of the stage play of Breakfast At Tiffany's which will have Anna Friel in the leading role of Holly GoLightly.
A couple of Chambord and champagne cocktails and all was going well, until they started the speeches. And I suddenly felt like a communist who'd walked into the plans for Adolf Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch.
Now, okay, I'm willing to admit some snobbery on my part, but when you hear people who more or less control the theatre world proving how little they really know about the genre as a whole, and leading on from that how the majority of people are being spoon fed shit from idiots, then it really starts to get your goat.
Speaker number one comes up- the co-producer.
"... and yes, it was me who first put Beckett in the West End, proving that something obscure and contemporary can be appreciated."
Oh yeah... Really? Obscure? The play of which a film was made starring Peter O' Toole?
The play which launched and inspired hundreds upon hundreds of of wonderful cutting edge theatre?
The play that's on curriculum's everywhere?
The play by one of the most famous Irish playwrights of the last centruy?
The play that's over fucking 50 years old? Contemporary?
At this point, I was midly miffed, and wanted to scream at him, "Why not put on 'Blasted' by Sarah Kane and really challenge people to fucking think, you tosser."
But it didn't end there. The writer comes up to speak and says:
"It's an adaptation of the book..."
Right. So no Hollywood ending.
"And as iconic as the film is, we just wanted it to be something different."
Right. So no Hollywood ending.
"And what we want to stress is this is a different entity taken from the book that Capote wrote."
OKAY JEEZ FOR FUCK'S SAKE! We get it- there's no Hollywood ending. Just say to people, "Sorry- there's no teary ending where George Pepard runs off with Audrey Hepburn."
Except, I look around the room at all these gleeful, expectant faces who have absolutely no fucking clue, because no-one's bothered to read it in their lives and I have this niggling thing at the back of my head that knows they'll watch it and be disappointed. Well no- they won't- they'll shell out £40 for their seats and be placated by brainless crap.
"The musical crowd aren't going to be happy because there's only a few songs in it..."
A few? A few? Hell, we all remember Moon River, but when the fuck did Holly GoLightly start singing and dancing around? I think they're getting confused with that other movie that Audrey Hepburn was in.
"..but hopefully people will respect its intelligent" Burn in hell
"...witty..." I really, really want to ask you some challenging questions on theatre right now but I'll keep quiet
"intelligent storyline" You've already said intelligent you brainless fuck
Okay, I am miffed because the area of performance I work in is very niche, but its establishments and institutions like these that make it impossible for live art to thrive. If people could make more informed decisions on what they wanted to see instead of being told 'what theatre is' then I'm sure it would lead to a livelier artistic community with increased diversity.
I'm not trying to be a snob... what annoys me is that these people control the theatre world. They control the money and they control what people see. West End theatre is not really art- it's rehashed ideas with a lot of money behind them. And the sad thing is it continues to be a world of safe bets where no one is challenged.
Added to this, I'm surprised more people aren't angry that they're being treated like a nation of idiots. A nation that can't handle anything too risky or upsetting. And to me it's an insult to our collective intelligence. If people remain unchallenged, things remain the same. How can we ever evolve the arts scene if we're just producing the same stuff en masse?
Something really needs to change.
Friday 26 June 2009
Wednesday 3 June 2009
Next phase...
I think there's a phase in every emerging performance artist's life where they wonder "After this, what next?".
It's such an interesting question- Mainly because I believe that the 'what next' is the default mode of an artist. One of my heroes, Paul Draper, once said that "nothing is ever finished- you're just happy to abandon it at a certain point." And this is true. While there are the perfectionists out there, I find that I work better with pressure and deadlines- there's more importance for the piece to happen. And yet, at some point it has to be left... otherwise you'd end up doing the same piece forever.
Another one of my favourite artists, Laurie Anderson, said that no-one is ever bad at what they love to do. And that's a thought to keep you going through all your artistic self doubt
It's such an interesting question- Mainly because I believe that the 'what next' is the default mode of an artist. One of my heroes, Paul Draper, once said that "nothing is ever finished- you're just happy to abandon it at a certain point." And this is true. While there are the perfectionists out there, I find that I work better with pressure and deadlines- there's more importance for the piece to happen. And yet, at some point it has to be left... otherwise you'd end up doing the same piece forever.
Another one of my favourite artists, Laurie Anderson, said that no-one is ever bad at what they love to do. And that's a thought to keep you going through all your artistic self doubt
Tuesday 17 March 2009
The King of Beauty in rehearsal
Since investigating my piece, the King of Beauty, a lot of notions have come to me both through feedback and through investigating the notions and connotations of this word. The biggest surprise is when, whilst wearing make up, I performed a scratch performance of it that lasted about ten minutes and someone described it as 'misogynistic'.
I found this intriguing. The references I made in this short piece were feminine, for example at one point I talk about getting the wrong Barbie for Christmas, or being called a slut, and then it struck me that these people associated these things as gender specific. In my mind, I had found them equally applicable, laudable and laughable about both men and women.
In a way, that has challenged my own beliefs and preconceptions of 'femininity' and 'adrogyny'. Unfortunately, femininity is placed in the line of 'that which is not masculine'. Androgyny is something that escapes the general concensus- for example, that which is not masculine is feminine, that which is not feminine is an imitation of masculinity. Masculinity seems to have defined terms and rigorous structure, making it difficult to achieve any sort of masculine 'ideal'.
It then gave me a slight insight into the objetification of women. I've been listening to a lot of Karen Finley of late, which could explain my change in performance style and focus.
Of course, I am hesitant to make blanket statements. I think for someone as liberal as me, to be confronted with such a gender defined term that I feel is something I am a million miles away from has been an experience, and something to delve into and explore.
I found this intriguing. The references I made in this short piece were feminine, for example at one point I talk about getting the wrong Barbie for Christmas, or being called a slut, and then it struck me that these people associated these things as gender specific. In my mind, I had found them equally applicable, laudable and laughable about both men and women.
In a way, that has challenged my own beliefs and preconceptions of 'femininity' and 'adrogyny'. Unfortunately, femininity is placed in the line of 'that which is not masculine'. Androgyny is something that escapes the general concensus- for example, that which is not masculine is feminine, that which is not feminine is an imitation of masculinity. Masculinity seems to have defined terms and rigorous structure, making it difficult to achieve any sort of masculine 'ideal'.
It then gave me a slight insight into the objetification of women. I've been listening to a lot of Karen Finley of late, which could explain my change in performance style and focus.
Of course, I am hesitant to make blanket statements. I think for someone as liberal as me, to be confronted with such a gender defined term that I feel is something I am a million miles away from has been an experience, and something to delve into and explore.
Wednesday 21 January 2009
Exploring cyberspace
I've recently been researching cyberspace and the possibilities of performing within the "virtual" world of Second Life. Whilst becoming entrenched in a pile of books and journals, I started to ask how 'real' is digital reality? I came across a very interesting theory by Slavoj Zizek about the 'reality' of cybersex. If sexual contact is already phantasmic in the sense that the body of the other person serves merely as a vessel onto which we project our sexual desires, then cybersex surely serves the same function making it as real as any other kind of sexual contact.
This got my trail of thought going... If we act/ perform/ create in real-time in a different digital reality, then it is no less real than the physical or biological which we pin the word 'real' on to. I started to resent using the words 'real' and 'virtual' to distinguish between the physical world and Second Life.
However, I am slightly concerned that doing away with the physical body would strip us of the ability to subconciously perform identities through our body. For example, an embodied, engendered feminist performance, or performing culture through our physicality. Is it lost? Is creating new and multiple online identities immoral or does it create a new way of 'interfacing' with yourself?
And how do we define 'liveness'- the essence of performance art? Does it mean live-through-presence, or does it represent live-through-time-based-moments? I feel it could (and has already) start to divide performance artists in what they feel is essential to this umbrella term.
There are two sides of the debate- where a move towards 'body as information' represents a fear and loathing of the weak, mortal body and a quest to embed ourselves in the machine versus the fear of the omnipotence of the machine. But perhaps by representing our 'imagined selves' we do simulate a part of what we try to capture on stage- always playing this 'imagined other' who we never really are.
Second Life is relatively new in the performance art world, and I think its potential will be realised very soon. It will be interesting how it moves forward, and what that means in bringing its conciousness to the public forum.
This got my trail of thought going... If we act/ perform/ create in real-time in a different digital reality, then it is no less real than the physical or biological which we pin the word 'real' on to. I started to resent using the words 'real' and 'virtual' to distinguish between the physical world and Second Life.
However, I am slightly concerned that doing away with the physical body would strip us of the ability to subconciously perform identities through our body. For example, an embodied, engendered feminist performance, or performing culture through our physicality. Is it lost? Is creating new and multiple online identities immoral or does it create a new way of 'interfacing' with yourself?
And how do we define 'liveness'- the essence of performance art? Does it mean live-through-presence, or does it represent live-through-time-based-moments? I feel it could (and has already) start to divide performance artists in what they feel is essential to this umbrella term.
There are two sides of the debate- where a move towards 'body as information' represents a fear and loathing of the weak, mortal body and a quest to embed ourselves in the machine versus the fear of the omnipotence of the machine. But perhaps by representing our 'imagined selves' we do simulate a part of what we try to capture on stage- always playing this 'imagined other' who we never really are.
Second Life is relatively new in the performance art world, and I think its potential will be realised very soon. It will be interesting how it moves forward, and what that means in bringing its conciousness to the public forum.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
