The Play’s (Not?) The Thing

How often do we truly consider what it is that we’re about to experience when we attend the theater?  Normally, we’re off to see a play which is a story written to reveal a glimpse into some specific example of the forces which face us as humans.  This “play” is written by a writer who understands that he/she must reveal these forces through a story, character and scene.  Audiences can rather easily enter into this imaginary world by virtue of its ability to identify with the struggle embodied by the characters and lived through onstage.

This contact, this living shared relationship, is what normally constitutes theater.  It is precious and elusive.  It challenges many to give their lives to its search.  An invisible and yet palpable connection between performer and viewer is sought demanding the highest concentration, openness, sensitivity and verbal/physical acumen.  It is an extraordinary art.

Our current project, Seneca’s Medea, explores the themes of betrayal, revenge, magic, spirituality, motherhood and isolation (amongst others).  On a certain level, we’re viewing the intricate process that a mother goes through after a devastating abandonment by her husband.  The story beautifully reveals the process that she undergoes to appease her feelings of betrayal leading her to a profoundly horrific act of retribution.  In the end, we are left with devastation and release, a stunning combination.

Being a myth however, we aren’t merely allowed to appreciate this story from the point of view of plot, character and story.  There is more here than psychology, pain and action.  In fact, what is on display is a very simple demonstration of deeper forces in collision.  The story, the “play”, is a vehicle to reveal these forces in action. Continue reading »

TDLF Manifesto

TDLF Manifesto

1) All performances can be played for anyone, anywhere at anytime

2) All productions are portable, and begin with an empty space

3) We embrace a spirit of economy; the implements of performance are chosen carefully seeking items that can serve a plurality of purpose to the work

4) In an effort to open the art-form, we strive to reduce the power of language in the theater emphasizing more visual, kinetic and plastique aspects of performance

5) Our work is a search for a ‘something’ which is purely theatrical; a shape, a relationship, a feeling that can only be discovered in theater

Elaborations

1) Our work is a search for a performance aesthetic which can touch any willing spectator.  Inspired by modern dance’s de-emphasis on story, character and emotion, we seek to, similarly, open the theater art which is currently largely synonymous with language and story (the “play”).  In this way, our work can be open to non-english speaking individuals and touch something which is purely theatrical.  This we define as that incomparable moment when a relationship is made between audience and performer.  When, if only for a brief moment, a connection is made.  A story told in words establishes contact, but is there a deeper connection to be made which is separate from character, action, plot and emotion, ie – the basic outer shape and image of living.

2) It is our intention to travel the world doing theater.  Therefore, we must be portable.  As part of each performance, the creation and maintenance of the space is included as an element in the evolution of the piece.  There is no backstage or offstage.  There are no crew or stagehands.  Each piece is wholly facilitated by the players themselves.  Nothing is excluded, in other words.  Everything is an element of production.

3) All objects used in the work shall serve a variety of purpose.  Our intention is to work with as few devices or properties as is possible.  Everything is carefully chosen to have a multitude of function within the work, thus reducing the demands placed upon anything other than ourselves and the ideas being researched.  We wish to make naked the intangible aspects hidden within the work.  This requires emphasizing minimalism and economy.

4) What is more synonymous with theater than language and story?  We believe that there is more to the artform than mere words, plot and character.  Our work does not intend to destroy an author’s work, character and style.  Rather, we intend to expand our work in the direction of something more open and purely theatrical.  We hope that this destroys the tyranny of words functioning mostly to engage the mind and rather to touch the imagination via the senses seeking contact with the spirit.

5) Ultimately, there is a moment in the theater we seek.  This is a moment when, for some unknown reason, from some unknown place, a connection is made.  It often sounds like “yes”, it feels warm and familiar, it excites the mind and compels us each to privately (or not) celebrate life.  It is these moments, and these moments alone, which separate the theater from the other non-performance arts.  These moments open our imaginations and cause us to simultaneously question life and delight in it.  The point of our work is to discover these moments and share them with you.

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

~Albert Einstein

2 Forms

What interests me is the convergence of 2 forms at once, forming a unique 3rd form – something that could not have been possible otherwise.  In the Medea instance, I want to examine the combination of 1 rather rigid form of theater (the story of Medea) along with a form entirely loose and free.

Words are interesting, and necessary, but not the most important aspect to a theatrical event.  The most purely theatrical form that I’ve ever witnessed is dance – and in particular, modern dance.  Many plays are better suited to film, for example – thus making the theatrical element dispensable.  So then, the question which interests me is – how to make theater important, and not simply a forum for story and words.

Empty Theater.  Without another form, more traditional and conventional, E.T. would not work.  But, with something else there to support it, it can exist.  The aim then is to have 2 differing works occuring simultaneously, that do not distract from the other but that support the other.

Two Pieces At Once

In short, that is the work.  The text for Medea, preserved in its entirety and unchanged, will be one piece.  The second will be a more open, purely theatrical work which exists around the Medea play.  I call this ‘empty theater’.

Why?

I have always been interested in the idea of a “universal language” in theater.  Peter Brook certainly searched for this (does he continue to do so? Hard to say).  Brook’s work still stays very close to text, which distances certainly the non-english speaking spectator but, as well, the culturally different too. 

In my days working with Merce Cunningham, one thing was immediately apparent.  We were travelling constantly to non-english speaking countries.  His work was open, accessible and universal.  It was pure movement.  There were no stories attached, no plain-motifs, no seeming ‘worldly’ relationships either (this could be argued, but I think this is generally the case).  You were watching movement for movement’s sake.  Merce was exploring the possibilities of the human organism in motion (and, in stillness). 

John Cage had a similar exploration with music, sound and silence.

As I watched Merce’s work, night-in, night-out, I kept wondering if this sort of atmosphere could be created without dancers, but with actors.  Can a purely theatrical event be staged that is not about movement (as I am not a dancer or choreographer, as my friends will attest) per se, nor is it about story, character, plot, or even emotion.  Is there something that exists, that can be found, that we can call pure “theater”?

My first attempt at this was a piece I did in 1996 called “Noah’s Flood”.  I used three players, and we explored both the original Miracle Play chronicling Noah’s saga.  But, we then broke the words down into pure sounds and engaged in a theatre game using pennants of differing colors.  These were sort of “magic wands” with fabric attached to the end of differing shades of blue, purple and gold.  The audience was asked to be interested in the game, of what would happen “next” with these objects.  The text, or sound score (as I called it), was the platform for the game.  It was a way for us to stay together, connected, while we did something else.

Next, I worked with a piece I called “Tale of the Magic Glove”.  I still intend to do this work, though after a few other pieces.  It’s scope and magnitude are large, it’s possibilities – endless.  It tells the story of any human society which evolves and then destroys itself.  It centers around the discovery of a “magic” glove in a box which, when worn, produces a sound in the wearer.  In this sense, a new verbal language is created every single time the show is staged.  There are only 5 players, but once the 5 sounds have been introduced, the players then morph sounds, and are able to steal new ones they hear from the audience.  Someone coughs?  Great – we can use that as a sound. 

Through this vehicle, we searched for a basic society that we could then color in any way that we chose.  Here we had 5 individuals, speaking – suddenly – language.  They would then search for ways to attach meaning to the sounds, to convey thought with the sound, to pursue an aim with the sound, and to connect with others.  It was an extraordinarily large possibility. 

The other aspect here, that I must relate even though it is slightly separate from this theme of a “universal language”, is that in having an open society in this way, we could explore any “first” we wanted to.  So:

• The first kiss
• The first ritual
• The first dance
• The first prayer
• The first fight

There were suddenly countless ones.  In each of us, we had to search for HOW – through our own DNA – these things might have happened.  Was there a trace of some pure impulse within us that could serve as a guide?

This project was shelved, as it suddenly mushroomed into this enormous work – once that I was not ready for.

But, the curiousity in discovering theater that is universal continues.  Listen, I like to travel and always marveled at how Merce’s work could literally reach anyone – it was open and pure.  Any audience could sit in front of his work and have a sincere impression of it.  You cannot say the same for a play or opera.  Unless the audience speaks english, you won’t be booked overseas.

Of course, it is not solely about travel…but about a search.  My opinion: the theater art has stalled.  With the exception of a few, bold artists (Robert Wilson, the largest example of this in our current culture), the theater art has stalled – it has simply agreed with its followers to repeat the same, basic form over, and over, and over, again…the Play.

I haven’t a thing against a play, but it is really the only form we can discover? 

Two Pieces At Once, say I.  And here’s why.  One that is truly a play – the Medea play, in this case.  Another which exists around it, to explore ideas completely separate from the Medea, but that can also support Medea.  Oh, and the Medea play will be asked to support the empty work as well.

The very interesting piece is what happens in between?  What is the atmosphere created when these 2 works come together?  This is not about the chaotic “happenings” of the 60s where 2 pieces distracted from each other (or more than 2…) vying for attention in the same space/time. 

No, this is about us, as artists, exploring the space between the 2 works, and making something THERE.  It is there that I believe something rather universal, significant and purely theatrical exists.  It is also about the relationship between the 2 works, and in exploring ways that the 2 can influence the others.  Can they support the other along its journey towards its own, independent conclusion.

And, isn’t this a little like life, relationship and vying for space in this, our new 21st Century world?

We’ll see.

SS.