The performance consisted of a split stage with the performers in a caged area, raised, a projection of soil being worked above with a Vincenzi style piece of us watching the Poltergeist on the ceiling of the Boiler Room. The trip tic created could resemble a heaven, earth and underworld concept. The television blared white noise from the corner echoed in the sound which evolved into a slowed Kletzmer track. The projector whose light was forced upwards onto the ceiling was placed in a box upstage which cast a neat shaft of light just beyond the reach of the performers. The performers themselves wore black and feathers, ate and played with soil and water.
The feedback was very positive – without real mention of our subconscious theme of the liminal, the elements of the scene echoed that theme and the interesting areas within; the concepts of identity in flux (moving or liminal bodies), the performers moving within the space or restricted within the cage/barred area and equally the freedom and yet encapsulation of the piece for an audience – whilst some drifted and there were no prescribed boundaries, the still and focus in the Boiler Room was similar to the focus found in the library for our first Scratch.
Then the thoughts of Hilary began to roll – he encouraged us to bring the projector closer to create more shadows. Light and dark seems to be a concern here which perhaps will orientate staging in the coming weeks. The structure itself which is cage like and barred could be replaced with a trellis as a hybrid structure which encourages life but a directed and forged one; as we grow up we are also restricted.
Hilary’s main concern with all the scratches was the lack of words and perhaps the lack of the live. Whilst our presence on stage could not be ignored, Hilary encouraged us to play vocally – to sing the Kletzmer and create the sounds of the various instruments vocally. Andrea’s suggestion for a chanting of a chorus around the lines ‘we are all equal in death’ was also appreciated.
Practical issues were left aside as a debate around structure began – is our structure to be liminal or ambiguous for the piece as a whole? What is the difference between the two? The dictionary supports my thoughts on this which is that ambiguous is undecided and not determined whereas the liminal is yet undetermined, but has a known endpoint and aim – in other words the liminal is an in-between which is transitory and floats compared to an unquantified ambiguous. However, in terms of life cycles, many stages of life feel ambiguous and only with hindsight do many parts feel merged as a lifeline. In the stage of transition, with no focus on the next part or fragment, the structure is ambiguous and confusing. Perhaps this lost sense is something we can use in our structure, as well as a feeling of resolve when the boundary is crossed into the next stage. Perhaps this links back to Jen’s question about whether or not we see the piece as an in-between liminal or a liminalnorm; things seem normal in context, comparison, hindsight but confusing and odd at the time. I think our piece is an in-between which may resolve itself and become normal – we are all in equal in death.
One thing that Panos and Hilary emphasized was that symbols can create a feeling for an audience; the theory may be disguised but an audience can enjoy depicting and de/reconstructing meaning from a mass of stuff onstage. Hilary particularly emphasized the high points or hits in performance – comparing it to an essay; I think he means the beginning with a sense of confusion, the middle and the debate around two contradictory notions, and an ending of alternatives even. The twists and turns of the piece and the symbols along the way – the narrative – make for sound visual work. Done deal.
The suggestion to find a story also was interesting and furthered the how to structure the piece debate. To write a liminal life – I have written, ‘Descent to death and wipe the slate clean’. The layers and visual structure also paved the way for a thought of our sites; the cemetery as heaven, the man made hill surrounding a playground of ill and undecided bodies, trapped before death. The idea to play or mime with each other was interesting, and to play with our digital selves arose again – the split screen and dancing with absent bodies. Whilst this was important however, Hilary appreciated the privacy of the piece and the individual story/path of each performer.
How to stretch and expand this then: Hilary asked for mime, in the cage, in the shaft of light from the projection, perhaps digitally etc. The use of hands was also key, in light and shadow, in soil etc. Raw and natural. The bodies inside the caging was appealing visually – how can we expand the movement and interaction without losing the feeling of privacy and individual journeys? The use of voice and Kletzmer to ground the piece and entice an audience by giving them the high they expect. A sense of narrative and a structure to the staging may help draw together these individual ideas.
No comments:
Post a Comment