Weeks 9-10, cont.

I think that the main feedback from this week was a concern for the levels of performance. The approaches to solving this varied; either emphasizing the differences between each section to create more of a texture or increasing the stakes on everything we have produced. Either way the focus of the piece needs adjusting ahead of the next scratch. What was encouraging was that not only could we have predicted this feedback – I think we were all aware of the flaws – but that due to this, we had already in parts considered the solutions. Perhaps what Verity says on one of her posts, to leave the audience in cabaret mode and I am assuming therefore us beginning in the cage, will avoid any repetition in moods or pitches between the first and the second section. I also think that we knew full well that the real test would be the construction of part three, which we are due to address this week. All in all then, the feedback was entirely useful and can guide us through the next scratch in the very least.

Where to go from here then? Verity had suggested incorporating all three sections into the one structure, that of the cage. I think that this idea has some leverage in that it is our central image, is aesthetically proving its worth and theoretically supports our ideas – with the tomb like shells, the division and yet unity of bodies, a body moving liminally whilst the physical bodies remain static – the list goes on and I think one of the joys is that the audience are free to interpret the structure as they wish as every interpretation inevitably falls back to our ideas and overall concepts. Glorious. However I would have doubts about staging the whole of the piece in the one area. I think the main reason for this is that we have been stuck for some time on the idea of the liminal and of course, of moving bodies. I see it as natural for us to move through the space and to separate, have a period of transit, and reincorporate (after Turner). The counter-argument would include Jen’s reminder about McKenzie’s liminal-norm; perhaps all bodies are in constant states of dynamic equilibrium and so the inbetween state is the normal in modern society. However I think this undoes some of our previous research and would prevent any exploration with the performative lab, in the third reincorporation section, which may involve the audience and therefore us leaving the cage. I think that a compromise between the two is to move from the cage, over the thirty minutes, to the audience. This would give a sense of development to the piece– a performative arc – a narrative (Koob-Sassen) .

So with the structure in place – cage and acts – how to do: several times we have passed over the idea of characters. Whilst I agree that this gives us a good grounding, I am dubious about making these public. I guess that for me, references we keep returning to such as The Trial, Cagebirds, One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest are known to us but not necessarily to an audience. Perhaps the movement between the cage section and the third, performance lab section is marked by learning about a character, implicitly. As an example, I am interested in Cagebirds, where characters possess split personalities. I would enjoy playing with media to somehow show this state. Maybe this is where the puppets come into play, to enact our ‘characters’? I still very much like the idea of the digital hand also; perhaps this could aid us as we exit the cage and begin to walk amongst the audience.

A final idea – the thoughts around the lab section I think are unclear currently. I’m wondering whether having another model would assist us here. Perhaps we could Vincenzi another piece and either play this or physically play this out onstage to help us break free from the cage. Fantasia, however crude, springs to mind, perhaps because of the score and physical score more than anything. And the mops..