A Weekend of Theatre:
From the complex artistry of Robert LePage to the stark simplicity of Mummenschanz

There is quite a leap between the worlds of LePage and Mummenschanz and we took the leap this last weekend. Well, a few of us did anyway (Goose, Lynn ....). The rest of you saw one of the plays or the other. As I put these plays side by side, I have many thoughts that go to the heart of what an impact on an audience can be and the different roads we can take to achieve that impact.

To begin with, LePage is difficult as there is more to say about him than any blog entry should attempt. Nonetheless, we forge ahead.

I have shared with you that directors and practitioners as a whole do not like to be pigeon holed or pushed into the boundaries of a particular style or system. Nonetheless, this is often where critics go when they see an interesting artist on the horizon. Our research showed us that it was with Needles and Opium that critics began to recognize and comment upon what they were starting to perceive as a Lepage "style." One reviewer, John Heilpern, "praised Lepage for his capacity to 'expand the frontiers of theatre and produce images of great beauty' and chided those who had compared Lepage to Peter Brook:
'Mr. Brook is the master magician who says to us: look, I have nothing up my sleeve. He uses minimum means for maximum imaginative effect. Mr. Lepage is the magician with everything up his sleeve, not that he minds us knowing'."
Those of us who have studied Peter Brook or are in the throes of beginning that process know that he, most of all, would NEVER want to be defined as the quintessential minimalist as his work has reached in so many diverse directions. At the same time, I cannot disagree that Mr. Lepage makes me think of a magician and his show the other night was quite like a magic show. I was never sure of what trick was coming next. The inclination to anticipate the next surprise was almost as strong as it was to enter into his story. I am not sure if that is positive or negative. What do you think? That said, the play as a whole, was beautifully orchestrated in my mind from the soulful music of Miles Davis, to the tilted  and unpredictable world of the cube  to the inner monologues of the main actors and their perspective on relationships. Mr. LePage used so much: lighting, trick staging, film footage, cross-media intertextuality, cinematic film techniques, visual imagery, vertical storymaking, psychological time rather than chronological time and more. HOWEVER, he did not USE EVERYTHING which is what happened in a play I saw in Singapore. It was a perfect example of deadly theatre because instead of picking and choosing as a director, she took all the money she had been given and the most talented actors she could find as well as the most gifted production team possible and threw it all into a pot of creation that turned out to be a Frankenstein stew. It was too much of everything with no sense of balance or purpose. I was almost struck dumb watching it, not in a critical sense, but in a sorrowful sense. I could see in the actor's eyes that they were not proud of this work and yet they gave their ALL to it. How, I do not know. Mr. LePage COULD have dipped over the edge because of his genius and perhaps some say he does. However, I felt a marvelous balance the other night. It was close but it was balanced.

Juxtaposed to this was Sunday's performance. Mummenschanz could not be more opposite of LePage in that they are as mimimalistic in their production elements as anyone could be. The simplest of stages. The simplest of lights. The dimmest of lights. No music. SILENCE. And yet in one significant way, they were much like LePage. They, too, were magicians. With each new scene, there was surprise and awe. Their creativity knew no bounds and it was joyful particularly as we were surrounded by children. Would our reaction to them been different had children not been in the room? Would their response to us have been different had they known we were all adults? How much did our response impact their performance? They have always wanted to create a universal language. This, I believe, was achieved. The meaning and understanding transcended language, sex, age, religion. I was very moved when they came out to take a bow and I saw that some of the original members of the group from the 70s were there. They have given their lives to this art form. It is beautiful to think about this.

Different forms of theatre. Different impacts and resonances for the audience. Yet, both magical.

So what are your thoughts in response to my thoughts? I would love to hear.

Have a beautiful artful day.
ejm