Wednesday, September 23, 2015
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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like how you talked about examples of deadly theatre and explained why it was deadly theatre. I also liked how you stated that simple is effective and simplicity can sometimes hold more meaning than something extravagant.
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting to read that both performances were like magic shows with surprise and awe, even when the productions were opposites of each other (Mummenschanz being minimal and Lepage being extravagant). Also, Both performances seem to be extremely great productions, because I believe unpredictability is what makes a performance the best.
ReplyDeleteMy initial response to Lepage's piece was expected when it comes to his level of technicality and stunning visuals: awe, appreciation, enthrallment. However, as much as I would like to believe in his control of the stage, there were parts that made me question the relevance of every "trick" he used, just as you said. Ultimately, however, I believe that this is a natural response when seeing a production on a level as complicated and intricate as "Needles and Opium". I believe that, in the end, Lepage is aware of the advantages and limitations of being highly technical, and still was able to thread the story into his stunning production with a degree of efficiency that made the entire performance cohesive.
ReplyDeleteI think Peter Brook is the magician that plays with the audience and wants the audience to understand and play with their mind. Robert Lepage focuses specifically in the representation in the art of theatre, not really caring if the audience understands it. He concentrates in the beauty and complexity of his view of theatre. To me it seems like Mummenschanz was more of a developing art of a group of people combining their art to one master beauty art and through this breaking down ideas and making eh scene impressive, on the other hand Lepage is an individual art, the way he sees things, original that makes sense to him and a few of other people. Its that mentality that your idea is unique and you really think its good but people dont fully understand but you know its beautiful. Like a red flower, for english people thats simple, for another person in his head it means love or different seasons or blood and sadness etc. It all comes down to heritage culture and childhood.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that you compared "Needles and Opium" to a magic show and I agree wholeheartedly that it was indeed a spectacle that maintained an element of surprise. However, as I was watching the production I thought of it as more of a bicycle - always revolving, and in need of constant pedaling to prevent it from falling. There was never a moment of dead air in the entire play. Every transition, every blackout, every introduction to a new scene was fluid and intentional. I also felt that it could not have been as successful as a production had it not been for the set crew that kept "pedaling", or changing the set to ensure that the stage was always alive.
ReplyDelete-Karen Song-
(greenlover was an id that I created in 3rd grade and am currently regretting)
I absolutely agree with your statement about how Lepage's show was balanced. Typically, when people casually talk about minimalistic theatre, they tend to mean a simple set, in which Needles and Opium can also be described as because they do literally only contain an open box as their set. However, this show was not minimalistic in anyway. The set had so many different dimensions that flowed and created itself as it rotated and the lighting teleported the audience to different parts of the world in seconds. Not only this, but the idea that was expressed through this play was extremely complex and mature, which I must admit I still do not quite understand. The fact that Lepage was able to make this intricate story a focused piece of art shows how balanced this production was.
ReplyDeleteContrary from many people's opinions, I enjoyed Mummenschanz more than Needles and Opium. As I stated in my Me Project, I am a huge fan of simplicity and this show was a perfect example. I could not believe how these silly costumes that I would've laughed at if I passed by it at Namdaemun could be brought to life in an entertaining yet mature way. Responding to your question about the audience, I think if there weren't a huge population of children in the audience,I would've taken the show a lot more seriously. This would've been a negative impact on the show because I do not believe these actors wanted their audience to take Mummenschanz as a serious production. It is after all a form of clownery(is this a word)! Therefore, I think it was absolutely vital for children to be a part of this experience for me.
It was really interesting when you mentioned the balance in the Needles and Opium versus the play that you saw in Singapore. I agree with you how there needs to be a balance in plays and in books. Although I haven't seen any plays recently thus far, I love to read novels. It kinda reminds me something that I learned in one of my middle school English classes. My teacher told us that there should always be a balance, especially in writing. If there is too much dialogue, then it becomes more like a play instead of a narrative essay.
ReplyDeleteI also liked how you found similarites in both plays and how both practitioners can complement each other. In many situations, it's easier to critique the differences. I really liked how you showed that amazing people with very different styles can create mind-blowing productions.
I found your description of Lepage as a magician interesting, but I couldn't really relate, or understand it. To be honest, the whole show was... a little flat to me. Now, I was never bored and I was definitely impressed, especially with the whole rotating cube stage thing. (the lighting was also incredible). However, although I enjoyed watching the play, it never really touched me on any level; be it emotional, critical, or moral. (is that a thing?). I didn't see the play having any real message or meaning ("don't do drugs"... maybe?) Or any moment that truly made me thing on a deeper level about the world, the human condition or any particular subject. Now, I am pretty sure (certain) that the message just flew over my head and I just happen to not catch it. Maybe with a bit of theatrical experience, or better observations, or maybe if I was simply in a mood more aligned with the play, I could have understood the play better, but the fact is I didn't. So to go back to the blog, I am unsure what you mean by Lepage having every trick up his sleeve. (Unless you mean special effects, in which case, I agree.) and I couldn't really see the connection between the different characters. (They all... went to drugs?) However I did find your comparison to a show you saw in Singapore interesting. How just tossing everything expensive into a play wont necessarily make it good. I could see how extravagance might hurt a play instead of improving it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I enjoyed Mummenschanz a lot more than Needles and Opium, not just because it was easier on the eyes but because it felt like child's play. I find it fascinating how people who consider themselves to be superior in theatre always have to ability to find meaning in anything, even when there was no meaning intended. For example, even in the most nonsensical skits in Mummenschanz, I could hear kids from SFS go "oh... I get it!", and while it's true that some skits in Mummenschanz did have a very obvious "moral at the end of the story", others didn't, and those skits that our students found didn't have any meaning after all were tossed aside and immediately discredited as being "weird" or "childlike". However, the childlikeness of Mummenschanz is what, for me, made it enjoyable; I was not expected to find any deeper meaning in a puppet in the shape of a pea eating a fluffy ball, nor in two huge hands interacting with each other and the audience-- it was purely for fun. Even when the skits did seem to have a deeper meaning, the meaning was obvious for us and yet the skits still appealed to our inner child who is just looking innocent horseplay. Needles and Opium was the exact opposite of that; one couldn't purely appreciate it for what it was, although the set was fancy and nice to look at. It was a shame, as the themes and message of the play is such an important one and one that can be explored in detail, but often it felt like Lepage was deliberately hiding the meaning from the audience just to show off how good he was at it. Almost as if he was a child, playing a game of I Spy, picking an everyday but largely ignored object, and then giving a bunch of clues that throw off the players, but the longer the game goes on the more smug he becomes, going "oh, come on guys, it's easy!" and then never actually revealing what the object was. For me, the mis-en-scene in Needles and Opium was a grand, overcomplicated and unnecessary display of all the symbols one could possibly think of in as many forms of media as possible to describe one fairly simple idea: we are all connected. So I ask the question: why are we incapable of creating theatre to be appreciated at face value? Why is theatre that takes a lot of deep analysis to understand by default considered good theatre? Shouldn't an artist's intention be to make the meaning or message of a piece as obvious as possible so it can touch as many people as possible? Do we create theatre that is difficult to understand purely because it pleases our egos to know that we are the only ones that truly understand it?
ReplyDelete