Having read about Jerome Bel's live performance work for over 10 years mainly in
the critical performance writing of Andre Lepecki, I fnally got to witness live a
piece of this famous contemporary dance choreographer of our epoch at Hau
Theater 1 in Berlin in 2013, called Disabled Theater. To be honest I was quite
skeptical about Bel's work because I am not particularly interested in minimalism
especially in live performance and dance, but this was one of the most compelling
live performances I have seen at this high level of performance.
What I found most compelling was not only the work presented, but the activation
it created within the audience because provocative work touching socio-politically
taboo subjects was masterfully broached. What was most afecting however about
Bel's work Disabled Theater was not only how starkly it presented the performers
within their innate qualities as 'disabled theater' i.e bodies, theatricality,
subjectivity, the theatre of life and identity, but how as a such a politically correct
or non-correct subject such as the subjectivity and expression of mentally
disabled people, the work maintained a subtlety and activated complex feelings in
the audience as a mirror to society's conceits.
It stands out for me in recent years in performance at this level, because it achieved what minimalist work at its best cl/aims to achieve, which is that within its simplicity much like a haiku poem, it eluded to and activated so much complexity in both representation and the experiences of both performers and audience alike.
It stands out for me in recent years in performance at this level, because it achieved what minimalist work at its best cl/aims to achieve, which is that within its simplicity much like a haiku poem, it eluded to and activated so much complexity in both representation and the experiences of both performers and audience alike.
Simply what it did, as a description, was introduce 13 intellectually disabled
performers all sitting in a semi circle of chairs facing the audience sequentially, in
a series of simple introductions. Firstly each performer one by one stood in the
centre and introduced their name and told us that 'the director Jerome Bel has
asked me to stand for a minute' and stood for how long a minute was to them,
which varied very much in length (1-10 mins), then in order each told us what
disability they have, then in order what they do as a profession, all of whom said
'schauspieler/in' (actor/ess) each time saying 'the director Jerome Bel asked us
to...'.
Then 10 out of 13 were asked to perform a dance to music of their choice, which they did. 1 of the 3 who did not dance had a written speech, which he read about how his family are embarrassed about the performance, that they seem exploited, but that he feels good about it, and that he was angry with the director that he was not asked to make a dance. It ended with the 3 who had originally been excluded from presenting a dance also performing their own dance, to music of their choice.
Whether one 'likes' this work or not, because it is clearly aiming at provocation, and being very transparent about questions of exploitation in regard to the spectacle of disabled expression, the work for me so powerfully activated a large range of complex responses within audience members one only have admire the bravery of this work as one might also in theme with Lar Von Trier's flm The Idiots, which remains my favourite of his flms.
The history for the disabled is outlined in many theoretical texts, such as Foucault's Madness and Civilisation and we often see the disabled as a marker for what society wants to hide, reveal, protect, or delete throughout history, such as
Then 10 out of 13 were asked to perform a dance to music of their choice, which they did. 1 of the 3 who did not dance had a written speech, which he read about how his family are embarrassed about the performance, that they seem exploited, but that he feels good about it, and that he was angry with the director that he was not asked to make a dance. It ended with the 3 who had originally been excluded from presenting a dance also performing their own dance, to music of their choice.
Whether one 'likes' this work or not, because it is clearly aiming at provocation, and being very transparent about questions of exploitation in regard to the spectacle of disabled expression, the work for me so powerfully activated a large range of complex responses within audience members one only have admire the bravery of this work as one might also in theme with Lar Von Trier's flm The Idiots, which remains my favourite of his flms.
The history for the disabled is outlined in many theoretical texts, such as Foucault's Madness and Civilisation and we often see the disabled as a marker for what society wants to hide, reveal, protect, or delete throughout history, such as
when the Nazis eradicated the disabled as one of society's impurities. The fascism
of that action is much clearer, to decide whether a socio-political group is worthy
of existence by its use, but less clear is society's complex relationship to disability
in contemporary society.
In putting Disabled Theater on show literally as 'theater' in a very self refexive title, the work refers to 'side show' or 'freak show' platforms from 100 years ago, and also the 'child-like' introductions and 'dances' we see in school performances, but more pertinently in the sense of daily life being treated as spectacle or child or marginalised within flm roles.
What is most powerful about the work is its self-refexive manner of inviting questions of subjectivity and who makes decisions for intellectually disabled people. Equally powerful is the refection or question of who has more of problem with them, the disabled theater performers or the audience? In the awkward and complex synergy created between audience and performers, each introduction by the performers invite both an awe and a questioning, not just of the director or society, but of ones own response, one's own spectalisation or romanticism of the disabled.
This is what distinguishes between the power of flm and the power of live performance in my view and why this work in its immediacy and embodiment of real subjectivities spoke more directly to audiences than the similarly conceptual frame of Lar Von Trier's work, which audiences were equally divided by. 'They are so free and child-like', 'so authentic, and we are not' are some comments I overheard. The fact that one of the performers mentioned that his family cried
In putting Disabled Theater on show literally as 'theater' in a very self refexive title, the work refers to 'side show' or 'freak show' platforms from 100 years ago, and also the 'child-like' introductions and 'dances' we see in school performances, but more pertinently in the sense of daily life being treated as spectacle or child or marginalised within flm roles.
What is most powerful about the work is its self-refexive manner of inviting questions of subjectivity and who makes decisions for intellectually disabled people. Equally powerful is the refection or question of who has more of problem with them, the disabled theater performers or the audience? In the awkward and complex synergy created between audience and performers, each introduction by the performers invite both an awe and a questioning, not just of the director or society, but of ones own response, one's own spectalisation or romanticism of the disabled.
This is what distinguishes between the power of flm and the power of live performance in my view and why this work in its immediacy and embodiment of real subjectivities spoke more directly to audiences than the similarly conceptual frame of Lar Von Trier's work, which audiences were equally divided by. 'They are so free and child-like', 'so authentic, and we are not' are some comments I overheard. The fact that one of the performers mentioned that his family cried
and felt embarrassed and that he was exploited, was a powerful moment (not to
mention one of respect between director and performer), similar to the ending of
The Idiots, in which the realness of the seemingly most timid character, taking her
'inner idiot' home to her family unlike any other character, revealed so much
courage and realness. This is not just theatre, but something extending into the
fabric of people's lives and indeed society.
Work which goes to the heart of personal and political is for me incredibly compelling, where it is very difcult to remove oneself from the implications of the provocations in question. I aspire to make such work, and many times I do, but mostly through audience activity can it be easily accessed. Conceptually and philosophically the work appealed to me and went beyond the personal and political, or perhaps included all of the above in mirroring existential questions.
Work which goes to the heart of personal and political is for me incredibly compelling, where it is very difcult to remove oneself from the implications of the provocations in question. I aspire to make such work, and many times I do, but mostly through audience activity can it be easily accessed. Conceptually and philosophically the work appealed to me and went beyond the personal and political, or perhaps included all of the above in mirroring existential questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment