From a 1998 article in transmissions by Judy Radul:
Distance is needed for analysis, too much closeness tends to produce immersive and manipulative scenarios. The twentieth century has been charted via the disappearance of distance (Jameson), similarly live "presence" in performance works against distance to provide a sense of immediacy, a tangible connection to the performer. Paradoxically, our present moment seems bereft of live performance - yet besieged by compulsory liveliness, presence and animation. Let me crassly overstate the point': we crave animation because we want to feel alive. We have a distrust of contemplation and things passive, and an overdeveloped belief in "action" and "dialog".
I really love Radul's Empathy With Victor which is currently showing (scroll down) at the Power Plant in Toronto. In the 3-screen video, an actor and a director are working together on developing a scene. This scenario is itself scripted. There are many levels of representation and they fold back in on themselves, as the scenes within scenes play out, and our attention shifts back and forth from a meta-appreciation of the construct, to engagement with the characters and content. Sounds dry and boring but nope, its not. It's a thrilling, chilling existential experience. The 'actor' is working himself into the character of a man (Victor) who is about to present a eulogy at his friend's funeral. He is practicing his talk, while ironing. The eulogoy itself is an abstracted exploration of mortality. What does it mean to be a person, and by extension to be dead? Victor ends up concluding that his friend's death is a sad occasion because, and only because, he was human. He concludes this many times, as the actor tries to get inside the character with helpful prods and suggestions from the actor playing the director.
Here are some more of Radul's words, from the article quoted above:
What can or should be considered "live" is a philosophical question but wittingly (or unwittingly) it is also a question which performance engages with. Is the live situation best defined in terms of humans, sentient organisms, matter, conjunctions of time and place or an intensity of lived experience? What we accept as "live" structures a hierarchy between the live and the inanimate. It also structures our understanding of time. The present is alive, and dies with each passing moment. The death of not only the mortal body but of experience is something capitalist society uses to trigger a panoply of consumptive responses through anxiety. But, if, like many other cultures, we broaden our understanding of what is "live" or "alive" we may be able to work in the interstices of these hierarchies for an oppositional effect.
i cut out a quote from an obit that i came across in the globe
and mail. the annoying thing is i didn't note the name of the
author that it was quoting. i only remember that it was an
older, femaile british writer. i had never heard of her or
read any of her books but i did like what she said:
"i read the obituariries of people who have crammed their
lives with "doing" while i have wasted great chunks of mine
dreaming."
mary wesley (google search of quote + sp correction)
nice!
"live life lavishishly"...
from a CBC radio broadcast on death and dying, speaker's name I've forgotten
Sarah Milroy, art writer for Toronto's Globe and Mail seems to have a pretty similar take on Radul as I did except for one major difference, she got bored and I did not. Why? Maybe it just comes down to taste or personality, but I suspect it has to do with what we mean when we say "postmodern". I have never, ever agreed with a train of thought that erases meaning. If postmodernism was about emptying signs of signification, then it was a load of clap-trap. But I don't believe that was the real agenda, rather that the act of emptying was an exercise to show its own futility, a honing of our grasp on languages and how to use them well. We humans make gut-wrenching stories out of the stupidest, most banal events (take any episode of Trailer Park Boys as an example). Why assume the content is there in aid of abstraction? Sometimes a cigar is just a symbol...go symbol!
for me, it was the acting that was boring: acting, especially of the 'actors acting out acting' kind, bores me. perhaps it bores Sarah Milroy as well. unfortunately, the dull momentousness of the acting was what prevented me from really getting any thrill out of the piece. all a matter of taste no doubt.
I just think it is very nice to see Sarah Milroy trying to do a take on something in a critical way. Too often, she just dances around the issue of whether or not she likes a work of art. This annoys me.
|
From a 1998 article in transmissions by Judy Radul:
I really love Radul's Empathy With Victor which is currently showing (scroll down) at the Power Plant in Toronto. In the 3-screen video, an actor and a director are working together on developing a scene. This scenario is itself scripted. There are many levels of representation and they fold back in on themselves, as the scenes within scenes play out, and our attention shifts back and forth from a meta-appreciation of the construct, to engagement with the characters and content. Sounds dry and boring but nope, its not. It's a thrilling, chilling existential experience. The 'actor' is working himself into the character of a man (Victor) who is about to present a eulogy at his friend's funeral. He is practicing his talk, while ironing. The eulogoy itself is an abstracted exploration of mortality. What does it mean to be a person, and by extension to be dead? Victor ends up concluding that his friend's death is a sad occasion because, and only because, he was human. He concludes this many times, as the actor tries to get inside the character with helpful prods and suggestions from the actor playing the director.
Here are some more of Radul's words, from the article quoted above:
- sally mckay 1-03-2004 7:49 pm
i cut out a quote from an obit that i came across in the globe
and mail. the annoying thing is i didn't note the name of the
author that it was quoting. i only remember that it was an
older, femaile british writer. i had never heard of her or
read any of her books but i did like what she said:
"i read the obituariries of people who have crammed their
lives with "doing" while i have wasted great chunks of mine
dreaming."
- nanmac (guest) 1-05-2004 1:23 am
mary wesley (google search of quote + sp correction)
- bill 1-05-2004 1:37 am
nice!
- nanmac (guest) 1-05-2004 2:02 am
"live life lavishishly"...
from a CBC radio broadcast on death and dying, speaker's name I've forgotten
- rebecca 1-13-2004 1:38 am
Sarah Milroy, art writer for Toronto's Globe and Mail seems to have a pretty similar take on Radul as I did except for one major difference, she got bored and I did not. Why? Maybe it just comes down to taste or personality, but I suspect it has to do with what we mean when we say "postmodern". I have never, ever agreed with a train of thought that erases meaning. If postmodernism was about emptying signs of signification, then it was a load of clap-trap. But I don't believe that was the real agenda, rather that the act of emptying was an exercise to show its own futility, a honing of our grasp on languages and how to use them well. We humans make gut-wrenching stories out of the stupidest, most banal events (take any episode of Trailer Park Boys as an example). Why assume the content is there in aid of abstraction? Sometimes a cigar is just a symbol...go symbol!
- sally mckay 1-20-2004 8:30 am
for me, it was the acting that was boring: acting, especially of the 'actors acting out acting' kind, bores me. perhaps it bores Sarah Milroy as well. unfortunately, the dull momentousness of the acting was what prevented me from really getting any thrill out of the piece. all a matter of taste no doubt.
- anonymous (guest) 1-24-2004 11:59 pm
I just think it is very nice to see Sarah Milroy trying to do a take on something in a critical way. Too often, she just dances around the issue of whether or not she likes a work of art. This annoys me.
- Jennifer (guest) 1-31-2004 5:59 pm