Showing posts with label barbican. Show all posts
Showing posts with label barbican. Show all posts

The Porcelain Project: a (mis)communication across objects and space

With Grace Ellen Barkey

Initiated by Mary Kate Connolly and Eleanor Hadley Kershaw


The Porcelain Project

Barbican, Silk Street Theatre

14, 15 April 2009


Grace Ellen Barkey and Eleanor Hadley Kershaw take a seat at a table outside the Waterside Café, Barbican. The fountain on the other side of the patio is gushing and people at other tables chatter happily over coffee in the afternoon sunshine. Eleanor places a tape recorder on the table between her fizzy water and Grace’s tea. They start to discuss Spill: Overspill and The Porcelain Project. The conversation quickly turns to the story of the performance’s evolution.



Grace: I work quite intuitively. I don’t really think beforehand, “what does it mean?”. I consider it more like when a painter paints. Just go [she makes a hand gesture to suggest throwing] with the paint and the white thing. You have all your luggage with you, all your knowledge and your life and your dreams and you just go for something…


I always tell the story that Lot, my partner in crime, and me, we were having a bit of time off… and we decided to do something small. Lot was a ceramicist, but she hadn’t practiced for years and years and I don’t know why but she started to study it again. I am a very big fan of porcelain, I just love to touch it, and in a flea market I always go to the cups. I have a whole collection of the most fragile cups, the more fragile the better. I think we [envisioned] a picture of a Louis XIV-style room - a room full of porcelain - and we said to each other, let’s do something with it.


For me, theatre is a puppet theatre, in the sense of the absurdity and the grotesque nature of a puppet play; [where there might be] a kind of strange repeating, like “children did you see…”, and then something pops up there [she makes a hand gesture like a hand-puppet popping up]. I said to Lot, let’s make a puppetry of porcelain, but really recognisable things like cups. So Lot started to make all the pottery. [We built] a little temple; on this platform there were porcelain things standing and hanging, and we would pull on wires and all these [pieces of porcelain] would move. For example, there’s this snake of cups moving [she makes a hand gesture to suggest a rolling wave]. It’s just like a dream of little objects moving. We still show it sometimes in museums, this little manipulation of the porcelain, it takes like 10 minutes. So that’s how it started…


And when it was my turn to do a big production, at first we had another idea for a setting, but because we had so much porcelain we said, “we have spent so much time already with this porcelain, so let’s just throw it on the big stage and see what happens…” And that’s how it grew.


Eleanor: Is the relationship between the audience and the porcelain the same in the installation and in the performance?


Grace: It’s completely different. The trembling table that you see on stage is also in the installation. When it starts the people come in and they see all this porcelain falling and they can come much closer, they can express their curiosity differently. They go and look at the table and try to figure out “why does it tremble?” and “how does the porcelain fall?”. They are already completely into it before we even start the manipulation. And during the manipulation they come very close, very very close. It’s very light. And the porcelain has a quality, it’s very tender, it is beautiful. The music of it is tender.


In the show, we have this poetry of the porcelain in the temple, but I also wanted to show another side of it. It’s more absurd when a body carries the porcelain. When you have a porcelain nose you’re immediately a clownesque person. These objects become a part of the body but at the same time they are more like an aggressive outburst of the body. You want to touch another body but because of the porcelain it’s an impossibility: I wanted to play with this impossibility.


Eleanor: One of the things that we noted in the performance is that the porcelain is not porous, there’s no way of getting through it. It feels like it’s getting between these bodies. We wondered whether you see the porcelain as something completely exterior; external to the body? Or do you see it as a representation of something more internal?


Grace: Of course, it’s not only an external thing. When you make theatre you are instantly telling something, in some way, even if the performance is abstract. You have the space, you have the time, you have the whole aspect of theatre: you are telling a story. What I try to do together with the dancers and Lot, is to create something new.

To trigger fantasy, to show that you can come up with something that doesn’t exist yet. The material and what I try to say grow together in relation to each other; it is something that I completely trust. It will tell a story whether you want it to or not - it is there. I sometimes say it’s kind of a meditation. To create something, you just have to go into it and try to open yourself to all the possibilities. And of course I have limited time with the dancers, I don’t have years and years. So I have to begin with an idea and very soon they start to understand, and come into my meditation too. We are working together, and this whole new world grows.


Eleanor: The porcelain seems to almost create a language of its own – how would you describe this language? Would it be very formal and ornate, or sketchy and in note form, or something else entirely?


Grace: I’m not so good in words, I really think in images. If it is a language it is a physical one, and of course there’s the sound that the porcelain makes. This is almost like a presence for me. The porcelain as an image is very present and I am always surprised to hear it. It’s such a beautiful gift of the porcelain to make sound.


Eleanor: As much as I enjoyed the performance I also found it quite unsettling, specifically when thinking about the colonial connotations of the porcelain…


Grace: My work is really about the absurd and the grotesque: the poetry of the theatre, the mythical figures that represent the good and the bad. The mythical figure becomes human, and the human figure fails. It is always disturbing and always funny to see human people trying to communicate and failing. And along with the porcelain, the mythical figures and the kings are an excuse to trigger something; to do something else with time, with material, to play, to invent. So the kings were a fascination because it’s such a terrific question – what is it to be a king? It’s a shame that there are no good kings any more. A good king should be on the square every Sunday and… dance for the people [laughs]… And why do all these kings go so crazy? To go so far in their rituals and to get so caught up with this absurd life they’re living.


Eleanor: This really came across in the performance – they’re so overindulgent and decadent that their world just falls apart and becomes chaotic…


Grace: And at the same time it’s a fairytale, the king and the princess and the frog.


Eleanor: And in creating the show you were “playing” and you see theatre as puppetry. As an audience member, you get the sense that these beings on stage are almost like children, in the way that they’re teasing each other. They often look at us for our approval; they’re playing to us. I felt very implicated; that they might not be doing that if I wasn’t watching. And when the movement becomes disturbing and sexual, I felt responsible for this descent into chaos. It’s a very interesting relationship that the performers establish with the audience by continuously looking back to us.


Grace: It’s a weird choice to make: are we going to look or not? And that’s why we put what we call “soldiers” [line of tall vases] at the front of the stage, so that they can’t come out, so that they can’t escape. So that we ask the audience just to look and say “what the fuck are they doing?!” It’s important to feel an energy that’s completely useless, because that’s what we are. You would look down from there [gestures to sky] at us and at how we fight each other, and how this one is for this god, and that one is for that god, and the people on the other planets would say “what the fuck are they doing?!”.


Eleanor: So you’re putting the audience in the position of looking in from the outside, from “outer space”.




At the end of the performance one of the vases broke. It was very shocking, and it brought back the idea that the porcelain is so fragile. We wondered whether that moment was intentional?


Grace: No. But every performance something breaks. We don’t know when and we don’t know why. It can be that something tinkles too hard, or somebody stumbles over something or several things, three or four things.


Eleanor: It really is unpredictable – as life is.


Has something ever broken in a way that has made it difficult for the performance to continue?


Grace: Well if something breaks there is a broom and Misha, in character, can come and clean it up.


Grace and Eleanor continue their discussion while finishing their drinks. They shake hands and smile. Eleanor exits through the café. Grace exits across the patio. A waitress enters from the café door and clears Grace’s teacup and Eleanor’s water bottle onto a tray, then exits.


Mary Kate is a freelance writer on performance and live art, based in London.


Eleanor Hadley Kershaw is a writer focusing on performance and live art, currently based between Brussels, London and Bristol.ehadleykershaw@googlemail.com

Ecology up the money tree: Pacitti Company's A Forest by David Berridge

A Forest

Conceived and directed by Robert Pacitti

Co-devised and performed by Richard Eton, Sheila Ghelani and Robert Pacitti

The Pit, Barbican

7-9 April



There’s been little about nature in the shows at this years SPILL. Or, at least, not much about the non-, other- or more-than human bits of it, if one excludes the dogs and horses of Castellucci. So, feeling a bit eco-starved, I felt somewhat expectant waiting outside the Barbican’s Pit to see a show called A Forest.


Actually, A Forest, too, had little in the way of nature, if by that I meant pastoral landscapes, lush vegetation, living animals, or just lots of green. For their hour long show Pacitti Company had modified the Pit into a small space in which a circle of chairs surrounded an island of 2p pieces. If the shape suggested an island biogeography, with all the uniqueness and variability Darwin found so exciting on the Galapagos Islands, then its bronze mass suggested geography had become money slightly quicker than money had become landscape.


A man lying on the coins. I can’t remember if he was naked at the beginning of the show, but he was naked at the end, and in the beginning, if he wasn’t, he acted as if he wished he was. He writhed on the coins, kissing and licking them. At the end of the show a bare tree was arranged above his naked body, both trapping and growing out of his body like some mutant rib-cage extension. No leaves, though, or not until two other performers had pinned a show-off, greedy foliage of fifty pound notes to its branches.


In-between these two scenes, A Forest sought to construct its own biogeography, defined by how body, nature, and money were all a part of some slightly traumatic ecosystem of desire. Central to this eco-restoration endeavor was a man stood at a microphone telling stories. The details haven’t stayed with me, and maybe that was the point. If the style and tone of his narratives reminded me of folk stories, he had a relish for details that stood out from and even abolished the narrative, proposing instead an immediate, visceral value. A man threading his eyes with red thread, for example, or sticking pins in his heart.


Over on the other side of coin island was its ring-mistress. On entering the Pit all of the audience were handed two pence pieces, before finding bald dolls on their seats. The woman came round with a money box, and everyone placed their coins inside. That seemed the end of the matter, but then the woman was back to show the audience, not the money box but both her breasts. Later she came round with a tray on which was a pair of pigs trotters. Were these the principle raw materials on which this economy-ecology depends? Later still, she collected the bald dolls, covering them in coins, both burial and blessing.


Her relationship to the man in the middle was more hands-on. Not that the man didn’t have actions to perform under his own volition. At one point he ran around the circle of coins, like a lurcher running and running until it just collapses. But ultimately his movements were determined by the woman, who tied antlers to his back. Or she ran back and forth over the coins, jumping over his naked body. Such actions summed up the tone of their relationship and the piece as a whole: caught in a tension between conscious and unconscious; autonomy and projection; flow of narrative against the fixed, iconographic image.


The naked man with the antlers on his back captured a lot of these tensions. As an image was it a mythical creation, or product of performance’s capitalist need for ever new product diversification, or both? Similarly, A Forest used storytelling to see if its conservative forms and agendas could be applicable to a more political, Queer agenda. Or does the poetic power of such stories always overwhelm the political interests of a particular teller and time? Pacitti Company hopes for the former, but tentatively, and A Forest was a laboratory for such a hope.


Take the coins themselves and how they were lit. Sometimes they were isolated in the space: a warm light gave them a semi-magical bronze-becoming-gold aura. Other times the light was more flat and the coins were part of the broader environment. Not totally ordinary, of course, because it was an enormous very non-everyday number of 2p pieces. If we can’t make stories our own, or insert them into our own political and performance agendas, we can at least work back and forth between their magic and their almost-everydayness, and see what, if anything, happens.



David Berridge writes and edits the blogzine More Milk Yvette: A Journal of the Broken Screen. moremilkyvette@gmail.com

Small Talk 03 - Purgatorio by Alex Eisenberg

Purgatorio by Romeo Castellucci

Barbican Main Theatre

9 April 2009

7.48pm – 7.55pm


Seat E12 - (A)

Seat E13 - (M)


You can read an introduction to Small Talk here.

_____________________________________________


7.48pm


A: Hello…

[PAUSE]

Hi…

M: Just trying to get into a book...[LAUGH]

A: Just trying to get into the book…what is it? [PAUSE] Oh right, okay.

M: Finally republished in England.

A: When was it…oh ’66 was it?

M: That was the last edition…

A: Okay…how far have you got?

M: Not very far! So I’m trying to get some in now…

A: You’re catching every moment you can!

M: Yup…because there is no programme.

A: You can get programmes can’t you?

M: They said they had sold out…


[PAUSE]


A: So what do you think its going to be like?

M: I dunno…nasty I think.

A: What’s that?

M: Pretty nasty, I hope.

A: Pretty nasty…

M: That’s the idea, isn’t it?


[PAUSE]


A: Have you seen any of the others?

M: No, I haven’t, I’ve only just come down…I live in Norwich so…

A: Oh right…

M: I didn’t even get into Paradiso

A: How come?

M: Too late to get a ticket…you have to have a ticket.

A: Oh…

M: So this is it.

A: One’s better than none?

M: Yup.

A: So you’ve just come down today from Norwich have you?

M: I came down two days ago.

A: Okay.


[PAUSE]


A: What’s Norwich like?

M: Sleepy.

A: Sleepy. [BOTH LAUGH]

[SHORT PAUSE]

M: We have our annual excitement, which is the Norfolk and Norwich Festival and it’s really good.

A: What’s that?

M: That’s a proper international festival.

A: Great…

M: Stronger on music than anything else.

A: Okay…

M: And it coincides with teaching…it coincides with my exam period, so I’m always off...

A: What do you teach?

M: English and Drama.

A: Great.

M: That’s why I’m at this kind of thing!

A: Okay. What age group do you teach?

M: Secondary.

A: Secondary school. How’s that?

M: Tiring at my age…

A: Tiring…you been doing it for a while?

M: Uh ha…thirty three years.

A: Wow…so you know what to do then?

M: In theory…

Are you a regular comer here?

A: Yeah I am, yeah. I came and saw the other show.

M: Which was…

A: Inferno.

M: Which was good?

A: Um…yeah.

M: Sort of three star…most of the critics seemed to three star it.

A: Oh, you read the reviews. Did you find them good?

M: I though they were interesting reviews.

A: Did they help you?

M: Well I know what I’m going to get. I’ve been around…

A: So you know his work do you?

M: I’ve looked him up, yeah. Still I hope I’ll see something English here sometime…


[PAUSE]


A: I think we’ve got quite good seats here.

M: This is nice actually…yeah.

A: We are sort of on the bend. A bit of side and a bit of front.

[BOTH LAUGH]


A: Sorry…I’ve completely distracted you from you book.

M: Well I was kind of thinking reading some De Sade would get me in the mood for it.

A: Okay…though I mean it is a tricky time to be getting into a book?

M: Yeah I wouldn’t normally be doing this but…

A: You just got it…

M: It’s just arrived and its been on order for two months…so I’ve been rearing to go. It’s either that or being really poncey and reading the French newspaper. But I won’t be poncey.

A: Are you a French speaker?

M: Yeah…

A: How come you read the French newspaper?

M: I just love France.

A: Oh right…

M: So I go over there…for the festival in Paris during the summer, which is hugely subsidised. It’s 10 euros for the maximum ticket price.

A: That’s fantastic.

M: But I couldn’t afford to go last year. They have bizarre things…if you think this is bizarre…they had ummm…you came out of the theatre in an immense industrial estate and you got in a truck, with a Bulgarian…truck driver…who drove you though industrial Paris explaining what it was like to be an economic migrant.

A: And how was that?

M:I didn’t go…because I was too poor to go…

A: Oh you couldn’t go…

M: They have that kind of theatre. And I saw…I can’t remember what the guy’s name is…ummm…but he does theatre…it’s like twenty five minutes of stage machinery – performing…

A: Oh wow.

M: Yes! So battles between two kinds of ladders…ladders going…


A: So you do integrate this work with your teaching?

M: That kind of thing yes…I’m not allowed to mention this kind of thing.

A: Why?

M: Because it’s a bit explicit and over eighteen…

A: Really…

M: I’ll mention that I’ve been to it.

A: Who doesn’t allow you?

M: My boss!

A: The headmaster or headmistresses.

M: The headmaster.

A: The headmaster.

M: Well it is over eighteen…

A: I suppose.

M: I don’t see why not…I think it would be great if they could see it but…


A: These are nice…

M: Yep…it’s a good theatre…

A: Leather bound arm-rests.

M: I’ve done my back in so I’m glad that I’m at this theatre.

A: Good. Comfortable seat is it, for you?

M: Yeah…I should be going to the Orange Tree in Richmond tomorrow but that’s…that’s benches and my back is so painful…

A: Yeah…these are a bit better than benches. Its kind of different when you are on benches, isn’t it?

M: Yeah [M MAKES STRETCHING SOUND]

[LAUGH]

M: Right, I think it’s going to start soon.

A: Yeah…It’s filling up.

M: Yes I normally sit on the end of a row, but I couldn’t get the end of the row…so I knew it was pretty full.

A: Why do you do that?

M: So I can do things with my back in the middle of the performance.

A: Oh really! Well I’m not going to be worried if you do anything with your back. You can stretch…because I’m a bit of a fidget, I’ll be honest with you…

M: It was either going to the hospital today or coming here…but I paid for this so I thought ‘I’ll come here’.

A: What’s actually wrong?

M: Well I injured it…two and a half years ago – computer printer….and then I carried on working and I was putting lanterns up in the theatre and my back went completely, I couldn’t get out of bed for three days!

A: What happened with the computer printer?

M: Oh I just dropped it [OUCH] for the last two inches…and then my elderly mother yesterday…

A: It seems to be going a bit more quiet now…[WHISPERED]

M: She fell over and I had to pick her up…and I did my back in as we both ended up on the floor…

A: Oh dear!...Enjoy the show…

M: You too…


7.55pm









PURGATORIO










9.13pm






An Awful Responsibility by Mary Paterson

Inferno, Purgatorio, Paradiso

by Romeo Castellucci

Barbican


At the start of Inferno, a line of Alsatians is brought on stage and chained up by the footlights. They bark and growl and snarl at the actor behind them – Romeo Castellucci, the director of this work. Suddenly, like the crack of a whip, a dog runs on from the sides and attacks him; then another; then another. The dogs sink their teeth into Castellucci’s padded armour, shake his limbs, pull him to the ground. The Alsatians at the footlights watch with frenzied excitement. Growling, snarling, yelping - they are baying for Castellucci’s blood.


There is a violence in the relationship between audience and performer, and Castellucci knows it. He knows that we are watching, waiting, willing something to happen.


In Inferno the figure of Andy Warhol – our Virgil, our guide for this trip to the Underworld – points accusingly at the audience as he writhes on stage in agony. He takes our photograph to the sound of an almighty flash, like the sound of worlds breaking.


In Purgatorio, the audience is made to feel complicit with a scene of unspeakable abuse. The words of a script are projected onto the front of the stage which, for a while, enacts the audience’s control over what we see. We know what the actors will do minutes or seconds before they do it, then watch the inevitable play out like a familiar punch-line. But when the script diverges from the events on stage, this relationship becomes an appalling indictment of the audience’s desire for theatre to perform. Put bluntly, we are waiting for something to happen. If the something that happens is horrific, does that mean our expectation is horrific as well?


In Castellucci’s trilogy of heaven and hell the viewers are not just spectators to the worlds conjured up; we conspire in the conjuring act itself. Castellucci creates a waterfall of images laden with meaning, but whose meaning is never resolved.

A white horse, covered in red paint, makes a horde of people back away in fear or awe.

A woman chops carrots in the stifling, noisy silence of her suburban home.

Two fountains of warm water cascade endlessly from a dark vanishing point.


These are symbolic images that symbolise nothing (yet). They are like floating signifiers – terms that mean something, although it is not clear what they mean. In order to make sense of them, the viewer must season these images and wash them down with a few more of her own.

And yet instead of floating, Castellucci’s signifiers seem weighted down. They are tied to the reality of theatrical space, to the space of image making that is signified over and over again as each image comes into being. With a set that is heaved and scraped and bumped around, or a mirror that literally reflects the audience onto itself, this is theatre-making that knows it is being made. And it is creation in which the viewer knows she is involved. She watches herself imagining the image at the same time as she explores the resonance of the image itself. She watches herself watching (a scene that represents) abuse, aware that she has called the scene into being.


This is not to say that Castellucci’s theatrical worlds begin and end with the viewer. In fact, the visions he creates for Inferno, Purgatorio and Paradiso don’t seem to have a beginning or an end at all.


Inferno sees a mass of people take part in a cycle of life and death from which none can escape. Even after they have all died, and been reborn, and died again (slitting each other’s throats with an efficient flick of the wrist); even after an old man begs to be released, the mass of bodies rises again and backs away from the stage like the waves of life, as opposed to the individual living.


Purgatorio re-houses its characters in new bodies, committing them to a process that lasts beyond one lifetime, which is to say, beyond the experience of any body watching.


Paradiso writhes in a perpetual act of becoming. A figure, glimpsed in the obfuscating light of a dark inner chamber, stretches like a butterfly reaching out of its chrysalis. But the figure is always stretching - it never quite breaks free.


Performing this cyclical, continual field of creation, Castellucci’s trilogy enacts time and space on a colossal scale. Individual actions are only ever a metaphor or metonym for effects with much larger consequences. In Inferno, a basketball bounces to the sound of catastrophe – crashing, falling, scraping, like metal being compounded or bones being crushed. In Purgatorio giant jungle plants revolve slowly until they have engulfed a man’s struggle and a boy’s imagination. And in Paradiso an endless black horizon is contained – impossibly – inside an endless white one. Operating in this cosmic space and time, it is no wonder that the trilogy feels terrifyingly full when it is realised in the mind of a finite individual – a member of the audience.


Push and pull. Creation and destruction. Experience and awe. The cosmic scale and obscure symbolic weight of Inferno, Purgatorio and Paradiso amounts to a slow, metamorphic force that drives and exceeds each component part, a force that is compelled by a shifting power play between the performers - who signal the production of their performance – and the viewers – who acknowledge the production of their view. The enigma at the heart of this work is that, despite its fantastical image-making, despite its endless space and time, despite its awareness of the making of theatre and its collusion with the audience to bring the image to life, the trilogy returns to a theme of visual obscurity. The mysterious white horse in Inferno is part obscured by a swinging black circle, like an anti-sun. The cycle of violence and impotent redemption in Purgatorio is slowly veiled by a spinning circle of black paint. The twisting figure at the heart of Paradiso lives in such darkness that he could be a trick of the eye.


Paradiso is, then, (only) as heavenly as your imagination, Purgatorio (only) as (ir)reconciled, Inferno (only) as hellish. Seeing these images is not to know them, but watching them is to make them exist. Like forgotten spirits, they spin in their eternal worlds until they are called back to life by the strength of a viewer’s belief.


It is tempting to read the recurring obfuscation as an act of violence from the performer, directed back to the audience in order to protect the integrity of the theatrical whole: it will never be owned or contained by a single point of view. But in fact this obfuscation acts like a kind of pathway. These gaps in vision are stepping stones for the audience’s imagination; they let us know that the grand scale of this trilogy requires us to step inside, to acknowledge our collusion, to understand the imposition of a human-centric viewpoint on the chaos of the world. And this viewpoint is the source of the violence in the relationship between performer and performed-to. By creating one image we destroy another; Castellucci does not let us forget this awful responsibility. In Inferno, red flames lick the animal curves of a grand piano and make the strings buckle and twang. It is a beautiful and compelling sight. The piano, of course, will never be played again.


Mary Paterson is a writer and producer, and Co-Director of Open Dialogues. mary@opendialogues.com