* This email is sent via the PSi-Extra mail-list. 'Reply' will send your response to that list *
-----------------------------------------------------------
Theater mag didn't grant me permission to reprint the article on any of my
listserves, and I'm going to respect that because I know how widely that
gets disseminated once something goes out online. (Which was why I asked
first.) But definitely check it out. The other concern raised in the
article is the pairing of the NEA and DoD to create "official culture".
Again, sooooo relevant with that Saunders book, except that now we don't
need the cloak and dagger of the CIA to manipulate culture. We can just
"embed" actors and directors into the military.
One of the interesting things is that troops quoted in the article/editorial
drew the connection between military leaders run amok, "like Noriega and
Hussein". Apparently the idea of illegitimately seized power did not ring a
bell with them as Americans. I LOVED your idea about the witches. That's
pretty great.
I do have a lot of faith in the audience to be able to make meaning for
themselves, but I do think you need to create a little fork in the road, a
little cloud of doubt, something that puts the idea in their mind not to
take things at face value. I don't know if that's being done or
not--somehow I doubt it. (But you know, the writer in Theater has his angle
and his perspective as well to be aware of and it's easy as someone apt to
agree with him for me to adopt his cynicism about this uncritically. No
one's communication is without an agenda these days, so I don't think
anything, even something written by someone of my own ideology, should be
taken completely uncritically.)
As far as comparing UK to US, keep in mind that New York is not the rest of
the United States! It's very much its own thing in many ways, which is what
makes it such a great place and also such an easy political target from all
sides. It's easy when you live there to forget that not everyone else
around the country is as open, as liberal, as used to experimental
performance, as apt to "intervene" in performance, etc. Again, here in
Minnesota, the idea of the audience intervening in a performance is
virtually unimaginable as a certain level decorum is a higher social value
here. (And at the same time, Minneapolis is a town that loves its theatre
and art and likes to think themselves sophisticated enough that they're "in
on the joke" and so would not intervene as it would make them seem like they
weren't getting it.) There are a lot of parts of the US that are very very
uptight too.
-----Original Message-----
From: Performance Studies international Extra
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Theresa K Smalec
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 8:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PSI-EXTRA] artistic interventions, prozac nation, toothless
shilling macbeth
* This email is sent via the PSi-Extra mail-list. 'Reply' will send your
response to that list *
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hi Laura,
I like your idea of the counter-performance. You
should write to McGowan
(or Jeeves!) and let them know. I don't know if the
UK is more ballsy about their performance art, or
simply different. Not to generalize, or anything,
but I always leave the UK feeling like it's a more
rigid culture and more superficially polite culture
than New York. Mind you, I go to places like Leeds
and Wolverhampton, so I guess it's silly to compare
those experiences to in-your-face Manhattan. But
there's plenty of surface nicety and deep
conservatism over there, too. Still, they DO claim
to do some pretty interesting "live art" in the UK:
drowning kittens, wasting water, kicking crackheads
down the street... Wouldn't you get arrested for a
lot of this stuff over here?
BTW: was someone actually assaulted for doing a
silent performance? Who was it?
I think this MacBeth article sounds fascinating!
Please do post it if you get permission. Or maybe
it's the actual *idea* of the Department of Defense
funding performances of MacBeth for the troops that
I find INTRIGUING! First of all, what sort of
theatre company will they subcontract to perform
this? Don't tell me Halliburton, or something. I
wouldn't be surprised if the company is affiliated
with a Billy Graham Christian church group...
But then, there are so many subversive possibilities
bound up in staging Macbeth. It's sort of reminds me
of the "moros y christianos" mock battles that we
studied one year in Diana Taylor's course on the
Spanish Conquest of Mexico. There are too many
potential reversals and double-meanings for this to
go off in a uni-directional, unambiguous,
"patriotic," or upbeat way. What if the troops end
up viewing their own campaign through the Macbeth's
role: that of a usurping tyrant? What if they see
Saddam Hussein as Duncan, or as the ghost of Banquo?
What the the 3 Witches going to look like: Cheney,
Wolfy, and Rumsey? And of course there;s the crucial
question: who will play Lady Macbeth??? What will
she "represent?"
Also, of all the pro-war plays you would pick from
the Shakespeare canon, Macbeth seems like the
queerest choice imaginable. Why not one of the truly
'perky' and comically uplift Henry plays? At least
you have Falstaff and his gang as cominc relief? But
Macbeth is so bleak: the only humorous moment I can
recall is that little monologue the Porter does
about beer and how it impacts on your ability to
"get rise," or something. :) I hope no one breaks a
leg performing it... Foul is fair and fair is foul.
Great message...
So please so send the article. I hope that the D of
D is kind enough to show the play to average Iraqis,
too. I'm sure they will find it very interesting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all subscription configurations (suspensions / leaving the list / digest
functions etc), use the following link:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=psi-extra&A=1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
