Antonin Artaud - gibbering nutter or cosmic genius?

[Sid's Snake]

Absolutely positive. - brook states (slight paraphrase as i'm doing this from memory) - "at some point all valid modern theatre returns to the achievments of Brecht"

Script of 'The Spurt of Blood'

Thought this might interest you, imagine you already have seen it though. It's a good read.

Jesus! Have you seen the stage directions?
( she sighs, as if having an orgasm )
Poor actors!

Oooh, just remembered, of course, Marat Sade - probably quintessential Artaudian/Brechtian play. Political too, in a way Brook is not. Obvious point, but an important one.

Have you seen him in Dreyer's Joan.

Incredible.

 

[tangerinedream]

Jesus! Have you seen the stage directions?
( she sighs, as if having an orgasm )
Poor actors!

Oooh, just remembered, of course, Marat Sade - probably quintessential Artaudian/Brechtian play. Political too, in a way Brook is not. Obvious point, but an important one.

Have you seen him in Dreyer's Joan.

Incredible.

no - sadly not.

The best one is about the scorpions and the vagina!

I've seen this done to absolutely stunning effect - lasted about 20 minutes and was entirely true to the script, repition and ritual making it last longer, was sort of a series of slow building exercises in breath control building to sonic explosions. Actually very disturbing.

For all Brecht's wordiness he too acknowledges the importance of the physical and his early work is quite apolitical and born out of a desire to disturb bourgious morality more than anything. I love Brecht - i think if you can find the humour in his work and be confident in the energy of it and forget political posturing, you can produce brilliant theatre.

 

[Sid's Snake]

no - sadly not.

The best one is about the scorpions and the vagina!

I've seen this done to absolutely stunning effect - lasted about 20 minutes and was entirely true to the script, repition and ritual making it last longer, was sort of a series of slow building exercises in breath control building to sonic explosions. Actually very disturbing.

For all Brecht's wordiness he too acknowledges the importance of the physical and his early work is quite apolitical and born out of a desire to disturb bourgious morality more than anything. I love Brecht - i think if you can find the humour in his work and be confident in the energy of it and forget political posturing, you can produce brilliant theatre.

Dreyers Jeanne d'Arc is absolutely essential.

His face, like that of Joan is one of the most expressive and pained Ive ever seen in cinema. I know a lot of nuns actually ( buddhist ) and its amazing how similar their faces are to the faces of Dreyers masterpiece.

I would love to see something like you're describing, although I love reading about this stuff, in practice I am a totally conservative theatre goer who relies on critics, established productions and 'classic' proscenium forms. I should at the very least visit Bouffes du Nord more.

I dont want to forget political posturing. MORE political posturing.

( I did enjoy your J.Cooper fantasy btw )

 

[tangerinedream]

Dreyers Jeanne d'Arc is absolutely essential.

His face, like that of Joan is one of the most expressive and pained Ive ever seen in cinema. I know a lot of nuns actually ( buddhist ) and its amazing how similar their faces are to the faces of Dreyers masterpiece.

I would love to see something like you're describing, although I love reading about this stuff, in practice I am a totally conservative theatre goer who relies on critics, established productions and 'classic' proscenium forms. I should at the very least visit Bouffes du Nord more.

I dont want to forget political posturing. MORE political posturing.

( I did enjoy your J.Cooper fantasy btw )

It think what I am trying to say is, to reach the heart of brecht you must think theatrically and make entertainment your prime purpose. If you think purely politically it won't work. Having said that, you can't stop thinking politically at all, just to make it an exercise in Marxist theory is to make the whole thing dull.

I've seen still from the Jeanne D'Arc film, but not the actual thing itself.

 

[Sid's Snake]

an exercise in Marxist theory is to make the whole thing dull.

Thats not exactly on the agenda nowadays

Having said that, the Breton/Hare etc dramas of the 70s - theatre and tv are infinitely more cogent exact and exciting explorations of what theatre can do - remember for Greeks it was political/religious public ritual - than the sludge of in-yer-face dross that came with, for example, Ravenhill.

Kane is a notable exception, and like Ravenhill admits - was in a different
( European ) league.

 

[tangerinedream]

Thats not exactly on the agenda nowadays

Having said that, the Breton/Hare etc dramas of the 70s - theatre and tv are infinitely more cogent exact and exciting explorations of what theatre can do - remember for Greeks it was political/religious public ritual - than the sludge of in-yer-face dross that came with, for example, Ravenhill.

Kane is a notable exception, and like Ravenhill admits - was in a different
( European ) league.

Favourite Kane is '4:48 psychosis.' - absolutely stunningly beautiful and so sad. I didn't know she'd commited suicide till after I read it. Sort of glad in a way I couldn't pre judge it from that view point. Her and Martin Crimp are the only two 'bright young things' from the 90's I really rate. And I really rate both of them highly. Entirely agree about the tiredness of the 'in yer face' period.

David hare is an excellent writer, never been lucky enough to see his work in practice though.

I think you still do see Brecht approached as an academic, not theatrical exercise. Like with Shakespeare that is generally like having teeth being pulled.

 

[Sid's Snake]

Favourite Kane is '4:48 psychosis.' - absolutely stunningly beautiful and so sad. I didn't know she'd commited suicide till after I read it. Sort of glad in a way I couldn't pre judge it from that view point. Her and Martin Crimp are the only two 'bright young things' from the 90's I really rate. And I really rate both of them highly. Entirely agree about the tiredness of the 'in yer face' period.

David hare is an excellent writer, never been lucky enough to see his work in practice though.

I think you still do see Brecht approached as an academic, not theatrical exercise. Like with Shakespeare that is generally like having teeth being pulled.

Yes, but theatre (imho) is not entertainment.

It was didactic for the Greeks and its still didactic for us today.

I'm aware this is very much a minority position and what you are saying represents the British theatrical mainstream. But they are wrong Very wrong.

Theatre represent something qualitatively different to books or film because the illusion it can produce is so fragile. Going to the theatre is a risk, everyone whinges about. You can experience very strange feelings like acute embarrassment for the actors or the writer - if they are bloody awful. Other forms don't have that delicacy and transparency.

This is just one reason why people avoid going to the theatre and yet perversely want to. They want to be taught and moved and engaged with in the very profound way - like I say, the origin of the theatre is in religious ritual - although they may not sometimes admit it to themselves. And feel bitterly disappointed when that does not happen.

Even Godot is a didactic play.

Hemingway, that most seemingly neutral of writers, once wrote that any writer who does not have didactic intentions would be better off editing a book of high school memorabila.

 

[tangerinedream]

Yes, but theatre (imho) is not entertainment.

It was didactic for the Greeks and its still didactic for us today.

I'm aware this is very much a minority position and what you are saying represents the British theatrical mainstream. But they are wrong Very wrong.

Theatre represent something qualitatively different to books or film because the illusion it can produce is so fragile. Going to the theatre is a risk, everyone whinges about. You can experience very strange feelings like acute embarrassment for the actors or the writer - if they are bloody awful. Other forms don't have that delicacy and transparency.

This is just one reason why people avoid going to the theatre and yet perversely want to. They want to be taught and moved and engaged with in the very profound way - like I say, the origin of the theatre is in religious ritual - although they may not sometimes admit it to themselves. And feel bitterly disappointed when that does not happen.

Even Godot is a didactic play.

Hemingway, that most seemingly neutral of writers, once wrote that any writer who does not have didactic intentions would be better off editing a book of high school memorabila.

Yes, but to achieve something didactic (and only when brecht abandoned the simply didactic in favour of the dialectical that he became a great writer) - you have to first entertain. The two are not exclusive of each other are they? I would say, any writer who has purely didactic intentions is not a writer of theatre at all.

To produce Brecht you must consider the social role of each character, the context of the economic setting, the archetype's that represent each of the characters in the play, you must make your actors build an awareness of a dialectical relationship with the world, of decision making and economic pressures versus human desires. Amongst many other things.
If you do all the above and much more, your play will work - but only if you also consider that most important of things. The audience and how they respond to it. They must laugh, be in awe, gasp and sit on the edge of their seats. Though working within a framework of alienation or strangemaking you are still whether or not the word sits nicely, entertaining.
It was when Brecht realised that to be purely didactic is to preach that he made the transition from semi decent playwright to master.
(though whether he actually wrote all his work is a topic for some considerable conjecture)

It doesn't matter if you are producing Brecht or Noel Coward, you have to consider the simple point of 'is this interesting to watch?' and not be wrapped up in your own cleverness. I have seen so many play murdered by a desire to be 'clever' when in fact to be entertaining would have served a far more effective didactic purpose.

Edit: having reread your original post I would add, I agree with you that it serves a higher purpose than to entertain. In the sense it can be at it's highest form 'holy' (brook) or achieve a 'communian' (artaud) it is indeed didactic, not in the sense i originally wrote about but in the sense it can teach us about our behaviour. I maintain however, that it must engage our atention and in order to that, it must stimulate and surprise, i.e. entertain. Where people go wrong is to confuse stimulation with familiar distraction and therein lies the distinction between relevant entertainment and the cold dead theatre that permeates much of the commercial landscape.

 

[Sid's Snake]

en·ter·tain ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ntr-tn)
v. en·ter·tained, en·ter·tain·ing, en·ter·tains
v. tr.
To hold the attention of with something amusing or diverting. See Synonyms at amuse.
To extend hospitality toward: entertain friends at dinner.

To consider; contemplate: entertain an idea.
To hold in mind; harbor: entertained few illusions

Theatre can't work at its profound levels - what Artaud goes on about - if it 'diverts' an audience. Takes it away from the limited time and confined space they have agreed to share, for what can be the nearest thing in secular life to sacral ritual.

Ive enjoyed talking to you, tg. But we're going to have to agree to differ

I am, very broadly speaking, a Marxist. But I would actually rather watch Ackyborne than Brecht; but then Ackybourne, thinking about it, has something to teach.

 

[tangerinedream]

en·ter·tain ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ntr-tn)
v. en·ter·tained, en·ter·tain·ing, en·ter·tains
v. tr.
To hold the attention of with something amusing or diverting. See Synonyms at amuse.
To extend hospitality toward: entertain friends at dinner.

To consider; contemplate: entertain an idea.
To hold in mind; harbor: entertained few illusions

Theatre can't work at its profound levels - what Artaud goes on about - if it 'diverts' an audience. Takes it away from the limited time and confined space they have agreed to share, for what can be the nearest thing in secular life to sacral ritual.

Ive enjoyed talking to you, tg. But we're going to have to agree to differ

I am, very broadly speaking, a Marxist. But I would actually rather watch Ackyborne than Brecht; but then Ackybourne, thinking about it, has something to teach.

See, I'll come back to what I said at the very beginning about artauds theatre being apolitical - Artauds theatre does not allow for rational thought does it - the whole point is the move away from that concept and to the instinctive through bombardment of the senses - which in my mind rather counteracts the whole notion of a marxist approach to the world based arround an objective viewpoint. My whole doubt about Artaud is that all he teaches is is to wallow in emotions, extreme and spiritual as it may appear to be his theatre is far from didactic as it teaches us nothing other than feelings. It is for want of a better word 'an experience' but nothing else.

The counter argument would be to say, that to be returned to more primal state (which that experience aims to achieve) is to learn of our true nature. Part of me wants to say... bollocks, that is pure hogwash and is escapism of the highest form. Our 'true nature' is that which is rational and logical and developed and a 'holy' theatre is one that plays to this aspect of me. Another part says, woo-hoo it's drugs that don't kill you. give me more, I've never felt so alive...!!!!

It's a fascinating debate! We'll definately have to agree to differ on Brecht and old Alan.

 

[tangerinedream]

en·ter·tain ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ntr-tn)
v. en·ter·tained, en·ter·tain·ing, en·ter·tains
v. tr.
To hold the attention of with something amusing or diverting. See Synonyms at amuse.
To extend hospitality toward: entertain friends at dinner.

To consider; contemplate: entertain an idea.
To hold in mind; harbor: entertained few illusions

Theatre can't work at its profound levels - what Artaud goes on about - if it 'diverts' an audience. Takes it away from the limited time and confined space they have agreed to share, for what can be the nearest thing in secular life to sacral ritual.

An excellent point very succinctly made. I agree entirely. But where does to be diverted really mean to be absorbed and is to be absorbed diverting from the space chosen or allowing the audience to settle into a higher space created by the link between them and actor? What is that space to be filled with? Ideas? Pictures? Feelings? I think i should stop now!

I would suggest that to quote a dictionary definition to support the meaning of a word seems to run rather counter to artauds feelings on language - 'text has been a tyrant over meaning for too long'

enjoyed this exchange a lot. Ta!

 

[Sid's Snake]

An excellent point very succinctly made. I agree entirely. But where does to be diverted really mean to be absorbed and is to be absorbed diverting from the space chosen or allowing the audience to settle into a higher space created by the link between them and actor? What is that space to be filled with? Ideas? Pictures? Feelings? I think i should stop now!

I would suggest that to quote a dictionary definition to support the meaning of a word seems to run rather counter to artauds feelings on language - 'text has been a tyrant over meaning for too long'

enjoyed this exchange a lot. Ta!

OK, one last thing.

I really don't think you need to entertain in the theatre.

What you need to do is actually much closer to the detective story than the novel or cinema. You need to establish a theatrical problem: Will Godot arrive? Will Hamlet Kill His Father Can Oedipus solve the riddle and save the dying land.

If the problem is sufficiently engaging nothing else should matter.

The audience is seduced to rest in the here and now; the true and space of theatre and one that can only be found without clutter or craven attempts to please.

And then, something very magical happens, the audience starts to shift its questioning not to "what will happen next" - the standard question of cinema, but "what is actually going on now?"

This is a psychological/existential and even spiritual question and the one true question theatre can give us and sometimes point towards a solution.

 

[tangerinedream]

OK, one last thing.

I really don't think you need to entertain in the theatre.

What you need to do is actually much closer to the detective story than the novel or cinema. You need to establish a theatrical problem: Will Godot arrive? Will Hamlet Kill His Father Can Oedipus solve the riddle and save the dying land.

If the problem is sufficiently engaging nothing else should matter.

The audience is seduced to rest in the here and now; the true and space of theatre and one that can only be found without clutter or craven attempts to please.

And then, something very magical happens, the audience starts to shift its questioning not to "what will happen next" - the standard question of cinema, but "what is actually going on now?"

This is a psychological/existential and even spiritual question and the one true question theatre can give us and sometimes point towards a solution.

A detective story, like 'the real inspector hound?'

Sorry, (shakes head at self)

I wouldn't disagree with that as such but would merely add that I don't think it is the one truth of theatre. I think we are capable of being engaged (is that a better word than entertained?) by that which we don't understand and the notion of the problem cannot be applied to something we do not understand. To see the theatre simply as a place where stories are recreated is to limit it's potential somewhat. The simple truth of rhythm and variety of mood are sometimes enough to entertain. A good piece of avante garde work can display no regard for plot or problem, but can be endlessly fascinating. A bad piece can of course be a pointless exercise in nothing at all.

The problem I have with traditional 'classical' theatre is it can be very stiff about where it ends and visual or aural art begins. That is something I cannot acuse Artaud of. Indeed if you look at his direction and ideas he is almost as much of a sonic inovator as a theatrical one. I seem to be now advocating 'the experience' I previously proffesed doubt over.

In the tempest for example, I care not one jot whether they get off the island or who is to blame for putting them there but can wallow with delight in the language and wonder of the whole magical world it creates. I have contradicted myself more than once on this thread! Herein lies the beauty of theatre for me. It can be wonderful for so many reasons, and like you said, it is wonderful because it is fragile

 

[Sid's Snake]

To see the theatre simply as a place where stories are recreated is to limit it's potential somewhat. The simple truth of rhythm and variety of mood are sometimes enough to entertain. A good piece of avante garde work can display no regard for plot or problem, but can be endlessly fascinating. A bad piece can of course be a pointless exercise in nothing at all.

Totally agree with that.

I just never see stuff like that anymore.

In my view the story is often a pretext, or an armature as the painting Francis Bacon said of ostensbile subject of his paintings, through and by which other forces are generated and earthed.

 

[Sid's Snake]

In the tempest for example, I care not one jot whether they get off the island or who is to blame for putting them there but can wallow with delight in the language and wonder of the whole magical world it creates. I have contradicted myself more than once on this thread! Herein lies the beauty of theatre for me. It can be wonderful for so many reasons, and like you said, it is wonderful because it is fragile

But you seem to be changing tack here... ah, you admit it!

The paradox is that we tell ourselves we stay in a theatre to find out what happens, what the solution is, but then you return for a 3rd and 4th time, when you know the plot fully and enjoy it yet more.

But the mind, at least mine, needs tracks to go down - to follow - if it is to be free to properly imagine, or, indeed, participate in the existential fact of theatre as ritual. Once the conscious mind is harnessed by a throughline it frees the unconcious facility of imaginative reconstruction not to compete with the production in the work of fantasy making but to collaborate in an anchoring of that experience in a new, shared reality for which both parties, production and audience are responsible for.

 

[tangerinedream]

But you seem to be changing tack here... ah, you admit it!

The paradox is that we tell ourselves we stay in a theatre to find out what happens, what the solution is, but then you return for a 3rd and 4th time, when you know the plot fully and enjoy it yet more.

But the mind, at least mine, needs tracks to go down - to follow - if it is to be free to properly imagine, or, indeed, participate in the existential fact of theatre as ritual. Once the conscious mind is harnessed by a throughline it frees the unconcious facility of imaginative reconstruction not to compete with the production in the work of fantasy making but to collaborate in an anchoring of that experience in a new, shared reality for which both parties, production and audience are responsible for.

The simple solution for that query is, I suggest, that we have a natural desire to investigate the why, not the what. Not to come to brecht out of a desire to make a point, but because it's interesting, Brecht admires the detective novel for stimulating the scientific, the analysis of evidence, the consideration of the circumstances, and the weighing of forces at play on the respective characters. That's what watching epic theatre is about. (the attitude of the spectator is something vital to Brecht)

Just thought it interesting you cited the detective novel earlier. Generally the detective novel starts with the biggest dramatic event revealed and the problem is, identifying what is the catylist?

If you apply that notion to theatre as a whole (forgetting the literal concept of murder mysteries) you have the spirit of epic theatre and the idea that we can learn about the way our society functions by examining not what, but why - asking what is the unmoved mover beneeth the story that is unfolding.

 

[tangerinedream]

Totally agree with that.

I just never see stuff like that anymore.

In my view the story is often a pretext, or an armature as the painting Francis Bacon said of ostensbile subject of his paintings, through and by which other forces are generated and earthed.

Me sadly rarely also. Wish I still had the chance to do stuff like this too, but all the theatre round me is horrible amatuer dramatics or music hall stuff.