I’ve written about the Live Art company GETINTHEBACKOFTHEVAN
before. I saw their 2012 show Big Hits at the Cambridge Junction, and
it was one of the most powerful pieces I had ever seen performed in the theatre
up to that point. It took one element of
my mind – the part that up until then had quite sleepily accepted the
inappropriate, hyper-sexualisation of women in the music industry – and slapped
it awake, so that I walked out of the theatre feeling slapped, but grateful to
be awake. I spent the next several days
looking at the way women are portrayed in music videos and thinking ‘That is
just fucking insane. And destructive to
all the little girls (and big girls) who are drinking it in as “normal”’. That show led to a permanent change in the
way I perceive our culture, and I was very grateful for that and respectful of
the artistic power that created it.
So I was very eager to see their next show, and I was curious
to see what issues they would choose to rumble next, and how they would use
theatre (and the strange bag of tricks and techniques special to live art –
abstraction, duration, awkwardness, shock, hyper-realism, etc.) to raise the
issues and tangle with them. GETINTHEBACKOFTHEVAN
are Artistic Director Hester Chillingworth and performers Lucy McCormick and
Jennifer Pick. Their stated artistic
mission is to make ‘broken genre performance’, and explore how ‘text does not
always say what it says that it says it is saying.’
Their new show is called Number
1, The Plaza [insert link], and I saw it at the Cambridge Junction [insert
link] last week, on 10 April 2014. It
was the first night of a Spring tour of the piece, which will take it to The
ShowRoom, Chichester on April 24th; BUZZCUT, Glasgow on April 26th;
Tom Thumb Theatre, Margate on May 23rd; and Norwich Arts Centre on
June 25th. More dates will
probably be announced during the Spring.
I settled into my seat in the Cambridge Junction curious,
but also a little apprehensive – because last time they slapped me,
conceptually, even though I knew it was for my own good. Also, the mood music playing as the audience
came into the theatre was ‘Send in the Clowns’ – a subtle opening tickle/provocation
in the show’s performer/audience relationship.
It suggested, delicately, and within a honeyed coating, one of the
themes that would emerge in the show: the power dynamic contained within
entertainment and media – that once we came into the theatre, we were in their space, their house, and we were under their
control. They were free to choose what they did with us once we were there –
for example, insult us incredibly subtly
as we took our seats.
One of the interesting things about live art is that it
purposefully re-considers how the audience encounters the work. For example, Big Hits was a purposefully awkward encounter for the
audience. In that piece GETINTHEBACKOFTHEVAN
defused, straight away, the usual theatrical mechanisms that construct a sense
of otherworldly enchantment that can take place in a theatre, like the
darkening of house lights and bringing up of stage lights. I remember that the first thing they did was
stare at us without speaking, with the house lights up, for ages, which made me
feel uncomfortable, and which dislodged any old-fashioned expectations or theatrical
dreaminess that might have otherwise conditioned my mind ahead of the piece.
This time around, in Number
1, The Plaza, I felt much more lulled, much more entertained, and also, seduced. There was smooth, jazzy music, with
a lot of saxophone and synthesizers, and slinky, sparkly dresses. There was humour and shiny, flowing hair
extensions. There was a drinks bar. They opened with a show tune (Lucy has a
great voice). It was, as they would tell
us, ‘An Evening With…’ This time around
they invited us into their ‘house’, which I saw as a metaphor for their theatre
space, for entertainment, for media, for the conceptual space over which they
have complete control once the audience/performer relationship has been entered
into by both parties. The show would go
on to explore the idea of the audience’s relationship to its entertainment via
the portrayal of Lucy and Jen’s relationship with each other. It was enacted as an intimate, seductive,
power-imbalanced and conflict-laden relationship.
The show shimmered with meta-levels about the idea of
entertainment, using its entertainment of us (with songs, humour, sexy dresses)
to comment on both the powers and the dangers of entertainment: it suggested that
once someone is entertained, they can be in a sort of enchanted thrall and
soaking in an implied and poisoned ethos embedded quietly in the
entertainment. But because they were
using entertainment to give us this message, they were also exploring the
positive power of artistic entertainment
to pull one’s consciousness forcibly by the hand, saying ‘come here with me to
look – really, deeply look at this
issue.’
And because they were exploring the power dynamic in the performer/media/audience
relationship via Jen and Lucy’s relationship, the exploration expanded outward
to include any sort of intimate relationship between two people, an artistic mechanism
which gathered up the metaphorical material from personal relationships and heaved
this back onto the performer/audience relationship. It was a violent, abusive relationship. At one point, they simply started physically
fighting each other and freezing in long, held poses of conflict. But amidst the fighting, they paused to embrace,
kiss, lick, inhale the other person, in moments of intense, passionate
connection. When Jen started to be
verbally abusive to Lucy (‘I fucking hate you, you little cunt’), Lucy’s
humanity and sanity seemed to break down and apart. It reflected powerfully back upon the
media/audience relationship and made me consider where the entertainment that
surrounds us in our society has the power to break down our humanity, and our
sanity. It also made me question passive
acceptance of entertainment, and wonder how aware we are as a society of the
subtle, implied messages in the media that surrounds us.
As I first took my seat and realised that the melody gently
piped into the atmosphere of the still lit, chatting and drinking audience
space was ‘Send in the Clowns’, I had a quiet laugh to myself; but later the
brilliance and delicacy of this choice struck me. Its quietness, its underneath-ness, amplified
a sense of the unseen, unrecognised power of implied messages in our
entertainment. Implied messages are
powerful because they slip into our minds under the radar, underneath our
ability to perceive…and fight them. This opening was a statement about the power
of the entertainer – the controller of the interaction, the chooser – and the
lack of power of the audience, the absorber.
If they wanted to imply we were clowns, or call us clowns outright, or
tell us to fuck off, or shit on the stage, or say that women were stupid,
pointless animals, or dance around naked, or get naked and rub shit on each
other, they could do it; and we would be held, mute, within the ideas embedded
in our minds about our role as the audience in a relationship to a piece of
theatre, bringing up the question of passivity in the audience role. They
could do, say, or imply whatever they wanted, and we would have to absorb
it. I’m not saying that they did any or
all of those things, and I will leave it for you to wonder whether the show
actually goes to any of those places, especially if you haven’t seen it yet –
but the point they made is that they could
have done all of that, if they wanted to.
It is interesting to me that as I walked out of the show, my
first impression was that the show didn’t contain the immediate, artistic
coherence and power that Big Hits did. But
I realised later that the show was simply different and breathtakingly subtle
and complex in its exploration of its themes.
So it worked a little differently on my psyche. What happened was that its powerful,
political, profound themes and coherent brilliance slipped into my mind via a
backdoor, like an implied message – like background music.
Hi Joy,
ReplyDeleteThanks for this. It’s a great piece of writing and thinking. It’s really nice to read a thought process that goes on a journey through the act of writing and it often feels as though you’re discovering what you think as you go. As if you’ll remember an element - the shit being the big one, I think - that you need to fit into your emergent idea of the show. That’s great. And it’s brilliant to see you building in some context as well, with the Big Hits references.
What I would say is be a bit careful with your beginnings. Because you’re trying to find a route in to the show, you skirt around it’s edges for a while, telling us where the tour’s heading to, the names of the company members. Remember to think about the reader: what do we *need* to know. You’re distilling the show down into writing, so you can be a bit tighter about what’s *really* relevant and what’s less so.
Anyway, I think this is really brilliant and you managed to draw out an argument about the performer-audience relationship side of the show which was really fascinating.
Joy, I just wanted to say how much I enjoyed reading your piece. I also love the way you've included the reader in your process of discovery, as Matt referred to above.
ReplyDeleteThe 'Send in the Clowns' reference works so well to frame both your experience of watching the show, and your subsequent process of deciphering your own reactions to it. I look forward to reading more of your work in the future!
Hi Joy, I really enjoyed reading your response, too. I didn't want to cheat and read anyone's before writing mine (though it hasn't been posted yet), but I like that reading your response made me think about the show in yet another way, which, I think is the whole point. I agree with Matt re: beginning, though. When I first read it, it felt like you were telling me more about the other show (Big Hits) than this one, though this changes further down. Well written, anyway. I look fwd to seeing you all on Thu.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for your comments, Matt, Molly and Kim. :) It was really helpful to reflect back on the piece interactively like this, and I really appreciate the kind things you said. See you Thursday!
ReplyDeleteYes I particularly enjoyed your penultimate paragraph and it made me wonder whether the passivity of the audience that you identify is supposed to match the passivity of Lucy in her relationship with Jennifer. We are placed in Lucy's shoes in that moment where we are told to fuck off, that we are cunts. The only reason the audience puts up with this "shit" is because this is theatre, and Lucy is trapped with Jennifer because they make performances together. Also, the performers looked bored- their half-arsed manner, their confession to enjoying daytime TV, their guest-less parties. Do you think the piece may have been commenting on how we could suck up any old stuff in our quest to alleviate boredom through entertainment?
ReplyDelete