Absorbed in Theatricality?

Annette van Zwoll

This text was written in the frame of the course Who’s Afraid of Representation, Theatre Studies, University Utrecht, February 2008

Introduction
From the 19th till the 22nd of December 2007, LISA live(s) in Kikker, took place in Theater Kikker in Utrecht. LISA is a production facility from the independent dance and performance makers Nicole Beutler, Ivana Müller, Paz Rojo, David Weber-Krebs en Hester van Hasselt. I went to see several of the performances and one common factor that I found in the performances, was the naming of the theatrical situation that was created. But, although I was made aware of this theatrical situation and the relationship between me, being a spectator, and them, being performers, it didn’t create a distance towards the performance or the performers. In fact, I was sometimes very much absorbed in the performances, although I was aware of the fact that they were opening a theatrical structure to the audience. This, in my eyes, contradiction fascinated me and raised some questions. What is it in the structure of the performances that raises this contradiction? How come that you as a spectator are being absorbed? How does this absorption relate to the making aware of the theatrical situation?

These are questions that I want to answer in this research essay. To find answers I used literature on postdramatic theatre, because creating an awareness of the theatrical situation can be a characteristic of postdramatic theatre. Here, I will also go into the concept of absorption. In relation to this, I will try to get grip on the complex concept of theatricality and how that can be used in relationship to my questions. I will use this literature to analyze the performances This is Love from Paz Rojo, Les Sylphides (work-in-progress) from Nicole Beutler and On Belief from Ivana Müller that I saw during LISA live(s) in Kikker.

Postdramatic theatre and absorption
I my essay (Post)dramatic? I interpretated Lehmann’s notion of postdramatic theatre as being a different construction than dramatic theatre. I described dramatic theatre as a representation of a fictive cosmos in a linear construction. There is a fictive world created, a unity, in which text is the most important theatrical tool and starting point. Because of the construction of this unity, spectators (if they are willing) can be led through the performance and can get very much involved by it. They go into this fictive world and are absorbed by it. This absorption is limited. There still is an awareness of being in a theatre, watching a performance, but the performance itself tries to let the audience forget that, tries to hide that the performance is a construction. Maaike Bleeker tells us that the way a dramatic theatre performance is constructed is actually the way how we construct reality in our daily lives; trying to find logic in the information we perceive, trying to create a sensible whole by choosing the information we take in.
Postdramatic theatre is differently constructed than dramatic theatre. This can relate to time, space, performers and other theatrical means. The focus of postdramatic theatre is not the hiding of the construction of the performance anymore. On the contrary, the construction can be made explicit in the performance. Even more so, it can be the main topic of a performance. Laying bare the construction of a performance results in an awareness with the audience about the theatrical situation she is in. About the performers performing, about themselves looking, about time, about space.

I would define This is Love, Les Sylphides and On Belief as more postdramatic than dramatic. I would do this for several reasons but an important aspect of this categorization is that they lay bare the construction of the performance. Each in different ways, they reflect on the theatrical situation. They reflect on the audience, on themselves and on the relationship between them. They are reflecting on what is happening while it is happening. Below, I will explain how this laying bare of the theatrical situation in my eyes is connected to theatricality, but also the contradiction that arises when these two concepts are related.

Theatricality
To get grip on the concept of theatricality it is helpful to distinguish ‘theatrical’ from ‘theatricality’. In Theatre of/or Truth Maaike Bleeker defines ‘theatrical’ as a quality, aspect or characteristic of what is seen, in the theatre or in daily life, and ‘theatricality’ as emerging from a process of spectatorship. Theatricality exists in the relationship between the spectator and the object that is seen. Theatricality arises when the relationship between the spectator and the object of looking creates an awareness of the object being theatrical. Or, as Bleeker puts it, theatricality is what happens when a representation fails to convince its viewers (2007, p7). When this awareness is created, the object of looking comes across less convincing, as being ‘mere theatre’. Davis and Postlewait argue in their book Theatricality that, historically seen, theatricality is often used as opposite to antitheatricalism. Theatre was (and is) associated with illusion, deception, exaggeration, false, etc. This created an antitheatrical attitude towards theatre which is still vivid today. Putting theatricality opposite to antitheatricaliy it can be read as something pro illusion, deception and falseness. This opposition reveals a belief in concepts as the truth, as the real and therefore belief in untruthfulness as well. But this opposition seems hardly convincing anymore in a postmodern thinking of constructed truths. When the real is constructed by the social and cultural environment you live in, how can you speak of the real, of one reality? The issue is not if something is real, authentic or true, but if it is experienced as being real, authentic or true. Theatricality breaks with this experience of something being real, authentic or true. Therefore theatricality creates an experience of something being not real, not true, not reliable. Theatricality is within the moment ‘when the distinction between reality and fiction suddenly ceases to be self-evident’ (Bleeker p2). So, what is real and what is unreal is not so clear anymore for the spectator. What is believed or accepted as being real suddenly can be experienced as unreal, as fake. This mechanism confronts us with how we distinct real and fiction and what assumptions are related to the way we make this distinction. It confronts audiences with the way they look, and what implications and assumptions exist within their looking. These implications and assumptions are created in the process of living; what is important to people, what do they want, where do they belief in, what do they value, etcetera. These desires, fears, beliefs, concerns, expectations and prejudices relate to the historical, social and cultural constructed world that they live in.

Something is experienced as being true, when that something is convincing (Bleeker, p7). The capability to absorb a spectator is a very important aspect in something being convincing. When a spectator is absorbed in a performance, he or she wouldn’t experience theatricality. When theatricality is experienced by a spectator, the object has failed to absorb the spectator. So, the concepts of theatricality and absorption are related to each other in oppositional terms. Absorption is reached when a spectator is confirmed in his/her subjective perspective (Bleeker, p8). This perspective contains his/her desires, assumptions, expectations, etc. When you are able to absorb this perspective, you will come across as being convincing.

I argued before that laying bare the theatrical situation is a postdramatic characterization of theatre. When the theatrical situation is emphasized you could argue that theatricalization arises. The audience becomes aware of the theatrical situation, becoming aware of the fact that it is actually theatre that they are looking at. An awareness is created of the object of looking being theatrical and, following the line of thinking in theatricality, therefore being less convincing. Interestingly, I feel this is not the case in the performances during LISA live(s) in Kikker. Although they do lay bare the theatrical situation I felt that absorption arose more than theatricality.

Performances
On Belief
In her video lecture On Belief the audience sees a person on a screen, looking. It is a lady, filmed in a close-up. She looks. We hear a voice-over. Later, she moves her mouth on the text, like she is saying the words herself. During LISA live(s) in Kikker a lot of the audience knew who Ivana Müller was and what her voice sounded like. So for a lot of people there was no question if the woman we saw was actually Ivana Müller or if the voice that we heard was hers. But also if you didn’t know who she was, this wouldn’t raise any question mark. I think that she would be accepted as being Ivana Müller and her voice would be accepted as being her voice. This for several reasons. First of all, she is announced as the maker and the performer in the programme. Second, the voice-over is a women-voice which relates to the person sitting. She seems to be alone, we don’t hear other voices and we don’t see anyone else. But most importantly, she seems to share her thoughts, not only with us, the audience, but especially for us. These thoughts seem personal, related to her fascinations. This video lecture is a decision of her to share some of these fascinations with us, especially for us. It is about us, and about her and the relationship between us. This is made explicit in the text. There is an ‘I’ and there is a ‘You’. This relationship is constantly emphasized in the text. ‘I don’t want to sound pathetic, but I think I’m starting to miss you’.

During the video lectures, she explicitly talks about the media used in a performance. She talks about the theatrical situation, where spectators look at performers, about the ‘I’ as a performer and the ‘You’ as an audience. She tells about the situation where performers and audiences share the same time and place, creating theatre together. She makes explicit that that is actually not the case here. She can be viewed by us because of another medium; a dvd. This dvd is brought by us by a courier, so by physical logistics. She can be seen because of the modern technology which transforms images in pixels and again in images. She is not there, sharing the same time and space, although she might have wanted to. She makes us aware of the fact that she is aware that we are looking at her, trapped in a frame. She looks at the sides of the frame as if she is seeing her own frame that she is in. Off course, we know that she is not actually seeing her own frame. The frame is created by the video that has taped her. It is a theatrical mean to create an awareness about her being in a different place than us, to show that she is aware of how she is perceived by us, to emphasize the media she is using but also to show that media, any media, has to do with framing. Theatre is a framed construction, as well as video is.

In On Belief the theatrical situation is laid bare. As I argued above, this could lead to theatricality, experiencing something as not being real. But I don’t think this is the case here. There are some interesting mechanisms at work here. First of all, Ivana Müller presents herself as being herself. It is she, Ivana Müller, who has made this lecture for us, looking in a camera, speaking to us. There is no character, no other theatrical means. It is Ivana Müller, using digital technique to bring us, the audience, her message. By presenting herself, she presents a claim on being real and on being sincere. This is emphasized by her unfolding the theatrical situation to us; the theatrical situation in general as well as the theatrical situation happening right there. Although she is not physical present she created On Belief to be seen, by an audience in a theatrical situation. She is reflecting on the look of the audience, seeing her, but also on the fact that she can’t see them, that she is an image brought to us by digital technology. She creates an awareness with the audience of the theatrical situation but also creates an awareness of her being aware of creating it. She knows that the audience knows that she purposely opens up the theatrical construction to them. This openness also has a reality claim. She is herself, open and honest about the situation. This is even more strongly emphasized when she starts talking about the real. At one point she says: ‘I can imagine someone in the audience would now ask…’ and then we here from the audience ‘what about the real?’. This question opens up a line of thinking about the real. Is she real? Is the audience real? Is it make-belief? Here, she proposes questions about the real. By doing so, she is undermining her own reality claim, making aware that this is a theatrical situation. This implies that theatre is still a place for make-belief, for things not being real, for fiction. The way she organized the question from the audience confirms that. This was staged, meant to be, organized in advance. But by staging it explicitly, showing the staging, she again lays bare the theatrical situation, which again adds to her being real. She shows us theatre, is honest about it. This also goes for her questions about the real. By sharing her doubts she is not trying to hide the theatrical situation which gives her again a sense of honesty.

Her questions of the real and of make-belief can be interpretated as related to the theatrical situation; is this reality? Can we believe each other? Are we sincere? But it can also be interpretated in a much broader sense. Is she real? Is the audience real? Do we actually exist? If we do exist, how we can claim reality? What is real? These are questions that also evoked by theatricality. In theatricality the assumptions about real and fiction come to the surface, confronting the audience with her assumptions. Theatricality therefore creates an awareness of these assumptions and the behavior related to that with the audiences. This awareness can create an uncomfortable feeling, because your assumptions (desires, expectations, prejudices, thoughts, feelings, etc) aren’t confirmed. But in On Belief the audience is not confronted by the questions. By all the questions Ivana Müller evokes, the audience is confirmed in their assumption that there is a sense of falseness related to theatre.

This is Love
During the performance This is Love Paz Rojo enters the stage, dressed in regular clothing. She lies down two piles of white envelops in front of the audience. She grabs a microphone, looks at the audience and start reading a text from a paper. It is a letter, starting with the date, followed by ‘Dearest,’. During the reading, she is looking at us, making clear that the letter is written for us and read to us. In her letter she establishes the relationship between her, the performer and us, the audience:

‘You listen, I read, You look, I do…’
‘Either by an invitation or by paying a ticket, you are meeting me on the theatre. I’m performing for you.’

By establishing this relationship she creates a togetherness and a shared responsibility; you and me, making theatre possible. This togetherness and shared responsibility is even more emphasized because of her emphasis of the theatrical situation. She reflects on the conventions of theatre and the different roles and perspectives that she herself and the audience have: she performs, they look. And together, performer and audience, know that they have agreed in this situation. She as well as the spectators are accomplices in creating the theatrical situation. This makes both parties involved and aware of this involvement.

In her letter, Rojo expresses a wish:
‘What I’m trying to prepare is a place of proximity, which could help in the way for nearness: To begin with a body. To begin with its history. A person. To continue. This person performing history. To begin here, now: concrete, sensible and shareable.’

She wants to get close to the audience, again establishing a relationship. This is postdramatic in the sense that it accepts the theatrical situation at that moment. By expressing the wish to get closer to the audience, there is a making aware of the distance between the audience and her. This wish comes across as a sincere, inner wish that she, as her own being, wants to accomplish. It is Paz Rojo expressing her wish, trying to relate to the people watching her. The audience accepts this wish as being her wish because they accept the person standing on stage being Paz Rojo. It is not a character being performed. No, it is Paz Rojo, addressing the audience. Paz Rojo being Paz Rojo is emphasized by the way she dresses (regular clothing, which is assumed to be her clothing) but also by the way she talks. She talks in English but with a very heavy Spanish accent, because she is from Spain. This accent makes her as a performer more specific. Because of the accent she is actually more Paz Rojo. Her accent makes her words more believable, more real, because we believe her accent is real. On the other hand, her performance is very much performed. She knows when to pause, she knows when to glance and the audience, she knows when to soften or harden her voice. It is a performance, indeed, but it is a performance in which Paz Rojo comes across as Paz Rojo, like Ivana Müller came across as Ivana Müller in On Belief.

Les Sylphides (work-in-progress)
Other things are happening in the performance Les Sylphides (work-in-progress) of Nicole Beutler. This performance is a remake of the famous Les Sylphides of Fokine which was made in 1907. Three classical trained dancers are performing Les Sylphides but in quite an unorthodox way. The audience is asked to sit on stage in a square, around the dancing area. The lights stay on so the audience can see the performers and the other audience members and the performers can see the audience. One performer is dressed in a pink tutu, according to the ballet conventions, the second is dressed in a pair of trousers and a blouse while the third is dressed in a short, tied grey dress. These last costumes don’t have strong connotations with any particular dance style but more with regular clothing. All three are wearing point shoes. While dancing Les Sylphides now and then one or two or all three of the performers go of the dancing space, behind the audience. There, they let go of the tension in their body. You can see their sweat, you can hear their breath, you can see their muscles loosening. Sometimes they tie their shoelaces, sometimes they change their shoes, sometimes they just stand and watch the other performers perform. Sometimes they look at each other to express cues to enter the stage together again. At that moment they straighten themselves, tense their muscles, and go on to the dance floor again. At one point, one of the dancers is dancing close to the audience, using the audience to perform their moves. She leans on audience members, asking them to give her a hand. She asks them politely using words like ‘excuse me, could I please….’ and thanks them when their help is no longer needed.

Especially the moments in which the dancers are on the side are interesting in regard to theatricality. By going to the side, two worlds are created. There is one world, in the middle of the square, where the dancers dance their Les Sylphides. This world is the world in which theatre is happening; there is an audience watching performers perform. There is also another world, the world in which they let go of their dancing modus. Here, they can have a moment of rest, a moment to get their shoes, hair, dress straighten out, a moment to get themselves together before they enter the stage again for a new episode of dancing. By creating two worlds, there is a situation created in which the worlds function as opposite to each other. In the world on the sides, we see them sweat, breath, tightening their shoes. We see them with loose muscles. We see them actually as themselves. This creates a sense of realness. Opposed to the other world, that world now comes across as the unreal, as the fictive world. This emphasis on creating awareness of the theatrical situation, on the supposed real and unreal, could lead to the conclusion that theatricality is happening here, but again I feel this is not the case. Below I will argue why I think that theatricality is not what is happening in the three performances described.

Absorption
I argued above that theatricality doesn’t exist when absorption arises. Absorption arises when spectators are confirmed in their perspective. So, the spectators aren’t confronted with their own assumptions of what is true or not. They are confirmed in their expectations, beliefs, assumptions etcetera. If I feel that theatricality is not the case in the three performances, than some sort of absorption must have taken place.

The fact that the performances are taking place in a theatre and therefore are communicated as being performances is one of the reasons of this absorption. The audience expects to see a theatrical performance, something which is created and prepared for to be shown and to be seen by an audience. They expect to see theatre. All three performances address, in different ways, this theatrical situation. They all suggest: ‘I know this is theatre, you know this is theatre, we are al in the complicity of making theatre’. This confirms an audience in their knowing of being part of a theatrical situation. But within this claiming it to be a theatrical situation there is also an assumption hidden on what that theatrical situation is. Ivana Müller and Paz Rojo both use words to claim this theatrical situation to be theatrical. By laying bare the mechanisms that are working within the theatre, they confirm the situation that theatre is a construction. The theatre is a construction, but they are not. They are presenting themselves, creating a sense of sincerity, of authenticity, of being real. This creates an opposition; they are themselves, and therefore real, being aware that they are in a theatrical construction, which is unreal. The same is happening in Les Sylphides. Two oppositions are created; a real world and a fictive world. Within this opposition the theatre is linked again as being make-belief, as being unreal. By laying this opposition bare the audience is confirmed in their knowing of what is real and what is not; they know how the construction of theatre works and they don’t fall for it. Their assumptions are being confirmed, rather than questioned.

So, in these cases, you could say that laying bare the theatrical situation didn’t result in theatricality. Not because notions about the real or unreal weren’t addressed, but because the way how this was done didn’t confront the audience with their own assumptions in making distinctions between the real and the unreal. Actually, it opposed notions of the real to the notions of the unreal. The audience was confirmed in their beliefs. They know what theatre is, they can see through the construction, like the performers can. This sense of complicity (we know how theatre works) added to the absorption as well. It creates a common feeling, a feeling of being related, which adds to a comfortable position of the audience.

In addition, an interesting point that I would like to address is the audience of LISA live(s) in Kikker. LISA live(s) in Kikker attracted a specific audience that, for a great part, itself is professional in the dance field. Specifically for a large part it is an audience that is busy with concepts of creating awareness and theatricality or that is interested in performances that deal with these topics. The spectators are used to be made aware of the theatrical situation and for them it doesn’t result in a distance to the theatre. It becomes a part of the performance. So, by their experiences they will perceive this construction differently than others who don’t have those experiences. Because they are used to that and have expectations that are met in those performances, it might be that they get absorbed more easily. The construction of the performance meets their expectations. If you relate this to Bleekers comment about the relationship of the construction of dramatic theatre and the construction of our daily life it raises interesting questions on changing spectatorship. Can this changing spectatorship, which has a lot to do with getting used to postdramatic theatre, influence the way their daily life is constructed? Or has their view on the construction of their daily life changed and can they therefore be absorbed in a postdramatic performance? And, if so, what kind of consequences does that have on the way we think about postdramatic theatre? This might be interesting questions for further research.

For now, I have discovered how absorption can prevent theatricality for happening. This doesn’t fulfill my interest in theatricality happening in a theatrical situation. So this also might be an interesting topic for further research.

Bibliography
- Bleeker, M. ‘Theatre of/or Truth’, in Performance Paradigm 3 (May 2007). The End of Ethics: Performance, Politics and War. www.performanceparadigm.net Downloaded on December 15 2007.
- Davis, T. and Postlewait, T, Theatricality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
- Lehmann, H.T. Postdramatic Theatre, trans. by Karen Jürs-Munby, London/New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2006.
- Zwoll, A, ‘(Post)dramatic?’. Written in the frame of the course Making Sense at the University Utrecht, September 2007.

- On Belief of Ivana Müller. Seen on April 18 during Springdance, Utrecht and on December 22 during LISA live(s) in Kikker in Theater Kikker in Utrecht.
- This is Love of Paz Rojo. Seen on December 19 during LISA live(s) in Kikker in Theater Kikker in Utrecht.
- Les Sylphides (work-in-progress) of Nicole Beutler. Seen on December 20 during LISA live(s) in Kikker in Theater Kikker in Utrecht.
- http://www.associationlisa.com/about, looked at on January 20 2008.