Crumbs. What can I remember? I certainly remember the marvellous unalloyed pleasure of having no one sit next to me on the train going up. (Achieved through a quite brilliant melange -- if I say so myself -- of scowling, sprawling, reading a wide newspaper, and listening to Joanna Newsom on the old Pod at just-sufficient volume to repel all who came near.) And there was also a very lovely moment where I realized that, although my late booking meant I was spending absurd amounts on my hotel room, it was actually a proportionately absurdly nice room: quite unexpected. (I don't very often get to stay in hotels but I've picked up enough of the jargon to know that words like "superior" and "deluxe" normally translate as "fitted carpet" and "hot water most of the time". But for once, on this occasion, I was sold a pig in a pig-container accurately marked CONTENTS: ONE PIG.)
It was my tenth visit to the festival since 1994 but my first ever as a joe-schmo punter. No show-related anxiety, no stress, no fatigue disturbing the balance of my mind. All terribly vanilla I'm afraid. Nonetheless I did manage to cram in all of the standard issue EREV (Edinburgh Related Emotional Vacillation), I just didn't find myself in possession of an entirely fragmented personality halfway down Rose Street at four in the morning, it was all much more civilised than that. Weird to go alone, and there were moments where that started to chafe a bit, but it was awfully nice to just please myself (and to have no one counting the number of Oreo shakes I was getting through at Black Medicine... except possibly the guy who was making them).
Managed to find time for most of the traditional activities (I don't mean this in the sense Kenneth Williams would have intended), and was particularly pleased to find that, presumably in accordance with some arcane statute, Avalanche on West Nicholson Street still displays a copy of The Way Of The Vaselines in its window at all times. Didn't get to the Cameo -- v sad, particularly as it seems to have a rather precarious existence at the moment, notwithstanding its new ownership by the Picture House chain; didn't manage to buy Ilchester Farmhouse cheese from my usual supplier, who seem to have stopped stocking it; didn't get to see Phil Kay, who I try to see every year if I can, on the grounds that (a) in 1994 at an Amnesty benefit he got me from zero to doubled-up weeping-with-laughter in under a minute, and (b) every time I've seen him since then he's been so brilliantly hit-and-miss, it's impossible ever to think for a moment that he might not be worth going to see again next year... He's a straight-up-and-down hero of mine, and I was pleased to see the comedy critics beginning to pay due attention to him again this year, though I don't suppose he cares much.
Ok, well, of course, I have to give out awards, otherwise I might as well just, you know, sit here eating strawberry Pocky sticks and giving out awards in my head...
Absolutely Best Thing I Saw: The Robert Ryman show, curated by Urs Raussmuller, at Inverleith House. I can't imagine a more beautifully appropriate venue for this (literally and exactly) awesome show. You walk around the seven rooms of this domestic-size gallery, there is natural light from all sides (the house is set in the Botanic Garden), one or two pieces in each room. I only had the vaguest idea of Ryman's work beforehand, and so was sort of unprepared for how astounding this show would be: so rigorous, so tender. Three or four of the pieces on display were just perfect. It's idiotic even to attempt to write about them, but I got the same feeling I got when I first saw Rothko or Lucio Fontana's slash pictures or Miroslaw Balka's recent work. I probably only spent forty minutes in there -- I'd squeezed it in between theatre shows -- but it was like breathing pure oxygen. (Incidentally, the show continues through till October 1st so if there's any way you can get to it, I just can't recommend it highly enough.)
Most Inspiring Theatre: the TEAM at the Traverse, Particularly In The Heartland. I saw this young New York company last year, with a smart and groovy demolition of Hamlet called A Thousand Natural Shocks, and thought they were probably worth keeping an eye out for. So I'd booked for them this year, but nearly didn't go as they clashed with a Book Festival appearance by Stuart McLean. As it was, McLean had sold out (boy, would that have been a different evening) and I'm so glad I reverted to plan A. Particularly In The Heartland is one of the most fiercely engaged and exuberantly theatrical productions I've seen in years. The first few minutes (enforced audience singing of the Battle Hymn of the Republic) had me cringing a bit -- quite intentional I'm sure -- but once they hit their stride they ran for an hour and forty minutes of high-speed high-intellect high-risk full-on theatre without once putting a foot wrong. Not only were they wonderfully, messily eloquent about present-day American political and social culture, they were also brilliant at indicating the role that the theatrical encounter could play in not simply encapsulating or satirising such a predicament but in actually attacking and outperforming it. This is what elevates them (for me), finally, over the Riot Group: in terms of the social presentation of theatre at its fullest and most touching, they're just leaps and bounds ahead. I left on such a high I just had to walk around for the rest of the evening -- so my apologies to Daniel Kitson that there was an empty seat in his audience that night. It made me feel really reconnected to some of the energies (for dire want of a better word) that my work had when I was the TEAM's age; and those energies, it's clear, are not just the joyous permissions of youthful self-invention, but the propellant that all theatre needs if it's genuinely going to contribute to the transformation of the wider thought-culture. -- Interesting, btw, to see that the TEAM's London connection (for the moment) is with BAC. David Jubb's mistrust of work that dares to make intellectual commitments is obviously not as absolute as he seems to like to suggest. Good on him, and on them all. (Take note: their BAC run finishes this Sunday. Do what it takes.)
Most Sublimely Entertaining Hour: Stamping Ground / Inspector Sands's Hysteria at Aurora Nova. Just the most beautifully conceived, immaculately performed, gosh-darned delightful piece of devised physical comedy you could possibly wish for. Three quite extraordinarily gorgeous performances by Ben Lewis and Guilia Innocenti (on an unravelling first date) and Lucinka Eisler (as their waiter). In probably every workshop I run, and in many rehearsals I'm supposedly driving, there's a baffling bit where I bang on about how the job of the actor in an ensemble is to give attention away, to do everything possible to make the other performers look better and more beautiful. I wish everyone could see Hysteria -- I'd never need to try and explain that notion again. It's won every award going -- quite right too: and now this one. I wish there was a statuette or something, Lucinka's one of the few people I know who I think should have more statuettes. ...Oh, and this show wins Best One-Liner as well: the woman on the date blurts out that her first sexual experience was when she was fourteen; then immediately noticing that she's inadvertently shocked her dining companion, she continues: "...ah, but that was with my brother, so it doesn't count." Timed to perfection, too. A show you could eat your dinner off.
Gobble Gobble: for the sake of it, two turkeys and a capon. Just quickly.
Turkey #1: Robert Mapplethorpe at the Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art. Oooof, he's dated badly. The show really suffered from not having any of his more experimental collage-y work from the very early 70s, which has held up much better. The stunning and iconic portrait of Alice Neel was the only piece really worth seeing live in the room -- though the affectionate pictures of Louise Bourgeois and Willem de Kooning always make me smile, and some of his punkier subjects (such as a tattooed young fellow aptly named Smutty) sit in an interesting tension to the inert sheen that was already constraining him by the turn of the 80s. It was a melancholy afternoon for me: Mapplethorpe was quite important to me in my late teens; but I think that says more about me and that time in my life, and very little about any persisting artistic value in his work.
Turkey #2: Derevo, Ketzal at Aurora Nova. Another excruciating display of trivial and vainglorious arsing-around. It really was like root canal work for the soul. Almost needless to say, the last fifteen minutes were among the most thrilling I've ever spent in a theatre: they'd flooded the stage with water, there was a big red sun, there was smoke, there were enough lights to bake a large-ish potato, there were figures in silhouette, we were in a sodding church. Of course it was thrilling. With all that being thrown at it, that final sequence could just have been my dad doing the washing-up and it still would have looked like the most exciting work in town. What empty-headed conservative piffle. Anyway. It is done. I have hated everything I've seen by Derevo and I think that now adds up to actually just hating Derevo. And their stupid braying cult-sucker groupies. And then Derevo again, who, alternating layers of insult and injury like a monumental obnoxious lasagne, have taken to doing horrible Sankai Juku-like curtain calls.
Capon: see I hate to say this but can I just share? I'm the one person who didn't get Floating (Hugh Hughes and Hoi Polloi at the Pleasance). I wanted to like it, I was perfectly prepared to like it, and for quite long stretches I didn't dislike it. But the more I look back on it from a bit of distance, the more I think it was actually rather disingenuous and poorly made. (Which is not to say that I disliked the jumbly chaos of it for being jumbly chaos, but because it was fake jumbly chaos and because it was the wrong jumbly chaos.) I'd like to introduce a new word into critical vocabulary at this point: whimsoid. Material having the appearance of whimsy but actually rather a joyless and leaden heart. Floating strikes me as good-quality whimsoid. By no means a bad show, and plainly made for good and noble reasons, but it didn't ring true stylistically or in its apparent values. It made me long for the true master of Edinburgh whimsy, Ben Moor, who (I think) was taking a year off. The first two minutes of his A Supercollider For The Family remain probably the most perfectly judged, heart-stretching bits of storytelling I've ever heard.
There's a lot more I could say about Edinburgh and a number of shows that deserve comment -- Liam Steel's brilliantly conceived Knots with CoisCeim Dance at Aurora Nova; Simon Amstell's engrossing and infuriating stand-up at a much reinvigorated Pleasance Dome; the quiet genius of Will Adamsdale and Chris Branch's The Receipt at the godawful Assembly Rooms... But to be honest, the minute Edinburgh's over, it already feels like last year, and nobody needs the coldcuts waved in their face.
Since then, I'm afraid it really has been almost entirely work -- Longwave opens next week and Rhymes, Reasons and Bomb-Ass Beatz two weeks after that.
I've only really been allowed out to play once, last Sunday, for one of Tate Modern's showings of Destricted, the portmanteau skinflick in which various likely film-makers and fine artists present their reflections on sex and pornography in cinema.
I liked a lot of the individual films, I must say. Matthew Barney's Hoist is a typically ravishing opener that goes right to the erotic heart of the public/private tension that reverberates through so much of his film work. Marina Abramovic's Balkan Erotic Epic was an unexpectedly wry and affectionate piece about the cultural production of sexual behaviour. And that misunderstood genius Larry Clark turned in a vintage short in Impaled, a really perceptive and restrained (and customarily self-implicating) investigation into the suasive and arguably distorting influence that pornography has on the erotic-imaginative scope of young men raised in the home video / internet era, and on the self-possession of women involved in the porn industry. I -heart-
There was an artistically negligible and critically null piece by Richard Prince (bit of a let-down from an artist I admire); a clever but shallow blip of a thing by Marco Brambilla; an appallingly ugly and (if it's not the wrong phrase) ham-fisted execution of an interesting idea by Sam Taylor Wood; and a characteristically moronic and malevolent non-contribution from Gaspar Noe, surely now the most redundant filmmaker in the world (at least while Abel Ferrara's still missing presumed braindead) and probably the most overrated, not least by the many millions of people who hate him.
But the real disappointment of Destricted was as a curated programme as a whole. Perhaps the wording of the original brief to the invited directors was not well tuned. At any rate, what frustrated me was the emphasis on the mimicry of, or blurry critique of, the visual behaviours of film pornography; not enough of the work seemed to be interested in finding ways to put real sex on screen that weren't pornographic (with or without a layer or six of irony). It made for a very self-conscious compendium, which is to say that it never seemingly managed to dig down to a sufficiently radical starting-point to be able to throw up some genuinely new insights. The most distinctive artistic expression, the Barney piece, was in some ways also the most oblique -- one might almost say evasive, though the constant translation-shifts and systematic pressures of mythopoesis that characterise his work are never exactly evasive, they're just elusive -- and perhaps ultimately only the Larry Clark piece stared the question(s) out: everybody else blinked first.
What's particularly frustrating is that these questions, around the sex-life of performance, are just as vital to theatre (and live art and dance) as they are to film: possibly more so, as there are some ways in which the film experience can never telegraph "reality" in the way that the live experience can and should. The imaging of sex is, or can be, exactly at the biting-point of so many critical questions to do with the theatrical modelling of social relations.
So I was hoping for some inspiration; or at least a set of statements that would be interesting to discuss and examine. It's possible that Destricted might become that, I suppose, and at any rate I've preordered the DVD. (Viewing it on a Sunday afternoon with a bunch of giggling sweetie-unwrapping twits at Tate Modern was never going to be very blithely conducive...) But it's not switched the light on that I hoped it might. The whole area is tricky not least because it's very difficult to get into it with performers, especially in a research context; it seems almost comically lubricious and self-deluding even to begin to sketch out any kind of enquiry. Perhaps only the fierce heat of Larry Clark's self-portraiture in Impale, as in Ken Park, can cut through all the dreary fog of denial and displacement.
More importantly, I thought it was time to have a crack at embedding a video, everyone else is doing it and every time I see this I make the sort of gurgling sound that comes out of some unpredictable bit of your face when your laugh response is flooded.
From the brilliant Robert Popper & Peter Serafinowicz, blessings upon them.
And also upon you, my tenacious reader. Very well done. (Comment me a comment, do: it gets so lonely here and the nights are drawing in.)
I even blogged you, Chris. And are you really coming to the Sydney Festival? Don't be seduced by Sydney's superficial beauty, it's only harbours and opera houses and stuff, you can't go there and not come to Melbourne...
Yay! That video is just brilliant...
"404 not responding" pops up (twice) in place of the popper and serafinowitzz, as it has popped up now for the past fortnight every time I try to watch something on youtube. This is a pain. I'd only just discovered it and was getting very excited about seeing Miles Davis on Ed Sullivan, Alan Moore racontring around Northampton (tell us again about the dog-shaped ghosts, Alan) Hunter S. Thompson on Letterman, etc. You're clever. What's wrong?
Seems you spent almost as much time at Aurora as I did and I was working there.
Hysteria was indeed super, super delightful and I recently got a chance to see Particularly in the Heartland at the BAC and it blew me away.
Speaking of good things - I did enjoy Napolean a couple of years back (or maybe longer than that now). So well done you.
Have only just discovered your blog but will be reading with interest.
Birds are ace.
Thanks for the great description of Particularly in the Heartland - I missed it in Edinburgh but caught it at BAC and it left me feeling quite critically overwhelmed, and abit blown away and unsure whether or not that was a Good Thing (political theatre is Brilliant Stuff but I had a weird reaction to this: it seemed so bristling with ideas that i couldn't get a handle on it). Recognising some of the bristlyness (TM) as theatricality is a great key to unpacking some of it.
Interested by your controversial (!) Floating comments - I felt as though some of that disigenuousness was an extension of Hugh's character, his ego. I dunno - perhaps crediting them with too much? The problem is, it's hard to properly criticise anything that establishes itself as so Likeable.
Really looking forward to seeing Longwave in Maidenhead, beccy
Post a Comment