Iva Nerina Sibila
Predstave OOUR-a istinski uzrujavaju publiku. Stariju naročito, ali i onu mlađu.
Već sami nazivi – H, box, Chew, OK, Limb, tbc…
…da ne govorimo o programskim knjižicama u kojima nema ama baš ničega što bi pomoglo praćenju predstava…
…a dim je dim, a ne pokretna skulptura...
…i na kraju predstave se poklanja publici. I točka.
…drsko, zaista drsko…
No osim paralingvističkih i zafrkantskih intervencija, postoje i drugi, vrlo ozbiljni razlozi takvim reakcijama. I ti razlozi zaslužuju pažnju.
U suštini, predstave OOUR-a sustavno se, radikalno i na svim razinama opiru kiču kao i svakoj vrsti građanske poslušnosti. Odustajanje od plesa (podsjetimo da su core OOUR-a, S.B. i S.B., dvije vrsne plesačice koje su mogle, svaka u svom fahu, ostvariti i lijepe međunarodne karijere plešući) prvi je, temeljni i njihov ishodišni neposluh.
Neposluh, naglašavam, a ne recimo lijenost ili pomodnost, kako je moguće takav odabir interpretirati, jer se plesna umjetnost, barem unutar onog žanra u kojem je moguće imati međunarodnu karijeru, ipak temelji na poslušnosti (i to uglavnom ženskoj) odnosno na poštovanju autoriteta i hijerarhije. Drugačije ne ide. Temelji se i na prihvatljivim estetskim obrascima. I na luksuzu kazališta. I na punoj dvorani i pljesku. I na ispunjavanju očekivanja. I na predstavi kao tržišnom produktu. A sve je to OOUR izbacio iz svog interesnog područja.
U tom opiranju kiču sažetom u često naglašavanom – zanima nas što kazalište ne može ili ne smije – OOUR rastače komponente kazališnog izričaja kao što je prostor, vrijeme, koreografija, izvođač, autentičnost, publika, a njihove su estetske strategije često napadačke ali i samodestruktivne na specifičan način. Tako će radije rastjerati svu potencijalnu publiku i uzrujati i one blagonaklone, nego napraviti ma i najmanji ustupak gledanosti. Uz to će se i dobro zabavljati.
Otvoreno suprotstavljanje kazališnom okviru izravno je oslovljeno u radovima blackbox i Whitebox. Crna kazališna kutija tu je dovedena do apsurda i doslovno pretvorena u zamračenu crnu kutiju po kojoj publika rudarskom lampom osvjetljava izvođačice. Whitebox ide i korak dalje: izvođača nema, samo bivanje publike je izvedba. Zanimljivo je da se i ostale predstave na neki neobičan način opiru prostoru u kojem se igraju. Kao da je suština radnog prostora, odnosno radnog procesa, doslovno prenesena na scenu. Odnosno, kao da je svaki scenski okvir za OOUR na neki način pogrešan, što je akutno vidljivo u H koji je potpuno pogrešno smješten na scenu ZKL-a, dok je, primjerice, OK riješio tu situaciju ostajući u dvorani gdje je i nastao.
Vrijeme je sljedeća situacija koju OOUR propituje. Spominje se vrijeme kao izvedba, izmicanje virtuoznosti i radnje kako bi se afirmiralo vrijeme kao ravnopravna kategorija u izvedbi. Govorimo o naglašenim, mehaničkim, gotovo brutalnim ponavljanjima, o radnjama koje namjerno naglašavaju svoju neintrigantnost kako bi se pažnja publike razrijedila, a vrijemo postalo prisutno. Time dolazimo do faktora, banalno rečeno, dosade (ili sofisticiranije rečeno, trajanja ili iluzije vremena ili odnosa prostor-vrijeme u kojem se vrijeme dokida kao jedina amaterijalna ili netvarna kategorija tvarnog svijeta) i svega onoga što se s gledateljem događa kada nije neprekidno angažiran scenskim radnjama, a suočen je s igrom u prostoru koja nemilice troši vrijeme. Dosada kao jedna od kletvi kazališne produkcije (…value for money kao ultimativna istina i jedina postojeća vrijednost… a, na sreću, ulaznice za OOUR i njima slične toliko su jeftine da i taj value može biti interpretiran na… razne načine…) dovodi se u prvi plan, s njom se radi, pokušava ju se raspakirati i okrenuti prema samom gledatelju. Predstava i ja u vremenu jednostavno – trajemo. Tako se OOUR bavi onime čega se kazalište inače užasava. Inverzija samog kazališnog čina.
Tako smo došli i do sljedeće teme koju OOUR neprekidno dovodi u pitanje, a to je odgovornost publike i osvještavanje njezina iskustva. Segment kojim me, priznajem, osobno najviše uzrujava. Otvorena diskusija – tko je u stabilnijoj poziciji: publika ili izvođači?
Tko se pred kim treba pokloniti ili tko je tu zbog koga?
Dim je dim, skulptura je skulptura.
Ili možda ipak nije?
Ili možda ipak nije?
OOUR naravno ne pristaje na uvriježeni ugovor izvođača i gledatelja. U potrazi je za drugom vrstom suradnje. Kojom točno, ostaje prilično otvoreno. Taj projekt koliko je zanimljiv toliko je i nužan i aktualan i u recentnoj produkciji tretiran na razne načine, ali je i suočen s puno prepreka, kontradikcija i nerješivih jednadžbi… Na koncu, ništa lakše nego dokinuti sam kazališni čin. Ili sebe u njemu.
Odnosno,
ako se OOUR bavi onime što kazalište ne smije,
dakle onime što kazalište očito nije,
ako se zapravo ne bavi kazalištem, nego nekim suviškom ili manjkom kazališta,
čime se zapravo bavi?
Prvih pet godina OOUR-a treba sagledati i kao projekt grupe povezane pripadnošću generaciji koja je rasla s antiglobalizacijskim i civilnim inicijativama, a kojoj je medijska kultura, pop i web art, YT, FB, TWT, MS i reality show neupitna činjenica koju nosi poput ruksaka na leđima i s kojom neprekidno radi. Generacija je to bez rukopisa, ali generacija artikuliranog aktivističkog stava, koja je u startu bila prisiljena na samoorganizaciju i autonomiju, kao i na osmišljavanje vlastitog konteksta. Aktivistička edukacija plus kritička svijest o situaciji u kojoj se nalaze, ne samo kao plesači već kao ljudi, utjecala je na ovu grupaciju jednako, ako ne i više od njihove umjetničke edukacije. Tako se kod OOUR-a podcrtava teza da je predstava tek dio, jedan maleni i nepotpuni dio plesnog (ili izvedbenog) djela.
Pitanje autentičnosti podcrtala bih kao najupečatljiviju i najrazrađeniju temu koju je OOUR postavio, s radnom tvrdnjom da je u izvedbi autentična samo činjenica da osoba koja u tom trenutku izvodi – jest. Pitanje autentičnosti otvoreno je već u prvom performansu orangecuta u Gliptoteci, u kojem se pokret tijekom izvedbe snimao, a simultano se obrađivala slika i zvuk. U Chew i OK se nagomilavanjem referenci i citata, kao i strategijom iscrpljivanja materijala, izvođač zastire i poništava. A ono što se time nagovještava jest tvrdnja da autentičan pokret koji bi bio vrijedan predstavljanja u ovom društvenom i kulturnom kontekstu ne postoji i da bi takav projekt, dakle potraga za takvim pokretom ili idejom ili osjećajem ili tijelom, bio uzaludan i promašen. Naravno, to je gorak i drzak, a i prilično upitan stav, no istovremeno to je stav koji otkriva autore koji svoje djelovanje ne doživljavaju kao oazu za stvaranje i njegovanje vlastitog talenta, već koji sami sebe stavljaju u prve redove promišljanja onoga što žive.
No H je zaista bio promašaj. Djelovao je kao infantilan, bahat i zamoran igrokaz. Preslagivale su se nekakve kutije, jeo celer, izvođačice su se užasno dobro zabavljale, publika je skandirala… Jedini koherentni dio bio je „nastup“ Adama Semijalca. H nikog nije uzrujao već razočarao.
O Stvarajući Eve i Salonu se dugo i strastveno debatiralo. Kontroverzne predstave koje se mrzi, koje revoltiraju, koje izazivaju agresiju… koje poništavaju i sebe i publiku.
Orangecut i tbc bile su darlings. Nastale su na zamahu mladalačkog zanosa i eksperimenta. Nagovještaji. Uspješni pokušaji „nove generacije“. Prilično pristojne.
Zato je Chew sažela i dovela na mjesto sve što je trebalo. Ponudila je odgovor na otvorena pitanja. Jedna od rijetkih predstava koje mrziš na početku, a na kraju upravo suprotno.
OK kao daljnji rad u istom smjeru. Čak su i tijela zamijenjena. Prilično urnebesno. S jednim izuzetnim segmentom u izvedbi Pravdana Devlahovića. OK je premijerno izveden u radnoj dvorani s autoricom koja pali i gasi svjetlo i publikom koja sjedi na stolicama posuđenim iz susjednih učionica. Otkriva li nam to stav autorica da rade isključivo ono što ih zanima ne mareći za plasman predstave niti za one kojima se obraćaju? Ili je to smišljeni i dosljedno proveden stav opiranja kazališnom sustavu?
Pod svaku cijenu.
Inversion of the stage act or how to upset the audience
OOUR’s performances genuinely upset the audience. In particular the older spectators, but also the younger ones.
The titles alone – H, box, Chew, OK, Limb, tbc…
…not to mention the program booklets which contain absolutely nothing that would help follow the performances…
…and smoke is smoke, not a kinetic sculpture…
…and at the end of the performance you bow to the audience. And that’s that…
…sassy, rather sassy…
Still, beside these paralinguistic and frolicky interventions, there are other, serious reasons for such reactions.
Essentially, OOUR’s performances defy kitsch, as well as every kind of civil obedience, systematically, radically and on every level. Giving up on dance (and let us remind you that the core of OOUR – SB and SB – are two superb dancers that could have, each in her own field, made nice international careers by dancing) is their first, basic, and original act of disobedience.
I am placing the stress on disobedience instead of, for example, laziness or fashionability as alternative interpretations of such choices because dance art, at least those of its genres in which it is possible to have an international career, is after all based on obedience (mostly female), on respecting authority and hierarchy. There is no other way. It is also based on acceptable aesthetic formulas. And on the luxury of theatre. On the full theatre hall and applause. On fulfilling expectations. On performance as a market product. And all that OOUR has thrown out of its interest area.
In this resistance to kitsch, summarized in the often stressed we are interested in what the theatre cannot or must not do, OOUR has deconstructed theatrical components such as time, space, choreography, performer, authenticity, and audience. Their aesthetic strategies are often offensive, but also self-destructive in their specific way. Thus, they will rather disperse all potential audience and upset those who look upon them with favor than to make the smallest concession to ratings. All this while having a good time.
This open opposition to the theatre framework is directly addressed in the pieces called blackbox and Whitebox. The black theatre box is here brought to absurdity and literally transformed into a dark (black) box in which the audience uses a miner’s lamp to shed light on the performers. Whitebox takes it a step further; there are no performers as such, the audience alone is the performance. It is interesting that the other performances also have an unusual way of resisting the space in which they are performed. It is as if the essence of the working space and the working process were literally relocated to the stage, that is, as if each and every setting were in some way wrong for OOUR. This was painfully visible in H, which was completely mistakenly set on the stage of Zagreb Puppet Theatre, while the situation was resolved in OK, for example, which stayed in the same space in which it had been made.
Time is the next issue on OOUR’s agenda. They mention time as performance, a slip of virtuosity and storyline that serves to establish time as an equivalent category in performance. We speak of emphasized, mechanical, almost brutal repetitions, stories that stress their own lack of intrigue in order to dissolve the attention of the audience and establish the presence of time. This leads us, simply put, to the boredom factor (more elaborately, to the duration or illusion of time, or space-time relation, in which time is annulled as the only immaterial or non-material category of the corporeal world) and to everything that happens to the spectator when he or she is not permanently engaged in actions on stage, but confronted with a game in space that spends time mercilessly. Boredom as one of the curses of theatre production (…value for money as the ultimate truth and the only existing value… and luckily tickets for OOUR’s performances and those of similar kind are so cheap that value can be interpreted…in different ways…) is brought to the front, elaborated upon. They seek to unpack it and confront the spectator with it. In time, the performance and me simply - last. That is how OOUR deals with topics that theatre usually finds terrifying. It means inverting the stage act as such.
And thus we arrive to the next topic that OOUR is constantly questioning, which is the responsibility of the audience and their perception of their own experience. A segment that, I admit, upsets me the most. It remains an open discussion: who is in a more stable position: the audience or the performers?
Who should bow to whom and who is there because of whom?
Smoke is smoke, and sculpture is sculpture.
Or maybe not?
Naturally, OOUR does not conform to the ingrained contract between the performers and the spectators. They seek a different kind of cooperation. Which exactly – that question remains open. This project is interesting as well as necessary, and it is always present, although treated in different ways in recent productions. It faces many obstacles, contradictions, and insolvable equations… In the end, there is nothing easier than terminating a stage act. Or yourself in it.
In other words,
if OOUR deals with what theatre cannot do,
or rather what theatre is obviously not,
if they do not really deal with theatre, but with a surplus or dearth of theatre,
what then do they really deal with?
OOUR’s first five years should also be considered as a project of a group that belongs to a generation that grew up with anti-globalization and civic initiatives, and to which the media culture, pop and web art, YT, FB, TWT, MS, and reality shows are an indisputable fact that they carry around like a backpack and must deal with every day. It is a generation with no handwriting, but with an articulate activist attitude. One that was condemned to self-organization and autonomy right from the start, as well as to formulating their own context. Activist education, which added up to critical consciousness of their situation as both dancers and people, has influenced this group just as much as their artistic education, if not more. That is how OOUR underlines its thesis that the performance is but a part, a small and incomplete part of a dance (or performative) piece.
I would like to draw attention to the question of authenticity as the most prominent and most elaborated theme that OOUR has ever developed, working with the claim that the only thing authentic in a performance is that the person performing in that moment – is. Authenticity was addressed in their very first performance orangecut in Gliptoteka, in which the movement during the performance was taped and the picture and sound were processed simultaneously. In Chew and OK we could see how piling up references and quotes, and using the strategy of exhausting the material, concealed and annulled the performer. This foreshadows the assertion that an authentic movement, which would be worth representing in this social and cultural context, does not exist and that such a project - a search for such movement, idea, feeling, or body - would be futile and unsuccessful. This, of course, is a bitter, sassy, and rather debatable attitude. At the same time, it is an attitude that discloses those authors who do not perceive their work as an oasis of creation and cultivation of their talent, but step out and reflect on what they are living.
However, H was actually a failure. It left the impression of an infantile, insolent, and tiring play. Boxes were rearranged, celery was eaten, the performers had a fantastic time, the audience chanted… The only coherent part was the ‘performance’ of Adam Semijalac. H did not upset, it disappointed.
Creation of Eve and Salon were hotly debated for a long time. Both of these controversial performances were hated, they revolted and provoked aggression…annulling themselves and the audience.
orangecut and tbc were the darlings. Created on the wings of youthful enthusiasm and experiment. Predictions. Successful attempts of a ‘new generation’. Quite decent.
But Chew summarized and sorted out everything that needed summarizing and sorting out. It offered answers to open questions. It was one of those rare performances that you start hating but end up loving.
OK followed in the same direction. Even the bodies were substituted. Pretty hilarious. With one exceptional segment in the performance of Pravdan Devlahović. The show was premiered in the studio in which it had been created, with the author turning the lights on and off and the audience sitting on chairs borrowed from the nearby classrooms. The question remains: Is it the authors’ intention to create exclusively what interests them, without regard to those whom their art actually addresses? Or is it a premeditated and consistent defiance of the theatre system?
At all costs.
Nema komentara:
Objavi komentar