 |
| No, I didn't get mixed up with Dracula. This is Artaud. |
Much like Meyerhold last week, Artaud was at odds with his drama idol, who had made a huge name for himself. Whilst Meyerhold was taught by Stanislavski and separated himself to create non-naturalistic styles, Artaud was the opposite, working in the style of Brecht and separating into what could be seen as more naturalistic acting. Okay, not quite naturalistic, but it shared the same values...
See, Artaud was more focused on the emotions rather than the message, with his specific aim being to make the audience realise their deepest and darkest fears (told you he was creepy). Artaud was somewhat against the idea of an audience coming to simply watch a play in a theatre and go home unchanged. This is where his ideology of Brecht comes in, but he turns it on his head by literally wanting the audience to participate. You don't watch an Artaud play, you experience it.
It is here, as with most practitioner's work, that the idea sounds fantastic in theory, and whilst I don't think the outcome is bad as such, in practice it is slightly different.
One of the main ideas in an Artaud production is to not do what the audience expect, to have an eerie silence suddenly interrupted by a character cursing at the audience, blaming them for something. It is certainly different but I feel it only works for what is was made for: a presentation of different themes. That's it, a display of ideas, not quite coherently placed, failing to be strung together by any kind of story. But, since this is the point, it cannot be criticized for this reason. Furthermore, unlike with Meyerhold, I do feel the outcome leaves an impact. This comes down to the fuel and objective for the style: emotion. However non-naturalistic Artaud's work is, it still tries to evoke something in the audience, some kind of pathos that makes going to see (or rather experience) his work worthwhile.
One of Artaud's most famous and interesting ideas was muting vocabulary of his characters without muting them completely. They still make sounds: grunts and squeals and shouts, but don't always say anything. It's strange to see and hear, and makes again for some amusing pieces of work, but Artaud did this to show emotion is a universal language. He wanted anyone to be able to grasp how the characters were feeling without having to say a word. A simple set of movements or expressions can heighten the emotion, sometimes more powerful than any dramatic monologue.
Of course, we can't skip past the fact that some of his ideas were outlandish. He was after all both influenced by heroin and mental illness that ended him up in straight-jackets and mental institutions many a time. But it is what is born from this madness that many still appreciate today. It is for that reason that I place his 'Theatre of Cruelty' above last week's entry: 'biomechanics'.
-BEST-
ARTAUD - 'THEATRE OF CRUELTY'
MEYERHOLD - 'BIOMECHANICS'
-WORST-
Still, whether or not I'll find any sane techniques on this journey is still unbeknownst to me.
