Битеф

porodica s.l. (stefan brecht)

Beleške o Pozorištu 'Ridiculous' (Odlomci iz članka) ’Ridikulusi’ je stvorila porodica ili porodice slobodnih osoba kao deo njihovog porodičnog života. Njegovi članovi prihvataju i igraju uloge kao s.l. (slobodna licnost) koja vedro prihvata svoj identitet ne identif ikujući se, da bi igrali. Sloboda se postiže deziluzionističkim 'akcija’ stilom: fantastična, romantična i herojska identifikacija sa snovima kakva se javlja u mašti s.l. angažovane u erotskim i osvajackim delatnostima s.l. Uzorna neozbiljnost tih komada podvučena je farsičnim i ironičnim stilom interpretacjje. Ovo pozorište se odnosi prema publici na zezatorski erotično samopotvrđivački način s. Efekat je razaranje prividnog identiteta, t. šarlatanstvo. Pozorište 'Ridikulus’ sabotira introvertovane i institucîonalizovane autoritete. Neko ko je smešan (ridiculous) ili je klovn ili budala neko ko nema kontrole da igra kako valja, neko ko nema inteligencije da radi ili kaže prave stvari.

two exemplary productions (richard schechner)

Two exemplary productions (Richard Schechner) The process of building a new theatre is not in any way abstract. It is concrete, and has two aspects: performances and theory. These two work off each other. Theory is simply the recognition of the regular development among perfomances, and the expia, nation of the precise nature of that regularity. Consistent development in theatre is not unlike similar development in science or, as we are learning, in politics. Either you choose a haphazard, catch-as-catch-can method, or one in which values are articulated, criticized, and shaped; and then measure achievements against these values. To proceed anarchically is (it seems to me) to directly or indirectly serve those who wish to see art a commodity and artists isolated and alienated no-collar workers. Values are not absolute or abstract, but made, and then tested and revised. The

Lohr Wilson (Hecate) James Morfogen, Frederick Dude leper (Njen voz)

’naša originalnost je u našim promašajima’ (Intervju sa Charlesom Ludlam-om)

ISAAK: Da li ima nekog cilja u vašem pozorišnom razvoju? Neka svrha, neki plan? LUDLAM-: Ja polako pokušavam da umetničku politiku približim Artaudovom fizičkom pozorištu, kao i verbalne vrednosti. Kostimi su postal! sve vise i vise vezani za prostor. Sami kostimi imaju svoju autonomnu scensku vrednost... Moje katoličko poreklo je imalo uticaja na moje pozorište: palimo tamjan tokom predstave; ima mnogo ritualnog ISAAK: Da liste ikada pomišljali da sa vašim stavom prema pozorištu i sa vašim stilom pridete klasicima? LUDLAM: Mislili smo na to, ali bismo ih mi adaptirali. Mi pokušavamo da imitiramo velike stvari, a u našem promašaju je naša originainost. Nasa umetnost je da sve uvedemo. Moderna umetnost je sve do dana današnjeg I Beckett je svodenje forme eliminacija stvari. Nasa umetnost se sastoji u tome d asve izbacujemo sve do trenutka kada najzad priznamo da je svet naše delo. Mi uravnotežujemo banalno sa sublimnim. Koristimo literaturu kao sluškinju teatra. Kada stvari treba da budu rečene, mi ih kažemo. Čisto fizičko pozorište Artaud-a uz verbalni zvučni fon. To je način da se uključi dramska literatura, jer Artaud osuđuje pisca. Režija postaje ono što je kada glumac i pozorište dozvole u pozorištu fizičke radnje. Sinoć smo imali bitku sa publikom. Počeli smo da bacamo voće i povrće na njih. Lutka u veličini čoveka bila je bačena u gledalište. Publika je bacila nazad. Bio je to rat.

social scheme, and the unfolding reconstruction of society, is the gestalt against which the artist defines hinself. Or, to put it another way, the artist is an individual but his responsibilities and responses must transcend individualism, which, after all, is the cutting ideological edge of exploitation, Ox, in still other terms, we think we are regaining a sense of community. In a way that is right, but not precise. We are instead discovering the means of collectivity. Individualism—the Protestant, the Capitalist, the Entrepreneur—is not dead, but should be; and will be. The new theatre is not individualistic, nor is it communal .It is collective; additive, multi-faceted, organized around several centers, urban. Last veek I went to the theatre twice in New York. An unusual thing for me because

the New York theatre is fundamentally worn out, and shows it—faddism, lack of skill, whoring, a rats’ maze of scurrying and conformity. 1 went to see one theatre that many people consider a toy, and another that has been treated paternalistically by the critics. I mean Charles Ludlamand his Ridiculous Theatrical Company's 'BLUEBEARD' and the Combine's 'STOMP'. Both are exemplary performances, From time to time we are treated to an exemplary performance—a production that has importance both immediately and as a contribution to (or of) theory, Such were the Living Theatre’s ( 'Paradise Now’ and, in a oblique way, its 'Antigone': or the Open Theatre's 'The Serpent’; or the Performance Group's 'Dionysus in 69’ and, again, obliquely, 'Makbeth.' An exemplary

Lola Pashalinski (Miss Cubbidge) Mario Montez (Lamia)

33