My task is to make something on stage into which you can project--And yet you are not bored because there is no “narrative or psychological (vis a vis characters) involvement”. Boredom is avoided because two levels go on at once—film and stage--
Yet neither is complete. And you oscillate between the two—-there is a “spark gap” which your consciousness jumps—and this keeps you awake.
Neither level is complete—(which is always the problem with both theater and film, in which all levels—language, image, movement in 3-dimensional space fill in all levels of perceptual experience) as opposed to other art forms which leave at least one level empty.
(And this relates to Gertrude Stein saying that in theater she was always either behind or ahead of the transpiring play—so she wrote ”landscapes” through which consciousness could wander.)
Why can I return to a painting, a poem, aphorisms, music—? Yet to see a play or film more than once is usually unbearably boring? Because these other forms elude one by leaving out at least one level of perceptual experience. So a play must discover how to “leave out” a level—yet, a play with no dialogue for instance, isn’t necessarily interesting; it’s simply another full world but composed of people “not talking”—it’s not a world (like dance) which is strangely “lacking” in a particular dimension.
But splitting focus between film and stage, the way I do it—-that lacks a dimension, which is the dimension of “making the connection” between these modes. Yet it’s not simply “2 separate tracks running parallel” --which would be the case if any old film were just shown while the play transpired. No—-the static tableaus I employ “imply” a potential relation (symbolic) — while the fact of live performers occasionally reacting to the screen imply a different kind of relation (dynamic and psychological)—-but the dimension in which this could indeed happen must be left out-—just as, for instance, the visual is ‘left out’ of a poem, or language is ‘left out’ of music that nevertheless seems to copy the fluctuations of consciousness that seem to surface automatically in speech.
No—-we seek a form that forces the perceiving mind to “jump” like a spark from one level of “potential content” (film) to another (on-stage performance)—-which means that normal “tracking consciousness” is bypassed while the new field created between spectator and the “in between” space manifest on-stage in a field of total alertness --without a subject! (The minute you have a subject, you have a prison created by that subject—and the deep content of this art is freedom)
Is about itself.
That is to say
It is about impulse
Occurring against the backdrop
Of an event horizon
That changes slowly (the film)(slow seems permanent)
And that impulse—-
Pokes holes (void) in the on-going film
creating a space between impulse and event horizon
where truth arises
(my life story, desire to be ‘good boy’ and hated success of that as ‘killing’ self, so I sneak in proof (circus) I don’t want to kill audience. . .
Cut sound (shock!)
Don’t write clever phrases,
No to complexity
No, to seductiveness
(philosophical) of “write to make exception to system, a statement that generates its own disappearance:”
this is achieved by the REGISTER of film tableau,
and “thrown” (impulse) action
the combination of which is “real” (truth)
Problem is always—there are bits that seize one
And others that don’t
(narrative—in and out
stein- landscape (vs before or behind)
but how to deal with in-out
(stein— normally you are not in control as you watch, so there is relief, not completion)
but—is between screen and stage? A way of control?
(in between, minimal space
like in between first row and stage
museum is solution, as is 3-ring circus
screen and stage—3 ring circus
you are in control if you FOCUS?
Every human face
Is a double
Reaching into the future
Listening to oneself
The next moment
Is a miscalculation
No way out
Wait for the bus
On your favorite
a real world
A subliminal exercise
When the reality of the world
Comes under investigation
What do the next few moments--
And style of playfulness
Will surface between us
Living in a world where the un-manifest part—the greatest part—is being denied
“in some sense”
“so to speak”
(suppose I “WERE”....... that tense)
There are things that can’t be known. Your task is to find them.
In between. In between
Be afraid. The unconscious may be dying.
Away with bad objects
This is the only way
Towards the future.
To read part two of the complete notes click here