9 Parts of Desire

After my first initial reading of 9 Parts Of Desire I thought “immensely beautiful!” I am not one for Solo Performances, but this play intrigued me from page one, or actually from the authors note. I was so intrigued I went searching for this said painting of “savagery”. Along the way I found a few things you all might be interested in.
http://www.heatherraffo.com/9parts.html
Here is Ms. Raffo’s website with detailed information on her and the play. One of my first thoughts was how one piece of artwork could change the world and how miraculous this trip must have been for her. I found a review quote on her website that summed up my first thoughts.
“9 Parts of Desire is "AN EXAMPLE OF HOW ART CAN REMAKE THE WORLD! In this remarkable one-woman show, Heather Raffo's performance is deft and vivacious; her writing, like her playing, is marked with wit and by a scrupulous attention to the details of character." —The New Yorker.”
I really thought “oh god, a one woman show about a group of people I know nothing about” Her play was and is a very assessable play that will invoke thought for any first time reader.
On the Actors Theatre site where the play was being performed in 2008 by Ms. Raffo, they had some really interesting numbers to go along with the play.
Numbers :
The performance on Thursday, March 20, 2008 will mark the 5th anniversary of the Iraq War.
The cumulative cost of the war is estimated at approximately $474 billion spent as of December 2007.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the total cost of the war in Iraq to U.S. taxpayers will be around $1.9 trillion.
Here is the website for the 2008 performance mentioned above if you would like more information.
http://www.atphx.org/index.taf?mnid=performance&ecid=1174472034
They also have a glossary PDF form for all the patrons to make the play just as assessable as it was in the script. Below is the bush mosaic referred to in the play.

Theatre of the Absurd? Or Truth?

After reading and discussing Endgame in class, I found myself questioning the label "Absurd" that is associated with the works of Beckett, Ionesco, Pinter, and others... Since it was critic Marin Esslin that created the term "Absurd" to describe these works, I find it unnecessary to link it closely to our notions of the plays. What one sees as absurd, another finds to be completely accurate. This was the case for me with Endgame, for in it, I saw as much if not more truth than I've seen in any of the plays we've read this semester.

Absurd by definition means utterly or obviously senseless, illogical or untrue, or contrary to all reason or common sense. I do see the obvious senselessness in the way the play is staged: Nag and Nell being in trash cans, the minimal set dressing, etc... but in the subject matter and relationships between characters I see reason, truth, and human nature. It would be presumptious of me as a young man to presume to know how I might act upon approaching old age and death. "Lord, we know what we are, but not what we may be." (Ophelia in Hamlet: Act IV, Sc. 5) Absurd does not, for my part, come close to describing the entirety of this play. In Hamm's constant picking and ordering of Clov I observe an old man trying to maintain some level of humor and fun in his life, as well as a sense of control.

HAMM: Clov!
CLOV: Yes.
HAMM: I'll give you nothing more to eat.
CLOV: Then we'll die.
HAMM: I'll give you just enough to keep you from dying. You'll be hungry all the time.

Hamm's threat to starve Clov shows a man who has no control trying to exert control, and it also displays Hamm's sense of humor. Obviously he would not starve Clov becuase he likes having someone to take care of him (not to mention Clov isn't blind and could walk around and feed himself!). Hamm is used to being the master, and it is within his nature to act the way he does. Clov on the other hand maintains the order of things and satisfies his role of servant.


HAMM: What are you doing?
CLOV: Putting things in order. (He straightens up. Fervently.) I'm going to clear everything away! (He starts picking up again.)
HAMM: Order!
CLOV(Straightening up): I love order. It's my dream. A world where all would be silent and still and each thing in its last place, under the last dust. (He starts picking up again.)
HAMM: What in God's name do you think you're doing?
CLOV(Straightening up): I'm doing my best to create a little order.
HAMM: Drop it! (Clov drops the object he has picked up.)

Here we see again Hamm's desire to order and control while Clov is simply going about his duties. Clov is not acting without sense, but rather he is trying to make sense of the world and environment around him. The actions and desires of the characters within Endgame do not deserve to be labeled absurd... however absurd they may seem. They are real, believeable, and truthful characters, even though their situation is absurd. Maybe I'm too hard on Esslin; maybe he was just trying to describe the "situation" of the play. Regardless, I still stand firm on the notion that calling these works "Absurd" as a style completely boxes in the limitless capabilities of truthful human expression these works contain. I'd like to have a production of Endgame and have a sign at the door marked: "Theatre of Truth".

Waiting for the Beckett Estate to come to their senses...

Some of the people in our class did not like the idea that the Beckett Estate could come in and shut down a Beckett production if they felt like it was not honoring the wants of the playwright. I found an article highlighting the legal battle between the Beckett Estate and the Pontedera Theatre. Here is the link to the article… http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/04/arts.italy.

This particular theatre was doing Waiting for Godot and cast women in two of the roles. The director justified it by saying, “Silvia and Luisa look like men on stage and I chose them because they have played male roles before. We have used the text in its entirety and have in all other ways remained completely faithful to Beckett's work. We have followed his stage instructions down to the tiniest detail ... There is no element in the directing, acting, costumes or make-up that refers to a change in the characters (Article)”. According to the article, when the Beckett Estate found out about this they issued an injunction to shut down production.

The theatre ignored the requests of the Beckett Estate, that they discontinue production, and continued production. They fought it out in court and the court sided with the theatre. The lawyer for the theatre talked about the victory saying, “The sentence is valuable, not just from the technical point of view of the interpretation of the law. It reiterates that men and women have equal rights, given that it still seems necessary to point this out (article)."

The court overruled the Beckett Estate by looking at this situation as a civil rights issue. However, the article cites a 1992 case involving the same cross gender casting of Waiting for Godot, where the court sided with the Beckett Society. In this case the courts ruled that the theatre was in violation of Samuel Beckett’s moral rights.

I thought I had made my mind up about this issue. After hearing what both sides have to say I have been pushed to the center on this issue. A part of me says that the integrity of the playwright must always be honored no matter how specific. The other part of me agrees with the court. Yes, the parts were written as men, however the women playing the characters are playing them as men. It seems like the Beckett Estate takes things too far sometimes but the wishes of Samuel Beckett must always come first. However, I agree with the director of the Pontedera production. As long as the director stays true to the script, they should not be forced to discriminate against actors because of gender of ethnicity.

Thought this was something cool! Enjoy!

As I've been buried in writing about Theatre of Avant-Garde and the ideas of Meyerhold and Arrtaud, I began to think a lot about Death and the King's Horseman and my original interpretation of how I would stage the play. My original thought was to have a separation between tribal tradition and the english colonialists as different spots on the stage. I also mentioned originally wanting to use projection and simply create a big spectacle. Well, the thought of that and how I changed my mind to focus on a more Aristotelian point of view has not left me since that class. Anyway, a friend of mine sent me a video from the 'Fondly Do We Hope, Fondly Do We Pray" dance theatre piece by Bill T. Jones and the Arnie Zane Dance Company and it immediately made me think about Death and the King's Horsemen and all of it's avant-garde abilities within the production. If you don't see my point that's okay, it's still a really cool video!

Sacred Works As Art

A long time ago I was a member of a gospel choir in New Jersey. Two of my classmates wanted to join the choir but asked me if it would be okay since one girl was Muslim and the other was an atheist. So the question arose: Can you do art that is religious in nature if you don't practise that religion. I bring this up because of the Zen Buddhist components of the Noh plays. Could Americans without a history of Buddhism or Japanese culture perform these plays?
In the case of the gospel choir I voted that you did not have to practise Christianity to sing gospel music. Mainly I felt the music transcended religion and was an art form that could speak to people of many beliefs. That's also how I feel about Noh plays. I think Aoi No Uye may still move us even if we limited knowledge or experience of Buddhism or Japanese culture.
So then could it be that an American company would be able to produce this play? After all we read and saw how intense and long the training is for Noh theatre. Even so I think it would be possible to have an Americanized version of a Noh play that would not be a complete bastardization of the play. It would be American in that the intricate moves will definitely not be the same, but I think that the right director and actors still would be able to capture the essence of the play. The passions of the characters reflect human emotions and spirits that manifests in each of us.
I would have liked to include in this blog the exact path to staging this Noh play. I think that the discovery of the way to effectively perform a Noh play is the result of research and trial and error. Anyway I think the process of launching a Noh play could be a reward in and of itself.

Put me in my coffin

What interests me most is the idea of what the show is actually about. I think, due to the style of Endgame, and other Beckett pieces, that the representation of life is perfectly clear. Laughter may be the first response, but if looking at the text, it's lack of outside description for the world (i.e. bare interior, etc) really takes the focus away from outside things and allows focus to be on the dialogue and movement. By allowing ourselves to be part of a world of no distraction (I shudder to say nothingness), we are embracing the world of Clov and Hamm as one of our own, much the way we take on Gogo and Didi as extensions of ourselves.

The next thought that arises is...if this is life, what part of life is this? My first thought is that Hamm and Clov are dead, right along with Nagg and Nell. For example, in this bit of dialogue it suggests that death is a very prominent part of their existence, but I would ve naturally nture to say that it's is a prominent part of their past, rather than immediate future:
HAMM: Is Mother Pegg's light on?
CLOV: Light! How could anyone's light be on?
HAMM: Extinguished!
CLOV: Naturally it's extinguished. If it's not on it's extinguished.
HAMM: No, I mean Mother Pegg.
CLOV: But she's extinguished! (Pause.) What's the matter with you today?
HAMM: I'm taking my course. (Pause.) Is she buried?
CLOV: Buried! Who would have buried her?
HAMM: You.
CLOV: Me! Haven't I enough to do without burying people?
HAMM: But you'll bury me.
CLOV: No I won't bury you. (Pause.)

The light could represent the life-force of a person, rather than what may be seen as eyesight. Since eyesight is referred to as vision earlier in the play by Hamm or Clov. However, I do not think that the light is essentially a life-force but is also the legacy of a lifeforce. For example, if Hamm is a corpse, his is still in a represented stage before his burial, like Nell and Nagg. So where are they? They are in a non-existant place between death and after-death, if there is an after death; "HAMM: And the horizon? Nothing on the horizon? CLOV: What in God's name could be on the horizon?"(31). They are in a place of no hope for anything better, which further lends itself to the idea that they are in a place of death. i'd like to make a statement that by death, I mean not alive.

So what does that mean to the reader and the viewer? Why would Beckett make this choice? I think it is a commentary on how petty the living are, and how in death, there is no pleasing us. It's a sordid slap in the face that pushes one to look at the "beauty" of life. Life is a cycle, and a game, and I believe that Beckett uses Endgame to show what the mirror of that is. Life and death go hand in hand as a cycle, the way that Endgame is cyclical. When HAMM places the handkerchief back upon his head, I soon believe that Clov will soon return and the play will begin.

Nature has forgotten about them, remember?

HAMM: Then there's no reason for it to change.
CLOV: It may end. (Pause) All life long the same questions, the same answers. (5)

The Id, Ego and Superego in Endgame

When I read Endgame I felt like the characters did not represent human beings but rather the parts of the self. The characters comments on life and relationships to other characters are similar to the different parts of our own psyche.
Freud describes the Id as "It is the dark inaccessible parts of our personality... We all approach the Id with analogies: we call it chaos, a cauldron of seething expectations." In Endgame Nell and Nagg represent the Id. First off they are the most sentimental of all the characters. Nagg asks Nell " What is it my pet? (pause) Time for love?" They go own to talk about banal things such as the need to scratch, their eyes and hearing and teeth. Hamm tells Clov to "Bottle them up". Much as a superego would want to bottle up the Id because it is the least controllable and most unpredictable part of the psyche.
Freud says the ego " represents what may be called reason and common sense, in contrast to the id which contains the passions. " In Endgame Clov is obviously the Ego. He is the most passionless character of the four. He is the slave and has his focus on his tasks with little sentimentality. Hamm asks Clov if he loves him and Clov says nothing because there is nothing to say since it is not germaine to the task at hand. Most of Clov's dialogue is centered around whatever task he is charged to do.
Often the superego is described as the part of our psyche that strives for perfection. It encompasses the psychic goals of the individual but criticises the individuals drive and fantasies. The best example of this is when Clov has moved Hamm's chair. Hamm demands that it must be returned to the exact center. " I feel a little far to the left.... Now I feel a little far to the right....I feel a little too far forward....Now I feel a littlle too far back..." Consistently Hamm tries to control the characters around him. This need for control is the superego trying to keep the Id and Ego in check.
Endgame ressonated with many people despite it's like of plot or story. One reason may be that the various parts of ourselves are represented through these characters. These characters relationship to time and space allow us to understand how our psyche tries to cope with the Zen Buddhist like nothingness in our world.