PART1 NoShow,byRichardPettifer(excp.MeganTwycross) @LaMama Wed.9Feb.2011toSun.13Feb.2011 howevercloseourtouch orintimateourspeech, silences,spacesreach mostdeep,andwillnotclose. SpaceBetween,JudithWright Well,whatstartedasaquickreviewtogetmebackintotheblogginghabitsomehowballoonedinto somethingquiteelse.So,Imightbreakthisonedownintotwoseparateposts.Thesecondshouldfollow tomorrow.

row. NoShowisanabsorbingonemanpiecefromdirectorRichardPettiferinwhichheruminates,reminisces andinanimportantemotionalsensedramatisesuponthecancellationofSmudged,aplaybyMegan TwycrossthathedirectedinapreviewrunlatelastyearandwhichhadbeenbookedforafullrunatLa Mamabefore,sotospeak,itfelloverandcouldntgetupsomefewweeksago.Briefscenesof SmudgedareinterpolatedthroughtheprogressofNoShowwithRichardperformingallvarious characters. IntheprogramforNoShow,Pettiferwrites:Thisisaplayaboutfailure,whichisnormallyprivate.No onereallytalksaboutfailure,excepttogetsympathy. Therearetwointerestingthingshere:thefirstisthatoneoftheseveralargumentswhichSmudgedhad, orhas,initslooseorbitisthenotionthatfailureisnot,anylonger,asaculturalconvention,aprivate matter.PartofwhathappenstotheprotagonistPaul,inthecarnivalesqueroutofhisidentity,isthathe losestherighttofailinprivate.InholdingSmudgeduptothebrokenmirrorofNoShow,Ithinkoneof thereallyinterestingthingsthatPettiferisdoingisfindinganewwayofframingthatsametheme, framingitreallythroughamorespecificandselfconsciousenactmentofpublicfailure. Smudgedseemstomeaplaythatseeks,inanavesortofway,totrackthecollapseofindividuality beneathatechnoculturalparadigmthatdemandsendlessreiterationsoftheselfsindependenceacross allthevariousmediathatappearsuperficiallytocharacterisethepresent,like,youknow,facebookand such. Outofthefailure,theruinofSmudged,NoShowrecoversandgivesanewpersonalandemotional

shapetothisearliertheme,thethemeofthefailedself,findingintheexperienceoftryingtostagea play,oftryingtogiveartisticexpressiontoasenseoffailure,apoignantsymbolism:aneyerelentlessly lookinginuponitsself,focusedtightlyuponthefrailsubject,shrinkinginitsdarkskull.AsRichardwrites inhisprogramnotes:ItwasreallyscaryrehearsingatLaMamaaloneinthedark. NoShowisaquieter,darkerplaythanthetwitchySmudged,dominatedbysilences,shadowsandempty costumes.Itisaplayaboutthefailureofaplayaboutfailure,which,grantingthecommon denominator,makesthisaperformanceofthefailureoffailure,somethingIllcomebacktoinafurther on. ThesecondinterestingthingabouthisintroductoryremarkisthatIthinkitswrong.Ithink,actually, thatfailureistalkedaboutallthetime.Ifeelasthoughfailurehasbeencooptedintothecult,orcults, ofselfimprovement.Ifeellikefailurehasnow,backedbypocketbooksfullofplatitudinousmantras, becomeinsomeawfulnewageHeideggeriansenseavalidlifeproject.Failureinsuchacultorcults seemstomeasgrinninglyrepulsiveassuccess.Theseareneitherofthemtruesuccessesorfailures: theyaretheliberationofauthenticmediocrity. Forthemoment,IllblameBeckett.Iwouldgladlygomanyadaywithouthearingthechirpyfailbetter orIcantgoon,Illgoon.Imean,seriously,FailBetterwasinbookstoresforChristmas. Butinthatcontext,oneoftheabsorbingqualitiesofNoShowisitsresistancetotheplatitudesof failure.Thisisnoboatsagainstthecurrentcelebrationofhumanspirit,itissomethingmoredirectly emotional. Ivementionedemotionacoupleoftimes.Icouldhavesaidhonesty.Icouldhavesaidemotional honesty.Therearemanyemotionsatworkinthisplayyearning,nostalgia,ennuibutthekey emotionseemstobedisappointment,or,moreauthoritatively,frustration. This,thishonestandabsorbingsenseoffrustration,iswhatdistinguishesNoShowfromitsimmediate inspiration,ForcedEntertainmentsSpectacular.Thebasicstructureofbothshowsisthesame.Thereis afacileconceitwheretheaudienceturnsupexpectingaspectacular(although,ofcoursetheydontdo anythingofthesort),whereatanapologeticmanannouncesthecancellationanddescribeswhatthe showwouldhavebeenlike.Inplaceoffrustration,however,thegoverningenergyinSpectacularisthat ofboredom.ForcedEntertainmentdeliberatelysetsouttotaxtheaudiencesexpectationswitha postdramaticlesson.Whattheydontdoisexposethispoliticallessontothepracticalcritiqueof emotionalinvestment.I.e.Noonecaredaboutthestupidshowanyway. Butthen,ForcedEntertainmentwasinnopositiontomakesuchaconcession.Howcouldthey?Their showwasfundamentallyafake. ThereisanewbookoutbySaraBailescalledPerformanceTheatreandthePoeticsofFailure.Itsan interestingandinformativebookaboutsomeinterestinginternationalcompanies,butitisanespecially

irritatingbookwhereitinsistsontherevolutionarypoweroffailure.Theresafakehumilityaboutsuch posturing.Perhapsitsthepoliticsoftheposturethatgivesitthefakeseeming;orperhapsitisits closenesstotheplatitudinousdegreeoffailurecomplainedofabove.Atanyrate,itsthesamefakeness, Ithink,whichisatworkinSpectacular.(ForcedEntertainmentisoneofthecompaniesdiscussedinthe book). Tosaythatthisorthatperformancehasauthenticity,thatisbasedonrealevents,isnotmypoint.Its notthefactthattherewasarealplaycalledSmudgedthatmakesthedifference.Theperformanceis stillcontrived,eitherway.Itsmorethatthischaracterbeforeus,thisPettifermasque,spokewitha specialauthority,whetherassumedbycunningartorlearnedbyrealexperience,orsomecombination, isnotthepoint.Thepointis,itwasauthoritative.Ispeakwiththeauthorityoffailure,asFScott Fitzgeraldsays. Spectacularhasnosuchauthority.Patently,becauseitisaspectacularinacompletelyunironicsense:a worldfamousbuilttotourspectacularfromacompanythathasbuiltaverysuccessfulmethodon failure.Thereisnoauthorityinthat,intheirsmugassurance.Itisnorealfailure. PART2 Okay,itsparttwo,andIthinkImgoingtowalkbackalittleonthelastparagraphofpartonewhereI claimedthatSpectacularhadnoauthoritytospeakaboutfailureonaccountofitssuccess. ThesmugnessIcomplainofinSpectacularrelatesnottoboxofficesuccess,nortothefactthatithas touredextensively,butrathertoitsinternalaestheticdisposition.Itjustseemstooclever,likeithasall theanswersworkedoutforitselfandthereforedoesntneedtocommunewithus,theaudience.Itcan affordfailurebecausenothingisatstake. Whatdoesithavetheanswersto?ComingbacktoPerformanceTheatreandthePoeticsofFailure,the problemisthatofrepresentation:thefailureofrepresentationasamodeofexpressioninthetheatre.I thinkitsfairtosaythatthisdilemmahasbeenadefiningonefortheatreoverthelasttwentyplus years.AccordingtoBailes,whatacompanylikeForcedEntertainmentisdoinginashowlikeSpectacular istranscendingthedilemma.Theyrefusetoengageintheproblemofperformanceas representation.Toputitanotherway,theyrefusetheprojectofnaturalism. Ifyouknowthebook(theyhaveitatUniMelbandtheSLV),orthecompany,youmightthinkthattosay refuseisabitharsh,ifnotanoutrightdistortion.Afterall,ForcedEntertainmentdidareallygreatjob ofdefendingtheirshowintheprogramtoSpectacular(Iwouldhavebeenhappytotaketheprogram andskiptheshow),andBailesherselfwriteswithrespecttoFE: thetheatreartistgreetsthedilemmaofrepresentationalfailurewithaneyetoconfrontingitand restructuringthatmostprovisionalofexchangesinorderthatitsinnateprecariousnesswillnotsomuch hauntitastobeconscious.

 So,like,thispostdramaticmetatheatricalmethodisallaboutconfrontationandreconfiguringaudience expectationsoftheatricalexpression.And,sure,theremaybesomepostdramaticmetatheatrical methodologiesouttherethateffectthisorareworkingtoeffectthis.ButshowslikeSpectacular(andto amuchlesserextentPettifersversionofTwycrosssSmudged),performanceswherethesocalled poeticsoffailureareemployed,donotconfrontanythingatall.Theysidestepit. Thepoeticsoffailureseemstome,inanexamplelikeSpectacular,morelikeanavoidanceoffailure anavoidanceboughtatthecostofboredom. Ithinktheproblemisthatfailurebasedtheatreseeks,inBaileswords,torehearseBeckettsdirective tofailbetterwithoutthecatastropheoffailuresevent.Shepositsthisasacreativeadvantage;I ratherthinkthatitrequirestreatingtheatreasthoughfailuredidntmatter.Ifthereisnocatastropheat stake,thenwhatisthepoint?Whatmakestheatrematter?Sure,youdontwantanyoneslifetoliterally beontheline,Iguess,butwithoutriskingrealfailure,catastrophicfailure,howdoyouriseabovethe levelofmereentertainment?Ithinkthatthepoeticsoffailurearenowayatalltomakethingsmatter. Failurefailstomakeanythingmatter.But,ah,thefailureoffailure:theremaybesomethinginthat. DuringNoShow,PettiferdescribessomeofhisdirectorialideasforSmudged.Hepresentshimselfas havingnaivelybelievedthatfailureworks.Hetalkswithasortofwistfulsadnessaboutdisruptingthe continuityoftraditionalnarrativeformswithmetatheatricalinterventionsconfrontingtheobjective basedmainstreamcapitalistideology.ButviathecheerlessmoodofNoShow,weseethatfailurehas failedhisambition.PettiferandthecollectiveresponsibleforputtingtogetherSmudgedwereunwilling tosufficientlyabstractthestoryofPaulsfailureofself,toentirelyabandontheambitionofemotional communication,toadmitboredom,whichisthetruemethodofpostmoderntheatre,beingasitisso shyofexpressionsgenerally.Andso,accordingtoRichard,forthatunwillingness,Smudgedfellover. Forme,suchachoicebetweendepressinglyabjectfailureslikeSpectacularandSmudgedinspiresa retreatfromthesequasiphilosophical,quasimysticalideasaboutthepoeticsoffailuretowardmaybe framingfailuremoreasapurelyaestheticproblem:somethinglikethemodernistnotionfailureasa problemofformalingenuity,orthelyricalnotionoffailureastheimpossibilityofemotionalfulfillment, asinHousmansremorsefulday. Butsuchareductionsucharetreatonlyleadstoatorpidsortofnostalgia:Ioftenwonderwhere Normanisnow.ProbablywinteringwithhismotherinGuildford.Acatandrain.Vimunderthesink.And bothbarson.Butoldnowold.Therecanbenotruebeautywithoutdecay. NoShowdoeshaveseveralquiet,beautifulmomentsofnostalgicreverie.Butitwouldbewrong,Ithink, toseeitasreactionary.Punctuatingthenostalgia,deflatingit,isaconsistentsenseoffrustration,which bringsusbacktowhereIbeganindistinguishingNoShowfromSpectacularinpartoneofthis extravagentreview.Soweseeherethenthatfrustrationisnotonlyanenergythatresiststhe hollownessofthepostmodernembraceoffailure,butthatitalsoresiststhetheacomplete,deathly

resignationtonostalgia. ItsinterestingwiththisinmindtocomparehowNoShowandSpectacularemploytheconceitofthe lastminutecancellation.Spectacular,ofcourse,beingthemoreabstractandstructuralcreation, persistswithitthroughouttheperformance.InNoShow,theideaisswiftlydoneawaywith,droppedby thewaysideasamerehindrance,givingwaytothemorepressingneedtocommunicatedirectlywith theaudiencethissenseoffrustration,anotherneat,internaldemonstrationoftheuselessnessof failure. Illleaveitatthat.Inshort,Ivebeensaying,onthebackofNoShow,thatperhapsthebestwaytogive venttothefeelingoffailurethatissomuchinherentincontemporarylife,andespeciallyintheworkof contemporaryartisticproduction,isnotnecessarilytoembracefailureasatechniqueorpoetics.WhileI dontsaythatfailureasatechnique(orpoetics)canneverproduceimpressiveexperientialart,Iwould saythatitcanruninto(a)platitude,regardingtheuniversalityoffailure,and(b)arrogance,regarding thedidacticcontentofmetatheatricalgestures.Equallydissatisfactoryisthetendencytosubmitto failurethroughnostalgicreminiscence,whichwouldbetoresignoneselftoartasmereentertainment.I thinkthecentralcoursesailedbyNoShowbetweenthesetworesponsestofailureisauthentically achievedthroughtheanimatingenergyof,letssay,oneofangst,disappointmentorfrustration. NoShowisanelegy,wroughtwithnostalgia,yearningsandprettyreminiscencses.Itispostmodern, emergingfromaperformancetraditionmorethaneverconsumedwiththeproblemofrepresentation. Butitisanelegyandaperformanceexperimentfoundedonakindofprimalanger,throughwhichsome sortofrevolutionarypotentialisrealised.