Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Access provided by University of Athens (or National and Kapodistrian Univ. of Athens) (17 Apr 2014 14:47 GMT)
THE UNIVERSAL
The Simplest Place Possible
Romeo Castellucci, Societas Raffaello Sanzio
interviewed by Valentina Valentini and
Bonnie Marranca
Translated by Jane House
Much of your theatre work has been the staging of classics by Shakespeare and the Greeks.
What draws you to tragedy?
A spiritual connection exists between us and the classics; through them its possible
to reconnect with the individual and with the universality of the individual, it is also
possible to find the familiar as well as real solitude. A kind of reverse action shot is
involved. Work with the classics demands that we confront the traditional, but that
is precisely why the work can surpass the traditional, but never in a literary way.
Therefore one mustnt tackle these classical texts as a superstitious person who
believes the classics to be safe; quite the opposite. One must make an effort to put
them to the test of fire, in order to better determine their supportive structure,
which leads exactly to the revelation that they speak to everyone, to the frail and
private nature of every individual. And the book, as object, is no more.
16
17
production that supplies, within itself, the mechanism of endogonidial reproduction, a division of itself by itself, a sort of fall-out of spores, which provide for future
and successive growth.
Furthermore, its a system that completely eliminates the problem of repertory and
therefore of reproduction, of the characteristic repetitive nature of theatre thats
calendar-related, because it is a project that in some way is strongly tied to a concept
of geography and of place.The cities involved are Avignon, Berlin, Brussels,
Strasbourg, Bergen, London, Rome, Cesena, Paris, and Marseilles. Tragedia Endogonidia also includes a Film Cycle and a Travel Diary of the displacements: Idiom,
Climate Time.
In Italy the theatre of the 90s came closer and closer to the language and forms of writing
typical of film or visual installations. Theres a big crisis in the lines of demarcation
between cinema, video, film, installations, the visual arts. What has glaringly disappeared in many of our most recent experiences is the boundary between the concept of
entertainment and the concept of art, and the feeling of pathos.
Yes, of course, I understand perfectly. Its a problem for me too; if theres no
emotion, for me thats it, its over, its only a sterile idea. And thats true above all for
the new generation; theres no dynamic, theres no thought. I always demand that an
artist move me. I even ask that of a visual artist. For me the emotional wave is the
ineffable nucleus of a work, its breath of life. But its still difficult to be moved at
exhibitions, at the biennials, where one sees dazzling and hallucinatory spectacles
and stagings that remind one of amusement parks. Although even that type of irony
can succeed, its a very difficult exercise. Irony is interesting when its fierce, when it
rips your mind apart. That doesnt always happen. The artists have to be damn good.
However one very often can have an enjoyable experience when there is an absence of
irony, when there is no discussion about the world. How does European art make itself
felt on the international scene?
In my opinion in certain American artists, such as Bill Viola, for example, the
relationship is obvious: his references, in his most recent works, are to the Italian
Renaissance even on a formal level; the composition, I could even say the prosody,
becomes a choice of colors, of placements. Hes another example of work on the
classical. In other situations the legacy of the European experience shines through as
backlighting. Pop Art itself, which is completely American, has plainly taken certain
pathways left in suspension by Dada and symbolism.
Is there a link here that is missing-how does it relate to Europe question?
Matthew Barney is an artist who is completely and magisterially American. Hes
extraordinary because in his works he manages to trigger off a sort of language thats
self-contained, cohesive, endowed with merciless logic. He presents us with this
reality, this complex system of signs, but the most satisfying thing is that he does it
18
PAJ 77
19
by using the signs of our reality. Hes one of the strongest artists today who is not,
apparently, influenced by European art. He appears to be indifferent to the history
of art, because the history of art has no bearing on his work. Brilliant.
How do you work with actors in relation to the Italian tradition?
The Italian tradition is based on characteristics of types. That is, there are character
types in the Italian tradition, but meanwhile we know that Stanislavsky founded
everything really on the idea of digging and interpretation, where the actor analyzes
the character, the psychology of the character. In my case, neither the one nor the
other exists; but these two pathways are not negated, theyre simply two unacknowledged tracks, two tracks that remain suspended. My work is of a more objective
nature, it relies on the body of the actor. Its a discovery, an encounter that happens
with men and women willing to live this adventure. A professionalism is not
necessarily required, although the actors do acquire it, in the sense that those who
work with me dont work spontaneously, nor do they improvise, but they become
professionals even if they werent at the beginning. What makes an actor important
in this experience is the soul, the face, and the body. The truth of the body becomes
inscribed quite precisely in the fiction of the spectacle.
Two temperatures, two expressive registers, are present: on the one hand the
logical structure of the movement principle and on the other the body and its truths,
which is the most concise form of communication possible and also the most
disconcerting, the most pointed. The body is the simplest form of communication,
in the sense that even an animal understands you since its in a position to see you,
hear you, and smell you. The body is the point of departure and probably also the
point of arrival, after having completed an ellipse, after having also passed through
and shaken the body of spectators. So I would say that this is a fundamental idea
that sustains the work of the actors; it doesnt repudiate tradition, it ignores
tradition, the Italian and European tradition. And the static tradition of the East.
Can you give some examples of the difference between type and body?
In some cases the choice of an actor depends exclusively on the dramaturgy
presented by a particular stage situation or by the specific text, the choice is never a
personal one; the choice of a person, the shape, weight, age, walk doesnt depend on
me. Theyre all elements that create the truth of the persons body and that spill over,
willy nilly, into the dramatic fabric. So the choice depends on the dramatic
characteristics of a piece of writing for the stage or even a simple text. To give an
example, and to remain concrete, to the perceptive eye, the hallmark of Shakespeares Julius Caesar is its loaded rhetoric.
In my production, Cicero is interpreted by a man who, I think, weighs 240 kg
(Trans. note: approximately, 528 pounds). I didnt want to put something shocking
on stage, something provocative; on the contrary, although I needed to work with a
large body, in a certain way I hid it, I didnt do anything to make this already
20
PAJ 77
oversized choice too obvious. The body was big, in this case, because Cicero is the
man who drives forward Shakespeares text the most, who has the most weight
because he inspires the conspiracy. Even if he doesnt ever take part directly in the
action, hes still like a sort of weight that throws the action off balance. Thus Cicero
is an enormous man who always has his back turned to the audience, because he
turns his back to the action, and on the set with him are two treble clefs that refer
to Man Ray.
Quite simply, he, in his turn, became a rhetorical body. In Julius Caesar I also
worked with an actor whose larynx had been surgically removed, and it was his job
to perform the voice of the character of Mark Antony. Mark Antony is the one who
wins the oratorical competition, so working with someone who has no larynx meant
having a new voice that came from the viscera, from deep down inside. Mark
Antonys speech is completely focused on Caesars wounds, it recalls the number of
stab wounds, the blood that came out of them, the fact that the wounds are silent
mouths which have no other voice at that moment but his, Mark Antonys. Well,
this character in the shape of this actor actually talks from a wound, to make the
speech truthful, outrageous, and moving. The most amazing thing of all is that this
type of emotion is really stimulated by a consciously rhetorical use of the body and
voice.
In what way is technology present in your productions?
Technology is present on the stage as metaphor and spirit. Technology and machines
are bearers of phantoms who inhabit the set, the stagethe concept is animistic. So
a machine has an entrance and an exit, it lights up, it takes up a chunk of the world;
in short, it creates its own world. So its quite clear that its not merely a gadget, a
decoration, because it is energized and it is triggered by argument with the actor, and
thus it has in some way a dehumanizing function. It dehumanizes the actor, puts
him in danger, places him in the paradoxical position of deuteragonist, so that
finally it creates an inhuman tension.
The machine, unlike the animal, is inhuman because its pure function without
experience. The actor falls exactly between these two camps, between animal and
machine, hes both things at the same time, pure function and pure exposed body,
pure being. Technology becomes a central metaphor and, as such, its often more
useful to hide it in order to make it effective: its the operation or action of the
machine thats important, not the machine itself. The technology I use is very
diverse and ranges from being very primitive to very sophisticated: video technology,
endoscopes which reconnoiter the insides of the actor and upset the traditional
relationship that the audience has with the actor, in the sense that its possible to see
the actors interior. For example, the endoscope in Julius Caesar passes over and
probes the vocal chords and projects a video of them upstage. The first image is the
inside of an actor, not a face, not an exterior. But I only do this with very
sophisticated technology, instruments that are very difficult to use to which I devote
21
twenty, thirty minutes of performance time without any human intervention by the
actors. Pneumatic, hydraulic, oleic dynamic or oil-pressure machines, taxidermy,
automaton mechanics, microscopes, organic chemistry, chemiluminescence, techniques for breeding certain animals, acoustical physics, robotic components, but
also little pieces of sacred wood that have been badly nailed together . . . in short,
whatever.
What is the spiritual dimension of your work? Can you describe its place in your theatre?
I cant say, I dont know anything about it, really. Its something that escapes me
completely, it must be there somewhere, but I cant know it, I cant say what it is. I
try to plunder the spirit of others, in order to move myself. It can happen in certain
situations, in certain total creations. It can even happen in certain ancient texts that
I tackle in which everything seems clear to me, even the power that they trigger.
What is very difficult, however, is what happens, at least for my sensibility, with a
contemporary author. Its difficult for me, if not impossible, to stage a contemporary
author like Beckett. Ill never stage him, not because Im a coward, but because were
on the same level. Beckett has, like me, like a contemporary man, the same kind of
box, one might say, the same type of aporia. We both find ourselves in the same
circumstances, and it is not possible to work with someone who is in the same
circumstances as I. Its like an algebraic sum: two similar signs cannot stay together.
I need a classical structure, one thats universal, pure, transparent. Being universal, it
belongs to me, because it resonates in me. Beckett doesnt resonate in me, really, but
I see my neighbor in him. The classical structure is pure, and being pure I can
manipulate it. And once manipulated, I can purify it.
The universal allows you to dig inside yourself, to extract, to add.
Exactly, in a word . . . its possible to work, its possible to live. In freedom. No
absolute freedom exists in a contemporary author. Again, contemporary texts are all
packaged, ready-made, in speech.
Do you feel that you have any fathers or sons?
I have a putative father, a false father, and hes a shining figure, one of the ghosts
of my turbulent adolescence, Carmelo Bene, whom I didnt follow in any way. For
me, hes simply an icon, but the important thing is that hes an icon that is part of
my adolescence; theres a personal story there. However, I reject the idea of master
teachers, it has no meaning at all for me. Im completely outside, and it would be
worse still if I claimed a master teacher. Naturally there may be figures who were,
and continue to be, fundamentally important to me, but they are invariably outside
the orbit of theatre. Thats perhaps natural and human. But following in the tracks
of a method, for me thats a mistake. Following a model means taking anothers
path, and I want to question the very idea of a path.
22
PAJ 77
23
24
PAJ 77
No, not always. I believe that in this era theatre can really be created in all possible
ways, even by simply reading a text from beginning to end. I dont believe that
theres any problem with form. I believe that in this era we can finally say that we are
released, indeed liberated, from the burden of style, from the burden of form. You
can create theatre through the written word, through a text, but theatre doesnt
happen just because theres a written text, its not automatic. What counts is the
spirit, the emotion.
Does a new theatre of Europe in the 21st century exist?
In my opinion, it is a theatre that no longer has the problem of formal boundaries.
I find that the most interesting experiences are those where certain choreographers
create spectacles with very little dance, or theatrical spectacles that are really
concerts.The most interesting situations, in my opinion, are those in which theres a
breakdown of styles and roles, or where what happens is of a radical nature worthy
of this era, and this idea can happen even when there is not much tension, when the
heat is low. The most interesting experiences are often those that, from a formal
point of view, assimilate more from the visual arts, and I believe that, all in all, the
most creative energies are coming from there. Theres a whole mode of theatre tied
to tradition; I dont call that art, only bourgeois decoration. Essential theatre is what
can be done either in the middle of a war or in a museum. I believe that, in the end,
whats very important is the ideamental giddiness, temporal suspension from this
worldand presenting it for discussion, and the actual possibility of another
parallel world, another language which, suddenly, as Alice knew, stops being other.
25