The Clown Lecture

[zalena]

The clown lecture last night was interesting, if a little long. I learned some interesting things about the origin of clowning, and now have several great anecdotes about famous clowns.

He lectured in the Socratic style soliciting answers from the audience. There were two no one could get that I finally answered. One being about the awareness of mortality. ("We die.") The other being about the primary force defied in a circus ("Gravity.")

He also said something extremely funny about "Italy did not have a very good 17C." Which cracked me up.

At the end of the lecture he did several "clown births," which is to say, three audience members were chosen to come up on stage and walk around. Three were chosen to immitate them. And through watching the imitators and exaggerating the natural habits of their bodies, they created red-nose clown characters. (This all has to do with a particular school of clown, and movement theatre, involving the "neutral body" which has to be worked for because we all carry a ton of damage and drama around in our frames.)

It was interesting to watch natural movement become grotesque, and then funny. One guy who was not very interesting to watch as he walked, was extradinarily funny once he put on the red nose. Just looking at him was funny, he didn't have to do anything, there was just a very clear, lovable, thing that jumped out at the audience. His transformation was the most joyful.

One of the other woman was really undone by the realization that she leads with her belly, and walks flat-footed with stiff arms. Added to that was a particularly nasal speech-tic to create one of those grandma clowns. She was rather grotesque in her ordinary movement, I think it bothered her to realize that it could be so easily seen, and transforming that movement into something funny didn't really help.

The thing that interested me most was the similarities in how people moved. Most people tend to protect their hearts, they hunch over their torso's like a dragon with its hoard. People also tend to lower their heads forward, so that the spine once it reches neck takes a sudden dive forward. I'm sure if I had a better education in anatomy or some background in kineseology, I would be able to tell you more about this. But from my point of view, it seemed that postures are determined not only by personal drama, but by some kind of socio-cultural baggage. It intrigued me and is something I'm interested in exploring.

Giovanni, the lecturer, also had some interesting physical mannerisms. He walked on his toes with a kind of bounce, leading with his head, with mischievious, sparkling, eyes, and a sort of curious engagement with the world. He's Italian, so there were some interesting problems with translation (the word "polka dots" was new to him, as was the phrase "risk management," which he thought was hilarious,) but on the whole there was communication.

Was it what I expected? Not exactly. He spent a long time with the origins of theatre, with which I am quite comfortable, but mystified most the audience. The audience also couldn't grasp the idea of Fate as a villian. They wanted bad guys. The heroic struggle against, Fate, The Gods, and ultimately Death, didn't seem to click for most of them, although one woman asked, "This thing with the postures, couldn't this shatter one's psyche?"

(What a Boulder question I thought. I wanted to scream, "You'd have to have a pretty fragile psyche to 'shatter' it through exploring movement," although I would vouch for their being an emotional component.)

I guess there were a couple things that stood out to me:

a) the question I've already posed about cultural baggage in posture
b) I want to know more about the recent and changing role of women in theatre and with the heroic struggle (added to this: famous female clowns?)
c) why the audience needed a villain and didn't understand Fate. Is this an American thing? Is this a post-Judeo-Xtian thing? (I've been exploring the idea recently that in many ways our world is reverted to a pre-Xtian pov and interaction with the spirituality. But that's a discussion for another day.)
d) more information about intermediate clowning, between the origins of theatre, and the modern day, post-circus, red-nose clowning.
e) will the recent trend towards pedagogy and performance continue (aka drama school, clown school, etc.) or will it disappear along with the rest of the university system. Is it needed. Would performers be better served learning from masters, rather than in schools?

And there are more questions, I'm just not sure I have them now.

But the number one thing that stood out from the lecture was a comment he made on the difference between a buffoon (satire) and a clown (comedy.)

You laugh at a clown. A buffoon laughs at you.

The role of satire in social order also made me extremely uncomfortable. It has to do with the function of truth. I can't tell you how many times people have told me that I am a truth-teller. I hate it whenever anyone brings up this aspect of my blurty nature, mostly because to me telling the truth has severe and heavy consequences. Sort of like in Sharon Shinn's books, no one likes truth-tellers, though they are very much needed. Just like no one wants to be a scapegoat, or a village idiot. There is a faint aura of violence that hangs around truth and the people who tell it.

Giovanni went through a long list of people killed for the truth, and of famous recanters. It was a sideline on his lecture, but it gave me the chills.

So, it was an interesting evening. I'm very glad I went. I'm just sorry I didn't take notes, and that I couldn't have absorbed all these ideas in a different setting over a longer period of time. I wanted desperately to set Giovanni and the Beloved Professor together during one of the Professor's teas, ("Would you like a Newton?" being one of his prime introductory jokes. Talk about someone who could very easily be turned into a clown.)

Today, I've already had a haircut (I busted out laughing when she finished because I looked freshly fucked, which is not usually what one goes to a salon to become. My new haircut has more layers, long bangs (or a short front layer) and on a good day will look like Brigitte Bardot. On a bad day, it's more Bonnie Rait.)

I'm meeting Carly & Leila for lunch. (We're meeting here, then walking over to the cheese importer, which means I need to rush around and clean up and take out the recycling.)

Tonight I will probably attend another performance.

It's been a very busy week.

Comments

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

why the audience needed a villain and didn't understand Fate. Is this an American thing?

I think it may be more of a Boulder thing than an American thing, although I'm not exactly in touch with American culture/values/thought process so I can't say for sure. The reason I think it's a Boulder thing, is that Boulder seems to be a place that breeds ideas under the "self-determination" category. To most Boulderites, there is no such thing as Fate. not only is it outmoded, but it's a remnant of the evil patriarchal system that was established to keep the masses down.

Or something. ;-)

[sakuratea.livejournal.com]

The idea of fate as a villian is not very American at all, fatalism is antithetical to our national ideas of self-determination, of the modern idea of the self made man. Americans believe, in many ways, that they can even cheat death, look at our national obsession with health. This belief is part and parcel of the package of modernity. To believe in gods or fate is "superstition" because they interfere with our deeply held belief that, good or bad, we create our own destinies (thus we deserve whatever we get).