Cultural Equality in the World of ‘No Place Theatre’. An Analysis of Peter Brook’s ‘The Tragedy of Hamlet’ ,Complicite’s ‘Mnemonic’ and Song of the Goat’s ‘Macbeth’

Essay , 2011 , 15 Pages , Grade: A

Cultural Studies - European Studies

Through a discussion of Peter Brook’s The Tragedy of Hamlet (2000), Complicite’s Mnemonic (1999), and Song of the Goat’s Macbeth (2010), we see clear examples of how these productions are using ‘no-place’ theatre as a site for embracing cultural equality (rather than cultural ambiguity) on stage as these productions all search for the universal values which bond different cultures together.

The expansion of the global market has inevitably had an incredible impact on the shaping of contemporary theatre. This can especially be felt through the rising popularity of ‘no-place’ theatre, which often strips back cultural specificity and replaces it with spectacle. Dan Rebellato refers to this theatre as “McTheatre”, a genre under which he includes big brand productions such as The Blue Man Group, Cats and The Phantom of the Opera. These productions often embrace cultural ambiguity in a way which allows them to both move anywhere and (even more importantly) sell anywhere. Their ‘no-place’ quality allows for their ‘every-place’ relevance, as they and sometimes even profit more from their merchandise than their actual shows
Hence, the values of these productions are very much the values of the global market, to sell as broadly and quickly as possible.

While such a discussion may give the label of ‘no-place’ theatre a negative association, globalization has also led to another strand of theatre, one which becomes a response to (rather than the result of) globalization. This is the theatre produced by artists such as Peter Brook, Complicite theatre, and Song of the Goat theatre, companies who go against the grain of the global market by using ‘no-place’ theatre as a site for returning to cosmopolitan and Universalist values, rather than the global market values. Unlike globalized commercial theatre, the ‘no-place’ quality produced by these artists is in no way the result of cultural ambiguity; instead, these companies chose to represent a variety of different cultures on stage, linking these productions to a place that is both here and there. But above all, by striving to represent different cultures on stage, these companies return to a sense of cultural equality, one which embraces Universalist values, which Zygmunt Bauman notes.

The expansion of the global market has inevitably had an incredible impact on the shaping of contemporary theatre. This can especially be felt through the rising popularity of ‘no-place’ theatre, which often strips back cultural specificity and replaces it with spectacle. Dan Rebellato refers to this theatre as “McTheatre”, a genre under which he includes big brand productions such as The Blue Man Group, Cats and The Phantom of the Opera. These productions often embrace cultural ambiguity in a way which allows them to both move anywhere and (even more importantly) sell anywhere (Rebellato 2009, 45). Their ‘no-place’ quality allows for their ‘every-place’ relevance, as they “communicate frictionlessly to all possible markets” and sometimes even profit more from their merchandise than their actual shows (Rebellato 2009, 46). Hence, the values of these productions are very much the values of the global market, to sell as broadly and quickly as possible. As Rebellato notes:

Indeed, increasingly, globalized theatre is not so much an event in itself as part of a transnational entertainment corporations marketing strategy, as becomes clear when we look at the history of one particular piece of theatre merchandising (Rebellato 2009, 46).

While such a discussion may give the label of ‘no-place’ theatre a negative association, globalization has also led to another strand of theatre, one which becomes a response to (rather than the result of) globalization. This is the theatre produced by artists such as Peter Brook, Complicite theatre, and Song of the Goat theatre, companies who go against the grain of the global market by using ‘no-place’ theatre as a site for returning to cosmopolitan and Universalist values, rather than the global market values. Unlike globalized commercial theatre, the ‘no-place’ quality produced by these artists is in no way the result of cultural ambiguity; instead, these companies chose to represent a variety of different cultures on stage, linking these productions to a place that is both here and there. But above all, by striving to represent different cultures on stage, these companies return to a sense of cultural equality, one which embraces Universalist values, which Zygmunt Bauman notes, “declared the intention to make similar the life conditions of everyone and everywhere” (Bauman 1998, 59).

Through a discussion of Peter Brook’s The Tragedy of Hamlet (2000), Complicite’s Mnemonic (1999), and Song of the Goat’s Macbeth (2010), we see clear examples of how these productions are using ‘no-place’ theatre as a site for embracing cultural equality (rather than cultural ambiguity) on stage as these productions all search for the universal values which bond different cultures together. By embracing such universalist values, these companies are already going against the grain of global market, as Rebellato notes, universalism and cosmopolitanism (the belief that “all human beings are members of a single global community”) are in fact, the “radical opposites” of globalization as they embrace human/cultural equality over globalist values of capitalist inequality (Where culturally ambiguous and Westernized productions “rule”) (Rebellato 2009, 64).

Peter Brook’s theatre is recognized for its interest in a universal means of communication. The ‘no-place’ quality of Brook’s theatre is the result of is a rich blend of culturally specific signs which are arranged in such a way that one can find the universal connections between them. As Maria Shevtsova notes, Brook seeks a “universal means of communication”, which “is to be found in the social world and achieved through merging aspects of that world” (Shevtsova 1993, 31). Shevtsova defines Brook’s theatre as a transcultural one as it uses transcendent signs. She discusses the use of the transcendent sign in Brook’s Mahabharata (1985) where:

[...] each sign process in the production comes from a precise cultural location. It is not initially conceived as an indeterminate, amorphous, general sign. However it is generalized through the way it is used for performative ends, its merger with comparable sign processes [...] (Shevtsova 1993, 38).

While Shevtsova is specifically referring to Brook’s Mahabharata, her discussion on the transformation of the culturally specific sign into the culturally transcendent sign becomes highly applicable to Brook’s The Tragedy of Hamlet 1 . In this adaptation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, we see how Brook uses this transcendent sign throughout his use of language, body and set design to uncover the universal potential of the stage. In this way, Brook confronts his audience with a theatrical space that transcends the notion of an indecipherable cultural “otherness”, illustrating the communicative possibilities between different cultural signs.

Although The Tragedy of Hamlet is primarily in English, Brook still attempts to establish a transcultural language throughout the production as he often emphasizes body language (which is potentially universal) over verbal language (which is culturally specific). He first does this by completely stripping back Shakespeare’s original text. As Andy Lavender notes, “where words are unnecessary or complicate the issue they are not used” (Lavender 2001, 22). Lavender discusses the way in which the minimal use of language functions in the duel scene between Hamlet and Laertes. The longer speeches that usually take place within the fight are completely cut and the emphasis is on the physical duel rather than the text. Although Lavender argues that this minimalist use of text creates a stronger impact at the resolution of the duel, it is also arguable that the minimal use of text allows the duel scene to communicate through a transcultural language as the emphasis is on the transcultural image of the physical body in fight. The transcultural quality of this scene is further illustrated through the use of “swords”, thin sticks that could be placed within either Eastern or Western culture, a prop which further strips the action of cultural specificity, making it universal.

The power of Brook’s universal language is more sharply explored in the entrance of the first player and his initial performance. The first player, performed by Japanese artist Yoshi Oida, enters Hamlet’s household and upon Hamlet’s request for a “passionate speech” performs a piece of Greek theatre. Yet the player performs this in a foreign language, one which Lavender identifies as:

An Orghast-like set of onomatopoeic sounds, a pure display of rhetorical effect a little reminiscent of the sort of primal language which Brook and Ted Hughes developed in Orghast in 1971 (Lavender 2001, 235).

The player is first interrupted by Polonius, and then continues again, this time with all his force as he incorporates his entire body, using butoh-like movements and speaking with an incredible amount of passion and power. Yoshi Oida grows louder as he stands up and begins to slash his sword through the air, while the second player maternally cradles an imaginary baby, slowly lowering it to the floor. When the speech is finished, Oida looks at the second player and starts to cry. The verbal language is for most spectators, completely indecipherable, yet the body language is highly captivating as it gives another life to the indecipherable sounds of these words which now hold the attention of both characters on stage and the audience. This key moment in the performance becomes a strong symbol for a language which transcends its cultural limitations, and reaches a level of universal legibility.

In The Tragedy of Hamlet, Brook transforms the body from a culturally specific sign into a universal sign. Brook first does this by breaking the links which conventionally group ethnic/cultured bodies together and instead offers an alternative grouping pattern on stage. For example, while often (especially in popular media) family representations have been grouped by ethnicity, in this production the linking principle between the families transcends that ethnic body. We see this through the casting as Hamlet is played by Adrian Lester, a black actor, yet his mother Gertrude is played by a Natasha Perry, a white actress. Polonius is played by a Bruce Myers, a white actor while his daughter, Ophelia, is played by Shantala Shivalingappa, an Indian performer. Rather than linking these families through ethnicity, Brook finds alternative linking devices such as costume design and use of colour, as is illustrated through the scenes between Polonius and Ophelia. While these two, based on their different ethnicities, have no clear blood/ethnic ties with one another, their family ties are shown through the use of costume design as Brook has them both dressed in white, separating them from the rest of the cast who are dressed in darker/black colours. In this way, Ophelia and Polonius’ family link is shown through the association of that colour. While in Western cultures, the colour white would link Ophelia and Polonius through their naive innocence, in Eastern cultures, the colour white connotes death, linking these two characters through their early deaths in the play. Hence, this colour becomes a transcultural linking principle between Ophelia and Polonius, one which transcends ethnicity and culture. By stripping the body of its position within an ethnic group, the body is further removed from its cultural specificity and comes closer to its transcultural potential.

Brook also illustrates the body as a transcultural sign by returning to the primal body, one which connects all cultures together as it returns to a common base culture. This is mainly illustrated through the performance of Hamlet, played by Adrian Lester. Andy Lavender notes, “Hamlet is hyper-present to himself, and Adrian Lester’s body is a thing of substance to the audience” as “Lester’s Hamlet is still very flesh and blood” (Lavender 2001, 232). When Hamlet is “flesh and blood” he illustrates this in a transcultural sense, as he draws on the rawness of his body through universal signs. For example, Lavender refers to the way that Hamlet feels his pulse before delivering his ‘to be or not to be’ speech, an act which he repeats earlier in the play. The act of feeling ones pulse becomes a transcendent sign, as this is recognized as the universal act of ‘checking for life’. Another time we see Hamlet return to the universal body is when he performs madness for Polonius. In this scene, Hamlet holds his mouth open and with a menacing look, slowly begins to drool as he holds his palms out to Polonius. The image may not be universal in an iconic sense, but its irrationality along with the abject image of drooling (an allusion to the uncontained body) certainly depicts his body as a universal sign for madness at that particular point in the play. In this way, the body not only serves as a tool for transcultural communication, it also becomes a binding principle between humanity as it draws on our biological similarities rather than our cultural differences.

Lastly, it becomes important to note the use of set design in this production, one which sets the ground for this space of transcendent signs. The set design itself is composed of a large, square, red rug, which covers the stage. Most of the floor is left empty, except for the green, yellow, and black cushions which are placed on the rug and the occasional candles which are set around the stage. The space is minimalist and suggests the transcultural feel of the production as the space can neither be classified as fully Eastern or Western, rather it is a balanced meshing between the two. While the red coloured carpets, candles and cushions could connote an Eastern space, the use of the proscenium arch immediately meshes this with a Western stage set-up. Therefore it is both here and there, and proves that Hamlet as a story which may also, like this space, transcend cultures. In this production, Hamlet is not only a story that could be set anywhere, but a story that can be used to experiment with the possibilities of a universal theatre, one which Peter Brook effectively explores.

The Polish company Song of the Goat Theatre, founded by Grzegorz Bral and Anna Zubrzycki, has continually used ‘no-place’ theatre as a site for returning to the universal connections which link humanity together. The company often researches older, more sacred cultures, exploring the spiritual connectivity that still exists within some of these groups and attempting to return to this connectivity through the stage. As scholar Anna Porubcansky explains, the group draws on “diverse cultural, artistic, and spiritual traditions that maintain a strong connection to the emergent community and its culture” (Porubcansky 2010, 262). Song of the Goat’s regression to older cultures links them to Patrice Pavis’ definition of the ‘pre-cultural’ movement, one which explores “the common ground of any tradition in the world, which affects any audience ‘before’ (temporary and logically) it is ‘individualized and ‘culturalized’ in a specific cultural tradition” (Pavis 1992, 20). Pavis’ definition stresses that ‘the pre-cultural’ can be used to uncover the “the common ground of any tradition in the world”, making it a universal concept as it connects contemporary cultures through a common base culture. Hence, Song of the Goat’s ‘no-place’ theatre blends a variety of pre-cultural and contemporary signs to access such connections. This connectivity is especially expressed in their recent production of Macbeth 2, which uses pre-cultural signs to interrogate the transcultural theme of the insatiable quest for materialism in a globalized world.

Song of the Goat’s Macbeth alludes to the decline of human values and connections in a globalized world which is tainted by materialistic greed. The story of Macbeth and his wife, a couple who would kill and destroy all the relationships around them for the quest of wealth, becomes the story of the sacrifice of human connections in the name of materialistic greed. It is a contemporary theme which sits close to the heart of the company. As Porubcansky notes, “Bral asserts that, through greed, lust, and an obsession with the material culture, human beings are losing the link to their heritage, their identity, their communities, and to the natural world” (Porubcansky 271, 2010). Bral’s statement about human disconnection is shared by many world renowned theorists such as Zygmunt Bauman who have consistently argued that the global market and its hyper-consumerist culture is one which inevitably results in the growing frailty of human bonds (Bauman 1998). In response, Song of the Goat’s Macbeth uses a pre-cultural body, space, and voice to universally explore the ways in which materialistic greed destroys human connections.

The cast in this production is represented as a single unified body of actors, as Bral notes, “the whole idea is that the performance is one body” (Bral 2010). The natural unification of these bodies, all functioning as “one body” draws on the pre-cultural notion that individuality is an illusion and that we are all connected. This is persistently conveyed through the movement and voices on stage as each performer is in a constant state of reacting to the energies around them. It also builds on the notion that when one body is infected with an idea, the surrounding bodies will also become infected with this idea, as they are all connected. For example, in Macbeth, the witch’s premonition inevitably spreads to the rest of the characters until it manifests the entire space.

Macbeth first illustrates the breakdown of human connections in a materialist world as the unified bodies on stage slowly loose their collective harmony once the element of materialistic greed sets in. The group moves from a state of harmonious unification at the beginning of the play, to a state of disharmonious lament at the end of the play. For example, during the first scene, the witch sits centre stage and the rest of the cast sit on either sides of her in a symmetrically pleasing manner. The witch begins singing her premonition in a beautiful way, meshing bits of the original (English) Shakespearian text with Corsican chants, as her body sways to either sides of the group. The rest of the group then joins in with the song, harmonizing with such precision that the individual voices in themselves become indecipherable. The scene is set up symmetrically and harmonized in a very beautifully pleasing way as the element of greed is only still just a small seed in this scene (one which has yet to infect the rest of “the body”). Yet, the last scene becomes the polar opposite of the harmony expressed in the first scene. In this final scene, the performers sit in an asymmetrical cluster, somewhere that is neither to the centre or the side of the stage, but oddly in between. Lady Macbeth holds Macbeth’s limp body and wails in a raw, primal (and pre-cultural) way while Macduff holds his palms out in a shaking lament, as he sobs in repent and madness, disharmonizing and adding an unsettling layer to the rest of the voices. The greed has now manifested itself throughout the entire space and what we are left with is a disharmonized body, one which sits verge of total disconnection and fragmentation.

[...]

• College: University of London
• Course: MA WRITING FOR PERFORMANCE
• Grade: A
• Author: Francis Grin (Author)
• Publication Year: 2011
• Pages: 15
• Catalog Number: V1033197
• ISBN (eBook): 9783346442024
• ISBN (Book): 9783346442031
• Language: English
• Tags: cultural, equalitiy, world, place, theatre’, analysis, peter, brook’s, tragedy, hamlet’, complicite’s, song, goat’s