NOT CRITICAL REVIEWS
Alfio Petrini
I do not exhaustive some reflections on the theater asleep in the woods, not having the power magic to awaken. Sleep of Reason. Sleep of the body-mind that you share. Sleeping thought that makes the blood and the blood that you thought. The theater is no exception to this condition, because it is a piece of the great machine of the real country. In this condition does not escape even the critical work.
In difficult times the Sleeping Beauty migrates to leave fables and lurks in the everyday realities of polis is not there. So even in the theater. If not by word becomes flesh, there is no experience, there is no movement of thought and desire, that does not mortgage the future, the theater ends up generating repetition, withdrawal, defending the status quo , easement policy and cultural benefit of the powerful or the untouchable guy. The man of the theater - but not only -, thinks that it needs to be smart or clever, to be lucky or unlucky depending on the circumstances, and does not realize that he had fallen in catalepsy. Thus resembles the movement standstill, life to death. So the culture of lobbying, political protection, inaction, l’eliminazione del conflitto e la subordinazione dell’arte alla politica dettano le regole e producono quel mercato che è dichiarato libero, ma che libero non è. Altro che meritocrazia!
Il sonno è della drammaturgia esangue, sociologica, ideologica e materialistica, sopraffatta dall’informazione, descrittiva, mimetica. Copia e non trasforma. Pompa sentimenti. Tratta il personaggio non come un lessema, ma come un organismo vivente. Pretende di cambiare il mondo. Insegue il male per suggerire il bene, ignorando che nessun uomo è esente dal male perché lo porta con sé. Eh, già, il male sta sempre fuori di noi! I cattivi, gli imbecilli e gli incompetenti sono sempre gli altri! Bellezza estetica e buone intenzioni non salvano il mondo. Buonismo e moralismo sono la negazione dell’arte, della informazione, della produzione di coscienza critica.
Il sonno è la condizione di molta scrittura scenica che non sa entrare nella mente dello spettatore - scuoterlo, provocarlo, indurlo all’attività -, anche per effetto della paura di sbagliare, della precarietà delle fortune improvvisate, delle riforme annunciate a dritta e a manca e mai realizzate. È la condizione che attraversa le centinaia di scuole di teatro e le pagine dei manuali impegnati a formare e informare disoccupati che sognano di ‘esprimersi’, alimentando un mercato fittizio che risponde a pratiche seduttive e corrosive, in un historical moment when we should be able to learn to unlearn and to train people, not actors, directors or critics. It is a condition in which the criticism is not critical, because it no longer believes in itself, because it is locked in asphyxiated fences, why not just do short memories, or pack-cultural chronicles mundane. It 's the condition in which the political class that has no ethics, that instead of changing herself, thinks of changing the people, proving to be out of place and not devoted to his work he should do. An evil from which to derive other serious ailments.
We are in the barbarism.
But be careful not to resort the habit and the habit of good feelings and good triumphant over evil. You can come out of barbarism provided it is understood and not demonized, studied and not convicted of res judicata, accepted and not rejected a priori as something that does not concern us. To move beyond the barbarism must be barbaric. Each of us must take the barbarism itself. In short, we can overcome it if we think first of all that is foreign to our person, which is one of the possible worlds that belong to us - given the vast inner world - even though in daily life we \u200b\u200bnever made barbaric acts. In short, we are the barbarians, wild, excessive and licentious. Not a-moral, but immoral. Capable of terrible confusion, errors and iniquities infinite, but also visions, ecstasy and magic spells for which, however, does not feel the thrill of romance. Who shows in the odor of sanctity is called progressive, modern and antibarbaro. Who admits to the evil in the body is called anti-modern, reactionary and barbaric. The first tends to win over the other, the second tends to change itself. Long live the barbarism.
I am convinced that if I do load, I suggest leaving dall'imbarbarimento one day with something new, because only the barbarism can go out with a concrete act of civilization, and why not, of beauty. If this is true, in whole or in part, in life, imagine the art of theater and critical work. So the criticism is not critical for social reasons, which I have mentioned, but also for cultural and technical shortcomings.
do not intend here to address the technical issues - related to learning and not-knowing - even though I think that exist and affect not only the young critics, but also what was supposed to be an alternative to the 'barons '. It is a tall order for a show and deconstruct it in an original way is necessary to go beyond the cliches of traditional property: it takes knowledge and skill rather complex, ideally supported by experience consumed alongside the acknowledged masters of doing theater.
Luckily there is a manual of good critic. The critical work, royalty has to be respected. However, I think he's right Carla Benedetti (quoted by Andrew Porcheddu in his fine book This ghost, a theater critic ) when he argues that we must "open the doors to thought, to ask questions across the board, naming conflicts and grievances, explore , distinguish, investigate. " While the separation el'autoreferenzialità are a betrayal of the critical work, you have regained that criticism of the weapons that are proper and gatherings in the social justice to the thought, work on memory and memory to dig, make light, capture the invisible, understand, and steal the image, to allocate to the future work done on the past, to separate the authentic dall'inautentico. Should free itself from the text and from the show to find the critical assessment of the text and the audience, which is peaceful, unhurried and tied to the veil surface. It is free from fluctuations in the tastes and dislikes quotas, aesthetic preferences and the ideological partisanship, the race for post-graduate job as improvisation (first) and the method of reporting relating to news rather than play in the critical work (after). It is free "from the review - writes Porcheddu - to find this review liberated" from censorship and self-censorship, mental reservations and awkward balancing acts. It is free, I might add, by the bond of absolute objectivity, taking into consideration the good level of subjectivity, it is true - how true - which is objectively impossible to tell a theater. In that sense, I think, paradoxically, that the best way to make criticism of a show is to get as far away as possible with the least hope of being able to tap. Rethinking and remembering the details means its working memory and the memory of the show to devote the future to which a written unconditionally recognize literary value independently of the text and the audience. I say literary value self.
The conclusion can only be inconclusive. The chatter is deafening, the silence is empty, the excess is cataleptic. However, it is true that the dead man hides turmoil of life, data on the decomposition of the body and if it is true that every degenerative process involves a regenerative process, it is reasonable to think that sleep may be generated by the critical work of awakening sleeping in the woods . The cultures are there. Lack the basic conditions of good governance, social credit, some conditions necessary to draw new job opportunities and the desire to feel part of a "community", that is talking about Katie Ippaso.
Who will have the courage to tackle the state of siege and to call into question? Who will have the courage to go into the ministry of strategies aimed at the say that theater is the show entertaining? Who will be willing to do X-ray distribution of the airship, covacci the power of patronage, the old and new rents position? Who will close the abysmal gap that has opened between the legitimate interests and illegitimate interests, between thinking and another win on the 'other ? What the world has gained the upper hand in us? What kind of world we can tell, if we have a world of death? What energy we can burning, which can generate sparks, if our body-mind is apparently alive? How can we go beyond their limits and their ideas, to think otherwise other elsewhere, through with fear and courage at the same time the places of meaning? How can we generate the light of madness which the world needs? How can we forget this world, when you need to forget, and shed tears after having forgotten?
Talk about theater of the world is talking.
To whom do we entrust the protection of our image and our operations? No one. Certainly not in politics, who follows - at best - the needs of men, instead of preventing them. Imagine if you can solve the problems of a small caste, which is meaningless in a society devoted to the development that does not coincide with social progress. No prince will save us. There is no need for nominees, much less of wizards or knights-errant, to give substance to our utopia. On the horizon I see a man who could do it. Even if there was not anything the delegate of my work and my life.
Maybe we should start from the 'low', the 'base', as it was once, in our daily work, with courage, determination, strength that potrebbe derivare dall’essere parte di una “comunità”. “Non sarebbe bello contribuire a fabbricare un nuovo immaginario, presentandoci l’uno all’altro come comunità?”, si chiede la Ippaso nella sua lettera aperta. Sarebbe bellissimo. A condizione che si prenda atto che la critica subisce sia il danno di una forte regressione sociale e culturale del paese sia lo svantaggio dello stato catalettico in cui giace da molto tempo e che la rende estranea ai problemi del teatro e della comunità nazionale. Nessuno può isolarsi. Nessuno può permettersi di sentirsi migliore degli altri, ma nessuno può concedersi il lusso di considerare intoccabili i “baroni che ci hanno mangiati vivi”. I baroni we were eaten alive because we live without eating. Do not repeat the error and create a coordination of the critics. From the questions we can, of course, start or restart. Any loss is good to start all over again, minus the loss of speech. In it are handled by the dignity, security and integrity. Only in conditions of insecurity can not listen to life. Dreams, sacrifices, delusions, then, and shamelessness it takes. Provided that they are uncontrollable.
Alfio Petrini
January 2011
0 comments:
Post a Comment