This happened after a conversation with Megan the other night. When I began to consider how in-the-round as a square operates in terms of stagecraft, it didn't feel right. This is difficult to articulate but I can attempt a few observations.
The Square:
If you imagine an audience sitting on the black line.
The first thing I noticed when trying to figure this out was that the space creates four corners of "dead space". This space is low energy "cold" spots both for the audience and the performers. The strongest seating positions are clearly the centre-sides, as they are closer to the 'eye of the storm'. This is created by proximity and also sightlines. It is certainly possible to 'heat' these corners, but doing so feels like it's working against the natural flow of energy the space dictates:
Now imagine that this is both the entire space AND repeated everywhere in small microcosms. Each event that happens in the space has a small square around it, with bigger and bigger squares ad infinitum. Therefore actors position themselves in relation to the event and depending on where they are, their relationship might be 'hot' (if they are on vertical or horizontal axis) or 'cold' (if they are on the diagonal). This power structure, I believe, will ALWAYS be repeated for the square, no matter where the event occurs, although of course you lessen the effect of proximity if you have and event happening in the corner (for example).
This is a skewed relationship. Not only does everyone get a different show here, but they get significantly hotter or cooler shows depending on where they are sitting. Much like the Pros. Arch, the square in-the-round created an audence dynamic that inevitably favours certain audience members over others.
The one exception to this rule might be compartmentalising the space - not practical for us because I believe the world we imagine is transformative rather than fixed. We are not walking through a house, the house is changing around us - this is the dream state. But hypothetically you could draw up a floor plan of an imaginary house and divide spaces accordingly a la Lars Von Trier's "Dogville", which then creates a similar power dynamic to that of your average room, with its corners, walls, floor etc.
For us, however, the square would have been about public and private space, about exposure on four sides and hiding in the corner. I thought this suited until I began to explore the idea of a circle.
The Circle:
Everyone is equal in the Circle. That is its essence; its fundamental idea, that from all sides it is a different point of view but essentially the same.
Therapy.
Ritual dance.
Campfire.
Arena.
Forum.
Where the square is man-made and does not actually exist in nature (only as an ideal) the circle does, (albeit still in unreal terms).
Bubbles.
The Sun.
Earth.
Whirlpool.
Eyes.
Cells (medical).
Of course, squares may still happen in nature by accident, but nature does not BEHAVE like this. So if the first point about a circle is that it is equal, the second point is that it is natural.
Perhaps because of this, the circle is used on a symbolic level to represent something mystical, spiritual or primal (Yin-yang, various Pagan symbols) , and the square is used to denote that which man has made (flags, buildings, rubix cube, rooms, computers). A combination of this, such as a circular computer/building or a square bubble, becomes confusing.
(As a side note this makes the 'invention of the wheel' an ironic symbol of man replicating nature on a symbolic level for the benefit of 'progress' in a literal and also metaphoric level. Also perhaps the fundamental shift in thinking when we realised the earth was round, and thus perhaps that the world we were creating was different to its nature.)
The circle acknowledges all perspectives and favours none. The skewed dynamic of the square is taken away and replaced with complete equality and three-dimensionality. There is no cold anywhere, there is complete exposure only.
The shifts in power dynimic are therefore created purely by proximity to the centre and the edge. The centre point acts as the point for complete balance, but also complete exposure. The edge represents a predatory position. Those on the edge want to be in the centre, to control the point of balance and the primary focus. Much like a game of 'look at me', or like hyenas.
Because Paul is the object of contest for the play Smudged, it is probable that he becomes the event most of the time he is on stage and that the others are trying to knock him off his perch, a task made impossible because he is our point of identification and therefore the centre of the circle at any one time.
But it is of course more complex than that, because there is a broader circle and its energy to contend with. For example, if a character is occupying centre stage and Paul is not, there is an interesting juxtaposition between the 'geometric' power of the stage and the 'identification/event' power held by Paul.
I have spoken enough I think, what a long post. But there is obviously a lot to think about.
No comments:
Post a Comment