Theatre Is a Sheep when It Should Be a Wolf...
WE LACK WOLVES
H=Henrik Dahl, Teater Tribunalen.
R=Richard Turpin, Teater Tribunalen. A=Alvis Hermanis,
Jaunais Rigas Teatris. K=Kristian Smeds, Kajaani City Theatre.
EK=Elina Knihtilä, Q-teatteri, Baltic Circle. E=Erik
Söderblom, Q-teatteri, Baltic Circle. FAM=female
audience member. MAM=male audience member
The panel is gathered in a semi-circle in
the foyée of the Q-theatre’s small stage. The audience
sits in a disorganised semi-circle. Selling of tickets is going
on in the hallway.
E: Many people have asked whether we
have a theme for the festival, and whether the performances have
been chosen because of the theme. But the festival is here to find
out what the theme would be. We are here today to discuss that.
Theatre today in the Baltic area and in this festival. Jaakko Saariluoma
promised yesterday that there would be some fist-fight during this
discussion, so we will try to find some conflicts here today. Richard
was speaking about theatre and politics in today’s Helsingin
Sanomat. What is that?
R: At least in Sweden, the world of theatre
and the rest of society are quite separate worlds. For many years,
theatre haven’t got the self-confidence to take part of the
discussions in society. The crisis of theatre in Sweden starts with
this lack of self-confidence. Since the 70’s Swedish theatre
has been isolated, living on an island of its own. Society has changed
dramatically during the last ten years, and if we don’t discuss
these topics, it is difficult for us to do our work.
E: Three and half years ago we were sitting
here. Alvis and Kristian were her, discussing the same topic. Therefore
I would like to ask if things have changed in four years? Are there
more politics in theatre today than then? What is the task of theatre
in your places?
A: For those who still have some illusions
about the love-affair of society and non-commercial art — this
summer in France was the first sign of that something had changed
radically. The old era is ended. The artists that were on strike
still believed that they would have support from society, but to
everybody’s surprise the officials did not care at all. Obviously
there was no pressure as of why politicians should care about art.
Let’s face it. There is no impact from society on theatre whatsoever.
Which is fine by me.
E: There is this question, should art
put pressure on politics or just reflect politics. Thinking about
your perfomance: Kaspar Hauser. It was very clear to me that the
story is about Latvia in the EU. Latvia is the guy growing up in
the dark.
A: There is another illusion in Eastern
Europe — people still think that joining the EU will bring
more money for non-commercial culture. But it is just the opposite.
If society is concerned with the material and the physical world,
then it cares less about spiritual things.
If we think that theatre was a very democratic
form of art in the 20th century for ordinary people, like the theatre
for the people that Jean Vilar was talking about. Right now it is
exactly the opposite. Non-commercial art lives on despite ordinary
people. We are living under the dictatorship of ordinary people.
The values in consumer society are their values; superficial and
bad taste. If theatre was more left-minded in the last century —
today theatre will become more rightist.
E: You Richard, pronounced that you are
a marxist. Are you also a marxist Alvis?
A: Me? No, just the opposite. The syndrome
of ’68 — that is that the world is divided by rich and
poor, left and right — doesn’t work anymore.
R: I think that the mission of theatre
workers should be to define the world all the time — not in
a static rich and poor division, but in the way the world evolves.
You have a quite pessimistic way of looking at things.
A: Not at all, quite the contrary.
H: I think that the illusion is that
I also can have power to affect how people are thinking and making
them see what they cannot see on channel 5 or whatever. You have
to be able to have the confidence to say: I define the world like
this right now. But then the world changes and you have to define
it again.
E: There might be a difference between
the former eastern and western countries. Yesterday we were discussing
realistic and symbolistic theatre — based more on pictures.
We in the West who have had a very realistic theatre are looking
for ways out of the psychological realism. At the same time, Inga,
was looking for ways of doing more realistic work, than the more
dreamlike theatre that we admire in the Baltics.
I like to think that theatre is like a lighthouse
in the dark. The perfomances are there even if we don’t see
them. How many people have seen the Oracle of Delphois. Not many.
But how much influence has it not had and how much is it the spiritual
light-house for the whole western society.
I’d like to talk about Kristians solution:
to go away from Helsinki and work in a small theatre up north. Not
many people in Helsinki have seen your performances made in Kajaani.
But at the moment all theatre people in Finland know about Kajaani
and what goes on there. Without seeing it, the work has a concentrated
power. There is an echo of the echo. That is how I would like to
see, the sometimes frustrating work that you do for small audiences.
K: Three and half years ago when we were
sitting here I was the leader of a small group in Helsinki. I left
the group and went to the official side and now I am leading a municipal
repertory theatre with fifty people and two stages. One of the reasons
why I left was that when you have a theatre in Helsinki, it is only
a name in the paper among, the rest of the theatres, the movies,
the bars…In that sense it is about marketing, we are in a constant
fight for the audience about how they are going to spend their evening.
In Kajaani, the next theatre is almost 300 kilometres away. So,
our theatre is the theatre of that place. I think that theatre still
can be a meeting point in the area. Here in Helsinki it is impossible.
Another question is: is it something theatre has to be? It certainly
is something I am interested in.
E: There is a new division in Finland
between the regions and the cities, the rich and the poor. In this
situation one would like to have a function, to be an opposite force.
This would be a political task for a theatre. When we are speaking
of theatre, we speak of it in the form of an institution —
even if we are free groups. If we would be really brave, we would
not stay in this form. We would look for other places for the theatre.
I see a big change in society. Everything is a show today. Should
we go where the show is, instead of lying back in our very safe
theatres where nothing really happens. Should we be more active
in politics, that is also a theatre? To act the role of a politician?
EK: Our politicians have nothing to say
anymore. All is controlled by the EU, Bush or Nokia. I think that
theatre is the only place where you can say something.
E: At the same time theatres are small
islands, isolated into art, made un-political and not dangerous.
Should we go into party politics and make our theatre there?
H: If you want to do something that has
somekind of consequence, you should do something that you are good
at. Theatre is something we know, so we should use it to make a
professional impact.
R: I mentioned to my 14 year old son,
that two years ago the numbers of the audience has diminished in
all the theatres in Stockholm. He asked — isn’t theatre
very old fashioned? It is much easier to do other things. —
Life mustn’t be easy, I answered. — That is the problem,
he said, it demands too much, it demands me to think. Maybe I don’t
want to think and deal with moral matters, maybe I want to do something
else. I think you will have even less of an audience in the coming
two years. I didn’t know what to say. We have to demand something.
E: Should we learn the tactics from rap-musicians
that have big audiences, instead of accepting that theatre is small
scaled?
R: What is wrong in making an impact
on the intellectual minority. They are the ones who will rule. In
having a discussion with the exclusive few…
E: In Latvia — do you have an intellectual
class?
A: Listen, you are giving me the most
suprising questions. I cannot invent an answer.
E: Looking at the audience in your theatre
in Riga, I see people that we would call intellectuals.
A: In eastern Europe during the Soviet
times, the higher education in humanities was of a much higher level
than in the West. Brodsky said — if you are living in a prison,
limited in space, you dig inside into your imagination.
If you ask about intellectual capability…
Historically in Eastern Europe theatre was
never considered entertainment. It was closer to religion, or ideology
or spirituality.
E: This is the big question of entertainment
or non-entertainment in theatre.
R: Even Brecht said that people have
to be entertained.
E: I have this feeling that we are constantly
fooled. There is a big change of power from the state to the companies.
Theatre has always been dealing with issues of power. In theatre
we are still dealing with the state, that is also subsidising our
work. But the state doesn’t have the power anymore. In a few
years the state will have no money anymore. The money will be in
the companies. The real rulers of the world are hiding within the
companies. Should we create strategies of sponsoring and learn to
deal with the new rulers? Instead of dealing with the pseudo-rulers
— the politicians?
K: Why would we envy those who have that
kind of power? For me it is not interesting. The fight is so big,
you need so much money and so much brain in order to fight and challenge
those things. Instead I would say — focus inwards. Artists
are often complaining about not being given enough money or space
in society. That is completely bullshit. You have to take your time
and space and do it. You have to focus all your strength on the
works of art — not the surroundings. That is waste of talent
of the artist.
E: Is it okay to isolate one-self on
the island of art?
K: They are not opposite things. We have
a project in Kajaani, Shakespeare x 3. One actor is free for a year
and he makes three Shakespeare productions in the area of Kainuu
with young people. The other way is to stay in Kajaani and say ho-ho
— we have so little money, we can’t do anything.
E: That is certainly a very pragmatic
point. I also see the difference between the theatre in the Eastern
and in the Western sphere, talking about spirituality in theatre.
In Finland most of the important productions are related to religion
or spiritual questions.
FAM: Should we go to the places of new
power, or should we as Kristian says, concentrate on doing as ambitious
theatre as we can? Is the issue to get more possibilities but no
point, or is the issue to try and reach people. The way I see theatre
is from one human being to another human being. That is where theatre
comes alive for me.
E: Theatre has two masks; tragedy and
comedy. They could also be the shaman and the jester. The shaman
is a Christ-figure sacrifying himself for the community, the jester
points the finger at the false king.
In my life there is no place to see how things
work, I am not led into the rooms where decisions are made. There
is a big part of the world where decisions are made that I have
no idea about. In order to have the authority to say something,
you must know how things work.
R: That reminds me of Peter Weiss who
asked Markus Wallenberg to take part of the discussions on the board
of the Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken. Markus agreed to a meeting
and suggested informal talks as well. This ended up in a new type
of process.
H: Wallenberg didn’t think that
Weiss was any threat at all. He was just a theatre maker.
MAM: There is another problem too and
that is that I can’t communicate with my own age and gender
in theatre, because the audience in Sweden consists of women. But
the power is still by men in my age. That is a problem.
R: It is interesting times we are living
in. The world is not the same as in 2002. Denmark is at war. Poland
is at war. The UN is at war. Far away from here. Belgium, Germany,
France are talking about making new military alliances. Finland
is talking about becoming part of the NATO. NATO will be no more
after France and Germany have stepped out. Georg Bush is talking
about crusades.
E: I think that your performances Alvis,
are very political. They certainly are reflecting a situation in
an interesting way.
A: I never-ever thought that I am using
theatre as an instrument to improve the world. Actually, I don’t
have any ambitions to improve the world. My only ambition is to
improve myself. I use theatre to improve myself, not others. It
is even arrogant to say that we are able to teach the society. That
is overestimating ourselves. I don’t believe in political theatre
at all. I think those artists become corrupted sooner or later.
E: But, as an artist who is supposed
to be sensitive and reflecting things, the theatre you make will
still be political in your society. In our society we don’t
have an attitude to sort things out actively. We are in a danger
of not reflecting anything at all.
A: I don’t understand what the differences
are between our societies that you are talking about.
E: I think that there are differences
when I go to your country. I think that you are much more actively
open to the world. We are very self-sufficient here.
FAM: What Alvis said much earlier opens
up quite scary possibilities for us romantic theatre makers who
believe that we can influnece at least one person by our theatre.
Maybe that really doesn’t matter anymore in this world.
A: You – not you (pointing into
the audience) said it very well about theatre being communication.
I think that the only important thing is this communication between
stage and audience.
R: If you are staying in front of an
audience, you have a responsibility. If you make a statement...
A: It is not a conversation if you make
a statement. The conversation goes on only if we are equal.
R: Are you ever equal with your audience?
A: If you are using the theatre to manipulate
the audience...
R: Of course we are.
A: Then there is something wrong. I wouldn’t
want people in my audience that can be manipulated.
E: You have quite a responsibility in
theatre, the people in the audience will and want to believe you.
What you stand for — they will be believe it. So, in that sense
you are manipulating them. Maybe we are only pathetic liars. I can
only speak for my own need for more urgent theatre in this country.
MAM: What about the lack of utopia? I
come from the political group theatre where we had a utopia. Everything
was black and white. Very simple. We couldn’t have had this
discussion then. It was a lie. The form was bad, the dramaturgy
was bad. Today I think about how to make political theatre less
manipulative and less pedagogical.
R: When we started eight years ago and
said that we were starting a group that was going to make political
theatre that would correspond to society, people said; good luck
— you are cute — but wake up to reality. Things have changed
since then; today everybody wants to make political theatre. There
was a discussion in the biennale in Växsjö that was called
not the political theatre, but the revolutionary theatre.
E: We are quite cynical compared to former
generations — we don’t have a vision of utopia, which
is not bad. Your utopia didn’t work in the end. But today we
can’t see where the borders between good or bad is.
K: The problem is that at the moment
theatre is a sheep, when it should be a wolf. We lack wolves.
E: That is a good place to stop at.
----
Written by Annika Tudeer
Photos by Yehia Eweis
Strip by Jaakko Toijanniemi
Drawings by Patrik Pesonius
|
