Object Theatre –> Vegard Vinge and Ida Müller –> The Wild Duck –> Ibsen

—-

‘The term “object theatre” was first used in 1980. However, today there are still several different and somewhat controversial ideas of what object theatre is.

‘Much of the confusion surrounding object theatre comes from its relationship to puppet theatre. Some theatre scholars (such as Henryk Jurkowski and Jette Lund) believe that object theatre is a part of the world of puppetry, and is merely a more modern expression of this genre, whilst others (including Anne Helgesen and Ida Hamre) utilize the term “object theatre” (or synonyms such as “figurteater” or “animationsteater”) in a broader way to classify all types of puppet theatre. Meanwhile, there are also those that that see object theatre as an independent art form (such as Christian Carrignon, Peter Weitzner).

‘Direct translation of certain synonyms of object theatre, such as the aforementioned Norwegian “figurteater” and the Danish “animationsteater”, into English often adds to the confusion, as part of the original meaning of these terms is lost in the translation, and even worse some unintentional secondary meanings are inherited.

‘Some of the confusion over the recognition of object theatre as an art form is related to the fact that some object theatre performances are more closely related to certain theater genres than others. On the other hand, others are less related to traditional forms and have more in common with performance art or other modern art forms such as cyborg theatre and image oriented theatre.

‘For this reason, I have identified three new subgroups within the object theatre genre. By more clearly defining these individual groups it actually becomes easier to understand the broader concept of object theatre and how it relates to other theatre genres. It is also necessary to do this before attempting to define the boundaries between object theatre and puppetry and performance art, because each of the three subgroups is related to them in a different way.

1) Animation theatre

‘In spite of its name, this form of object theatre is not related to cartoons or animated films, but instead refers to the alternative meaning of the word “animate”, that is to “bring to life” or “to give a soul to”. In this form of object theatre the manipulator seeks to make the objects they work appear to be alive. It is common to use mundane, everyday objects such as chairs, flowers or glasses, although the objects can also be more abstract things such as sculptures or art objects. The manipulators themselves are, however, hidden from the audience by using a screen or black clothes. The attention of the audience is therefore focussed on the object, rather than the on the manipulator. This form of object theatre is more closely related to puppet theatre than the other two. Examples of this type of object theatre include works by Puppet Beings Theatre Company and TamTam Objectentheater.

TamTam Objectentheater

Puppet Beings Theatre Company

2) Theatre of things

‘In the theatre of things, it is again common to use everyday, ready made objects. However, the manipulator does not seek to make them appear to be alive as they do in Animation Theatre. Instead the objects often have some symbolic or metaphorical meaning, and the illusion of them being real is more in the mind of the audience than in the way that they appear on the stage. This can be illustrated by an example where there is a small toy car on the stage and the actor acts as though he would be driving this car. The toy car does not look like a real car, but the audience imagines that the car is real and that the actor is actually sitting inside it.

‘The other key difference between the Theatre of Things and Animation Theatre is that the actor is the centre of attention and not the object. The actor makes no attempt to hide himself or his emotions, and may even deliberately exaggerate them as part of the performance. There is also a more direct communication between the actor and the audience than in Animation Theatre. Due to the importance of the role of the actor and his acting in this type of performance, it is easy to see how this type of object theatre is more closely related to dramatic acting than the other two. Examples of this type of object theatre include performances by Christian Carrignon, Lasse Åkerlund and the performance Storre Stemme directed by Geirdis Bjørlo and Preben Faye-Scjhøll.

Christian Carrignon

Lasse Åkerlund

3) Figure Theatre

‘The final subgroup of object theatre is the most contemporary of the three subgroups of object theatre. It can be characterised by the human actors being disguised using masks or costumes in a conceptual way makes them to no longer appear to be a human being, but instead a lifeless object. In some cases, the actor inside the costume “animates” the object which they are performing, for example by playing a life size marionette. In other Figure Theatre performances, however, the object created by the actor may be a part of the scenography, such as a door or a piece of furniture, or they may form a part or the whole of a visual image. The actor in figure theatre balances between acting and non-acting as it is hard to say that someone is acting when they perform the part of a “door” or a part ofthe scenography. The visual image or visual impact is also a very important aspect in Figure Theatre, as it is in performance art, which is closely related to specifically this type of object theatre.

‘It is more difficult to find concrete examples of this subgroup of object theatre, however, one recent performance that could be classified as “Figure Theatre” is Vildanden by Vegard Vinge and Ida Müller.’ –– Svein Gundersen, ÅRGANG 28

________________
Vegard Vinge & Ida Müller’s Vildanden

‘Through a genre-crossing berserk race Osvald Alving stages his ongoing dissolution as a Syphilitic Gesamtkunstwerk. With Nietzschean megalomania the artist untangles the bandage of the canonised work he is personally chained to, revealing the open wounds in a search of the stinking sewage underneath the stage floor. Illness and avoidance as salvation in the intersection between child-like genius and forcible inheritance. The ragnarok of Ibsen. A ritual and Odyssean journey towards the sun and the final liberation.’ — Vegard Vinge/Ida Müller

‘Vegard Vinge and Ida Müller’s Vildanden, part of a cycle of Ibsen plays, presents a radical view of the Norwegian psyche through their vibrant and highly subjective productions of their national poet. Here in a hand-painted universe where everything – landscapes, buildings, people – is freshly-decorated in bright colours, deeper and darker forces lurk which will soon undermine this happy, shiny surface. Vildanden is presented from the perspective of the Helmer family children – human dolls or puppets – who find themselves imprisoned in a world of money and disease. Vinge and Müller’s uncompromising and unique theatrical vocabulary mixes opera, splatterfilm, puppet-theatre, cartoon and performance. It is theatre as ritual and exorcism.’ — DOPPELGÄNGER

‘Ibsen probably enjoys himself, but do we? No, this can’t be called enjoyment. It is perversely fun, it is interesting, it is sickening, it is annoying, it is fun, it is embarrassing, it is genius, it is long, it is much – but it is far from nice. Possibly this is such a complete overload of a production it has people turn around and leave in the door. Let us hope not, for either you like this work or not, it reeks of manifestos, will and distinct character. The references to avant garde traditions are strong, and it almost strangles itself in a scream after a theatre revolution.’ — Elisabeth Leinslie, Scenekunst

Excerpts

Excerpts

Excerpts

_______________

Henrik Ibsen’s Vildanden

‘Ibsen’s Vildanden (The Wild Duck) enacts the story of Gregers Werle’s descent from Høydal and his intrusive mission into this environment of the insulted and injured. Long suspecting his father responsible for the fall that reduced Lieutenant Ekdal and his family to social disgrace and dependence, he decides to right the injustice. The family, however, is reconciled to its fallen condition, retreating from reality to live on Haakon Werle’s largesse. The merchant controls this world, supplying even the wild duck, – the central feature of the Ekdals’ imaginative world. Believing truth will set the Ekdals free, Gregers unwittingly destroys Hjalmar’s belief in his own identity as husband, father and family breadwinner.

‘To overcome the crisis that results, Gregers suggests Hedvig sacrifice her most precious possession, the wild duck, to demonstrate her love for her father. When they believe this is what she has done, Gina and Hjalmar are reconciled and the marriage is saved. But out of view in the attic, Hedvig arrived at her own mysterious decision. We know the moment of her action: Hjalmar’s rhetorical question whether Hedvig would be willing to sacrifice a prospective new life for his sake: but this does not explain why her response was to kill herself. Was it a defiant suicide like that of her namesake, Hedda? Or an act of despair? Or of love? Her death is the element of the unpredictable in human affairs – an ‘uncertainty principle’ that bedevils attempts at the reformation of the human spirit.

‘The realist art of The Wild Duck dictates its scale and type of action; the characters’ social class; the furniture and costumes; the stage directions for the actors’ gestures and even the pitch of their voices. The demand for meticulous plausibility realism is expected to meet greatly increases the difficulty of the artistic act when the dramatic intention is as ambitious as Ibsen’s. He needed to devise a dramatic method to circumvent the restrictions he imposed on his art, to make it do more things than its text seems to allow. The play’s expanding circumferences of action encompass individual and family histories, social divisions, the surrounding natural world of retreating forests, lakes and marshes inhabited by the wild duck and its fellow creatures and, beyond these, perspectives of human history and culture stretching back centuries.

‘By the multi-perspectival or contrapuntal aspect of his dramas, Ibsen’s realism still performs the function of his poetic dramas: of embedding universal perspectives within the particular details of his art. This, of course, is true of most major literature and especially of dramatic art. To create his poetic realism, Ibsen devised a bi-focal strategy that requires the reader or viewer to see and hear beyond the immediate events presented to an order of archetypal implications they have been devised to evoke.

‘In an effect reminiscent of Gestalt images or the pictures of M.C. Escher, what you look at gradually becomes a different image. Something like a Gestalt effect, I believe, is in the very title of the play, Vildanden, which to Norwegians, suggest Vildånden (wild/free spirit). Optical references are sounded throughout the text of The Wild Duck; of failing eyesight; seeing and failing to see; of eyes “not always clear-sighted”; of opening someone’s eyes to the truth; of perhaps seeing too much like Gregers, who converts reality into parables and symbols, and who asks Hedvig if she is sure the attic is an attic. And there is the presence of the camera, a neutral, inadequate recorder of reality.

‘Each character in the play sees reality from a unique point of view; voiced in old Ekdal’s superstitions, Hjalmar’s sentimentalism, Gina’s literalism, Relling’s cynicism, and Gregers’ mystical idealism. These competing voices surround Hedvig, whose tragedy might be as much provoked by this Babel of voices and views as by any other cause. The play’s closing lines, after the senseless suicide, are a bitter disagreement between Gregers and Relling as to the import of what we have witnessed.’ — Brian Johnston

*

p.s. Hey. ** David Ehrenstein, Hi. ‘Mirror’ is the one that interested me the most. ** Bernard, Well, hey there, B. I love ‘The French Dispatch’ and ‘Waking Life’, which almost got on my list. There’s something about Tarkovsky’s tone and what his work takes as a given that puts me off. I like ‘mystical’ films when they’re formally experimental and/or abstract, i.e. Parajanov or even Anger. I love Klimt, etc. as much as the next guy. Maybe the formal play adds a contentiousness or something that allays my suspicion, I don’t know really. The dream sequence research/talk is very interesting. I look forward to hearing more mano a mano. Yes, Mr, Domini came in to say hi (and more). That was cool. Possible good news, since you’re nearly here: the consensus is Le Pen lost the big debate last night, so the chances of her winning are decreasing. She still could win, though. But everyone is so stressed at the possibility here, and that helps. Gee, until you linked me, I knew nothing about that Notley Symposium. Wow. I’ll try to alter my busy schedule and go. Charles Bernstein and Bruce Andrews were here recently for a similar thing on Language Poetry, and I went to their reading, which was really great and hilarious. Plus, they’re such lovely guys. Anyway, thanks! I’ll try my best to hit that. ** Misanthrope, I can get into romantic daydreams of living in a dream mansion/estate in Wyoming, but then I blink. Just to show you how vegan I am at the moment, I read ‘cracker and rainwater’ and thought, Oooooh. ** _Black_Acrylic, I do feel like if I’d cottoned to Tarkovsky when I was a teen or something, I would feel differently now. Maybe he’s like Herman Hesse in that respect. You’ve got me hot and bothered about ‘Lamb’. Let me see where I can find it. Thanks, Ben. ** ryan (definitely not ayn), Ha ha, that’s better. Your tiff with the Twitter guy reinforces my no Twitter self-governing pronouncement. Not that Facebook, where I am just because I happened to try it first, is a bastion of reasonableness. One of the good things about living in Paris and speaking French so extremely poorly is that my lifelong Francophilia is unblemished. I just assume everyone I see on the street or metro is highly intelligent and poetic and inherently superior to me. Even on the rare occasion that some twink speaks to me in English in a bimbo-ish fashion, I just assume the bimbo aspect is a false flag forced upon him by having to communicate in a second language. It’s kind of utopian. Love, me. ** Dominik, Hi!!! Cool mom. You can feel sorrier for the pigeons. Cleaning up their shit was a snap. I feel absolutely certain that I would remain firmly on the ground watching others get their flying kisses. Way too scary for me. I relate heavily to your love of yesterday and wonder if he and I are soulmates. What cereal, may I ask? Love magically causing human flesh to taste like pizza quatre fromage and sharpening human teeth into points, G. ** Sypha, Hi, James! Yeah, so sorry you got the Covid. Zac has it at the moment too, and he’s similarly upswinging to healthiness. I’m very sorry about your friend. That’s really tough. But that’s exciting about your brother. You like his wife? Between you and me? Thank you for devoting effort to the Ligotti post. Whenever you’re ready, I’ll be very grateful. ** Steve Erickson, At least in my memory, ‘Stalker’ and ‘Solaris’ caused a reasonable amount of fuss, and the rest much less so. All very good wishes to your dad and especially your mom. I hope the second visit was very helpful. ** Jeff J, Hi. I think the only Tarkovsky I’ve seen projected was ‘Mirror’, which, maybe not surprisingly, is the one I liked the best. Tarr’s admiration for Tarkovsky is one of the reasons I tried him again, but thinking of him through the Tarr lens only forefronted what I don’t take to in Tarkovsky. I mentioned to Bernard up above what some of my issues are. There’s just something to the tone and atmosphere of his films that I have a lot of trouble buying. I do fully understand the the problem is mine, not his work’s. One of these days. And I will try to see one projected when the opportunity arises. Yeah, I’m where you are with the writing: I long to work on the short fiction, but I’m so swamped with the film prep work and writing the new piece for Gisele, I just have no room left in my head right now, although I hope to be finished with the Gisele text in the next few days. Happy Thursday, man. ** Okay. Today’s post originated as a very, very old post from my murdered blog. I thought it needed a lot of upgrading, and I wound up changing it so much that it’s no longer a restoration. It’s kind of somewhere in between new and revived. And why I’m telling you that, I have no idea, ha ha. See you tomorrow.