Now available from NoPassport Press, Popular Forms for a Radical Theatre, edited by Caridad Svich and Sarah Ruhl, reprints several essays that first appeared in an August 2006 special issue of Contemporary Theatre Review for a general readership. Svich writes in her introduction:
In this volume, established and emerging (mainly) Anglo-American practitioners wrestle with the contradictory impulses of creating work that resists orthodoxy and its domain of signs but also embraces its formal and emotive power. In fact, there is a lively recognition amongst the artists gathered here that what have become conventional or standardised signs of culture and performance should be “used” (in a market value manner) precisely to liberate, disrupt and re-order the reading and receiving of work, especially in a globalised culture that is signified by the deterritorialization, and the real and imagined repatriation of citizens of the geopolitical community. Indeed, it should be noted that there are … many artists working in non-English-language theatre who are making texts and pieces that are responding to this populist/provocative paradigm in striking, unusual and admittedly more radical ways. However, a choice has been made with this volume to centre on transatlantic practitioners as a way to witness regional (in the global landscape) commonalities and shared differences within those working in particularly dominant media-driven cultures.
The list of contributors to the volume is a roll-call of some of the best critics and artists writing today, with essays from Todd London, Diane Paulus, Aleks Sierz, Will Eno, and Jonathan Kalb, and interviews with Eugenio Barba, Dijana Miloseviv, Nina Steiger, Scott Graham, Richard Maxwell, and Brian Mendes. It is surely a thoughtful addition to the ongoing consideration of populism, elitism, accessibility, and the place of theatre and performance in the Culture Industry as defined by Adorno. Cover price is $20.00, and it’s available for immediate purchase here.
The title and the excerpt quoted above suggest a basic dilemma (or conundrum?): To the extent that a piece of theater work (or I suppose a work in any other medium) might be “radical” (whatever that might mean in any particular instance), how far does that degree of radicalness marginalize the particular work and therefore remove it from the realm of the “popular”? Or, to what extent is it possible to expropriate certain features of the “popular” into a “radical” piece of theater that might then attract an audience outside the small circle of people who write, perform and attend “radical” theater? Or is the more fundamental question, “What if it didn’t matter?”
Hard to see it as a conundrum per se, except maybe in the conservative press. How about Dario Fo? Enormously popular – his work was seen by millions – and also unimpeachably radical.
So the question in Fo’s case would be, did it matter?
Well, it mattered to the right wing terrorists who kidnapped and raped his wife/collaborator in order to shut them both up.
I looked Fo up a minute ago. So the answer in this case is “yes.” A reminder to be better informed, as well. The egg on my face makes a nice snack …