Reckless Sleepers have been devising experimental theatre since 1988. I’ve learnt first-hand about their creative process and what they’re all about and I find them fascinating. “Negative Space” is a companion piece which pairs up with their previous theatrical work “Schrödinger”. They are based in the UK and Belgium.
This is unlike any show I have reviewed before because of how unique it is. Reckless Sleepers tear up the rule book and do their own thing. Creating inimitable and exciting theatrical worlds which challenge how we think about what we see. Play, play, and play - that’s what they do. Play with form, style, convention, props, logic, meaning, the audience and performer relationship, rules, and even the definition of play. The performance experience varies from person to person as we place our own meanings, stories, and context onto the action on stage.
At this point, I’d usually write what the show’s about. Errrrmmmm? Well I do know this: it used choreographed and stylised action and movement within a plasterboard room (a proscenium arch theatre within a theatre?) without any words or narrative. Or at least there was no continuous and linear narrative, you could maybe interpret a series of fragmented and random scenarios. The ensemble push the boundaries of what theatre can be. They evoke varied responses from the audience; the odd chuckle, surprised gasp, and an inquisitive silence. Directed by Mole Wetherell, tonight’s broadcast production was recorded live at the New Adelphi Theatre at the University of Salford.
From my own point of view, the production made me examine everything much more closely and I was making regular mental and physical notations. I noticed the space between two performers and tried to picture the relationship between two potential characters. There was something confrontational and violent about what I was seeing. The audience laugh at something I don’t laugh at – why is that, what makes that action funny? Is the performance carefully choreographed, improvised, or somewhere in-between? Either way this was very much in the here and now; live and reactive.
Games were played. If one person touched the wall or put down the hammer or held a rose, that changed the game. Was the rose symbolic of romantic love? Can we get away from socially constructed symbolism so that something becomes something else? Can we really think outside the box… well the plasterboard box? The attention from the performers was spot on, performing the choreography with ease. There was a neutrality to their facial expressions, they weren’t actively portraying characters. But, they did perform regular actions somewhat like a dance motif including: holding their hands up, lifting their head through a trapdoor, sitting down, standing up, wrestling, staying still, darting around, or holding a rose.
To a traditional theatregoer who isn’t familiar with this kind of work, I can’t help but imagine they may read a whole story from the action taking place on stage; framing the performance entirely differently. I feel like the magician who knows how the tricks are done: I can’t unsee what I already know about the company’s devising process and unique theatrical objectives when I’m watching it. Am I meant to be viewing this differently?
Wetherell explains that projects aren’t written in the conventional sense. They take constructed layers of concepts, ideas, and rules written inside and outside of the rehearsal room, and experiment and play with them. The bank of performance material is given a structure, there are failures and small wins. Out of the chaos and uncertainty a project comes into fruition - and takes form, shape, and an identity. To this day, Wetherell still declares: “I still don't know what it is that Reckless Sleepers make, I still can't quite place my finger on it so it stays still”. Well neither do I but I absolutely love it.
Reviewer - Sam Lowe
on - 7/4/20
No comments:
Post a Comment