Drek for the Proles

You never know how your neighbors will react–to cell phones, bathrooms, definitions of public theater.

This intriguing verb “dial back” –as in “what do other people think political theater is” as “dialed back” from the question what do you think of political theater.

Man with beard, a distinguished version of Crispin Glover, offers “Brecht for the proles.”

Second definition is “drek” for the proles! There is already laughter and collaboration!

Some answers:

The lovely Molly is here: the play about homelessness starrring the rent-controlled, costing 75 dollars we don’t have per seat.

Preaching to the non-prole converted

People beating a drum in Union Square (organized protest theatricality)

Intentional vs. unintentional political theater

When you say political theater in a non-theater context, it is automatically crap: the candid camera daily life unpaid and unintentional political theater; in other words, defined by the spectator. “For you” the woman keeps saying.

Drive-by theatricality?

The woman with the accent! Such a charmming accent we barely pay attention to what she is saying–vaguely Erika Kitsch in her accent…kittenish, but with intellectual fangs–what isn’t Political Theater, this comment leads us to. Leads DL to put CATS on the board.

Political theater can be propaganda

If non-profit is doing it isn’t that political, “fused” for the undiscerning as AgitProp

Not promoting the politics, but promoting engagement that we do not normally associate with just art, and perhaps advocates a certain change–it is goal oriented

DL wants to know what is the GOAL. He seems sincerely engaged, more than I have seen him before. But then, as he seems most engaged, he starts putting forth his own agenda, how ironic and cunning: here is where then he begins his shtick about Simone Weil. So once again, he asks a question which feels and seems important, which wins the audience’s confidence in some way, which seems to attest his disarmament by the charms of the audience,  and at precisely this moment, he betrays us. He obliges the super-structure of the form. Of the Goal of Tonight: we must all participate in a performance which has been defined as Venice Saved, a Seminar, no matter what else the spectators want to do. DL is in control in particular when he seems most non-controlled.

This is the first time I have noticed that the conversation could take off from here, even before we have heard the name Weil…we could have a four hour performance and never once use any of the performance as rehearsed.

What would happen if DL let go of this control? What if this performance simply evolved as it was? Would it still be itself, the Venice Saved we have all paid to see–????

Why don’t we challenge this?

These words: do nothing. Unheard, unread. What if this thought bubble were being projected on a screen, unseen to director, but seeable to others at random? Would the audience rise up? If prompted?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s