|
|||||
Elke Van Campenhout, Met stomheid geslagen
Jeroen Versteele, Een beetje schoonheid, en verder ergernis
Goffredo Fofi, Dirty adolescence. Fanny, Alexander and Heliogabalus
Franco Cordelli, "Heliogabalus", simple theatrical gesture
Fanny & Alexander intrigeert met een stuk over de Romeinse tienerkeizer Heliogabalus.
Heliogabalus was de controversiële Romeinse tienerkeizer die Jupiter verving door de zonnegod Elagabal en er volgens de overlevering exotische gewoonten op nahield. Het Italiaanse gezelschap Fanny & Alexander gebruikte het historische materiaal voor een enigmatisch portret van een keizer als onbegrepen buitenstaander.
De figuur van Heliogabalus is in de geschiedenisboeken afgeschilderd als een verwijfde, spilzieke en uiterst wrede keizer. Historisch is er weinig over hem bekend, maar hij zou in zijn korte regeringsperiode regelrecht zijn ingegaan tegen de Romeinse tradities en cultus. Niet alleen zetten hij de traditionele godenwereld op zijn kop, door zich uit te roepen tot de keizer-hogepriester van Elagabal, introduceerde hij ook een "oosterse" cultus, waarin voor de zonnegod werd gedanst en die gepaard zou zijn gegaan met overdadige offers.
Heliogabalus wordt ook voorgesteld als de keizer-danser die in de tempel optreedt voor horden soldaten. Zijn afkomst en zijn koosnaam Varius worden toegeschreven aan het zodanig promiscue karakter van zijn moeder, dat zij tegelijkertijd door zes mannen zou bevrucht zijn geweest.
In de voorstelling van Fanny & Alexander wordt Heliogabalus vertolkt door drie naakte dansers. Centraal op het podium, met een namaakkroon op het hoofd of driftig rondhotsend op ski's, poseert de jonge keizer als een oogverblindend beeld van onbegrijpelijke schoonheid.
De keizer kan zich niet uitdrukken. Hij spreekt in muzikale frases, misbruikt de overbekende melodieën van Mozartaria's en zoekt in de weerspiegeling van een zilveren lepel driftig naar een beeld van zichzelf.
Heliogabalus staat alleen op het podium als in een oneindig veld van onbegrip. Zijn toespraken zijn onverstaanbaar, zijn bewegingen zijn zinloos, zijn eenzaamheid is onoverkomelijk.
Zijn verzet wordt steeds verbetener. Met ooverdovende toeters en geschreeuw probeert hij uit zijn cocon te raken. Maar zijn pogingen lopen te pletter op de stilte die hem omringt.
Heliogabalus is als voorstelling even consequent als irritant. Als toeschouwer zit je voortdurend naar aanknopingspunten te zoeken, naar een gedeelde taal om te begrijpen wat je ziet. Je wil de flirterige pose doorbreken, het schreeuwerige geweld doen ophouden. Maar je wordt steeds weer teruggeworpen op je fascinatie voor dat androgyne lichaam, die kinderlijke opstandigheid van de drievoudige performer.
De enigmatische buitenstaander uit de overlevering, de onwelkome vreemdeling in de Romeinse gemeenschap wordt in de voorstelling te kijk gezet als een exotisch specimen dat geen stem heeft. Hij is een gevaarlijke inwijkeling die ondermijnt wat vast hoort te staan: het verschil tussen mannen en vrouwen, tussen schoonheid en geweld, tussen redevoering en poëzie.
Nooit zo'n irritatie gevoeld tijdens een voorstelling, maar finaal toch nog door de knieën gegaan. Het Italianse avant-gardecollectief Fanny & Alexander, voor de gelegenheid met twee Belgen in de driekoppige cast, kiest voor de vlucht vooruit in Heliogabalus.
De titel verwijst naar de sadistische en op seks beluste knaap die Romeins keizer was van 218 tot 222 en zich op amper vier jaar tijd van een onsterfelijke naam verzekerde. Getuige daarvan verschillende biografieën, toneelstukken en romans die hem afbeelden als een gedegenereerd monster met een obsessie voor perverse wreedheden en een onstilbare bloeddorst.
In Heliogabalus wordt de inspirerende monarch gëincarneerd door drie acteurs, allen behept met mooie jonge lichamen. Elk komen ze het podium op met verschillende lange gewaden, maar die worden al snel afgelegd. Ze nemen niets verhullende poses aan, jagen onverdraaglijk luid trompetlawaai het publiek in, schorten elk realistisch referentiekader of narratief verloop op en zijn niet te beroerd om in korte, elkaar snel afwisselende scènes cliché na cliché te bevestigen. Heliogabalus doet alsof hij een vrouw is, provoceert politici en hogepriesters, verkiest genot boven verantwoordelijkheid. Dat alles in een reusachtige kijkdoos, behangen met spuuglelijk behang met motiefjes waar je hoofdpijn van krijgt.
Een gezellig avondje uit is dit niet. De promotiebeelden en de foto's in de begeleidende tentoonstelling tonen extatische blikken en knappe lijven in clair-obscur. Die schoonheid zit tijdens de voorstelling in slechts 10 procent van de scènes, de rest ontlokt pure ergernis. Schoonheid zit in de prachtige beginscène, waarin Heliogabalus licht opschept met een lepel en het vervolgens de hemel in heft. Ontroerend zijn de scènes waarin hij uit zijn arrogante rol valt, elk contact met de buitenwereld onmogelijk blijkt en wanhoop hem overvalt. In de slotscène bezingt een operastem messcherp het drama van Heliogabalus. "En is er niemand die luistert, dan vertel ik mezelf wel over de liefde."
Fanny & Alexander bevestigt, ja, overbenadrukt het extreme clichébeeld van de Romeinse tiran. Heliogabalus was een irritant ventje, een pain in the ass voor Romes politici en burgers, en Fanny & Alexander ergert nu op zijn beurt het publiek tot het uiterste. Maar laat deze moedige voorstelling bezinken, en merk dat er een akelig accurate schets in je geheugen staat gegrift van een jongen die gevangen zit in zijn veel te lekkere, maar contactgestoorde lichaam.
In Luis Bunuel’s movie Susana, a “minor” movie produced in 1950 whose title in Italy was “Adolescenza torbida” (“Dirty Adolescence”), the protagonist is a girl who tries to provoke men’s desire, she gets pleasure from their perdition and she is, more or less, a sort of devil. Even Fanny & Alexander’s play Heliogabalus has a devilish element, but in a more ancient sense, a sense secretly anti-Catholic, or antichristian, if one considers the Christian faith to be a non-universal religion that overwhelms all other faiths and excludes the possibility of new and superior syncretisms. It is the demon, better, the demons of restlessness and rebellion towards the order of things that is accepted by everybody, or that everybody is forced to accept, except “the devil” itself. In this artaudian Heliogabalus Fanny & Alexander (Luigi de Angelis, Chiara Lagani, Marco Cavalcoli and then the young excellent technicians, Antonio Rinaldi for what concerns the scenes and Mirto Baliani for the sound, moreover, three young actors, never together on the scene, they are three different but similar Heliogabalus, the “differently” worthy Filip Bilsen, Maarten Goffin and Mauro Milone) open to a brand new way of research and seduction is not more relevant than obsession in their “show”, it is just the opposite, it is about the protagonist’s research of sacred power and of a new religion as well – with three interpreters similar but different. What really matters is the challenge to the world through the stages of a furious fight whose aim is to define one’s own position, to define the world, to declare, to conquer, through an extreme and delirious project, until an unavoidable fall.
Those who had followed through the years the heroic obstinacy of the three members of Fanny and Alexander’s (one Fanny and two Alexanders), from their artistic adolescence to a nearly-reached maturity, without renouncing adolescence, since maturity doesn’t exist, will be surprised by the difference between this show and the previous ones, including Nabokovian shows about Ada and Van. At that time, the most impressing thing was their determination and their passion in the representation of a closure, of a cocooning because of the fear of what is outside and for the fear of the world itself – Fanny and Alexander’s shows were always innovative, saintly indifferent to “communication’s” blackmails – but everybody expected (and hoped) a coming out so that the grub could have its wings and become a butterfly and it could finally throw itself into life, into the world. Watching Heliogabalus today is doubly surprising: for the maturity of the show, for its support to a very hard theoretical project, philosophical indeed, which is strictly connected to the previous projects, and in conclusion for the new possibilities that the show offers.
This time as well, Fanny and Alexander do not give anything to “communication” (a word that poorly hides its new “style”: entertainment and propaganda), furthermore this time the aim is high, very high, this is quite evident, for instance, in the frantic movements of the three Heliogabalus on the enclosed and condensed space of the scene. The historical Heliogabalus – not the one of the superficial criminal legend – was a fourteen years old Syrian boy, cherished by Roman occupation soldiers, since he was a dancing priest devoted to the Sun God. The soldiers made him emperor and Heliogabalus ruled Rome until he was eighteen, at that age he was killed with his mother (who was his counsellor too), because he tried to impose a monotheistic faith that could conciliate the Sun God, Jesus and other gods in one unique God, in one unique religion. Boyish emperor Heliogabalus – more than one in the play – passes from a stage of desire to a stage of searching and finally to a stage of power. He prefers dreaming of a new religion that he could be priest of, more than possessing the mere political power. We are in the second century ac and Rome is not just Senatus and army, but it is also already the centre of religious power. Heliogabalus tries to get the sacred: purity, impurity and truth. He tries to establish and spread a necessarily syncretic religion, a monotheistic religion but still marked by paganism. And he fails. Rome and History, the Soldiers and the Priests don’t forgive the fact that he is not a politician, he is unable to learn quickly all the shrewdness of command, of manipulation, of that kind of seduction which belongs specifically to politics. On the scene of this radical Heliogabalus, the three naked bodies, made of a still-adolescent thinness and weakness, express tension; they restlessly move, the bodies almost try to compress themselves, bounded with hostile chains but headed to impossible breakings, it is an attempt to get freedom, to get a way out and a truth, but the three Heliogabalus are unable to control the effective possibilities and means of this attempt, they don’t have the clearness and the strength required, they just have intuition, desire, a sort of intimate compulsion that presses to a huge task. Therefore the audience could think the whole scenic representation as an invitation to regression, however not backwards, not headed towards the warmth of something primeval and encouraging, but a regression that can avoid the oppressive development that everybody must try to handle. It is an effort to find one’s own self, one’s own way out and a way to ascent as well, ways that belong (belonged, or belonged and still belongs, for a very few people) to a concise part of life. And of the spirit.
“Different” and “lonely”, the three actors move within an forced loneliness, for such a radical searching (or quête), they represent our minor and enraged mirrors, but they are condemned. In this age of easy going consolation, of extreme confusion, of absolute and ambiguous lies, Fanny and Alexander can bother somebody with its ambitious philosophy, but in this time of fairly accurate as well as pompous philosophies, that are essentially guru or almost guru’s tall stories and despicable invitations to acceptance and adaptation, F&A theatre company dares gather philosophy, theatre and religion together. This mission is doomed to fail – because it is a way to find out and show the dark connections between everything, beyond every “subject” – but it is necessary to do it, generation after generation, now more than ever. And yet Fanny & Alexander dares thinking the theatre as the scenery of the sacred, the place of representation of all questions, those constantly unsolved or those without an answer, questions that a man thinks of when he is “adolescent” and then he gives up thinking about them when he becomes more “mature”, it is the scene of the endless struggle of man against his meagre condition, against his desire to cross over the pillars of Hercules, or against the metaphysical constrictions that are the pillars of the blind and cropped Samson surrounded by a crowd of philistines. In a show, it is not easy to melt down so much essential tension. There is a great need of “adolescents” like Fanny and Alexander’s, the ill and corrupted theatre grown up during these last years especially needs them. So, good luck Fanny and Alexander, may your ever-searching adolescence be long lasting.
(translation by Deborah Babini)
Heliogabalus theatre performance was ending, I knew it because I was counting down every single scene, and I began to be one of the fans of Fanny & Alexader’s, a theatre group directed by Luigi de Angelis and Chiara Lagani. I was continuing to say to myself: "If the performance ends at the twelfth scene, it’s perfect". After sawing the transformation of Nabokov's Ada carried out by this young theatre duo, a pièce full of linguistic joints, lapsus and coincidences, why should I expect something different? The issue about number 12 is crucial in metaphysical Artaud, that’s to say Artaud of the thirties. In his Heliogabalus, that is a comment to “The Life of Heliogabalus” a text written by Lampridius, an historian of the IV century, Artaud affirms that "If Number 12 gives the idea of the concept of Nature at its point of perfect expansion, of complete ripeness, it is because this number contains in itself three times the whole circle of things, represented by number 4; 4 is the number of achievement in abstract or of the cross in the circle".
Here is the achievement in abstract: it is what Artaud calls the Principles (beyond facts), in short, it is his alchemical idea of the world. The basic numbers are 1 and 2, Heliogabalus is the greatest human attempt to try to join together two half parts, masculine and feminine. Lampridius thinks that some Heliogabalus’ anecdotes were immoral, so immoral to be ashamed of reporting them, such as his sodomitic and sanguinary or "sunny" exploits, or moreover, such as the fact that the young emperor, he ruled from the age of 14 to 18 years old, places the cone-phallus at the top of the social and religious hierarchy. On the contrary Artaud thinks that these are facts that should be considered from a metaphysical point of view, or, better, a conceptual point of view - just like Fanny & Alexander’s show: obscure-bright and conceptual.
"Without any doubt it is because of heroism that Heliogabalus commits an act of outstanding cruelty, an act that everybody considers to be pitiless and abominable because it is unjustified and gratuitous; this cruel act is the murder, committed by Heliogabalus himself, of Gannys, his preceptor, a man he loves but who thwarted his excesses". The famous anarchy of the crowned Heliogabalus it is the one that belongs to every tyrant "that tries to rule the whole world through his own and unique law". Since he believed he was God "He had never made the mistake of creating a human law" as one of his apostles says. Artaud goes on: "He adjust himself to the divine law he was introduced to". This really makes Heliogabalus unique and good. Good, if one follows the rules of Artaud. Rotten, following the lesser metaphysical rules of the "poor" Lampridius. It is impossible not to see in so much esotericism and mysticism a hieroglyphic that inscribes Artaud within the thirties, the age of tyrants. For what concerns the possibility of a complicity with them, the question is: why is Céline exempted and Artaud is not? Is obliquity lesser compromised than direct speech? Privileges are a natural and ordinary thing: some have the privilege of being blonde haired, others have the privilege of being black haired. But the ideological demand of privileges is something else and Heliogabalus is the proper example of this concept: Heliogabalus is just like Salomé, she wants the moon, he wants the sun. This is the extreme fringe of European decadentism that goes up to Nabokov, yet it is the supremacy of the oxymoron (the crowned anarchist) carried to extreme results, the only way to redeem it all: through this figure of speech every "impurity" is showed up on the sacred boards where it can be cleansed. On the stage there are three ephebes following one after the other: Filip Bilsen, Maarten Goffin and Mauro Milone, a red head, a black head and a blond head. All of them are naked, they have a crown-cone on their heads, they wear a pair of skis and their hands clench ski sticks. They love the image of the Mother, Moesia. They show off their anus. They are acrobats. In silence, they offer to our contemplation an arithmetic and neoclassical image, a representation of trinity, of duplicity, of mystical unity.
What Artaud called nigredo, here, in this Heliogabalus, becomes albedo, a gentle and stylized theatrical gesture.
(translation by Deborah Babini)
Theatre Performances
Grey Speech | WEST | NORTH | SOUTH | Kansas | AMORE (2 atti) | HIM | Dorothy | Vaniada | Aqua Marina | Ardis II | Ardis I