ABACUS, the new performance by Early Morning Opera, is sweeping in its scope and vision but fails short of delivering the desired message.
After a brief starting time delay, I watched the opening night performance of ABACUS. Upon walking into the EMPAC concert hall, I was immediately struck by the tech setup / set, which was very striking: six screens, set up above the performing area in a kind of semicircle. They dominated the stage view, as it was much easier to see the screens from the balcony that to try and look below them at the actual concert hall performing area. I’m not sure, however, what the intended seating arrangement was: something that bothered me throughout the whole performance. I, along with every other person who saw the show, sat in the balcony high above the performers. It allowed for a cool looking-down-on-the-action view of what was going on, but made viewing the lowest of the screens very difficult. I was unsure if the bottom section was meant to be filled with patrons who did not come or if the seclusion of the audience was intentional. I mention this because of later portions of the performance, where Abacus walked through the aisles of the lower sections and turned the camera on those seating sections: completely empty. I could see the meaning of those sections of the performance completely changing if there had actually been people there to film.
I was surprised at how engaging ABACUS was. Paul Abacus is a performer of the highest quality, and his interpretation of what is essentially a 60 minute monologue kept the show interesting and fast-paced for the duration of the performance. He was supported by a team of cameramen using Steadi-cams attached to their bodies, whose video feeds were mixed along with pre-rendered graphics and broadcast onto the giant screens above the performing area. It was visual bliss, as each member of the audience was constantly forced to make a decision about where to watch: the screens or the live Paul Abacus. Unlike other live-action / video mashups I’ve seen, one was not favored over the other and I never felt that I was missing something by watching either of the two options.
On the other hand, I felt the thematic content left something to be desired. ABACUS tries to make a point about national borders and social evolution, but the message got muddled very quickly. Paul Abacus’ monologue changes topics without the resolution of the previous topic, forever using the next topic to support the previous argument without ever really making a point about anything. If not for Abacus’ pure showmanship and charisma, these thematic matryoshka dolls would have quickly grinded on my nerves. I also disliked the ending of the piece, which used a deus-ex-machina ending purely for shock value without a real reason supporting it.
ABACUS was a nice opening to the Filament Festival for me, and I look forward to seeing more things here at EMPAC. I was a little let down, however, that PhD panda shown heavily in promotional material for the work bearly had a role in the actual performance. Hopefully I’ll be seeing more visual pandamoneum in the future.
From what I understand, the lower seats where meant to be empty. So I agree with your statement about the screens: if the audience was supposed to be so high and far away, why were the lower screens made difficult to see?
ReplyDeleteI didn't actually get to see ABACUS (I felt like I was done for the day after seeing Wilderness) but your review feels similar to what my opinion would have been (an interesting but poorly supported monologue, well done tech, etc.). I probably would have laid out a few more examples for why the argument falls apart, just so I could get a better idea on what the idea was proposing with the "obsolesce of national borders" as the EMPAC site puts it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely that the performance fell short with its message delivery. He makes points like "The Law of the Sea-- yes really that's its name-- like they're pirates!" which is a striking ad hominem attack in my book. I felt like the whole piece he's striking at the establishment, but he never fully explains why his ideas are any better. He just assumes that us moving forward as a species is enticing enough for us to believe what he says as better. All-in-all I feel the message could have used some more solid facts in favor of it; as opposed to lots of facts against the current system.
ReplyDelete