There are two ways to view Yanira Castro’s Wilderness: from inside the magic circle, and from outside the circle. I sat on a bench on the outside of the circle, outside of the “full” experience. However, from outside, it is easier to see the inner workings of Wilderness, and how it interacts with the audience. And honestly, if I was in the circle, I would be too frightened to write a proper review. The “magic circle” I talk about is a black circle in the EMPAC entrance lobby that is filled with black rubber chips. Before the performance begins there are also a few dozen chairs for the audience, arranged in a semi-circle. It is surrounded by 16 light posts that remain on for much of the performance (they only shut down or change in any way twice: once to highlight a particular area and a second time to indicate the show was over). Though the area is described as dark in the EMPAC description, the only thing that is dark is the ground. Many of the surrounding lights at EMPAC remain on for safety reasons.
The performance itself is approximately 1 hour long. It started with a brief 5-10 minutes of just music, mostly just an indicator for the audience within the e circle to take their seats. The music is a combination of piano and ambient music, neither of which have a set tune, and sort of jump in and out during the performance. It works for the atmosphere, but I would not describe it as good music. The actual performance starts with a solo act by an old man. With a hood over his head, his opening move was a strange dance where he basically ran in place until he started breathing heavily, and then tore of his hood. From there, the performance could be best described as a “descent into madness” as the man basically ran around, dug into the rubber chips, randomly exclaimed things, stared into the distance, talked to himself, was freighted by imaginary things, and talked to various members of the audience. He eventually commanded the audience to stand, herds them about the circle, and continued as he did before. In the background, quickly and quietly, staff members walked away with the chairs. In a way, I was convinced that the man’s purpose was to distract and confuse the audience while the chairs were stolen, leaving the audience standing or sitting in the rubber chips.
When I said the “full” experience was inside the circle, I did not mean to imply that the performance always took place within the circle. Eventually, the old man walked out of the circle, and slowly moved to the sidelines, stopping every so often to stare off into the distance. As the old man wandered off stage, four members of the audience reveal themselves to be performers, and begin doing the same act as the old man. And if the performance wasn’t strange enough, this is where it gets even stranger: the performers somehow get the audience to participate in their strange antics. The audience begins carrying other members of the audience, burying each other, rolling around. Maybe if I was in the circle, I would understand… more likely I would run out of the circle and continue observation from a safe distance (there’s a certain level of interaction I’m ok with in a live show and Wilderness crosses the line).
Eventually, the show ends. The performers move to the edge of the circles, the lights turn off, and the audience applauds. This was my opportunity to confirm the number of performers, to determine the true extent of the audience infiltration, to see if the interactivity was a hoax. To my surprise, it wasn’t. This demonstrated what perhaps the greatest accomplishment of Wilderness is its ability to get the audience involved. While I found the show’s content strange, boring (the repetition of the four performers of the old man’s material made it easy for me to be distracted), and perhaps frightening, it succeeds in getting those within the magic circle involved. As Castro’s focus was on audience interaction and feeling, the show would be considered a success. However, I still wouldn’t call it a good show, even if it did achieve its goal.
I'm curious about all of these subsequent performances of Wilderness. The only performance I saw was the first dress rehearsal, when the performers were still working out methods to get the audience to interact. It seems, from people's responses, that the piece changed drastically in a matter of days. This brings up an interesting question about audience roles and expectations from the first to the last day. My assumption is that most people who participated in the last performance had already seen the piece once or twice, meaning they might have been more inclined to do certain things that the first-day participants would have been uncomfortable with. This is an interesting phenomenon of group behavior - I wonder how far the participants would have gone if this piece had run another day? two more days? a week?
ReplyDelete