The presence of ritual and religion upon the stage is something I feel to be very powerful and effective as a means of performance. While reading "Shango de Ima" I constantly observed parallels between the human characteristics of the Roman gods and the different Orishas present in Shango… I find spiritual and existential truth within this play because it acknowledges the duality of life that enables perception.
Obatala: And this compliance will be your punishment, Shango de Ima. The joy which makes suffering possible, the birth which leads to death will be your punishment and the punishment of all men… (Carril, 89; passage from "Shango de Ima")
I grew up Christian and fell in love with the concepts of different Eastern philosophies as I studied at the University of Kentucky. Although I now claim no specific religion outside of my own perceived spirituality, I still linger closest to Christianity due to my respect for the religion’s commitment to forgiveness… But its dependence upon the idea that Heaven and Hell are punishments outside of this realm drove me to seek other concepts and beliefs. Heaven and Hell exist in this realm on Earth; they are conditions of mind, or physicality, or any form that can be perceived as pain or joy, suffering or pleasure.
In observing Shango’s interactions with the other characters of the play, I see the possibilities and consequences of life’s choices unfold. I see how the joys and pains he experiences bring forth a greater consciousness that most fully justifies a meaningful existence. We should choose to live life over and over again, with all the suffering and happiness, because it is through this journey that all things come to existence… all things can be seen. The cycle of knowing and then not-knowing, of birth and death, is that which humans are caught within… My only concern is that Obatala seems to only view life as the eternal punishment that man must face… Is it not also the great reward?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I realize Shango de Ima was read several weeks ago but this post goes along quite well with the discussion in today’s class around The Couple in the Cage. Specifically: what is the distinction between what we students, by and large, see as traditional theatre and a ritual designed to manifest spiritual results? For the Yoruba the ancestors, which exit alongside us living material beings, can come into our realm of existence through the rituals.
We, as a class, look at the videos and read the articles and can see the theatricality of said rituals nod at the same time refrain from snickering at or dismissing the sincere belief of the Yoruba in spirits manifesting. Conversely, as we referenced Catholic Mass we found things to ridicule about it even though there are perhaps millions of Christians who truly believe that a miracle happens at every communion service just as adamantly as the Yoruba believe in their Orishas. What is the real difference between these two?
This, for me, is where theatre and ritual diverge. While each can and does borrow from the other, whether the theatre is Absurdist, realism, Kabuki, Butoh, Suzuki, Noh, etc, etc, an audience accepts a fiction in order to have a “safe place,” so to speak, to examine something about the human condition and/or be entertained (hopefully both). With spiritual ritual, a metaphysical reality is accepted as anything but fictitious. Granted, rituals are very often used to reinforce a belief system and keep the congregants in line, but the heart of the intent of the ritual is a metaphysical manifestation.
How does this apply to theatre global or otherwise? We as theatre artists will elicit responses from audiences thus we have an inviolable responsibility to, at the very least, have an intention behind our particular efforts. Whether it’s preaching to the converted to reinforce their beliefs or giving the proverbial finger to ignorant national and racial supremacists. The bottom line for me is in accord with Gary’s comment. Theatre must have an audience that is aware of and buys into the presented fiction. Otherwise it is a type of "performance art" and serves the artists' ego more than any social or artistic good.
Conrad hits upon something that we all can debate at great length. One of the fundamental differences within all the theatre forms we have approached this semester is how each approaches the philosophical questions of life, death, and the universe (the answer is 42 by the way). Yoruba culture by the myth of Shango de Ima sees mortal life (more specifically the cycle of life and death) for Shango as a punishment. I found that this is a point of view problem. Conrad touched on this when he said that …Is it also not a great reward?
Whether or not this life is a reward or a punishment is really a religious point of view. I grew up Mormon and Mormons believe that this life is neither a reward nor a punishment but merely an opportunity to be tested to find ones worthiness for the life to come. Conrad referenced his own religious background in his post. It was an astute observation and very valuable insight to take hold upon. One can only rely upon one’s own experience when reading any play. We as theatre artists tend to have a more open point of view of the world due to our background in theatre and not necessarily our background in religion, although that has a greater effect on it as well.
When we have read the plays from this semester we have drawn upon our own experiences in life in order to relate to the material. But we have also drawn upon the first couple of articles from the beginning of the semester which concerned the concept of “The Other”. If we hadn’t been doing so already, we then tried to read each of the plays and referenced material without allowing ourselves to be biased by our western upbringing. So I submit to you that this was our hardest challenge this semester. How do you truly approach and appreciate a world theatre when all you have to go on is your own western background?
Post a Comment