Complicite, Theatre and Aesthetics

From Scraps of Leather

Tomasz Wi?niewski

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9783319334431
• Topic: Media & Performing Arts
• Subtopic: Performing Arts

This book presents a pioneering critical study of Complicite's work throughout the years. Drawing on an extensive overview of the available research material – including interviews, manuscripts and the company's own archive – the book is framed within a clearly defined research perspective and explores the singularity of theatre communication. The book results from an encounter between the London-based – but cosmopolitan in scope – company, and a fresh application of the form-oriented scholarship of Eastern Europe, Yuri Lotman's semiosphere in particular. Focused on the aesthetics of Complicite, this study achieves a critical distance and undertakes multidimensional scrutiny of the available research material. By identifying the principles of Complicite's aesthetics, the book attempts to grasp the company's artistic paradigm. It focuses on ways of creating, preserving, and decoding meanings, rather than on the nuances of performance or contextual issues.

© The Author(s) 2016

Tomasz WiśniewskiComplicite, Theatre and Aesthetics10.1007/978-3-319-33443-1_1

Begin Abstract

1. Introduction

Tomasz Wiśniewski¹

(1)

University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland

End Abstract

This book is about a London-based company founded in 1983 as Théâtre de Complicité by Simon McBurney, Annabel Arden and Marcello Magni, following their graduation from École Internationale de Théâtre Jacques Lecoq in Paris. ¹ Ever since then the company has cultivated its international character, collaborative spirit and sensitivity to aesthetic shifts and creative experimentations, but there are few other features that appear to be constant. On the contrary, Simon McBurney, who has not only been the artistic director but also ‘the first among the equals’ (Gross 1999), insists that there is ‘no pattern, no reason’ in anything he does (McCabe 2005: 20). Neither is there, he claims, a particular ‘style’, a single ‘school’ (Morris interview 36:20–36:40) nor exact ‘method’ (Rintoul and Freedman: 3) that determines his artistic output. Symptomatically, when asked whether he could describe his company in just one sentence, he answered: ‘No, I can’t’ (Dickson interview 2010). It is no accident, then, that the company’s materials stress that ‘Complicite is a constantly evolving ensemble of performers and collaborators’. Needless to say, such a ‘promotional’ strategy ² causes considerable confusion among critics and scholars who, by definition, are supposed to approach the work of a company that makes special efforts to elude definitions, classifications and typologies. As Lyn Gardner has put it, ‘critics have tried and failed to define the essence of Complicite’ (2002).

The Name of the Company

The fluctuating nature of the company’s work is epitomised by its changing name. ³ Initially, a debt to the tradition of theatre in the mode of Jacques Lecoq was reflected in the use of the French language. In the early years, the company was called Théâtre de la Complicité, ⁴ but it was quickly shortened to Théâtre de Complicité. Marcello Magni insists Théâtre de la Complicité was an optional name in the 1980s (email correspondence), and Judith Dimant hints at archived early posters which use the name Théâtre de la Complicité (in conversation).

The name declared exposure to continental inspirations: in itself a somewhat subversive assertion for a British company. In essence, British mainstream theatre of the 1980s tended to pursue commercial entertainment that ignored continental experiments exploring the artistic autonomy of theatre. As Michael Billington observes:

Where British theatre in previous decades had been famed for its writers, actors and directors, in the 1980s it became identified with its musicals—Cats, Starlight Express, Les Miserables, The Phantom of the Opera, Miss Saigon. Even the big national companies were seduced into believing that a popular musical was a passport to survival. (2013)

The founders of Théâtre de Complicité aimed to challenge the model of theatre that had been predominant in previous decades as well as the one that prevailed in the era of Margaret Thatcher. Their ethos was derived from street theatre, commedia dell’arte and physical improvisation rather than from the spirit of ‘mainstream popular musical’. Dissatisfied with the current situation, they contested both models of theatre in Billington’s description and intended to challenge the medium by non-commercial, non-institutional and experimental means. In an interview with Stephen Knapper, McBurney says: ‘I began making theatre with a small group of people in the 1980s and the intention was simply to make the kind of theatre that I didn’t see: a theatre which was largely a place that combined several different disciplines.’ He later adds, ‘since the arrival of television, theatre had become more and more an upper-middle-class activity, there was that tradition of theatre—very class-determined, literary, intellectual—and we didn’t feel part of that’ (2010: 235, 239). Significantly, after 30 years McBurney still perceives ‘all theatre [as] an act of resistance’ (São Paulo interview 2014) and lays much emphasis on the links between aesthetic and political views (see his essay ‘Touching History’).

In the 1990s there was a graphic simplification of the name. By omitting the French diacritics, the company turned into Theatre de Complicite, which symbolically marked its increasing assimilation into British culture. Roughly at the same time, text-based performances, including Friedrich Dürrenmatt’s The Visit and Shakespeare’s The Tempest, substantially upgraded the company’s reputation among British critics. Symptomatically, the leading role of Simon McBurney at that time increased, and that of Annabel Arden and Marcello Magni diminished. Arden appears to have been more active within the company within the first ten years of its development than in the subsequent years. ⁵ Magni, being Italian, had to face some problems caused by his expressive—i.e. unmistakeably imported—style of acting and foreign accent. This turned out to be particularly problematic when playing Shakespeare for British audiences, especially those at the National Theatre in London (Magni 2015: 140). In addition to this, in 1993 Judith Dimant joined the company as ‘administrator with responsibility for touring, press and marketing’, becoming producer in 1996 (www.​complicite.​org/​peopleproduction​/​JudithDimant). Ever since then she has been increasingly responsible for grasping ‘the “organised chaos”’ typical of Complicite’s style of work. Dimant says: ‘We all have to be very reactive. We have to build in so many contingencies. Preparing something when you don’t know if it’s going to have eight people or 18, is a good one’ (Frizzell 2013). In the interview with Jeffreys the producer shares an anecdote about how, when she applied for the job, no one turned out to interview her at the appointed time, which made her aware of how much she was needed by the company. In the same conversation, McBurney stresses that Dimant’s role in Complicite has been far more prominent than that of a usual producer. McBurney is also reported to have said: ‘Working with Judith [Dimant] is one of the most critical experiences of my life. … Simply put, without Judith, there is a great deal that I have made which I could never have made had she not been there to bring some light in the darkness. She is my torch’ (in Nathan 2008).

Early in the new millennium the name was shortened to Complicité, which was, perhaps, meant to underscore the fact that the company collaborated with a variety of artists who were not always rooted in theatre. At that time, the status of what had developed into an internationally recognised company that explored theatre and other forms of art was consolidated so it was no longer necessary to repeatedly define the medium in which it worked. Around the year 2008, the previously restored final French diacritic disappeared, which led to the juxtaposition of the graphic and the sonic constituents. Since then the group has used the name Complicite—pronounced by the company members in the English (as ‘complicity’), rather than French (‘complicité’), manner. Even this condensation was not the final shift, as in recent productions—such as The Magic Flute and The Master and Margarita—the name of director follows that of the company so that these productions are credited to ‘Complicite/Simon McBurney’. This, however, does not apply to Lionboy as it was not directed by Simon McBurney. ⁶ The production of The Encounter, for a change, was announced as a one-man show featuring and directed by the artistic director of Complicite (it premiered at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival on 8 August 2015).

Declared inconsistencies in methods of creative work are paired with shifts in the company’s name: for Complicite, the signified is firmly integrated with the signifier. When interviewed by Morris, McBurney stresses that, for him, ‘form’ and ‘content’ are inseparable notions. Accordingly, a general discussion of the changing name reveals many features that are key to an appreciation of the company. For example, the intriguing juxtaposition of the French origins and the context of British language/theatre/culture suggests:

• the international (continental) character of the company,
• awareness of cognitive discrepancies imposed by various languages,
• tensions between the written and the spoken,
• complementariness of the world visions that are fostered by divergent systems of meaning creation (in this case the two natural languages).

In addition to this, the very direction of the shifts in the semantics of the name seems meaningful. The fact that it is the English language that displaces French is, perhaps, significant in the age of globalisation and digital mass communication. One may wonder whether or not the evolution of the name has been dictated by the irresistible demand for all-engrossing simplification and/or the commercial requirements of the ‘artistic market’. As Dan Rebellato’s book Theatre and Globalisation illustrates, similar doubts emerge also from other grounds, for example, when Complicite assumes the universal dimension of the Eurocentric story presented in Mnemonic (2009: 64–6, 74, compare Harvie 2005: 139–43).

Since the descriptive part (‘Theatre de’) was dropped, the company ceased to be defined solely in terms of this medium. In other words, the range of artistic activities undertaken by the ensemble broadened. However, even though this fact is no longer declared verbally by the name, the concept of theatre remains central for Complicite. Again, the shift brings to the fore the ambiguous consequences of the strategy of simplification. On the one hand, such condensation facilitates communication of the prominent idea in the most unequivocal way, and on the other hand idiosyncratic nuances such as the legacy of the theatre pedagogy of Jacques Lecoq are less explicitly marked.

Moreover, the recent inclusion of the director’s name in performances credited to ‘Complicite/Simon McBurney’ indicates the usual theatrical tension between collective and individual authorship. This marks an ongoing conceptual shift that has occurred in the long history of Complicite. Over the years, the pronounced collaborative nature of the creative process has shifted towards a more individualised one. Thus, the meanings suggested by ‘Théâtre de Complicité’ differ from those implied by ‘Complicite/Simon McBurney’.

Together with the principle of inconsistency/indecisiveness/indeterminacy, we shall revisit many of these topics throughout this book. We shall consider, for example, the chronological sequence that has been established by the shifts in the name of the company (i.e. Théâtre de la Complicité → Théâtre de Complicité → Theatre de Complicite → Complicité → Complicite → Complicite/Simon McBurney) so as to reflect particular phases in its history. Even though these names are not always treated in a dogmatic way—especially when it comes to precise dating—they seem to serve well in sequencing particular phases in the evolution of the company. ⁷

It is equally important to stress that the evolution of the name highlights a mechanism frequently employed by Complicite when creating meanings. The ensemble aims at immediate, dir...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Frontmatter
• 1. Introduction
• 2. The Artistic Signature of Simon McBurney
• 3. The Logic of the Plot in Théâtre de Complicité
• 4. The World of the Stage
• 5. The Textual Tissue of Theatre de Complicite
• 6. The Aesthetics of Complicite
• 7. Kaleidoscopic Fragmentariness
• 8. The Ongoing Narrative
• Backmatter