File Note 15: Robin Deacon

Extract
Whilst it’s easy to look at and talk about the manner and mode of performing slapstick, to actually come up with a concise definition is much harder. We could go about this in a number of ways. The obvious way is via the dictionary. Webster’s Dictionary define it as ‘Comedy that depends for its effects on fast, boisterous and zany physical activity and horseplay (as the throwing of pies, chases, whacking of posteriors with slapsticks) often accompanied by obvious rowdy verbal humour.’ Whilst this is all well and good, it is definition by inventory and doesn’t actually offer insight into the nature of slapstick. How do we understand or describe rather than merely observe or list? In his seminal paper on slapstick written for Life magazine in 1949, the great American film critic James Agee notes that the single most useful type of humour to know is that which replays melodrama as camp ¹. The impulse to parody melodrama is a constant in slapstick, and Agee notes that studios like Keystone only ever had two branches of slapstick: parody laced with slapstick and plain slapstick. Agee’s description is about a manner of performance and to a certain extent this was a necessity of early silent film where actions were exemplified to communicate a plot or storyline. Frank Capra on the other hand focuses on the props as a means of definition when he refers to the intransigence of inanimate objects which usually propel the hero through the plot, by the end of which he often triumphs by means of the very objects and forces that bewildered and exasperated him at the onset. This is a position that is reinforced by Orson Welles when he refers to slapstick as ‘… a fatalistic struggle with the mechanical forces of the world.’ ²
(Artists’ Studio, Saturday 17 June 2006)

When did you first become aware of Stuart Sherman’s work?
It was 1979. Mainly in small performance venues in downtown Manhattan. That was the only outlet he had for his work. Prior to that he did perform on the Staten Island Ferry. That’s how he started out. 

What would you say is the significance of Stuart Sherman’s work in the short history of conceptual art and performance?
For me, he was the best example of performance art, because he had nothing to do with theatre, and it was truly abstract, and it was definitely to do with meaning and language, and therefore he was looking at things really hard. He’d found a totally new way of expressing this which nobody else was anywhere near really, and because of its careful consideration, and real intensity, it just stood out. 

Why do you think it is that his work is not more widely known and disseminated?
If you’re in the avant garde, you’re not going to have a big audience. Most people didn’t have that level of sheer intelligence and sophistication. And I would think you would have to be somebody who was looking for meaning as seriously as he was to have really appreciated it. Despite the delight with which you were being entertained, you were outside of meaning. I don’t think that suits most people, you’d have to be hungry for something special to love it.

You said that the understanding and reception of his work was different in the European and American contexts. Why do you think this is?
In America everything was much more upfront about passion and less about a deeply intellectual activity. In Europe, there was still a demand for that, and I’m sure there were plenty of deeply intellectual Americans, but it wasn’t going to find him a public. His main saviour I suppose in Europe was Ritsaert ten Cate, director of the Mickery Theatre in Amsterdam – he really took Stuart to heart. In Paris there was kind of a good following, and they really enjoyed this thing which again is kind of on the edge of understanding, but aesthetically, it suited them. Whereas in America, they wanted to get it straight.

Preparatory Instructions
Choose a film relevant to an existing exhibition theme, or referring to the location (town, city or country), in which the performance is due to happen. The choice of film is at the discretion of the performers, but as a general rule of thumb, ‘bad’ is ‘good’ – think low budget B-movies or 70’s disaster flicks. 

Once the film is chosen, performers should watch it on at least three occasions beforehand, as a group, and individually. Firstly, performers should decide who is to play which character. It is likely that the performer may play more than one role. However, it is inadvisable that more than three characters are played by one person. 

Performers should take note of props, costumes and objects in the film, and possible cheaper equivalents that could be used in a live context.

By the end of this process, performers should be familiar enough with the film to recognise the voices of specific characters, and the timing and blocking of particular scenes without actually seeing the film.

Technical Inventory
— 1 × Video projector
— 1 × DVD player
— 1 × Sound mixer 

Headphones for each performer with stereo cables long enough to be able to move around the whole space comfortably. 

For the sound to synch up successfully with the image, it is a good idea to have the film image as a separate source, two seconds behind that of the soundtrack (a second DVD player would be required). The location of the film projection is at the discretion of the performers. 

Performance Instructions
The performance is the same duration as the film. Performers are only asked to approximate the dialogue, actions and gestures of their character(s). So, if the character in the film stands up, so should the performer. If the character walks, so should the performer. The text can be delivered as it is heard, but interesting effects can be created if the performer merely recites the words with little in the way of expression. 

In terms of action, performers should make things as task based as possible. So, for example, if the film was Moby Dick ³, there is the opportunity for performers to build a whale out of lard and masking tape.
(Artists’ Studio, Wednesday 28 June 2006)