Page 43 - Vinkler, Jonatan, Ana Beguš and Marcello Potocco. Eds. 2019. Ideology in the 20th Century: Studies of literary and social discourses and practices. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 43
Negotiating the Discursive Circulation of (Mis)Information in the Face of Global Uncertainties 43
the audience into eyewitnesses, Frljić introduces the “responsibility for
what they physically experience, that is to say, for what they register with
their own eyes and ears” (Jakiša 87). In the performance Frljić introduces
a form of distancing effect in which he unites the traumatic transforma-
tion of the spectator and the technique of aesthetic interruption which
should in the best case produce an emancipated spectator of a Rancière
kind: that is, a responsible participatory spectator of the performance. As
Jakiša notes, the spectator is presented with a unique inversion of the ju-
dicial process:
Frljić’s court theater reverses the court’s normal judicial process. The ver-
dicts are pronounced at the beginning, whereas the presentation of the
case and the hearing of witnesses take place afterwards, only to come to a
halt at the end of the Srebrenica scene, where the reading-out of the charge
takes place (89).
Using this method Frljić introduces elements of the Augusto Boal’s
tradition of the theatre of the oppressed, bringing an exchange of roles
between the performers and the audience. He thus, so to speak, forces
the audience into active participation. This approach is quite far from Se-
bald’s manoeuvring and intentional avoiding the open politics of prose,
yet despite that, the effect on the spectator is not radically different, so
one cannot claim that the political range of Frljić’s theatre is larger than
that of Sebald’s prose. Although in the different context given by the per-
formance, Birringer also comments on this point in his notes about the
production Our Violence and Your Violence:
It is the loudness of the affecting that turns me off. I wonder whether cur-
rent dance theatre productions pursuing a more abstract spiritual tech-
nique of ritual, more subtle tonalities, are able to dig deeper, make us listen
differently. And I wonder whether their withdrawal from political sensa-
tionalism can shape other awarenesses or mobilize other creative collectiv-
ities that are not whole or united and do not share the same cynical despair
or political disappointment (Birringer 2016, 642).
Nevertheless, the fact is that Frljić’s just as Sebald’s purpose is the de-
construction of the postcolonial discourse of the First World or Western
Europe. When speking about Frljić in her review in the Theater Heute,
Eva Behrendt precisely observes that the director attacks the “superior
taste of the Central European theatre and cultural elite and its craving for
the originality and the refinement” (Behrendt 2016, 7).
the audience into eyewitnesses, Frljić introduces the “responsibility for
what they physically experience, that is to say, for what they register with
their own eyes and ears” (Jakiša 87). In the performance Frljić introduces
a form of distancing effect in which he unites the traumatic transforma-
tion of the spectator and the technique of aesthetic interruption which
should in the best case produce an emancipated spectator of a Rancière
kind: that is, a responsible participatory spectator of the performance. As
Jakiša notes, the spectator is presented with a unique inversion of the ju-
dicial process:
Frljić’s court theater reverses the court’s normal judicial process. The ver-
dicts are pronounced at the beginning, whereas the presentation of the
case and the hearing of witnesses take place afterwards, only to come to a
halt at the end of the Srebrenica scene, where the reading-out of the charge
takes place (89).
Using this method Frljić introduces elements of the Augusto Boal’s
tradition of the theatre of the oppressed, bringing an exchange of roles
between the performers and the audience. He thus, so to speak, forces
the audience into active participation. This approach is quite far from Se-
bald’s manoeuvring and intentional avoiding the open politics of prose,
yet despite that, the effect on the spectator is not radically different, so
one cannot claim that the political range of Frljić’s theatre is larger than
that of Sebald’s prose. Although in the different context given by the per-
formance, Birringer also comments on this point in his notes about the
production Our Violence and Your Violence:
It is the loudness of the affecting that turns me off. I wonder whether cur-
rent dance theatre productions pursuing a more abstract spiritual tech-
nique of ritual, more subtle tonalities, are able to dig deeper, make us listen
differently. And I wonder whether their withdrawal from political sensa-
tionalism can shape other awarenesses or mobilize other creative collectiv-
ities that are not whole or united and do not share the same cynical despair
or political disappointment (Birringer 2016, 642).
Nevertheless, the fact is that Frljić’s just as Sebald’s purpose is the de-
construction of the postcolonial discourse of the First World or Western
Europe. When speking about Frljić in her review in the Theater Heute,
Eva Behrendt precisely observes that the director attacks the “superior
taste of the Central European theatre and cultural elite and its craving for
the originality and the refinement” (Behrendt 2016, 7).
