A Peer Review of Alexandra Ulijaszek's Work in Progress
On Monday 17th of March 2014 Alexander Ulijaszek performed a fragment of her work in progress. Her piece explored the borders between, across and around rhetoric and reality. Ulijaszek presents political speeches and fairytales as two of the most practiced forms of distorting reality through rhetoric. Her work causes disparate texts to collide and on impact we witness corosion. Ulijaszek proves that both formats of rhetoric are ideal sites for interrogation. Both texts show a tendency to manipulate the experience of human beings into a homogenized singular being. The policies spoken by politicians are directed at the aspiring middle-class in the same way fairytales target aspiring children. Both political speeches and fairytales play with their audience's agency by constructing and manipulating their aspirations and framing their desires. Fairytales create unrealistic expectations in the same way political leaders promise unrealistic solutions.
Ulijaszek's piece begins as she enters the space pushing, pulling and prying a chair across the floor. An eagerness to tell a story motivates her movements and the audience waits in anticipation for a story to be told. But rhetoric is kept at bay and instead the audience observe a choreography of smooth, constructed movements that lulls the audience into the rhythm of each stroke. As the audience become familiar with the pattern, white noise disrupts the mood and interrupts both her rhythm and tempo. The quality of the movements begin to change, the movements become labored, it becomes increasingly difficult to peel her limbs off the ground where they are rooted and place them into position. The aesthetic of labor and physical conflict that Ulijaszek has invested in, presents the struggle to grapple with political speeches that disrupt the rhythem of life.
We lean in to listen, to form a narrative to hear what happened to the mother, what happened to the child, we try to ignore that distinct voice. That voice that is instantly recognizable as the voice of the late Margret Thatcher. We try to ignore gritty political terms, we try to un-hear “public service” and “tax payers money” we try to invest all of our attention to the fairytale, favoring one distortion of reality over another. Ulijaszek endeavors to speak through the voice-over and tell a tale that has the potential to take us away from politics and banalities of life outside the space she has created. This tension between fairytales and politics is clear through rhetoric alone yet the particular choice of voice-over reminds the audience of the long shadow Thatcher cast over the theatre, her attempts to entrepreneurialize the arts and force theatre to defend its integrity and define its purpose, Thatcher's voice is seen to interfere in the creative process and restricts Ulijaszek's ability to create worlds of escape. However whilst the poignancy of Thatcher's voice serves a purpose, it is an overbearing feature of the voice-over, if the purpose of the work is to explore the rhetoric of political speeches I would recommend selecting political speeches from other parties, either parties that all promote a political ideal that her piece is against or include all British political party speeches, that repeat particular words or phrases to attack the mechanical rhetoric of political speech.
Whilst most movements were carefully chosen and choreographed one movement that jars the piece is the movement of hitting the head with the palm of the hand as the white noise kicks in, and the facial expressions that accompany it seem detached and in anticipation of the pain. The out of sync reaction suggests a fake or performed pain, whereas I believe the white noise and the overwhelming volume is enough to affect the audience and her vocal labor is admirable enough without the hindering of facial expression or physical representation. I would like to see Ulijaszek invest in minimal facial expression and movement with complete focus on the voice as she endeavors to out-speak the voice-over.
To develop this work further, the artist could also invite the audience further into the fairytale landscape. Her prose instantly creates a safe fairytale world that I would like to see translated into the imagery of the piece. A fairytale world, signified through the images she creates on stage would create a stronger distinction between fairytale and politics. Perhaps a world that is perfectly constructed as a fairytale but has hints of decay or a sense of instability.
Ulijaszek's piece begins as she enters the space pushing, pulling and prying a chair across the floor. An eagerness to tell a story motivates her movements and the audience waits in anticipation for a story to be told. But rhetoric is kept at bay and instead the audience observe a choreography of smooth, constructed movements that lulls the audience into the rhythm of each stroke. As the audience become familiar with the pattern, white noise disrupts the mood and interrupts both her rhythm and tempo. The quality of the movements begin to change, the movements become labored, it becomes increasingly difficult to peel her limbs off the ground where they are rooted and place them into position. The aesthetic of labor and physical conflict that Ulijaszek has invested in, presents the struggle to grapple with political speeches that disrupt the rhythem of life.
We lean in to listen, to form a narrative to hear what happened to the mother, what happened to the child, we try to ignore that distinct voice. That voice that is instantly recognizable as the voice of the late Margret Thatcher. We try to ignore gritty political terms, we try to un-hear “public service” and “tax payers money” we try to invest all of our attention to the fairytale, favoring one distortion of reality over another. Ulijaszek endeavors to speak through the voice-over and tell a tale that has the potential to take us away from politics and banalities of life outside the space she has created. This tension between fairytales and politics is clear through rhetoric alone yet the particular choice of voice-over reminds the audience of the long shadow Thatcher cast over the theatre, her attempts to entrepreneurialize the arts and force theatre to defend its integrity and define its purpose, Thatcher's voice is seen to interfere in the creative process and restricts Ulijaszek's ability to create worlds of escape. However whilst the poignancy of Thatcher's voice serves a purpose, it is an overbearing feature of the voice-over, if the purpose of the work is to explore the rhetoric of political speeches I would recommend selecting political speeches from other parties, either parties that all promote a political ideal that her piece is against or include all British political party speeches, that repeat particular words or phrases to attack the mechanical rhetoric of political speech.
Whilst most movements were carefully chosen and choreographed one movement that jars the piece is the movement of hitting the head with the palm of the hand as the white noise kicks in, and the facial expressions that accompany it seem detached and in anticipation of the pain. The out of sync reaction suggests a fake or performed pain, whereas I believe the white noise and the overwhelming volume is enough to affect the audience and her vocal labor is admirable enough without the hindering of facial expression or physical representation. I would like to see Ulijaszek invest in minimal facial expression and movement with complete focus on the voice as she endeavors to out-speak the voice-over.
To develop this work further, the artist could also invite the audience further into the fairytale landscape. Her prose instantly creates a safe fairytale world that I would like to see translated into the imagery of the piece. A fairytale world, signified through the images she creates on stage would create a stronger distinction between fairytale and politics. Perhaps a world that is perfectly constructed as a fairytale but has hints of decay or a sense of instability.
Alexandra Ulijaszek's Review of Keri's Work in Progress
"Your week eleven scratch went really well, I thought. Knowing that you’ve been working with the themes of identity, racial prejudice and racial exclusion I wondered beforehand if those themes would be apparent and cohesive to others, but it quickly became clear that they were. Your piece so far demonstrates not only your own understanding of the issues, but how the issues interweave with each other, and express these very well to the audience. For example, the audio discussing the manners in which women could make themselves appear more Caucasian paired with your movements onstage demonstrated not only strained race relations and outmoded ways of thinking, but also the ways in which these affect the individual. In this way, the transition from social judgment to self-damaging actions and thoughts to appease said society was expressed clearly and stylishly onstage. I would suggest with this section of movement that you consider who exactly you are being on stage. Are you being the woman trying to look whiter? A representation of women trying to look whiter? Or simply a visual aid as to how to whiten ones skin? Somebody else entirely? Perhaps this is something to give further thought to, and then commit strongly and clearly to what you choose. This would add more definition to an already impressive series of movements, making them more visually effective, as well as, hopefully, helping clarify your piece in your own mind and thus further explore your options as you develop your performance. One thing I particularly enjoyed in this performance was the manner in which you enacted the different ‘tips’ on how to change the appearance of skin tone, or beautify the face. The movements you used were smooth and flowed well into one another, whilst also feeling structured and powerful. The contrast between the messy and unpleasant looking actions (for example, smearing beetroot upon the face, or combining bicarbonate of soda and vinegar in your mouth and then spitting it out) and the ultimate goal of personal beauty and class, was really enjoyable to watch, and very visually effective. In terms of furthering your work, I am aware that for you this piece is fairly confessional. Perhaps you could consider trying to find some point where you can expose some of your personal experience, whilst maintaining the smooth composed movements that you employ already? Or perhaps explore different ways of exploring and staging what you already have, and playing with the movement between the recording and the removal of the flags from the skirt. The flags are a really fantastic idea, the way they are worn on the skirt seems to demonstrate both displaying cultural pride and being covered up somehow by said culture, and it’s a very nice contradiction. My only plea would be that we get to see you do more with them!"
Michelle Carriger's Review of Keri's performance at the Face to Face Festival
Your performance was hugely successful in presenting some striking and memorable images, gripping the audience and communicating some key issues of multiracial identity.
I think the round of applause you received at the end was good proof of just how impressed many audience members were. From the beginning, I tracked audible audience reactions, from an interested gasp from the first sight of the bustle dress, attentive silence during the plastic headwrapping, breathing and screaming, to squeals of horror at the bleach drinking.
The performance seemed to me to fall into three major sections: the beauty routine, the "striptease", and the final monologue. The beauty routine has developed into the most accomplished section, I think the plastic wrapping and cutting of holes was shocking, scary, and therefore fascinating, while also effectively illustrating, and indeed alienating our naturalised sense of (white) beauty. The beauty routine followed with such grotesque results was extremely effective at keeping attention, AND communicating a powerful critique in a performative mode. The spatulamirror may no longer have as strong effect as it used to, but perhaps making more of it over time might have helped it seemed somewhat vestigial to me in the context of the final performance. The baking soda mouth volcano and the bleach drinking brought that section to a great climax. There were a few great moments of stillness, and an effective juxtaposition of delicacy and disgust in the overall section. I wonder whether some method of explaining what the readng was might have been helpful, but it's a minor point.
The nationality striptease section has also progressed well from my last viewings, and in most of the prose did a very good job of hitting the specifcs that put the real impact into the story that people already know: "race is complicated" "being between cultures is hard." Everyone "knows" these things in vague, stereotyped, politically correct ways, but they can't really 'know' in a visceral way without being jolted into it. Statements like the ones about looking Spanish, about filling out the census form, 'Other' captured insightful subtleties.
The final section, where the monologue seamlessly faded into a different style of speaking, was of course entirely new to me, and also to me felt less finely honed than the foregoing (not a surprise as it's clearly the newest). It DID do a good job of summing up the foregoing, especially important as I think the first two sections have the potential to feel disparate, although I think there is a strong implicit relation between them.
I did wonder a bit why a kind of scary but not that scary white man came out to hand you a folded up OTHER sign. It read to me primarily as a White Male authority figure designating who is Other. Which is obviously a totally acceptable and logical conclusion to come to. But seemed also to me potentially less expansive and subtle and unexpected than perhaps trying something else. The performance was effective in its soloness until then, and I wondered a bit why the letter didn't fall from above, or appear from someplace more magical perhaps from within the crinoline perhaps? out of your mouth? Out of a bottle? In the plastic strips which were striking at the beginnning, but were not in the end very integral to the piece? They might have come back or been integrated further in some way to make their presence more meaningful run through them and get tangled up in the seemingly "invisibility" of white culture? Hang flags on them? write on them? Colour them? Pull them down?
I think the round of applause you received at the end was good proof of just how impressed many audience members were. From the beginning, I tracked audible audience reactions, from an interested gasp from the first sight of the bustle dress, attentive silence during the plastic headwrapping, breathing and screaming, to squeals of horror at the bleach drinking.
The performance seemed to me to fall into three major sections: the beauty routine, the "striptease", and the final monologue. The beauty routine has developed into the most accomplished section, I think the plastic wrapping and cutting of holes was shocking, scary, and therefore fascinating, while also effectively illustrating, and indeed alienating our naturalised sense of (white) beauty. The beauty routine followed with such grotesque results was extremely effective at keeping attention, AND communicating a powerful critique in a performative mode. The spatulamirror may no longer have as strong effect as it used to, but perhaps making more of it over time might have helped it seemed somewhat vestigial to me in the context of the final performance. The baking soda mouth volcano and the bleach drinking brought that section to a great climax. There were a few great moments of stillness, and an effective juxtaposition of delicacy and disgust in the overall section. I wonder whether some method of explaining what the readng was might have been helpful, but it's a minor point.
The nationality striptease section has also progressed well from my last viewings, and in most of the prose did a very good job of hitting the specifcs that put the real impact into the story that people already know: "race is complicated" "being between cultures is hard." Everyone "knows" these things in vague, stereotyped, politically correct ways, but they can't really 'know' in a visceral way without being jolted into it. Statements like the ones about looking Spanish, about filling out the census form, 'Other' captured insightful subtleties.
The final section, where the monologue seamlessly faded into a different style of speaking, was of course entirely new to me, and also to me felt less finely honed than the foregoing (not a surprise as it's clearly the newest). It DID do a good job of summing up the foregoing, especially important as I think the first two sections have the potential to feel disparate, although I think there is a strong implicit relation between them.
I did wonder a bit why a kind of scary but not that scary white man came out to hand you a folded up OTHER sign. It read to me primarily as a White Male authority figure designating who is Other. Which is obviously a totally acceptable and logical conclusion to come to. But seemed also to me potentially less expansive and subtle and unexpected than perhaps trying something else. The performance was effective in its soloness until then, and I wondered a bit why the letter didn't fall from above, or appear from someplace more magical perhaps from within the crinoline perhaps? out of your mouth? Out of a bottle? In the plastic strips which were striking at the beginnning, but were not in the end very integral to the piece? They might have come back or been integrated further in some way to make their presence more meaningful run through them and get tangled up in the seemingly "invisibility" of white culture? Hang flags on them? write on them? Colour them? Pull them down?