TAM C response to Kati Rottger's lecture

Tampere Finland 16:30- 17:30
Conversation between Naresh, Rania, Johanna
Interview with Naresh by RAnia:
Naresh, what did you think of the clip?
N: I really thought he was a Mad guy! I thought of it as a live performance, not as a video. I asked the question what would the spectator think and feel if a real gun would be pointed in front of him or her? Really I got scared. So I saw it a as a behavior of a particular fellow. Is he acting? Maybe he could really kill the camera man.
Rania: What informs your perception of madness?
N: I’m thinking of my Indian contextuality, I can’t not think from a global context. Maybe he is a great actor. I believe what he says… that’s what we believe, that [it’s because] he’s a great actor.
R: Is he an actor?
R: In his opening he said, ‘I am not an actor, I don’t believe in artifice’. Something like that. What do you think of that?
N: That’s what I’m confused about. I don’t know of him before. This comes back to the question of what is performance. Because in PS everything is performance. In India my main subject has been the Natya Sastra [the first book about drama in India, and the world]. There is a specification in the book ‘those people who are feeling sadness, working for a long time, who are crying for a long time’. People come to theatre to relax themselves –this is our main context in India (from the book). For enjoyment, for relaxing. So what happens when this tension, being afraid, comes in front of the spectator in the context to which I am used to. It is hard to see this kind of performances for me. This performance was rare for me, that is perhaps why it is difficult to analyse, think about for me.
R: When in university do they ask you what you think?
N: We mostly had conversation about theoretical things, more about practical issues. About when to compromise.
R: Outside of theatre do people ask you what you think about things?
N: Not exactly.
R: What is like for me to ask you that question?
N: It is difficult. Where is the place to put these experiences? [If we did this] In our schools and colleges professors would ask ‘are you questioning, critizing me?’. I notice it more now.
Johanna interviews Rania:
What did y oU think of the video?
R: I really like GGp. I’ve seen his work a lot. And I think I watched the video on different levels. First, it is interesting how immediately I agree with him. When I watch his videos, it is almost like reading a book that I accept immediately. I am immediately taking his challenge, I am saying yes to his challenge. The gun – I say ‘yes the gun is scary’. Which I think is interesting because if you’re watching a movie you don’t think a gun is scary. But with him I do. I accept his challenge. I also felt when he raised his arms up with his chest bare that he was vulnerable like ‘you can shoot me’. I wanted to protect him as if someone was shooting him. I guess in terms of the reading, Elin Diamond talks about identification. I feel identified with GGP he is so outspoken and brave. As a person of color when you get pushed into a corner, you have two options.. well more than that, but anyways for the sake of argument, let’s say you either kneel down and curl up, or fight. I identify with this instinct. Like to say ‘it is this fucked up, it is this in your face’.
Naresh to Johanna: -What did you think of the movie?
J: Can you remind me how it began?
(we remind her) I felt the performance became more immediate when he took out a gun, but also I was there, and not there. There was a screen, but he was not pointing the gun at me, but at the filmer. So at that moment you realize that it’s not happening in real time, but in recorded time that is made real to you in the medium of film that he is pointing the gun towards.
Naresh: if you go to the film house to watch a film, do you feel scared or that immediacy?
J: Yes I feel if there would not be so much action, as there is in these movies, and if it was pointing at me, then I might feel the immediacy. If it was framed in the same way, but of course here he framed it as a performance game. I thought it was really interesting that he framed it as this game, a performance game.
N: How did you feel about the gunshot at the last.
J: I wish I could get back to that emotion. Now it’s disguised in the assignment and the provocation exercise and I can’t feel it any more.
N: I really felt it. He’s like a mad guy maybe he really would do it!
J: if he talks about how to take a risk in front of a camera in a certain performance situation, then I don’t know….
R: just say it, I think you do know.
J: He said I want to take a risk, so then my question is, why is it interesting to explore the area of a risk? Is it to make it immediate, performance as action? What do you want to attain? And what is the risk? Because in that situation, you said, you start to believe in the gun…
R: did you ever believe in the gun?
J: in what sense?
R: in any sense.
J: Yeah, it’s a good question. Yeah, maybe he when he started to seem more convinced by it himself. But then I began to think, this is all so scripted. I did have the feeling that it would end in a shooting. I did believe in it as an object, like yeah it’s a real gun, it’s loaded. But I didn’t necessarily believe in the risk about risking someone’s life or getting killed himself.
Yours Truly,
Tampere Finland 16:30- 17:30
Conversation between Naresh, Rania, Johanna