The Indie Theatre Times and Review

December 2005/January 2006

2005-12-21T14:09:00.000-05:00

ONLINE EDITION

In this issue:

ARTICLES

Holiday Election Spectacular by JC McLean

Buy Nothing Day at American Apparel by Cassandra Witteman

Sinking Neptune (part 2) by Donovan King

Condoville: Solidarity in the Pointe Gets a New Lease on Life by Eric Squire

CRITIC A & CRITIC B

Suds and Seeds (a review of Seeds)

Jazz Hands and Club-Z Points (a review of The Pinup Saints)

THE REAL LISTINGS (updated every Thursday)

The Indie Theatre Times and Review is published bi-monthly by Travesty Theatre Publications (Montreal, QC). Please send all letters to the editor, questions or requests for print copies to travestytheatremtl@yahoo.ca

Holiday Election Spectacular by JC McLean

2005-12-21T13:51:00.000-05:00

Welcome to The Indie Theatre Times and Review Holiday Election Spectacular, with all the advanced polling results, candidate profiles and an in-depth analysis of each riding with a...just kidding!

Here's another issue of your only source for underground theatre reporting and reviews done the way they should be.

Watch for us in the new year as we introduce all-new columns like Behind The Curtain and King's Court, plus the return of some of your favourites like The Director's Note. Incedentally, the column is currently "on hiatus" only because Alistair North Cumberland is "very busy with items of importance" (glug, glug).

Oh yeah, I'm back, too (sorry Stan).

Enjoy and Happy New Year

Visit JC's blog: http://jasoncmclean.blogspot.com

Buy Nothing Day at American Apparel by Cassandra Witteman

2005-12-21T12:44:00.000-05:00

I have been getting involved in theatrical experiments commenting on global culture and consumerism.

This recent Buy Nothing Day, Optative Theatre Laboratories planned a performance at the flag-ship American Apparel store on St. Laurent. Unfortunately, American Apparel didn't think very much of our statement and tried to shut us down before we could even get started.

They sent a rat into our midst in order to find out information. When we got to the store, we were greeted by security officers grabbing our camera men and thugs trying to push us outside. We were still able to finish the jam and handed out our information on American Apparel to customers going in and out of the store. We also compiled some video footage of what did occur during the course of our little experiment.

Afterwards, due to what was dubbed activist "blue-balls", we did a performance of Death By Late at a local Starbucks. We went in to the store in pairs and began to discuss the pro's and con's of the Starbucks organization. After all the groups were in place, we began to choke on the coffee and dive onto the floor of the shop. Our statement seemed to be better received in this case, with even some of the customers applauding our performance. The employees here were totally clueless and didn't do anything to stop us.

In regards to the attempted performance, I am most concerned about the fact that American Apparel took so much effort to stop our statement. They claim to be "hip" and young and capitalize on activist chic, however when it comes down to it they have proven to be nothing more than another corporation trying to keep their image clean.

If they didn't have anything to hide, they could have allowed us to make our statement. If there was nothing wrong with their corporation, they could of let us slit our own throats and let their loyal customers protect them. But what did they do? They took the time and effort to infiltrate our meeting and tried to stop us from commenting on their business. Isn't this a free country? Aren't we supposed, in fact, to criticize corporations? What would happen to us if we lost the ability to criticize what we don't like?

In doing my research on AA, I found a lot of information on their business practices that I liked. It seems like a lot of people out there are rooting for them. They certainly aren't the worst by far. The problem that I am facing now, is wondering which propaganda was from their spin people and due to corporate propaganda and what was real? If they take this much effort to stop people from making a comment on their drawbacks, is this positivity legit? There are definitely some problems with the way that they are running things.

I have a problem with the fact that there was a movement to establish a union in their LA factory that the company put down. I know that there are a lot of drawbacks to unions and that they can be corrupt as well but I also think that it is possible for a union to be helpful to the employees...isn't that what they are there for, after all? One of the excuses they use for why this isn't bad is that none of the other garment manufacturers in LA have unions for their employees. I say, so what? Nobody else is doing it isn't a valid reason for not doing something. If we all used that kind of logic, we wouldn't accomplish anything.

Another small, trifling, little problem is the sexism (blatently, glaring, so incredibly obviously) apparent in the actions of the head of American Apparel, Dov Charney. Our entire experiment was meant to spoof the behavior of this rather eccentric leader. Several women seem to have sexual harassment suits against him at this very moment. He is also reported to conduct business meetings in his underwear, to hire women because he is sexually attracted to them, to masturbate during magazine interviews...and the list goes on... Personally, if you want to masturbate during an interview and the person doing the interview is okay with that, all the power to you. I don't really care about someone's sexual practices unless those practices make people in the workplace uncomfortable.

As a woman who has been sexually harassed by her boss before, I find these allegations extremely distasteful. A woman should be able to go to work without having to deal with her boss hitting on her. There are all sorts of reasons why this is wrong, such as: the difficulty in rejecting a boss' advances without being fired, feeling like your looks are the only reason that you have a job (and thus feeling degraded) to mention a few. They should at least have a policy for sexual harassment. There should be some way that women can feel empowered in their workplace. Are his employees his toys, just little dolls for him to fondle, hire and fire, and parade around in his ads?

The ads are a whole other story. I'm on the borderline about them. I think that there are definitely a lot of women who wouldn't mind someone taking a picture of their crotch or their ass, tits, etc. There are lots of women, and men, who quite enjoy any sort of publicity that flatters their egos. We do live in a free society and if people want to allow a corporation to use their bodies to sell a product, that is their prerogative. The message of the ad campaign, while slightly vulgar and not terribly intelligent...also has it good points. They are pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable in advertising, they are doing something slightly new. The problem that I have with it, personally is with the parts of it that aren't new at all. They are still objectifying the female body (not new) and this time they are not using a thigh or a shin, a waist or an ear, they are using a woman's vagina. So, when you look at the woman's sexual organ, covered (barely) in American Apparel clothing you think, I want those underwear. I was happy that my vag was unclaimed territory. Looking down at my pussy was never a consumer experience for me.

Thanks American Apparel for associating my sexuality with a product. They also seem to put women in roles in which they don't appear to be expressing their sexual liberation, they look like scared little girls under the eyes of MAN (yes, capital M.A.N.). There's even a picture of a girls face with a big ugly man hand (supposedly the camera man's hand?) grabbing her chin in a gesture that seems to say daddy's little girl (it makes me want to fucking puke!).So, here are some suggestions for ways in which to use female sexuality in a liberating way:

1) Don't have women cowering and naked with the camera man at a higher angle (this one seems fairly obvious to me...)

2) How about using some models over 18? Maybe some women who can defend themselves?

3) How about some pictures of girls masturbating (as though on their own).

4) How about putting the women in a powerful role, upward angled shots, women straddling men, etc.

5) Look at the dynamic, if the camera man in dominating the subject you will get pictures of women being dominated. Therefore, allow the subject to dominate.

People just don't seem to get it! If all we see in the media is women in lower positions, women being dominated by men, and in AA ads, women bending over and showing off their sex organs for a FUCKING TSHIRT COMPANY then we get a distorted image of what we are as women. Don't buy American Apparel. For the sake of woman kind, don't model for them, don't work for them, don't think highly of them. They are trying to tell us that they are our liberators; they are using us. They are using us like we have been used before, been used for hundreds of years. Don't bend over for the corporation, don't gladly sell your body, stand up and speak up, even if they try to silence you.

Visit Cassandra's blog: http://cassandratheprophetess.blogspot.com
For more on the jam (including videos and pics) log onto www.optative.net/bnd

Sinking Neptune by Donovan King

2005-12-21T12:12:00.000-05:00

PART TWO

This is a continuing critical look at The Theatre of Neptune in New France, the "first play" ever written in the "New World" which is arguably very racist against the First Nations, and it's planned re-enactment in 2006.

Through this masquerade and role appropriation, the play attempts to re-frame First Nation cultures into an exploitative Euro-centric social reality, and re-cast aboriginal peoples as subordinates.

Finally, this derogatory spectacle was deliberately presented to a Mi’kmaq audience including Membertou, their leader. While Hannah Fournier suggests that “Frenchmen and Native alike must have felt that the great culture of France was powerful indeed to make itself felt in such a place, [inspiring] awe in the hearts of those natives who may have been watching,” perhaps it is more likely that Membertou and his entourage had negative feelings about their roles being appropriated, in what may have appeared to be a very bizarre and offensive ritual or performance.

Filewood asks: "What did they make of this moment, as they saw their identities re-enacted by the colonizers? And what did they understand of the perfectly phrased couplets with which the enacted “Savages” deployed classical allusion to offer their world to the King of France and to promise devotion to “you and your descendants”? We don’t know because of course, nobody asked them."

Mi’kmaq scholar Daniel Paul suggested to me in an email that: “They thought the white man and his customs strange, but, being such gracious hosts, they would not contradict them, even though they thought them loco.”

Filewood suggests: "For [the aboriginals] this was a spectacle of the new and was likely incomprehensible as a performance as well as a text. Two sets of eyes saw two very different events, and this gap between the structures of reception of the colonizers and newly colonized is still very much part of the politics of representation and aboriginality in modern Canada…In this moment of racial impersonation and colonial masquerade, Lescarbot had claimed the new world in a new way by enlisting the spectating bodies and appropriated voices of its inhabitants in his imagined theatre, and he had established the principle that the colonialism of spectacle is the necessary precondition of imperial invasion…[The] colonizing of the cultural imaginary is also a precondition of genocide."

The overall subtext of the play is intended for the First Nations observers: their role as depoliticised “savages” is to sit and watch how the colonial masters expect them to behave, and then follow by example.

As the first piece of Western literature and theatre created in the so-called “New World”, The Theatre of Neptune in New France is a significant entry-point of Western cultural hegemony into First Nation cultures.

According to Bowers in “Le Theatre de Neptune en la Nouvelle-France: Marc Lescarbot and the New World Masque”: "…the French play by Lescarbot is a significant literary and cultural artifact: it represents a social interaction expressed in artistic form. In fact, Le Théâtre de Neptune…is an exercise of power to be grasped immediately by French explorer and Micmac native alike… But there is never any doubt as to the dominant cultural ethic. The French both create and benefit from this dramatized celebration of power."

Douglas Rushkoff speaks of a "viral syringe," an initial event that injects a “media virus” into the social reality of any given community. Once injected, the “virus” proceeds to transform and distort the mediascape, discourses, and culture of the intended social body.

In Filewod’s analysis of important moments in Canadian theatre, Performing Canada, he writes that the play "…was a defining moment that would be replayed for the next five centuries, a moment in which the theatre enacted an imagined authenticity even as it confirmed the extension of empire by transmuting the work of colonialism into spectacle."

Culturally-speaking, Lescarbot’s play fits Rushkoff’s “viral syringe” concept – jabbing into a prosperous and autonomous civilization, it injected a hegemonic poison that marked the beginnings of a cultural genocide against First Nation peoples, languages, and customs. It marked the starting point of Euro-centric cultural imperialism.

...continued in our next issue. For more on the project, log onto www.optative.net/neptune

Condoville: Solidarity in the Pointe Gets a New Lease on Life by Eric Squire

2005-10-07T13:43:00.000-04:00

I finally got to see David Fennario's new play Condoville tonight in its second preview performance. Expectations were running high in the wake of all the pre-show buzz surrounding this production, but it delivered the goods with strong acting performances, a multi-faceted story, and a powerful political subtext.

The play is formatted in much the same way as Fennario's earlier hit, Balconville (1979). The set is similar (rear perspective of a two story apartment block with much of the action taking place on the back balconies), many of the old characters reappear (Thibault, Paquette, Cecile, Johnny, & Irene), and the dialogue is vintage Fennario: snappy and peppered with one-liners. Like the earlier play, the characters speak sometimes in English, sometimes in French, and when it comes to cursing it's often both. Most of all, the similarity lies in the way that Condoville explores the community dynamic of the various families inhabiting the 'co-op' where they reside and how they overcome various divisions to develop a sense of solidarity. (note: the 'co-op' in the play is government subsidized housing; the govt. owns the building and the tenants pay a subsidized rent. It is a form of "habitation à loyer modique" -- HLM -- in French).

In political terms, however, the new play is considerably more complex and precise in its targets. Whereas the characters in Balconville were confronted with the relatively nebulous problems of poverty, unemployment, and absentee landlords, in Condoville a new layer is added with the issue of gentrification which is represented by a specific dilemma: former lefty activist-turned-politician Willa Prescott-Sauvé has conspired with the municipal council to eliminate rent subsidies, thereby making the co-op unaffordable for the residents and clearing the way for the 'condo-fication' of their units.

There are many elements in the play which flesh out the political overtones to this central issue and link it with larger issues relating to conflicts between collective versus private interests and to value systems based on human needs versus the dictates of the market. Some obvious instances are when Felipe laments the way community support systems were undermined in his native Congo as a result of neoliberal policies, or again when Paquette decries the rising cost of the medication he needs.

But there are also many instances where the essence of these conflicts is explored in more dramatically direct contexts. At the outset of the play, for example, Thibault is thrown off his delivery bicycle after crashing into a fence which has been newly erected by Andrew, a gay yuppy inhabiting the ground floor apartment. The crash foreshadows how the desire to claim private space will threaten the harmony of the community. Later, when Andrew's partner Felipe lends Thibault his own bicycle in a reflex gesture of generosity, he is lambasted by Andrew. For Andrew, Felipe's generosity is an unnecessary risk that makes no sense from the perspective of self-interest. Property must be guarded, and it is not long before Andrew has installed a movement-sensitive security light in his backyard.

As with Balconville, there are red-herring prejudices which must be transcended on the path towards community solidarity. Language-related confrontations are less pronounced in the newer play, but still flare up now and then. More prominent is Johnny's nasty streak of homophobia, traces of racial discrimination towards Felipe, and the rigid attitude of Paquette which alienates his grand-daughter Bibi-Diane.

Other than a few barely noticeable slips in delivery, the acting in this production was solid. The actor performing Irene (I left my programme behind, so unfortunately I don't have the names of the actors) gave an especially compelling performance, and Thibault -- the harebrained and yet strangely wise delivery guy -- was rendered with a perfect disjunction of levity and depth. The characters in whom I saw room for improvement were Paquette -- who didn't maintain his bitter and mean attitude far enough into the play for his later transformation to work effectively (particularly in the reconciliation scene with Bibi-Diane) -- and Willa Prescott-Sauvé -- who doesn't appear at all in the play but should have, as Gaetan Bolduc did in Balconville, in order to give a face to the other side in the co-op funding battle.

Of course the main strength of this play -- its broad and coherent political critique -- may jeopardize its chances with the critics when it officially opens tomorrow night. Whereas Balconville remained vague in terms of proposed solutions, Condoville points directly towards solidarity and action -- concepts which are never endearing to the mainstream media. We'll see what turns up in this weekend's papers, but if tonight's audience reaction is anything to go by, this one might be rather difficult to pan.

-----

Condoville runs October 6th to 30th, www.centaurtheatre.com for more

For more reviews of shows, please see Critic A & Critic B

Summer 2005 Issue

2005-08-17T23:06:00.000-04:00

ONLINE EDITION

In this issue:

Own The Media by Stan Kristansen

Sinking Neptune (part 1) by Donovan King

Battle of the Underdogs: Trinitarian Thinking and the Theatre of the Eshu by Alistair North Cumberland

The Ethos of Hipocrisy by George Karlson

CRITIC A & CRITIC B

The Indie Theatre Times and Review is published bi-monthly by Travesty Theatre Publications (Montreal, QC). Please send all letters to the editor, questions or requests for print copies to travestytheatremtl@yahoo.ca

Own The Media by Stan Kristansen

2005-08-17T22:59:00.000-04:00

If you want something done right, then do it yourself.

While I usually try to seer clear from clichés like this in my writing, sometimes there’s no better way to say what you need to say.

After months of planning by an eight-person organizing team and over 60 acts, both local and international, Montréal’s Second-Annual infringement Festival was set to take the city by storm over eleven days this past June.

With theatre, music, film screenings, street performance, spoken-word and enough variety to shake a stick at, it was clear to me that this festival would not only wake the city up to the possibility of doing things differently, but would also garner quite a bit of local media attention in the process.

While the former proved right, the latter couldn’t have been further from the truth.
Yeah, the festival got press, as did some of its acts. There was the 30-minute interview on CKUT, the Bill Brownstein column in the Gazette, the pre-fest plugs in Mirror and Hour, even a first week plug (of some of the second week’s shows) from Amy Barrat in the Mirror and a smattering of other radio and print bits about the fest, but that was about it.

Not that all that coverage is really something to sniff at, but when you take into account how much was going on and how much play the infringement got last year in the media, its really not that great.

True, last year was the festival’s first outing, which invariably brings more attention, and true, there’s only so much space and airtime to go around, but it still seems like there’s something not right here.

The Montreal Gazette had enough space to cover and review shows playing in the St-Ambroise Fringe™ Festival just about every day the fest ran, which is great. I’d rather read reviews and plugs of local theatre than incessant wire stories about Michael Jackson any day.

Unfortunately, Gaetan Charlebois’ review team chose to completely ignore that there was even another festival going on and didn’t review (or, as far as I could tell, even see) any of its shows, despite excellent and even acclaimed work by touring groups and fresh, new shows by Montreal groups.

I won’t begin to speculate why not, just wonder about the message that it sends: it doesn’t matter how good your work may be, if you don’t pay $600 it won’t be recognized.

Even sending that message unintentionally discourages anyone without the startup capital from attempting to do their art and further puts the control of what messages get out there into the hands of people either concerned with potential profit over (or unable to separate it from) the importance of the work’s message, its cultural value or even its artistic merit.

The best way to deal with a situation like this isn’t to try and reclaim a media already controlled by corporate interests and ruled by petty egos (although that would be nice), nor is it to be astonished at how this could happen.

The best remedy is not to care what the big time media has to say, stop relying on it to be heard and create and own your own media. And it’s not that difficult to do.

Word of mouth is always the most effective form of publicity for new artists and the web is a free (or relatively cheap) way to reach people locally, nationally and globally.

With a web component, or strong word-of-mouth backup, you can even generate more interest for your own print media and maybe even find a few people so interested that they will want to reprint and redistribute it for you. This means the small amount of money you may have to print it can go quite a bit further.

These aren’t new ideas, but for some reason many people see these methods as somehow inferior press to the more established outlets. This stigma probably comes from a lack of confidence in one’s own work and is certainly reinforced by the corporate media that lives (partially) off the fact that it is seen as the only legitimate outlet.

This view needs to change and people need to learn that they can skip the filter entirely. In order to truly reclaim our culture, we need to create and own the media.

Sinking Neptune by Donovan King

2005-08-12T17:31:00.000-04:00

North America’s first play, The Theatre of Neptune in New France, will apparently be re-enacted in 2006 to mark its 400th anniversary. Penned by colonial lawyer and historian Marc Lescarbot, the play was originally performed on November 14th, 1606 at the French colony of Port Royale (present day Granville, Nova Scotia). As the first play ever recorded in the so-called “New World,” Lescarbot’s Masque has been proclaimed as the progenitor of Canadian theatre, Port Royal is immortalized as the “birthplace of poetry and drama in the North American continent” and Lescarbot has been credited as “the father of Canadian Theatre”. The Theatre of Neptune in New France has been re-enacted several times, attempts have been
made to build a theatre on the spot of the original performance, a permanent plaque has been unveiled at Lower Granville praising Lescarbot’s work, and Halifax’s regional playhouse (the Neptune Theatre, named after the masque) all attest to the keen dedication by some of keeping this memory alive.

Ken Pinto, founder and director of the Atlantic Fringe Festival, wants to celebrate the “400th anniversary of theatre in Nova Scotia” with a year of festivities, including a re-enactment of The Theatre of Neptune in New France. Theatre 400, the group planning the festivities, hopes the government will declare "the Year of Theatre", issue a commemorative stamp, commission a Heritage Minute TV spot, facilitate a travelling display of the original 1606 manuscript, and fund a musical to be produced in Halifax. According to Pinto: “We hope Theatre 400 will put Nova Scotia theatre on the map, which is why we're making the announcement now, so we can begin fundraising," Bill Van Gorder, a board member of Theatre 400, is equally supportive of the re-enactment, suggesting "Good theatre, real theatre has a purpose. This play was aimed at guaranteeing the survival of this group of people for the rest of the winter."

Not everyone, however, is likely to agree with this glossy and nostalgic assessment. The Theatre of Neptune in New France is arguably an extremely racist play directed against North America’s first nations, especially the Mi'kmaq people. Anton Wagner, editor of Canada’s Lost Plays believes that “From a political point of view, Théâtre de Neptune claims the new world for France and announces the submission of its indigenous people to the rule of white man” Upon closer examination of The Theatre of Neptune in New France, it becomes disturbingly clear that this Masque was used in an imperialistic manner to subjugate First Nations through the appropriation of their identities and collective voice. Lescarbot, it must be noted, penned four “savages” into his play, who all happily welcome and accept European domination without any reservations. Even more disturbingly, in a similar vein to racist “blackface” shows of the American south, white French sailors played all the roles enacted - including the “savage” characters.

… continued in our next issue, for more log onto optative.net

Battle of the Underdogs: Trinitarian Thinking and the Theatre of the Eshu by Alistair North Cumberland

2005-08-11T02:19:00.000-04:00

It has come to my attention yet again that most of us theatricians are perpetually divaricating, analyzing and deliberating on the various ways in which we may attain our goal of a new and more impressive social order than the one presently in question. Indeed, sitting in our underground cells and drinking cheap beer, the prematurely subversive and the archontically occulted are planning out the next revolution. Our considerations and subsequent dissertations are subjects of profound importance to us, as they reflect not only our sense of social malaise or unjustified discomfort, but the very fabric of our plans for the new world order. For it does seem that even though we appear to be hiding behind the protective mask of the underdog, the loser, the adversary who needs to argue his way to his rightful status, surly we do not wish to remain in this forum, but to employ it as a device for getting, frankly, what ever it is we want. And what we want is obviously what the Everyman wants, a self-generating system which treats us with equality, respect, and endeavors to provide us the proper opportunities to expand and enhance our quality of life. How we conspire to this event, or eventuality, is the subject of many conversations in the afore mentioned underground speakeasies, but remain along similar lines; that we will come to a point where we will have to force our adversaries out of there place of power and replace ourselves and our power in the empty power-shells of the no longer powerful power people. And as such it begins to seem that we are just as interested in power as we might accuse the so called ruling class as being, and that the only difference is that it will then be our power, not theirs, ours, and they can’t share it. Moreover, the reason for this is because we, in out secret subversive wisdom, know how to use the power ‘better’ and ‘for good’.

It would seem, then, that what has happened is that our perspective, which had great deal of potential to remain above the fray on account of our artistic inclinations, has in effect devolved in to a mere dualism. It is very easy for us to see the world in terms of ‘Us’ and ‘Them’. We of course are the underdogs, the victims, the disadvantaged. We know what’s wrong because we are experiencing it first hand. Some of us believe that we have inherited our loser status from previous generations and that something must and should be done soon, now while we still can, before it gets worse, for our children. With all this passion, and the very real effect of our disenfranchisement, it is understandable how the trap was fallen into. Nor is this or any other duality a snare inherently, but rather a tool under the properties of carnality and mutability, an oppositional force without which very little change can ever occur. This is the lineage and genealogy of our present dualist perspective. We came upon the scene as adversaries, offering an alternative to what we thought had become a stagnant pool of fetid social policies that were affecting our ability to create art, or even to live up to our actual potential. We came as a transformative blade of dualism, dismantling and hacking away at what was too unitary. Now it seems that we have become victims of the same sword, ensnared in our own game under a new illusive unitary goal. We have not only chosen sides on a battle field, but have oppressed ourselves into a perspectivist ethos that offers little room for dissenters. In truth, through this ‘subversive victim’ act, we create the illusion of a common enemy, and banish dissent by pretending to embody it. In a duality there is no place for the opinions or postures of the other team, there are only two choices, there is ‘Us’/ ‘Them’, which becomes ‘ Right/ Wrong’, which sounds a lot like ‘ ‘Good’/ ‘Evil’ . If we were to adopt these terms with more overt enthusiasm we would sound similar to the very politicians and cultural leaders that we have pitted ourselves against. For it is in the interest of leaders such as George ‘Dubya’ Bush that the population they lead considers itself the victim, the underdog. And as the victim of foreign religio-political totalitarian terrorism, it is not only their right but their duty to subscribe the world to their opposing liberalist crypto-fascist perspective. But the fact remains that they see themselves as the engineers of the future, and they are doing it for all the same reasons that we are. At the very least, they are using the same language; they are speaking in dualities. Like the maniacal street pastor wielding scripture at unexpecting passerby, they are trying to save us from the disastrous advances of the ‘evil doers’ and ‘Satanists’. It appears that our present perspective on things is closer to that of the street preacher than that of the Satanist, and I do not know wherether is in our best interest to remain as holy as the dubious Christian thinks we need to be. Considering that these Christians would also identify the Satan with Dionysius and the cult of ecstasy, I think it is preferable that we remain on the side of the Infernal Foe’. Let us embody the Adversary not only outwardly but inwardly and leave plenty of room for dissent against our private tyrants.

What comes to mind is the concept of Trinitarian thinking, or triangular gnosis. Theatrically speaking, it would be the invisible space in between the audience and the players, the moment of insecurity, of unfathomable potentiality. It is what is present which is not made up of either actor or spectator, but rather something in between, something consisting of both and of neither. If there is a duality inherent in any theatrical production, as indeed there is in the division between actor and audience, then this third perspective exits somewhere between the two points of the duality. This is true even if the divide isn’t obvious, and the audience is seated in an unconventional matter. The points of the duality remain present in the mental angle of the members. Who ever considers themselves only at one point within the spectacle is creating and enhancing the duality. Of course, this is what should be happening, at least at first. Audiences don’t attend the theatre to receive acting lessons, nor do actors consider themselves watchers or spectators of their art, at least not usually. Both are present to do a certain job and once it is done they are generally pleased with themselves and proceed to go about there other business. But what is it were possible to evoke the spirit of the third perspective, the perpetual watcher and player of tricks? In reality, the spirit of the third perspective is floating on the ethereal outskirts of every duality, unable to fit in, but more than competent to manipulate. This trickster is of a most irritating nature in its seemingly pedantic lack of fixed ideology. Actually, it usually appears as the worst and most evil antagonist, since it will not concur with any dual point, but will always remain without one. So it often appears to be playing for the opposite team, appearing to trivialize the designs we hold most dear. But its goal, if it is to have a goal, is not to belittle our adversarial or even unitary functions. The more we fall into dualities the more fodder we represent to the third eye, the watcher, the trickster. When we have had enough of a mode of thinking, have stopped taking ourselves too seriously, and suddenly burst out laughing at ourselves in a grandiose revelation of the fluidity between opposites, at that moment we are embodying the trickster, we are thinking in the third perspective. But trinitarian thinking does not imply that we remain in this state of hilarity, but that we may be able to curve our thinking downwards along the triangle and re-enter the game with a added mental skill. We are no longer emotionally trapped into a false duality but now see these matters as trinities. So, the audience member comes away realizing that he has laughed at something normally horrible, or found something he normally trivializes a cause of further thinking. Or the actor, who regularly pays attention only to himself and his role suddenly has a new concept of the distances between himself, his role and the spectator and is able to telepathically inspire a cognitive image of the meaning of his character into the minds of the audience.

And so it is with all such dualities, as they imply a great potential power and force of change. We are indeed the makers and the wielders of such powers, set in a position to amend the present order, via disorder, leading to an eventual re-order. Such is the very nature of the cosmos, and we are fitting into it as we should, replacing obsolete structures with new and hopefully better ones. But there lies a danger is too close association with one singularity within a duality, or even with association with unity or duality themselves. The danger is in the innate equality and even similarity between two perspectives along a line. The one implies the other, feeds the other, grows off the other, the two are forever intermingled. Instead of identifying too heavily with one or the other we would be able to actualize more change, and change of a better quality if we could allow ourselves to stand back, and see the weaknesses and the strengths with an objective eye. And it seems as though we would have a lot more fun with our impolitations too.

The Ethos of Hipocrisy by George Karlson

2005-08-11T02:10:00.000-04:00

There is a certain profound solace in the moment of discovering someone else’s hypocrisy, and an even profounder solace in pointing it out – normally to someone else, unless one is in the midst of an argument with the hypocrite in question. Indeed, one has many opportunities to notice this trait in others, and comment upon it oneself if so inclined; the inescapable irony is that while most everyone would believe that exposing hypocrisy is a good thing, most everyone would also believe that someone engaged in an act of exposing the hypocrisy of others while concealing their own hypocrisy, is the greater hypocrite. This implies that all the people who suppose this, and who would gladly expose the greatest hypocrite in question, must be free of hypocrisy – as surely they would not themselves become hypocrites in order to expose other hypocrites. It must then be the case that the true and self-aware hypocrite, much like the truly and self-consciously evil, rather than the merely misunderstood, miseducated, or misguided malefactor, must be a very rare creature indeed. Unless, of course, almost everyone denouncing hypocrisy is themselves engaged in an act of consummate hypocrisy – which would imply that hypocrisy is so common as to be ubiquitous. This would present a problem for anyone who is not a hypocrite – since he would be practically alone in the world. It also would present a problem for any hypocrite – too much competition. Fortunately, this tremendous problem probably does not exist, since it would surely be too cynical to assume that the numerous people denouncing hypocrisy are guilty of the very trait they condemn in others. Indeed, since the hypocrite is obviously outnumbered and probably outgunned by all the honest people in the world who always mean what they say and do what they mean, and who realize that encouraging others to commit depraved acts is really more honorable that committing them alone in secret while preaching love and goodwill toward men, it seems to the author only honorable – since he sincerely believes that the only worthy fight is a fair one between equally armed opponents so that the underlying virtue of each can be made apparent -- to avoid any possible taint of hypocrisy by advising the hypocrite on how better to consciously fulfill his ethos of dissimulation.

The first thing any well-trained hypocrite will do, and the most essential, is to eschew hypocrisy absolutely. Obviously there is no point in advancing positions you do not believe in, and advocating deeds and pursuing goals you find to be without real merit, if everyone thinks that you have no problem with doing so. If you did, no one would take you seriously, in which case you might as well have acted according to your own inclinations anyway. On the other hand, you probably don’t actually want to denounce hypocrisy loudly and constantly, for fear of being thought a hypocrite who is trying to draw attention away from your own flaw. This leaves the only safe option as either a cautious and sober silence, which makes for a very boring essay, or the advocacy of an absurd position that no one would take seriously, such as the one that hypocrisy is actually an excellent ethos to adopt. This means that one can still expose the hypocrisy of all one’s opponents, without the danger of having one’s own hypocrisy exposed, because one has already exposed it oneself – and anyway, everyone knows that someone pretending to praise hypocrisy is really doing it for effect, and trying to criticize hypocrites without taking himself too seriously and turning into one.

Having cleverly established one’s own consummate honestly by making a subtle pretense at that odd form of humility here expressed as the admission of one’s own hypocrisy, it is safe to voyage into new regions of insincerity and liberation from the shackles of inconveniences like "truth." Why stop at appearing to advocate positions one doesn’t hold only when it happens to be expedient, and only when one happens to adhere to beliefs other than those which are truly useful and convenient? The entire joy and flexible (some might even say, liberatively and refreshingly absent) purpose of hypocrisy is omitted if one becomes a true believer in whatever one’s "cause" is at the time – not to mention that turning oneself into a blind fanatic is hardly something a self-respecting and ethical hypocrite would want to do. That’s right – this is really an essay on the ethical structure of a self-aware and deliberate hypocrite. This means pointing out that the only way to stay a hypocrite constantly is to ensure that one never believes in what one does or says, and never says what one means. The only way to be sure of this, is not to believe in anything, and never to hold any particular meaning as inherently or essentially significant.

It is this possibility that makes hypocrisy the most consistent ethos possible – since every other more dualistic ethical system ultimately involves at least one self-negating or self-contradictory premise that makes it possible for it to be subverted by a hypocrite: the possibility that one could seem to adhere to it without really believing it. The only thing a fully competent hypocrite can be subverted by is himself, however. This is why, when keeping your friends close and your enemies closer, it is definitely safest to be one’s own worst enemy.

Fortunately, this condition makes it easy to fulfill the purpose of this essay while remaining entirely ethical, since if taken to be accurate, the famous words of Hassan Sabbah, the Old Man of the Mountain and master of the Assassins – as delivered to us as his legendary "last words" in the famous condemnation of the hypocrisies of the power elite, by the great William S. Burroughs – will surely dispel any unfortunate beliefs or misconceptions this perverse commentary might have inspired:

Nothing Is True, Everything Is Permitted.