Yesterday I blogged that I tried to dismantle any meaning when meaning began to arise in a scene in Tick Tack Type. I wrote that doing this was to free the play and not have it land in a didactic world. Today I will contradict my thinking saying that for every action in the play (or for most) I tried to find meaning in it.
Is this a contradiction? Yes and no. I think it’s a fine balance between an abstract work that has no means of a handle and an abstract works that resonates for audiences. I am not interested in pure abstraction, if I was, I would imbed the work in pure movement and dance and not try to create theatre of it.
So to get back to my opening statement, for every action I tried to find meaning yet at the same time dismantle it. (I hope this blog makes sense to someone, cause writing about movement is not easy, if it was easy, then I would assume the movement theatre has little merit.) In its simplest terms, when I had a character execute an action I tried to find one level or several of dramaturgical importance.
I assume this blog is vague since I am not divulging any of the action of Tick Tack Type. I apologize for this, but I am doing this for your sake (that is if you plan to see the work.) By discussing the action I am robbing you of the experience of it. What I see in an action may not be what you see. I can say this about Tick Tack Type, in many way it’s about “seeing” or “not seeing.”
Tick Tack Type plays March 11 to 14. All tickets are free. Go to www.imagotheatre.com for info.