I talked a lot about how general Vaudeville ideals influence the smaller, more specific choices we made as artists for our skit. It's an interesting evolution as we get more specific:
Vaudeville packs a punch. The multitude of mediums and plethora of performers provided early 20th century audiences with a new form of entertainment that appealed to the masses. We, as Amconners, can only mimic the variety and talent of these performers. Our group’s tribute to this golden age of theater was the Cell Block Tango from the musical Chicago. Ultimately there are three major layers of this skit: historical vaudeville, Chicago’s pastiche, as well as our groups’ personal creative choices. These three aspects combine to create a specific act, personal to our section that still exists within the greater context of Variety Theater.
If we work inwards from the very outer layer, we start with the context of Vaudeville. Gary’s lecture introduced us to the cultural standard and its place in American history. All people appreciated this cheap, inviting, and entertaining grab bag of acts. Singing, dancing, animals and slapstick had no cultural boundaries- no matter what gender, ethnicity, social class or native tongue, a hoot and holler came out of a trip to the theater. This illimitability was quintessential to vaudeville’s success! It reflected the boundlessness of the American dream, accessible to any who would jump on the bandwagon (Gisselman np). The theater welcomed everyone, and together they could experience the same entertainment.
Chicago’s setting, in particular, comes at a newer age in Vaudeville. Jazz and liquor rouged-up our friendly medium and excited it into a burlesque frenzy. It is still equally entertaining, but now on a guiltier, adult level. Now, instead of innocent puppies leaping through hoops, risqué dancers take the forefront in a jaw-dropping, eye-popping display of skin and high-kicks hardly befit for family audiences. But no one’s complaining; they couldn’t in the whir of trumpet and the din of new American success that begins in the roarin’ twenties. The American attitude during prohibition is carefree; riding off the financial and moral victories of World War I, Americans celebrated for a decade before the Great Depression significantly dampened the mood.
Our musical is plucked right out of this whirlwind. Its original title, “Chicago: A Musical Vaudeville” says it all. The dances could have been taken from right out of a performance in the city, and the announcer for each piece easily could have been a Bronzeville native. Its original setting was a simple arrangement of songs and dances, with little set or transitions between. This reflects the broader vaudevillian style within the specific context of Chicago in the 1920’s. The wheeler-dealer mentality of all the characters playing their lives as a constant act draws us even further into the era by demonstrating the values these people held (Chicago np). Because it is actually a play-as apposed to independent numbers- we can see behind the acts into these performers’ lives. It provides another layer life in the 1920’s.
This choice in medium leads to a dynamic hybridization of classic vaudeville and social commentary. The exaggeration of these characters suggests a grandiose, bourgeoisie mentality. The alcoholic frenzy has caused these representative Americans to stumble away from wholesome entertainment towards a new identity of unnecessary luxury with plenty of skin. The shocking is fashionable and the raunchy has replaced the witty. All together America has become showier than ever before.
Now of course, for our rendition we had to change some aspects of the original Cell Block Tango. In its whole form, the Tango is six murderesses explaining (in song) why they aren’t to blame for the murder of their husbands. “They had it coming,” the woman shout, “They had it coming all along. Cause if they used us, and they abused us, how can you tell us that we were wrong!”. One’s interests are conflicted as the wives express their grievances; at least, I feel bad because these women are stuck with deadbeat husbands; but we can’t forget that these women overreacted and murdered their spouses. In the musical climax, the women argue for their case for freedom, dancing in not much more than their underwear. Whether this use of sexual promiscuity is empowering or degrading is arguable, but these women are trying to use it as a tool for self-expression.
Now, I think it goes without saying that we couldn’t tackle this vignette in its whole. From the very beginning, there were five people in our group, four of which weren’t tone deaf. So, we cut two of the solo acts and focused on four of our own. In coming up with our own scenes for the murder of our husbands we created a vaudeville act within our vaudeville act: the varying combinations of dancing, singing and acting between punctuated by group numbers lent themselves to four very different vignettes. Hopefully, in the real world the audience would have loved us. Our goal was to entertain, and we pulled out all the stops.
Now, I’ve referenced the use of the female sexual promiscuity as a persuasive tool, but there was a slight problem with that for our rendition … I’m a male. While our decision to have me play Velma stemmed from a logistical issue, our group used it in the creative process later on. During one rehearsal I jokingly asked (in my pretentious actor voice) “Am I a male playing a female, or a male playing the archetypal role of a person trapped in a situation of guilt?”. Of course, some sassy banter followed. Unwittingly it veered towards our conversation of Gay New York. In an executive decision Mike and I became an effeminate males instead of either the options I mentioned before.
Now, if this were a professional performance setting, my display would have hardly been considered campy or satirical in any way. But subtly, for our audience, I was able to portray an effeminate gay male. Suddenly our burlesque wouldn’t be for heterosexuals anymore. Our pastiche truly crossed all the lines of audience. My performance wasn’t too embellished and would have fit in fine for a typical Broadway setting; it would just be another example of entertainment. However, Gary subtly hinted at the Gay vaudeville in his lecture. This means that somewhere there could have been an all male production of the same skit, which would drastically shift the style of the entire piece as well as provide insight to a completely different subculture of the Prohibition era. But because our act was primarily heterosexual our camping would be more of a display of mockery as apposed to a move of solidarity amongst men of the same sexual orientation.
Hopefully, one can see how the original context of Vaudeville has lead to Chicago’s interpretation, and then how our group’s interpretation draws from and comments on the greater theater tradition as a whole. It is important to remember and reflect on how artistic and historical traditions influence even the most minute of decisions in modern art and expression. This exercise reminds us of that.
No comments:
Post a Comment