page 16

Drama

Dig tunnels deep — Two Views of Red Mole

This is not meant to be a full review of Red Mole's Ghost Rite but an examination of two specific features: the role of actors, and the political direction in which the group is moving.

Red Mole established a reputation in Wellington based largely on their acting. Debbie Hunt; with her training in the Le Coq style, was a big influence. A combination of developing individual abilities rather than general acting skills, and a get-up-and-do-it approach meant that the actors have been right to the fore. The result was sometimes embarassing, sometimes exciting, but always one had to admire their courage in so exposing themselves.

However, Red Mole never developed this to anywhere near its limit. I don't mean a theatre composed solely of actors with no contribution from music, costume, lighting, props, etc. This was never the aim. But there does remain the possibility of creating a style where those elements achieve a balanced relationship with each other and with the acting - a synthesis.

Too often we were given shows which used the other elements as dressing to simulate new material. The acting techniques had a disturbing tendancy to run towards atrophy.

Now we have Ghost Rite. Acting techniques have changed, one can't deny that. Indeed the whole concept of the actor's role has undergone a radical change. In the earlier Ace Follies each actor was called upon to display his/her particular skills in a number of carefully prepared situations. Improvisation played a big part, but that was as much a part result of the inherent nature of those skills skills as any deliberate structuring of the performance.

In Ghost Rite actors deliberately avoid using their previously developed skills. Familiar traits occasionally emerge but do not last, while even improvisation is given a new function. Rather than providing a vehicle for stylistic extension it simply introduces an element of aimlessness.

On only one occasion, when the company sit about picnicking while war approaches, does the acting have any real captivating power. This sequence may have been used before or have been more carefully rehersed, but it sicceeds largely because it has a definite structure. Roles are defined, action forms a clear sequence of events but most importantly of all, the imagery speaks in a language easy to understand without being cliched.

Perhaps the most obvious example of the lack of acting extension is in the use of Ian Prior. Prior is not a core member of the group, in fact he only joined them for Ghost Rite (although he has worked with Red Mole before). Those who saw A Phenomenon of Short Duration in the Opera House during Arts Festival last year will remember his extraordinarily powerful dancing

Phenomenon was in many ways a different sort of show, but it is fair to relate the use made of talents of that one person. In Ghost Rite Prior spends much of his time moving back and forth on stage with very little real effect. It is not that Prior has forgotten his trade, rather that no context is established within which he supposed to work. His case reflects upon the others.

The result is that the very fine music and the visual splendour of the scenery and props create an aesthetic power with nowhere to go. Admittedly I saw the show on Saturday night when the microphones went dead, so I may have missed lyrics which would have given the thing more cohesion, but I don't think this would have helped a lot.

Red Mole are engaged in creating and tramsmitting a private mythology, or series of private mythologies. The programme gives ample evidence of this, and many many clues as to the reason for it.

To be sure. Ghost Rite is a calculated sequence of events. If you were lucky enough to have coughed up 50 c for a programme, and had time to read it before the show began you probably knew what a lot of them were. Even if you hadn't done this, it wasn't difficult to pick the stages in the general progression from primeval times to the 20th century.

You might have decided that the wheel which rolled from wing to wing at periodic intervals with a man stretched inside it was meant to symbolise a new historical stage, and so on. An imaginative and sympathetic response would probably have yielded many insights like this. You might not have been "right" but it isn't important, so long as you could fabricate something with it.

And fabricate it would be. The show's concept of history is superficial, and displays no understanding of the actual processes which move history forward. This might not be so bad if Red Mole didn't claim otherwise. In their programme they quote Walter Benjamin on historical materialism: it "wishes to retain that image of the past which unexpectedly appears to man singled out at a moment of damger. The danger affects both the content of the tradition and its receivers." Red Mole fails to recognise the moment is dangerous precisely because it lays bare the material forces which define history.

Ghost Rite attempts to move from moment to moment by magic, in reality it moves from theatrical effect to theatrical effect by device, and never gets beyond that. It's art for arts sake but it pretends to be more. Core member Alan Brunton is on record saying, "Our shows are totally as New Zealand as a can of Watties Baked Beans - we are homegrown culture." If this is so, then Ghost Rite's comment on and contribution to New Zealand theatre is in terms of us somehow standing outside the laws of history.

We might have our imaginations extended by proxy, by observing the imagination of others, but we are given little to enable us to understand them and little that reveals the workings of the subjects which those imaginations are focused on. This is not historical materialism, this is bourgeois creativity.

In this concentration on the aesthetic and in other respects Red Mole shares much in common with Downstage. Both groups are capable of producing exciting theatre (and Ghost Rite is exciting) for middle class audiences with money in their pockets and nothing else to set standards by. Red Mole in fact, are the worst offenders in financial matters.

They charged outrageous prices for admission and refreshment during the Cabaret run and do not seem to have tried to break out of the habit. Maybe they do want the money to go overseas, but why? Just what is this stage they have reached in the development of a truly New Zealand theatrical form which demands an injection of overseas influence?

Red Mole set themselves up as political theatre. In the past they have made some overtures in the direction of political satire but without a definite political stance of their own from which to work these have not been particularly successful. It is easy to pinpoint an object of satire, but a very different matter to understand its political reality.

Red Mole are necessary to New Zealand theatre, if only because the claims they make about themselves coupled with their theatrical potential provide a basis for examining the local avantgarde.

The danger as I see it, is that Red Mole type activity, whether we are spectators or participants, can easily seduce us into ignoring the need for more direct political understanding, for a theatre which really does explore our history and provide a lead in its development.

Simon Wilson.

A phenomenon has hit New Zealand. It is called Red Mole. It is involved in a theatrical form that many people relate to. It is known nationwide and wherever it performs it attracts a large following. Why bother searching for that elusive New Zealand play any further? We have Red Mole.

For years, the Mole has been pretty well ignored by the Q.E. 2 Arts Council. It is not considered "Art", simply because they have taken popular entertainment as their basic theatrical standpoint. The Mole has set out to attract a large following and uses all the time honoured gimmicks that can be thought up to achieve this aim. It is slowly becoming a rock group type super star. When it toured with Split Enz, that other other cult group, they were both accepted as equals.

The audiences are the same. They are the young (though ageing fast) middle-class intellectuals, who find it difficult to accept their origins, are "into" heavy rock music, dope, ethnic cultures, and attempt to be left wing. This group is large, has a lot of money collectively, and needs to be catered for theatrically.

But if Red Mole thinks they can attract a larger audience, they had better change their approach a little. At present the audience's parents or the working class can find nothing in it for them.

So, let us explore Red Mole further. The process involved in achieving their rise to fame is already well documented and need not concern us here. What is important is their their method of working together and how they actually bring about what is presented on stage

Anarchism. Fall back in horror, and get ready to utter that magic chant "Wanker". But the theory and practice of anarchism seems to be a powerful driving force behind their method of work.

The group is composed of whoever is working together at any particular time. Everyone has, if not an equal voice, an equal action in the process. They all work as individuals, doing tasks they do best. No-one attempts to encourage or force anyone else to reach or stretch their limitations. They are merely given a space and it is up to the individual concerned to fill or enlarge that space. If they don't succeed then the fault lies with them.

This organic process gives their productions a special quality and vitality. The ground is continually shifting. A "Red Mole style" can never be established because its elements are very rarely the same. People are asked to work with the group page 17 solely on the basis of their special talents that are unique to them. If they are needed they are asked.

But this selection procedure creates problems, For a show to work in this way at its most vibrant, the participants must feel that they have a place that is totally theirs. Any selected people are at a tremendous disadvantage from the selectors. They have been invited and there exists in our social make-up an understanding of the role that a guest must fulfil in respect of the host. This means the place given to them can never be fully theirs precisley because it was given.

A useful comparison can be made of a husband giving money to his wife or roof over her head. Only a person who has, can give to one who has not. Thus the husband has the power over the wife. This is a problem that Red Mole has not yet solved.

It becomes obvious that the choice of such a method means that power relationships will become sharply defined. Anarchism means the destruction of all repressive power over another human being. This does not mean the absence of leaders. If the group needs consolidation and one of the group has the necessary ability to bring that about, it would be stupid not to accept that leadership.

But when the time comes and that particular leadership is no longer needed, another takes over the role. No struggle, no violence, just a necessary acceptance of changing circumstances. A leader, then, should not be given added mana merely because of that leadership. Par better for it to be a drop in mana. At least then changes of leadership would take place without fuss.

Because by this method power relationships are stripped bare, it is only natural that an exploration of power roles will be a central issue in the Mole shows. And since politics is involved mainly with power, their shows are political.

So now let's explore the politics of Red Mole and what effect it has on their shows. Above I have suggested the anarchist ideal. It is obvious Red Mole has not yet attained to that state. This gives it the special spice.

The group is the result of long evolution. Through this process a core group has slowly assumed dominance and given to it special features that have grown with the group.

Deborah Hunt brings in the circus element, trapeze acts, acrobatics, fire eating, etc. Alan Brunton, the literary, the images, the heiroglyphics and the cohesion of these elements. Sally Rodwell, the clown, the fool, the commedia tradition. Together they have performed on the streets, on the beaches and this aspect comes through very strongly. It is witnessed in their use of masks and puppets.

Arthur Baysting has been with the group for a long time but has decided to work more on the outside. He has developed his clown, Neville Purvis, to such an extent that he can perform by himself and still attract a large following. He is not one of the core group.

Jan Preston is the musician, the composer. It is unfortunate that music has very rarely been considered as an intrinsic part of the theatrical process. Usually it is relegated to the role of adding to the mood of the show, hand in hand with the lighting Thus Jan is outside the central core. But, I believe this could be changing. How wonderful it would be if Red Mole could bring about the marriage between movement, words and music in a new and theatrically effective way.

Let us now look at the process involved in the realisation of a Red Mole Show.

An image is suggested. If it is accepted, ways are worked out of how best to present it on stage. This could be through the use of masks, movement, stage design, props, music or whatever. The masks are made, the music written and then it is worked until it runs smoothly. At the same same time attempts are made to fit it into the total picture. Transitions are worked out and slowly the show fits together. This takes up the whole rehersal period and it is not until just before the actual performance anyone has any real idea of what the show will look like. Thus it becomes a theatre of images.

However this process contains many dangers. The most important of these is that, since the images are first conceived from the mind and imagination, and when accepted become the thing to be created, they tend to present themselves in a literal rather than a theatrical way.

Rather, if the images were thought of as mere seeds and left to grow and change through the collective work of all involved, you would achive more vital images that, rather than being merely comprehended, are deeply felt by the audience.

And that is Red Mole. No matter whether you like it or not, they are one of the most vital, stimulating, energetic and explorative theatre groups in this country at the moment and must be accepted as such. It is now up to the Q.E.2 Arts Council to accept this and, through financial support, make a public statement that they believe them to have a vital role to play in New Zealand today. If they don't do it very soon. Red Mole will join the large queue of those emigrating from this country. And if this happens, Q.E.2 Arts Council will be showing itself to be a mere puppet of reaction, not worthy of existence.

John Bailey