page 11

Drama

Stumbling in the Dark

Total Eclipse of the Moon

by Sun, Moon and Earth directed by chance in the sky

First a brief scenario of the show for those who missed it. The moon was presented in full brightness, imperceptibly moving across the sky. Then ever so slowly the shadow of the earth cut across this bright intensity shading it in part to a dark orange with a thin line of brightness to define its rotundity. The clouds suddenly merged to form a curtain over the stage. This developed into a rain-storm then slowly the curtain lifted.

An interval of about half an hour. But the re-emergence was not simple. First blocks of stars became visible framed by the continually shifting clouds, giving a sensation of depth. For a few brief seconds the moon was allowed to be seen and then disappeared again. Then Then as suddenly as they appeared, they moved away again to reveal the now fully eclipsed moon.

Instead of a bright round cutout in the sky sky there, suspended in the sky was a ball. Its shading allowed it to be perceived as a sphere.

The image hung for a long time, its toning slowly changing. Then the cloud curtain obliterated it from our sight. When it lifted the moon had gone and the sun was beginning to rise. End of show.

Put very simply, all that had actually happened was by chance the earth had got in between the sun and the moon fo for a few hours. Also, by pure chance, the cloud curtain had appeared at just the right moment to cover the set change from a partially eclipsed moon to a totally eclipsed one and again to cover the transition back to an uneclipsed moon. And the interval was not dull. We were given a performance of the development and decay of a miniature and short-lived rainstorm.

Through the focus on the events happening to the moon you were also given insights into the whole sensory experience of the immediate environment, the feeling and sound of the wind, the smells of the rain and garden, the changes in temperature, the variations in available light. And because it appealed totally to the sense you could attach any meaning you liked to the event.

Putting this show into the wider context, what value did it have for New Zealand in 1978? Valuable points, applicable to this present discussion, were made by David Murray a couple of weeks ago in an article about Red Mole. "......At present this is only on a sensual level. In exploring meaning and message and how to get these across there are many paths, but Red Mole seems to be stumbling in the dark." The same can be said for the moon.

And again ". . the eyes observe, and that perceptual knowledge is transformed, on all available evidence, into conceptual knowledge. The brain makes meanings and, depending on the class background of the viewer, these become particular political meanings. . . . The meaning gained from a show of images is not social meaning but egotistic meaning — a a very personal and, in most cases, useless thing."

That is the major criticism that can be leveled at the moon's performance the other night. It was politically and socially a useless event. All we can learn from it is the techniques employed to bring it about and the beauty such methods create. Should people attempt to recreate such beauty on stage? And is it worth our viewing such things in these politically troubled times? Too bloody right it is.

John Bailey