6. Oliver Frljić
 "I Hate The Truth", photo by Damir Žižić Autor Krešimir Sivončik Oliver Frljić, Petra Kovačić, Milijana Babić, Grupa ABS, Ivica Buljan, East Rodeo, Ljiljana Tasić — “Jesi, napisao si tu scenu, gledaj u mamu, igraj sad tu scenu!” Kazalište u kazalištu je mehanizam kojim se izriče neugodna istina. Prvo, postoji li istina – odnosno ipak, kakva istina postoji? Drugo, model problematiziranja osobnog na sceni kroz glumačke ispovijedi kao dramaturška metoda pokretanja radnje, na koji način se to režira i uvježbava? Nietzsche kaže da je istina pokretna vojska metafora. Započinjući rad na ovom projektu znao sam da će, što se na kraju i dogodilo, pojedini članovi moje obitelji htjeti, jer se, ipak, radi o nekakvoj obiteljskoj povijesti, moju predstavu gledati kroz prizmu njezine istinitosti. Replike koje sam pisao i koje je na sceni izgovarala Ivana Roščić su replike koje mi je moja majka kasnije, kad je predstava izašla i kad je pročitala neke kritike, ponovila. Rekla je doslovno da to što sam ja tamo radio nije istina. U tom kontekstu i naslov predstave vidim kao repliku svim onim gledateljima koje od kazališta očekuju da bude, uz sve drugo što servisira, i serviser istine. Kazalište je primarno događaj. I u ovoj predstavi sam krenuo od toga. Predstava nije režirana, niti uvježbavana na neki klasičan način. Glumci su krenuli od teksta koji sam donio, ali su već treći ili četvrti dan bili u prostoru. Tekst su koristili onoliko koliko im je trebalo. Primarni fokus im je bio na kreiranju obiteljskih odnosa o kojima se u tekstu govori i pronalaženja načina na koji bi se mogli prebacivati s jedne dijegetičke razine na drugu. Obiteljske svađe (u stvarnom životu) oduvijek najviše privlače publiku (susjedi, prolaznici, …). Nema bolje zabave. U predstavi stalne reference na to da je to što se dešava pred našim očima kazalište (poput “Ovo je predstava”), da li je to i neka vrsta moralne pljuske gledaocu koji naprosto uživa gledajući tuđi obiteljski cirkus? Između ostalog je i to. Gledatelj uvijek brani svoju voajersku poziciju gdje demarkaciona linija između njega i onoga što se događa na sceni ostaje jasno označena. Mi smo potencirali gledateljski voajerizam stavljajući tog istog gledatelja na rukohvat do glumca, ali smo u isto vrijeme, u samoj predstavi, konstantno prekidali taj režim gledanja. Glumci igraju na nekoliko razina. Oni igraju moju obitelj, ali i glumce koji rade na predstavi o mojoj obitelji pri čemu Filip Križan igra mene kao redatelja te predstave. Često su u nekoj sivoj zoni gdje nastupaju kao članovi moje obitelji koji meni kao režiseru pokušavaju objasniti da to nije bilo tako, da je cijela predstava jedna velika krivotvorina njihovih života. Dakle, gledateljski voajerizam se propituje i prekida bez direktnog atakiranja na gledatelje, već kroz etabliranje i razbijanje određenog plana fikcije. Pirandello kaže da je istina duha istinitija od istine fakata. U “Mrzim istinu” cijelo vrijeme se hoda po oštrici između farse i tragedije, duha i fakata, ponekad čak i Beckettovske rezonance. Hommage prošlosti ili sadašnjosti?
I prošlosti i sadašnjosti. Te prošlosti nema bez sadašnjosti iz koje je se sjećam. Ta prošlost i moja sjećanja na nju su jedna velika puževa kućica koju sam nakratko ostavio u teatru ITD da bih se onako sluzav otišao malo prošetati bez tog tereta. Ta predstava je meni intimno bila potrebna jer o stvarima koje su u njoj nigdje drugdje nisam mogao govoriti na taj način. Ona nema pretenzije da objektivno ispriča jednu obiteljsku historiju. Ne možemo točno utvrditi kako su se stvari u jednoj obiteljskoj dinamici odvijale. Je li tata vikao baš toliko? Je li me mama tukla baš tako jako? Ali se mogu analizirati određeni odnosi koji stoje iza onoga što sam u predstavi prikazao. Zanimljiva mi je ta nova potraga za identitetom. Kroz likove koji su članovi moje obitelji i koju traže svoj scenski i vanscenski identitet se kreira i moj novi identitet i to kao lika u toj predstavi, ali i kao autora te iste predstave. — “Yes, you wrote that scene, look at mother, now play that scene!” Theater in the theater is a mechanism to enunciate an inconvenient truth. First, is there a truth – or though, what kind of truth does it exist? Second, the model of questioning of the personal on the stage through actors confession as a dramaturgical method of inciting, how does one direct and rehearse it? Nietzsche says that the truth is a moving army of metaphors. Beginning the work on this project I have known that, and it finally has happened, some members of my family would want, because, it is, though, some sort of family history, to see my show through the prism of its truthfulness. Replies that I have written and which on the scene pronounces Ivana Roščić are replies of my mother, that she has later, when the show came out and she has read some reviews, repeated. She literally said that what I did there was not true. In this context, the title of the play, I see as a reply to all those spectators who expect the theater to be, along with everything else that it services, the service of truth. The theater is primarily an event. In this show I started from that. The play is not directed or rehearsed in a classical way. Actors have started from the text that I have brought, but already the third or fourth day they have been in the area. The text they have used just as they needed. The primary focus has been to create the family relationships about which the text speaks, and to find a way to be able to switch from one diegetic level to another. Family quarrels (in the real life) perpetually attract the most audience (neighbors, passersby, …). There is no better entertainment. In the show the constant references to the fact that what is happening before our eyes is the theater (like “This is the play”), is it a kind of moral slap to the spectator who just enjoys watching someone else’s family circus? Among the other things, this as well. The spectator always defends his voyeuristic position where the demarcation line between her / him and what happens on the scene remains clearly marked. We have emphasized the spectators’ voyeurism putting that very same audience to the grip of the actor, but at the same time, in the play, we constantly interrupt this regime of watching. Actors play on several levels. They play my family, but also the actors who work on the show about my family, with Filip Krizan acting me as a director of that play. Often they are in a gray area where they act as members of my family who try to explain to me as a director, that it was not so, that the whole play is a major counterfeit of their lives. So, the spectators’ voyeurism is questioned and interrupted without direct attack on the audience, but by establishing and breaking certain plan of fiction. Pirandello says that the truth of the spirit is more truthful than the truth of the facts. The “I Hate the Truth” all times treads the sharp edge between farce and tragedy, the spirit and the facts, sometimes even of Beckett resonance. Homage to the past or present? Both past and present. And this past does not exist without a present from which I remember. The past and my memories of it are one big snail house which I briefly left the theater ITD, so that I, as slimy, would take a walk for a bit, without this burden. This show I have needed intimately, since about the things in it, I could not speak anywhere else in that way. It does not have intentions to tell a family history objectively. We can not determine accurately how things in one family dynamics were taking place. Did Dad yell that much? Did mama beat me so badly? But one can analyze the relationships that stand behind what I presented in the play. It is interesting to me, this new quest for identity. Through characters that are members of my family, and who are looking for their scenic and extra-scenic identity, emerges, and my new identity as a character in the show, and as the playwright of the same play as well. |
