The issue related to seriousness that we present here serves as the theoretical foundation for the methodological proposal we will show you later.
We talk about seriousness because it corresponds, in summary, to the patterns that support the “current state of things” in theater. These patterns, often hidden in theatrical practices and audience relationships, are seen by us as rules (many of them invisible) for what constitutes acting on stage within what is often acceptable or desirable.
Without acknowledging that certain rules enable certain ways of doing theater to be taken “seriously,” little can be done to make alternatives to these viable.
For us, seriousness itself is not a problem; in fact, the existence of standards in a society about what is appropriate or not to do is the basis of coexistence. (Just imagine what the world would be like if we didn’t agree on basic rules regarding the psychological and physical integrity of others…) However, we believe that theater ceases to be “a window that opens to other possible worlds” if, at every presentation, there isn’t an element of wonder. That is, if the audience stops being surprised by expressive elements that make them broaden the limits of what they once considered appropriate, normal, or desirable.
It is from this standpoint that we attribute such importance to seriousness. It is the structuring element in a methodology that aims to summon critical thinking (and action) about its limits through the avenues of “wonder” and the “alternative.”
“…wonder and the alternative place us in an ‘in-between,’ in a vertiginous unfolding between the familiar and the strange. It is an experience that requires a different attitude: the (…) questioning as a tool to forge a path (…) using the necessary tools to walk.” (Grácio, 2023, p. 136)
Thus, we proceed more convinced on a path that enables the broadening of the conditions of what is considered serious rather than a complete break with the structures that support it.
For this reason, seriousness will accompany us throughout the theory, being this concept, at the same time, the target of our critique and the propellant of our method by combining it with the humor of being “amazed” by “alternatives”.
Humor?! Do you combine seriousness and humor to form the first point of your method?
That’s exactly it! This combination is what allows us to develop the necessary perspective for awakening possible alternatives to a theater that does not contemplate the reality of bodies and poetics that wish to be a part of it.
Thus, our proposal for inclusion is based not on the creation of aesthetic guidelines or following experimental movements of greater freedom but on the possibility of theatrical practices, whether current or emerging, allowing themselves to be constantly renewed through humor to their limits.
In essence, we embark on a path that aims to minimize the restrictions of acting within an established language. What we will begin to call a “minor language.”
It is from this theory that we support our action. That of scenically contesting a type of seriousness so severe that it has become the only way of thinking and expressing possible. In other words, the proposal on stage of languages less restricted to an excessive seriousness that represses our thought and expression.
Some more than others, but all of us have had moments when speech seems insufficient to express what we are feeling. From these moments arises the tension caused by a humor that does not conform to the single reality of the language in which we express ourselves. If we explore it, that is, if we see in it the possibility of conceiving other possible worlds, having a stoic view in relation to the labels that will be placed on us, we will formulate the first step towards a minor language[1].
Certainly, applying these principles to theater will be challenging within established work logics. However, there will be a lesser degree of difficulty in micro-processes, built within a specific community that is attentive to these concerns. For this reason, while our theory makes a global appeal, it contemplates its first steps in the development of microsystems of humorous resistance to the excessive seriousness of the stages and the societies around them.
Essentially, we call for the establishment of small theater spaces that mock the collectivist pretensions of a serious language. We will be on the right path if these small spaces create a language tailored to them. A language with fewer restrictions on the expression and thought of each individual within a group.
Only in this way will theater stop imitating society (in its restrictions and single visions) to become that window that opens onto other possible worlds!
[1] The concept of “minor language” originates from Deleuze’s theory as presented in “A Manifesto for a Minor Literature” by Deleuze (2010).