The mixed media interventions known as ‘Happenings’ were part of a fundamental layer in the development of alternative theatre during the 1960s. In 1911 Boccioni used part of a wooden window frame in a piece of futurist sculpture, and ever since 1911 or 1912 when Braque or Picasso, depending on which source one follows, glued a piece of real material to a canvas and originated collage, actual elements have been incorporated into painting. The picture moved out into the real space of the room. As an environment the painting then took over the room and finally as a sort of, environment with action, became the alternative theatre form known as ‘Happenings’ based at the Reuben Gallery in New York (Kirby 1965: 22). ‘Cultural’ and ‘ideological’ transactions took place and were brought about through the rupturing of established norms and contexts which were facilitated by the anti-hierarchical use of space, interdisciplinary content, and inclusive modes of audience assemblage and participatory performance practices (Aronson 2000: 7).
In September 1963, Jim Haynes, John Calder, and Kenneth Tynan organised the International Drama Conference at Edinburgh University’s dedicated graduation hall, McEwan Hall. One hundred and twenty international theatre artists attended, including Peter Brook, Sir Laurence Olivier, Ionesco, and Martin Esslin (Marowitz 1990: 55). During a scheduled speech at the 1963 conference Marowitz seemingly set out to codify a rigid interpretation of Beckett’s Waiting for Godot. He insisted that his should be the official interpretation of Godot, no flexibility or alternatives allowed. Although clearly intended as satire, Marowitz’s provocation set a chain of events in motion which resulted, on the last day of the conference, in what is widely considered to be the very first Happening in the UK.
A Happening is a collective experience, based on chance, surrealism, Dada, non-narrative theatre and the Zen Huang Po doctrine of universal mind which held that ‘centricity within each event is not dependant on other events’ (Aronson 2000:38). Marowitz, Allan Kaprow, and a number of collaborators were responsible. Kaprow had earlier coined the term ‘Happening’ during the spring of 1959 in New York and had since become a well-known practitioner. The Happening was a deliberate attempt to generate performance crisis and subvert and replace dominant post-Renaissance theatre and Western theatrical conventions dating back to Aristotle. In this case, it included a nude woman being wheeled across a gallery space. Although at the time women could appear nude on the British stage as long as they did not move, pictures on the front pages of the national press depicted nudity in motion and it caused a scandal. The Happening itself was received with great outrage by many of the attenders. Nevertheless, it provoked important questions about performance consciousness and what was ‘real’ and what was ‘not real’. Essential questions were posited concerning time and the collective versus individual experience of performance (Marowitz 1990:66).
The Happening was a deliberate attack on the conference participants’ fundamental sense of what is theatrical. In most traditional theatre the play is understood through a cumulative reading of information transferred to the audience through plot, dialogue, sets, and costumes. Conventional centres of interest and meaning were totally removed from the Happening. The event was attended by the Queen’s cousin, Lord Harewood, then Artistic Director of the Edinburgh Festival, and, importantly, was also televised on the BBC’s Monitor programme. An unsuccessful case was later brought against the conference organisers in the Scottish Law Courts. The case was front page news for weeks in the UK and influenced the production of many similar events during the 1960s and 1970s (Haynes 1984: 61). A poetry conference proposed for the following year, however, was cancelled as a consequence of the furore.
The Happening in Edinburgh is a clear example of performance as ideological transaction. It generated a performance crisis by rupturing the accepted rules and norms which govern the use of signs and conventions in performance. A Happening is seen from as many viewpoints as there are participants and witnesses. There is no common consent about its centres of interest or meaning. Its meaning is dynamically conditioned by contextuality and the spontaneous perceptions of those involved, who tend to respond to stimuli and incidents not specifically intended by the participants, stimuli and incidents often brought into meaning by reactions to prepared events thereby contributing to the potential for performance efficacy.
The majority led by a harried Ken Tynan, apoplectic with rage, deplored the disturbance…. Celebrated directors from Yugoslavia, India, Ireland, and Germany called it ‘nonsense’ and ‘child’s play’. Joan Littlewood immediately sprang to its defence, dismissing questions such as ‘What did it mean?’, ‘Was it Theatre?’, ‘Did it succeed?’ Alexander Trocchi spat the word ‘Dada’ in Tynan’s face and exclaimed that critics could not merely explain away new forces in art by bundling them into ready-made classifications. (Marowitz 1990: 62–63).
To summarise, Marowitz’s work revolved around utilising aesthetic and intellectual tools to upset the status quo. Marowitz agitated conventional theatre and this disruption had the effect of shaking things loose, calling various received notions into question, and generally turning accepted conventions on their head. What was taking place during this period was a loose constellation of activities whose objectives at times were very different but, although there was never a singular unifying premise or manifesto, there was a shared antipathy to the conformity and commercialism of mainstream society and mainstream theatre. What happened was the evolution of a theatre diametrically opposed to the conventions of drama as literature common in the West since the Renaissance. It was an approach that rejected the beliefs and expectations of traditional audiences, complemented experimental influences and radically altered both the aesthetic and organisational basis upon which performances are created. These cultural and ideological intersections in turn helped to shape the identity of the theatre during this period.
Outline of the Book
Introduction
This chapter introduces Marowitz as artist and man and places him within the context of contemporaneous theatrical movements and changes in broader culture. This chapter provides a map of the compendium so that readers can more easily navigate each section. It also provides a brief description of methodology, and indicators of Marowitz’s influence on performance practices are identified and discussed.
Part One: OUT OF THE MELTING POT (2014)
Out of the Melting Pot, is Marowitz’s unfinished autobiography. It was his wish to have the memoir published however it is still highly disordered and in draft form due to his incapacity from Parkinson’s disease. Discussions continue at the time of this publication as regards to the entire document. The first excerpt Dumped in the Melting Pot is a personal account of Marowitz’s family and growing up in poverty on the Lower East Side of New York. The writing is raw and at times can become morose as Marowitz writes as though he is already dead. The exercise of writing a memoir is in part to come to terms with one’s own life of course. The second excerpt The Golden Year is the story of how Marowitz lost his virginity. It is included because it is emblematic of Marowitz’s humour as well as his philosophy of life. The third and fourth excerpts are Marowitz’s recollections of his work with Nobel Laureates Harold Pinter and Vaclav Havel. These excerpts help to establish for the reader a sense of the arc of Marowitz’s life from humble origins and will be of greatest general interest.
Part Two: PRODUCTION DIARIES
RSC Theatre of Cruelty (1966)
This is Marowitz’s production journal from he and Peter Brook’s groundbreaking RSC experimental