I agree with many of your observations, but disagree when you conclude that Jerome has “ a flippant if comical disregard for his audience.” On the contrary, I felt like Jerome had a specific regard for the audience and his relationship with it/us. He explained his relish in not giving the audience what they want by couching it in terms of power relationships. He pointed out that when he amazes the audience with his performance, he initiates a rift between the audience and himself, which necessarily puts him on a pedestal of sorts. Instead, Jerome takes advantage of that particular quality of live performance–that it’s live and that we’re all there together–to rethink old power dynamics and even the phenomenon of the “ spectacle” itself. “Pichet Klunchun and Myself” was a tribute to Jerome’s commitment to us, the audience. In fact, I’ve rarely felt so included in a performance.
I was also delightfully foiled by his use of East and West. The beginning of the performance was spattered with references to this, one of the 20th century’s most infuriating binaries, but later gave way to more specific references to Thailand and France. I found this a welcome reminder of how the most honest and trenchant observations are personal. I applaud Pichet and Jerome for this, and for giving unexpectedly concrete answers to seemingly rhetorical conceptual questions!
Comment by Katherine Rochester — November 15, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
Katherine …
Thank you for commenting. My comment about sensing a “disregard” from Bel for his audience wasn’t about “Pichet Klunchun and Myself” but to his earlier work, “The Show Must Go On.” I agree with you about feeling “included” in Wednesday’s performance — indeed, I felt this show was almost a long program note, six years late — and that’s among the reasons I labeled it brave.
Comment by Matt Peiken — November 15, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
I agree with many of your observations, but disagree when you conclude that Jerome has “ a flippant if comical disregard for his audience.” On the contrary, I felt like Jerome had a specific regard for the audience and his relationship with it/us. He explained his relish in not giving the audience what they want by couching it in terms of power relationships. He pointed out that when he amazes the audience with his performance, he initiates a rift between the audience and himself, which necessarily puts him on a pedestal of sorts. Instead, Jerome takes advantage of that particular quality of live performance–that it’s live and that we’re all there together–to rethink old power dynamics and even the phenomenon of the “ spectacle” itself. “Pichet Klunchun and Myself” was a tribute to Jerome’s commitment to us, the audience. In fact, I’ve rarely felt so included in a performance.
I was also delightfully foiled by his use of East and West. The beginning of the performance was spattered with references to this, one of the 20th century’s most infuriating binaries, but later gave way to more specific references to Thailand and France. I found this a welcome reminder of how the most honest and trenchant observations are personal. I applaud Pichet and Jerome for this, and for giving unexpectedly concrete answers to seemingly rhetorical conceptual questions!
Comment by Katherine Rochester — November 15, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
Katherine …
Thank you for commenting. My comment about sensing a “disregard” from Bel for his audience wasn’t about “Pichet Klunchun and Myself” but to his earlier work, “The Show Must Go On.” I agree with you about feeling “included” in Wednesday’s performance — indeed, I felt this show was almost a long program note, six years late — and that’s among the reasons I labeled it brave.
Comment by Matt Peiken — November 15, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
[...] Check it out! While looking through the blogosphere we stumbled on an interesting post today.Here’s a quick excerptI fought the urge to walk out of my first encounter with J©rme Bel. It was The Show Must Go On at the Pantages (through the Walker), in 2001, a show featuring a wide line of everyday/ordinary people facing and returning the blank … [...]
Pingback by ze » Bel-wether evening — December 11, 2007 @ 11:35 pm