Austinist Theatre Review: Red Cans

now accepting orders for the action figures!

"Having George W. Bush as the president of this country is like being repeatedly anally raped by a drooling idiot in an abandoned warehouse on the outskirts of town."

Huh. That example might be a slight overstatement ... but, Andy, I think you're right!

Ooops, wait, I've been fired.

I think the difference in opinion/experience is based on how the individual likes their sex. Some like it nice and slow, lots of gradual build, others like it more like a heartbeat, rests and sharp rises in action the whole time and some people just wanna immediately blow their load with no downtime. Seems pretty simple to me. See everything can be explained by using sex as an analogy. Try it.

Brenner, you're fired too.

Jessie -- you, however, been nominated. Are you actually interested in writing for Austinist? Send us an email if the rumors are true.

Crawl in the hole, leap the banshee, and eat the sunlight.

I just thought her recent comments here and elsewhere have been astute and opiniated, just what you would want. Ooops, wait, I've been fired.

Shannon, you're fired from commenting. Put it away, dude. Put it away.

What's your deal with Jessie? (Jessie, no offense, I'd be all for it if you wanted to.)

Bastrop=Oort Cloud. And Pluto is no longer going to be a planet. I'm not keeping this comment germane. Sorry, Austinist.

Get Jessie a gig.

Ok, Brenner, you rule.

A quick clarification for all (and maybe this should've been made clear from the get go) -- in saying that the Cans folk "focus far too much on looking different", I'm not asserting that this was the artists' actual intent. Brenner's right, I wasn't there in rehearsal, how would I know?

But, as a audience member, that's what it looked like. That's the impression I got from the way the production interacted with me from the moment I arrived. If they were trying to create a different atmosphere -- in my opinion -- they were ineffective, or I wouldnt've felt that way.

As to the rest of Brenner's response, I say this: dude, I'm glad you found it more interesting then I did. Maybe the crucial difference -- the real rift we're looking at here -- is that I didn't like the second Spiderman movie. So, in essence, I may be pre-disposed to react apathetically to Red Cans. If this is the case, my apologies to the reader for bringing this prejudice into my interpretation. (I know I sound like a smart ass, but I'm kind of serious.)

Well retorted indeed, Mr Brenner. If I wanted to live in Bastrop, I'd buy your house.

Right.

Now I've actually seen it.

And the first thing to be addressed, I think, is this comment of Jonathon's:

"They focus far too much on looking different (or new, or alternative, or whatever), and not enough on crafting a production worth sitting through."

Might as well start with something I *strongly disagree* with ...

In the first place, I find such a comment troubling regardless of the context. I mean, unless Jonathon was there with the Rubberers the whole time (two years in the making! rehearsal after rehearsal after workshop after reheasal!) and heard them saying or even suggesting shit like "Okay, guys, what you're doing is okay, but we really need to focus more on LOOKING DIFFERENT here, perhaps with a more ALTERNATIVE or NEW flavor in there, too, EVEN IF IT MEANS THAT THE PRODUCTION WILL BE LESS WORTH SITTING THROUGH."

I know JoMo responded to the show as if that were the case, but it's a matter of --- what do the shrinks call it? --- Transference? --- to imply that that's what actually went on to cause such a response.

And in the second place, I didn't have that response to the show at all. (Let's get that immediately up front: this show kicked my ass in a seriously good way.)

What I saw was an animated, narrative-enhanced tableau of a world in which such creatures as these Red Cans exist, and it was like watching an especially interesting segment on Animal Planet or whatever, except that It Was Happening Live In The Space In Front Of Me.

Visually, it was compelling; kinetically, it was fascinating; narratively, it was intriguing.

I didn't see what I thought were the results of people atttempting to look different or alternative or new. I saw what seemed to be The Results Of Performers And Directors Rigorously (Or, Sometimes, Whimsically) Exploring The Possibilities Of Movement And Relationships Within The Boundaries Imposed By The Red-Can "Costumes."

It was like Artificial Life --- a-life, the true geeks call it --- evolving before my eyes, like a staged and sometimes more vicious version of Will Wright's Spore. And so, just on the surface, I was interested and intrigued by what was happening onstage. And, when considering (as Jonathon, to his credit, also does) the performers' sheer physical effort and control necessary to create this living diorama, well, the mind boggles and the flesh winces in sympathetic response ...

I didn't find the slower parts of the performance boring; I found them welcome, idyllic respites from the intermittent rushes and violence, brief interludes in which to try and deduce "Whoa, just WTF was THAT all about?" before the next conflagration occurred. (You know: Kind of like those blink-quick moments of international peace in this world of fucked-up, perpetual warfare.)

So there you have it, for what it's worth: Brenner's perspective.

***With this addendum: I've been told that many aspects of RED CANS were reminiscent (only reminiscent, mind) of the work of the Mummenschanz troupe --- with whose performances I'm egregiously unfamiliar. So ignorance worked in my favor to conjure this final response:

The more daring parts of RED CANS were like the second Spider Man movie. (Bear with me as I wail on this tangent, okay?) Because I'm thinking about the villain Dr. Octopus in particular. And while in the source material (the longrunning comics, of course) Doc Ock accrues enough of a history and personality to differentiate him from other bad guys, in the movie version he's not much more than another Green Goblin in a different suit. But in the movie, we see what we could only infer from the comics: actual motion. And nowhere in the history of film --- or IRL, for that matter --- had anyone ever witnessed the sort of locomotion made possible by those snakey, cybernetic arms of Otto Octavius. I may be embracing banality here, sure, but I'm serious: until SPIDER MAN 2, No One Had Ever Seen A Person Travel Like That Before. So much about both of those webslinger movies was visually exciting; but nothing in them, nor in almost all other movies I've seen, was such a basic REVELATION.

And, at times, RED CANS approached that. Live, with no CGI special effects. God DAMN.***

Okay? Okay.

Now someone please buy my house out in Bastrop so I don't go fucking bankrupt by the end of the year.

~ BRNNR

Can someone at the Austinist get Jessie a gig writing reviews? I love seeing her comments.

pretty sure 'jessie' not only saw red cans, but she was in it.

Word, Kirk.

Arguing in public is far more exciting then arguing in private.

Now let's drink more beer.

I just want to say there is no animosity between Jonathon and me. I like his work too, a lot too.

And I don't think anyone needs to play nice.

I just hate to hear straw dummy arguments about shows and artists that are narcissistic and self-indulgent, neither of which apply to either of the Rubber Brothers.

I was just standing up against a perceived slight to progressive art. The sixties and the nineties were not less critically rigorous than say the 1820’s when the Well Made Play came into existence (yeah, we’re coming up on the bicentennial of that mother!).

I think Jonathon and I were just both raised in a bar culture where arguing and, dare I say, grandstanding are de rigueur.

LONG LIVE FIERCE CRITICISM, it’s the only kind worthy to come to FIERCE THEATER. MORE ARGUING TO COME…

Ha! Totally true. I slipped into my "this is what's wrong with theatre" speech. Oops.

Glad you dug Red Cans. I'm looking forward to Rubber Rep's next show, at which point, we can all argue some more.

Wow, this is a lot of animosity over a play. Is someone projecting? Anyway, anything that illicits this sort of reaction in people is usually at least worth seeing. For the record, I found Red Cans very interesting to watch. It was not the best play I've ever seen, but I was fascinated, not to mentioned scared shitless by Matt in a little red can groveling around my feet. I'm always excited by what Josh and Matt do, I know it will be interesting and different and even if I hate it, I'll be talking about it for a while to come.

Kirk,

Point taken. You're obviously a very well-read performance-maker. Additionally (above and beyond your comments above), you're also an incredibly talented artist. I like your work. Sometimes a lot.

But to call the argument "Reganesque" is grandstanding, needlessly inflamatory, and distorts the issue just as much as my flippant, generic "60s" reference may have. Compare me with the demon arch conversative and watch me squirm. Come on.

I didn't "slander an entire decade" (that neither of us were alive for, by the way). I didn't label any art worthless. I'm not siding or supporting the reactionary position -- hell, this isn't even ABOUT critics.

This is about artists who band together and cry "Convservative! Ignorant! Reactionary!" if and when their work isn't well-received. The notion that we can blame our audience (or our critics), assume the public doesn't understand us, and use that as justification to make more self-indulgent, narrcisitic performance is dangerous in an era of palapable apathy regarding our industry. It does nothing but further alienate the performance community from the people we're purportedly trying to reach.

The weirder the better indeed, Kirk. But regarldess of the artist's intention, ("desperately" wanting to "reach audiences" or whatever it may be) the work presented speaks on its own, and for itself. Making art for public consumption -- and I realize I'm wandering into murky waters -- is to faciliate communication (or to generate dialogue, or however you like to phrase it). If you agree with that, then you may also agree that whether you're attempting to communicate a story, a character, a feeling, a concept, or simply "an experience" you'll be judged as more or less effective depending on how well you've communicated said whatever.

From where I sit, whatever your whatever is (weird, formerly weird but now sited as an important influence on other major 20th century artists, staged with TVs, or otherwise), your work should be judged on its execution.

Therefore, I don't see any need to play nice(as jessie seemed to suggest) just because a performance it "trying to be different".

Presenting a generic argument against the excesses of the "60's" is the most rhetorically Reaganesque move I’ve seen since Dinesh D’Souza bought up the fact that so many poor people are fat.

You see how I referenced a specific event in the above sentence? Now you can critique my understanding of D’Souza and Reagan. But when you offer up a mythic, critically permissive age known as “the 60’s,” you’re just building a straw dummy.

It’s easy to support the dismantling of a hypothetical: without any context simply putting a TV on stage and asking for applause does seem pretty lame. But the artists I know and the art I’ve experienced has never been this vapid. My experience has been that artists work hard, are shrewd business people, and desperately want to reach audiences.

To take an actual performer from the real sixties, I bet Jack Smith wishes the critics had been more forgiving than to call his work “worthless.” He has been granted the posthumous honor of being sited as an important influence by Andy Warhol, Robert Wilson and Laurie Anderson. Now you can argue that those artists are also worthless; that’s a risk I take when I site actual artists.

The main point I want to make is that progressive work always draws out the reactionaries. The earliest example of this that I know is Yeats upon seeing Ubu Roi over 100 years ago, expressing a very human anxiety… “What more is possible? After us the Savage God.”

I don’t think detractors of progressive art need any more help. They don’t need to see work to label it as “worthless.” A point you prove in a post that begins with the question, “did you see it,” and then goes on to slander not just one show but a whole decade of performance for which you weren’t even alive.

But King Ubu’s spirit has survived death, madness, drugs, and disease…I think he’ll be all right. GO SEE ALL THE STRANGE SITES YOU CAN. THE WEIRDER THE BETTER. LONG LIVE THE KING.

Jessie -- did you see Red Cans? Did you think it was an experiment in progress? (Did you like it?)

I suppose you could look at it that way. I tend to think that when you're charging money and asking people to come see your performance, you're measured against all other entertainment offered for public consumption -- regardless of how "experimental" you think you're being.

I'm all for weird, out there, progressive productions, as long as it's A) well executed, and B) interesting to watch. But it's not the 60s. We're past the day when theatre can call itself "avant garde" and be judged at a different (read: more forgiving) standard than "traditional" performance.

Putting up with that kind of bullshit leads to the obnoxious "hey look, I put a TV on stage, now applaud me" - style theatre we got stuck with in the 90s.

Bleh.

And Bleh.

huh. funny that when a group does try to do something different they get a little beat up for not being original enough (statesman, austinist). cause from where i sit, i'd way rather watch an experiment in progress than the same stupid ass boring little play that keeps getting offered up at every other theater in town. you know, the ones that tell you stories and go on about how killing is bad, or loving is good... then there's the shitty ass plays that are putting on a facade of experimentation, but just reek of total amateurism and crappy directing. and yet, those plays get gushed over. why is that?

Alwin: I thought you died in 1993. What gives?

Brenner: glad I'm not actually a fucker.

CBOT: I'm not sure I'd go that far, but word, brother. Word.

Finally, someone agrees with me about Red Cans, the hands down sorst show I've seen since I moved to Austin. It tries so hard to be original and thought provoking, but it only succeeds at being boring.

Oh my. What a foundation for follow-up. I'm calling tease unless we all get to read a proper Brenner response to the show. If he writes it, will Austinist post it? please?

Oh my. What a foundation for follow-up. I'm calling tease unless we all get to read a proper Brenner response to the show. If he writes it, will Austinist post it?

Hey, what happened to the goddam HTML strikeouts?

That "Thanks a lot, fucker" doesn't work right without the goddam HTML strikeouts!

Nota bene, hey?

Hmmmm, ah, yes.

Nice to read a review of Red Cans that's not all gushy-gushy. I mean, I've not yet seen the show myself, and I'm of course going to see it, and I may still be as happily blown away as others have been. And I reckon I'd be happily blown away because, hey, Josh & Matt, I love what those guys have done in the past, or I especially love the idea of what they've done, what they do in general, and the whole visually compelling, restricted-movement idea of Red Cans in particular has excited me since I heard of it over a year ago.

But now here you come with your review.

And while I can hope that my experience and appreciation of the show will be other than yours --- I mean that I hope I like it more --- the things you say are dead-on the kind of things I've said about other shows (or movies or books or whatnot) that friends have unconditionally raved about.

And also I know that you're no dummy.

So, ah, yeah.

My anticipation of seeing Red Cans has now increased in complexity.

Thanks a lot, fucker.

Well done, JoMo.

Ahh, I've got to post, since I love disagreeing with Jonathon so much. I've got my review here:

http://www.loadedguntheory.com/blog/director/listpost/tim/Red_Cans.html

Basically, I think the key to this review is "the cans are presented in a kind of rough social hierarchy – a society". If you channel surf late at night and tend to end up on the National Geographic or History channel, then you'll probably love it. Personally, by the end I had come up with an entire societal structure, my own views of what the events of the play meant, etc. But I was raised by anthropolgists.