Page 130 - Vinkler, Jonatan, Ana Beguš and Marcello Potocco. Eds. 2019. Ideology in the 20th Century: Studies of literary and social discourses and practices. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 130
Ideology in the 20th Century: studies of literary and social discourses and practices
about Odilo Globočnik (1904–1945), one of the important SS leaders
who was involved in holocaust especially in Polish extermination camps
during World War II. Globočnik was of Slovenian origin (but german-
ized), and this was one of the (widely unknown) facts that fascinated the
authors of the performance.
Two issues are interesting concerning this performance and its mes-
sage. The first one is its declarative level: the authors and the theatre em-
phasize that they are aware of the rise of extreme nationalism and racism
in Europe. For them, Globočnik is the representative of ‘absolute evil’.
The aim of the project is killing Globočnik’s name and preventing the
resurrection of his acts (Slovensko mladinsko gledališče 2018). The per-
formance is therefore an interesting search for the ways how to avoid in-
stalling Globočnik as the dramatic or even tragic hero and how to avoid
130 realist, mimetic psychology. In doing this, the performance uses several
techniques. One of them is ritual killing of his name as the name of the
evil.
Along with this level, the spectators encounter another one, i.e. the
performed level. These are the ambiguous, provocative allusions on Na-
tional Socialism that can be paralleled with the age we live in (and this
seems to be the authors’ aim as well): for example—strange, almost gro-
tesque preparatory moves and gestures of the performers, the obsession
with strange and ridiculous rituals, the opening of the working-class
question, denoting Marx as the greatest materialist of all times, the fasci-
nation on mass media, the biopolitical issues etc. This level shows the ele-
ments of hidden legacy of National Socialism in today’s society, especial-
ly in the fields where many do not recognize them at all or where they see
characteristically leftist or communist political issues. Here is the place of
special ambiguity and peculiarity of this performance. This, non-declara-
tive level makes the spectator also discern that in the performance the re-
sponsibility for the evil is not placed into the hands of one man—a leader;
this would be a titanic understanding of history. Conversely, the authors
wish to draw the spectator’s attention to the structure: to the similarities,
patterns and images that build the age almost a century ago, as well as
ours, the present one.
Conclusion
Recent theories of contemporary performing arts agree that the strict di-
vision between drama (text) and theatre (performance) has no sense, since
we are dealing with ‘no longer dramatic text’ (Poschmann) and postdra-
matic theatre (Lehmann). The discussion of several examples of recent
about Odilo Globočnik (1904–1945), one of the important SS leaders
who was involved in holocaust especially in Polish extermination camps
during World War II. Globočnik was of Slovenian origin (but german-
ized), and this was one of the (widely unknown) facts that fascinated the
authors of the performance.
Two issues are interesting concerning this performance and its mes-
sage. The first one is its declarative level: the authors and the theatre em-
phasize that they are aware of the rise of extreme nationalism and racism
in Europe. For them, Globočnik is the representative of ‘absolute evil’.
The aim of the project is killing Globočnik’s name and preventing the
resurrection of his acts (Slovensko mladinsko gledališče 2018). The per-
formance is therefore an interesting search for the ways how to avoid in-
stalling Globočnik as the dramatic or even tragic hero and how to avoid
130 realist, mimetic psychology. In doing this, the performance uses several
techniques. One of them is ritual killing of his name as the name of the
evil.
Along with this level, the spectators encounter another one, i.e. the
performed level. These are the ambiguous, provocative allusions on Na-
tional Socialism that can be paralleled with the age we live in (and this
seems to be the authors’ aim as well): for example—strange, almost gro-
tesque preparatory moves and gestures of the performers, the obsession
with strange and ridiculous rituals, the opening of the working-class
question, denoting Marx as the greatest materialist of all times, the fasci-
nation on mass media, the biopolitical issues etc. This level shows the ele-
ments of hidden legacy of National Socialism in today’s society, especial-
ly in the fields where many do not recognize them at all or where they see
characteristically leftist or communist political issues. Here is the place of
special ambiguity and peculiarity of this performance. This, non-declara-
tive level makes the spectator also discern that in the performance the re-
sponsibility for the evil is not placed into the hands of one man—a leader;
this would be a titanic understanding of history. Conversely, the authors
wish to draw the spectator’s attention to the structure: to the similarities,
patterns and images that build the age almost a century ago, as well as
ours, the present one.
Conclusion
Recent theories of contemporary performing arts agree that the strict di-
vision between drama (text) and theatre (performance) has no sense, since
we are dealing with ‘no longer dramatic text’ (Poschmann) and postdra-
matic theatre (Lehmann). The discussion of several examples of recent
