Article written together with Giedre Degutytė
What
if clowns become normal men and the normal man becomes the clown?
Let’s
talk about the clown Soviet movie Carnival Night (1956),
directed by E. Riazanov. This movie is of great historical
significance as it is the first example of humour against government
censorship and it has therefore initiated a series of discussions
among scholars on whether it can be considered as one of the
landmarks of a paradigm shift in censorship in the Soviet Union of
the Post-Stalinist era or it should be viewed as another form of
state control. Besides that, the clown scene in this movie seems to
show us ‘ the whole story of clowns in the late 20th century’.
(Davison 2016: 150) The shift from grotesque clown make-up and
costumes to clowns who actually look normal, like ‘one of us’. As
Russian clown Popov has it: ‘The ancient art of clowning, with its
methods and its rules for constructing the entrée and with the working method of the red-haired comic, is dead, above all because
the spectator wants to see a real, natural man. The
appearance in the ring of degenerates, paralytics, rheumatics,
idiots, madmen and maniacs (and it is precisely this which is the
basis of the burlesque red-haired comic) does not rouse the interest
of spectators.’ (Popov 1970: 91)
It
also shows us what happens with clowning when it’s been put under
censorship, which shifts occur in this dynamic. Like Tobi said in
the article about clown and teaching, anyone can take the role of the
clown, it’s fluid. Which might explain why we don’t see the
clowns appearing in the movie later on anymore. Their function has
(unwillingly, but still!) been taken over by the very serious
director, it’s him who takes the clown role in the end. This shows
us that, not only can people decide to become a clown for a big
diversity of reasons, people can even become the clown without
wanting it!
There
are basically two reversals happening in this movie:
1.
The clowns, under the influence of the director’s dictatorship, become
more and more like normal men.
2.
The director, under the influence of both the audience and his
employees working together in ways that go beyond his control,
becomes the clown.
1
The clowns’ reversal
Ogurtsov,
who is the director of the New Year’s Eve celebration, comes to
watch the rehearsal of the clown act. The whole scene, built around a
dialogue between Ogurtsov and two clowns, is divided into three major
parts as follows. Firstly, two actors, dressed in traditional clown
costumes and make-up, appear on stage, introduce themselves as Tip
and Top and act in a ‘’clownish’’ way. For instance, they try
to hug but miss each other, Tip collects Top’s tears with the
handkerchief, which he squeezes on top of the umbrella, making it
look like it is raining, etc. In addition to these illogical and
playful physical gags, the main storyline of their act is that Top is
crying because he is getting married, yet the future wife does not
know that, in fact, he is marrying somebody else. Ogurtsov stops the
scene and points at the improper and non-typical aspects of their act
such as their names (Tip and Top are unsuitable for adults), emotions
(weeping instead of being happy before marriage), misinforming his
fiancée, etc. Actors try to explain the point of their joke, but
Ogurtsov does not take their opinion for granted and asks to revise
their act in accordance to his comments. On their second attempt
clowns, dressed as before, simply come on stage, call each other
Sidorov and Nikolajev and happily start talking about how one is
going to inform his future wife that he is marrying somebody else.
Although physical gags are removed from the act, Ogurtsov insists on
the immoral attitude towards the fiancée and asks them to address
such misconduct by saying it directly. Clowns on their third time,
dressed in ordinary suits and with no make-up, come on stage and
announce with serious voices, that it is totally unacceptable that
there still exist false preconceptions about family and marriage.
Ogurtsov agrees and expresses happiness with the clown scene at last.
Now
the question is if this scene is actually a paradigm shift starting a
new era of resistance via comedy in Soviet history or if
it
is an official party-line disguised as humour on censorship. The
actual action of censorship is explicitly depicted in stages, where
Ogurtsov is the censor and clowns are the ones being censored.
Censorship is conducted through moral and ethical filtering as clowns
subvert social norms of such sensitive issues as marriage and family,
while the process of draining comic bits out of their routine exposes
censor’s lack of humour. Ogurtsov’s comments on the
clown
performance have no logical explanation but the blind belief in
ideological dogma, which makes him look ridiculous and he is turned
into the subject of laughter. The notion of mocking censorship was
incomprehensible under Stalin’s regime and thus Thaw period,
according to Wallach (1991), marks the initiation of the new era of
relaxed censorship which provided with the relative freedom of
expression. However, although this scene of clowns going through the
filter of censorship is one
of the
earliest examples of turning censorship into the subject of mockery
in the Soviet Bloc as it was produced on one of the first years of
Khrushchev’s regime, such mockery was in fact promoted and
supported by the authorities. The clown scene portrays the mechanics
of censorship and the power of authority. It is funny that mocking
authority was even encouraged by the state, yet mocking small
bureaucrats or unimportant officials was allowed, but never the state
itself. The state distanced itself from carrying censorship, the
burden was
put on the officials.
2.
The normal man’s reversal
In
the
first scene, the director took on the role of the straight for the
biggest part. He functioned
as monsieur Loyal in the
classical clown entrees.
But we already saw some hints that he’s ‘losing it’, mainly
when he is impulsively playing around with the bow tie of the august
and can’t help finding it funny. This video now is a compilation of
Ogurtsovs transformation, of the director, the normal person,
becoming a clown. From when he enters the room and the crowd makes
fun of him, calling him an Ogurtsov ‘imitation’ to his speech that
got stolen and his pockets filled with magic – and clown props
making the audience laugh, seeming to think the whole thing was a set-up. The same for when we see him going down the hole of the stage,
crawling in the backstage, saying that it's a punch and judy show,
appearing in the magician's box. And also his facial expressions when
he is watching other performers after his speech are funny to watch. All of this happens because the team goes against the director,
pretending to the audience everything was part of the plan . So that
even his complaints, being put on the speaker for everyone to hear
and despite him being so serious, causing them great laughter again.
Whereas,
however, Ogurtsov has watched rehearsals
of many acts and gave his comments, we see most of them actually
appearing in the celebration, but not the clowns’ number. It
mysteriously disappears. Could it be that the filmmaker has put in
the clown scene as a secret message, not actually belonging to the
narrative but having a meaning of its own? Or is it
rather that really, like
Popov said, the old clowns are dead, and new clowns ought to look
like normal people? While
these days it is not
surprising to see a clown dressed like a normal person, at some point
in history clowns went through that transformation and it was
strange. I can just guess what
they were thinking then, but maybe they had questions like: ‘will
they laugh, I don't even look like a clown?’ Who started, who was
the first to dress 'normally' and still get laughs? It doesn't really
matter. The point for getting rid of the clown 'look' was to make
audiences to relate easier. 'I could be one of them, this clown looks
just like me.'
But
do the new clowns just look like normal people like Popov
said or has it come to a
point now
where the new clowns are (the)
normal people? Paul Bouissac sees it as a trend in circus clowning to
make use of volunteers from the audience, which is illustrating the
popular idea that ‘everyone can be the clown’ today. ‘The
general acceptance of immersive performance turns some willing
members of the audience into functional augustes in the sense
that they are being ridiculed for the enjoyment of other people.
[...] Whether they are stooges or genuine spectators is irrelevant as
long as they appear to the audience to be ordinary people who are
willing to play with the clown.’ (Bouissac 2015: 133)
What
both clowns and the normal man have in common, is that none of them
is free. The clowns are being put under the censorship of the latter, the
latter is being attacked by his team and the crowd and becomes the
clown completely involuntarily.
So
can we, in fact, make this assumption of clowns being free? It's one of
those values that are so often mentioned together with innocence,
truth, play, spontaneity and so on. They say that clowning is the
freedom to be yourself. But who is really free and didn’t it become
a burden to have to be
yourself all the time? (Who can I be if not
myself, anyway? Where can I be if not in the here-and-now?)
Censorship
is basically just ‘that
some things are to be treated differently from others,’
as Schauer suggests. (1995: 149) Externally imposed or internally
generated – even clowns
have their lists of do’s and don’ts which guide them throughout
history. On what basis though do clowns treat some things differently
from others? How do clowns decide on what is ‘normal’ for a clown
to do or not to do? whether it's coming from a 'political
state' or a 'clown state' could also be about 'normal behaviour for a
clown'. Oppose, contradict, expose the inappropriate, do something
wrong... But then is there actually still something that could be
considered as inappropriate to do for clowns? It seems that they
should be able to do anything they want. Historically, they were the
ones to speak the 'truth'. What about now when the truth is so
elusive? Who's side to choose if we are the ones as society members
that elect the authority? Who or what is right and wrong?
Normal/abnormal, appropriate/inappropriate etc. On what basis? Moral,
ethical, ideological values? Political correctness/incorrectness, art
as a provocation, political statement? Has our freedom become our
ultimate restriction?
How
is it for you, is it easier to work when you have full freedom or
when you are restricted in your choices? Has it occurred to you that
you became the clown when you didn’t want it, or that you didn’t
become a clown when you did really want it?
How
about control.
What
happens really with clowns under censorship?
References:
Russian
Clown by
Oleg Popov (1970)
Censorship in the Soviet Bloc by Amei Wallach (1991)
Censorship in the Soviet Bloc by Amei Wallach (1991)
The
Ontology of Censorship
by Frederick
Schauer (1998)
The
Semiotics of Clowns and Clowning – Rituals of Transgression and the
Theory of Laughter by
Paul Bouissac (2015)
The
Self-Deconstruction of Clowning by
Jon Davison (2016)
Comments
Post a Comment