Jerk is disturbing—and pointless
By Gisí¨le Vienne, Dennis Cooper, and Jonathan Capdevielle. Directed by Gisí¨le Vienne. Presented by the grunt gallery and PuSh International Performing Arts Festival. At VIVO Media Arts Centre on Friday, January 22. No remaining performances
Jerk is so disturbing—and pointless—that I wish I hadn’t seen it.
French director Gisèle Vienne and solo actor Jonathan Capdevielle created the piece with American writer Dennis Cooper. It’s based on real crimes. In the early ’70s, a Texas serial killer named Dean Corll murdered at least 27 boys and young men. He had two teenage male accomplices. In the play, one of those boys, David Brooks, presents a puppet show about the crimes to an undergraduate psychology class.
Twice during the performance, David asks us to read passages in the fanzines he has handed out. One of these describes the snuff movies that David filmed while Dean and the other accomplice, Wayne, murdered their victims: “A long-haired blond boy is lying on the usual table. Wayne’s punching him in the face over and over. Dean’s fucking him and he’s trying to rip a nipple off his chest.” Other images involve cutting a boy’s fingers off with pliers and much worse.
Everything about this production colludes to make us experience these crimes viscerally. Puppets are ideal projection screens for the imagination. Capdevielle’s characterization is persuasively naturalistic—and fragile to the point of implosion. The noises the actor makes with his voice are stomach-churningly evocative; it’s necrophilia with a full soundtrack.
And what’s the point? In the talkback session that followed the performance I attended, Vienne said, “I don’t really care about what happened in the situation in the ’70s. I’m interested in feeling our limits”¦.Extreme experiences can be really exciting.” Referring to French theorist Georges Bataille, she said that Jerk is not about killing but uses killing as a metaphor for confusion. She noted how successfully she had manipulated us, making us quiet at certain points, and invoking laughter at others. My interpretation of this is that Vienne subjected us to horrific imagery to make theoretical points, to get off on the intensity of it all, and to enjoy being our puppeteer.
Apparently, compassion doesn’t enter into it. Vienne laughed when she noted that four people have fainted during performances of Jerk. In a YouTube clip, she says, “Some people have no problem with it because they have a more clear relationship to their fantasy.” In other words, if you’re cool enough and smart enough, you’ll recognize that Jerk’s presentation of homicidal sadism is just a philosophical puzzle.
But my heart is still attached to my head, so I woke up before dawn the morning after I saw this show, plagued by images that wouldn’t let me go back to sleep. I feel brutalized by Jerk and insulted by Vienne’s condescension.
Comments
5 Comments
Ro
Jan 25, 2010 at 7:25pm
I think I understand what Vienne was referring to when she talked about getting a visceral reaction from her audience. Some artists are inclined to that, and that's how they approach their work and what they want to get out of it. I actually don't have a problem with this but one thing Vienne said gave me pause. You noted in this review that the content in this play is based on true events. She stated, "I don’t really care about what happened in the situation in the ’70s. I’m interested in feeling our limits". I find using and exploiting the suffering and death of real people in order to create an "extreme experience" absolutely reprehensible. Make whatever points you want to make, but for the love of God, don't exploit the very real suffering of people in order to do it.
Colin Thomas GS
Jan 25, 2010 at 9:44pm
Absolutely, Ro. Watching this play, it's impossible to forget that extreme suffering exists in the world—and some of it looks like the murders represented here. As I understand it, Dennis Cooper has written a fantasia inspired by historical events; he's not attempting to accurately represent the real killings. Still, that approach does seem hautily disrespectful of the people involved in the original murders. And, even if this script were pure fiction with no historical reference, why create such a horrific experience? For the thrill of it? The sense of mastery? I like pushing limits, but I'm also a fan of artistic responsibility.
Colin Thomas
David Jordan
Jan 26, 2010 at 9:16am
I didn't attend the talk back, but yes I get a sense that these artists are far more interested in pushing theatrical limits - which they do masterfully.. I'm a huge fan of blurring the line between theatrical reality and reality, but not without purpose.
Lila Xue
Jan 28, 2010 at 2:08pm
Talk about feeling trapped in the theatre. This material could have been explored in many different ways but they picked the way with the least heart. In a way very insulting to the audience because we want to be open to what the artist has to say but in this case, I didn't feel there was anything to say, just this representation of a horrific event, to no end, no transformation, just feeling like I was stuck in this awful play and I had to wait for it to be over. Why can't people wake up and stop doing shows like that? Is the concept of entertainment considered so philistine that we have to sit through shows that no one could possibly enjoy?
Cory
Feb 3, 2010 at 11:23pm
I agree with you Colin about intention. I sat watching the show asking myself why was this piece of art was created and why was it programmed for this festival. I am always willing to take the journey, even a difficult journey and given the content this was certainly going to be difficult , but I came away with the feeling that these artists lacked imagination. In terms of an experience as a seasoned theatre-goer, despite the graphic and salacious details of the crimes, I think the real offense was that I was bored to death - was that the point?