Reactions to Reactions: Traditional Masks and Modern Commedia

Whoa.jpg

Reactions to Reactions: Traditional Masks and Modern Commedia

As some of you know, Tut'Zanni recently did a run of our most recent show, LOVE LETTER LOST in NYC. We had some great audience members attend, including "The Mask Lady" of New York, Shelley Wyant (www.shelleywyant.com). Having made a name for herself in the world of Mask, we were honored that she attended our show. It is also always exciting having someone who really understands the form watch us work, because we know they can see past the wacky world we've created and see what is at its roots.

She left immediately after show, which was not out-of-the ordinary, as it was a late-night show, and commuting home in the NYC cold is no fun task. She kindly shot us an email that night though, assuring us she definitely enjoyed the show and would like to find a time to talk to us about what we do, and share her thoughts on the piece.

So a few of us met with her, played with some masks, discussed projects, and she shared some of her thoughts on LLL. The primary one that stuck out to me was when she said to one of the Tut'Z (and I'm paraphrasing) "Your character was amazing- but in the wrong mask."

OF COURSE, as an artist, a first reaction is always defensive. But if there's one thing I have learned with this work, it's that no matter how good it feels to you on stage- if it doesn't translate to the audience, then it isn't working. And this was a person that knew mask work, and the archetypes we were working with.

So I let it ruminate for a second, and there were some past personal observations that clicked into place. I've been writing a lot about who are our modern commedia characters, and what are their masks? In fact, I've discussed our show as being a great in-between of our process. We had our first show, ART FOR SALE, which was us coming together as a company, and learning how we work together. Then comes LOVE LETTER LOST, where we really get back into the form, and start to do our own thing with it. We've taken traditional masks, and tweaked them into new characters. We've taken patriarchs and made them matriarchs. We've explored what a male actor in a female mask means. We've modernized these characters into martini-sipping, selfie-taking, pill-popping monsters of today that we can all relate to.

But what about the masks? I wrote a little while ago about how I was afraid we would be doing a disservice to the masks by not playing them how they truly were/are. Not only that, but we might be doing a disservice to our new characters by not allowing them to have and be their own masks. And I think this may be the point we have reached with this show. We used traditional masks and their archetypes as a foundation, but built out new characters from there.

How commedia of us! This is not a bad thing. Quite the opposite, actually- it's an exciting, intriguing opportunity. When commedia was first forming, this is exactly what happened! Yes, there are some main, well-known favorites, but there are literally hundreds of commedia characters, all birthed from actors taking a Zanni or Master and growing them into their own person. Arlecchino, later Harelquin, originally came from the character Zanni. He was given his own quirks and personality traits, and BAM! Everyone loved him and wanted to see more.

It is still valuable to use the traditional masks, and we will continue to do so. But, if we do that, then we must stay true to those masks, in body, form, voice, and personality.

If we make someone new, then we find what their mask is.

And a new commedia character is born.

monster4.jpg
ALi LandvatterComment