Finally! Time to let my Creep flag fly!

I'm going a little less than theatrical but still performative (a la Dr. Fletcher's example with regard to the Onion) and discussing Ritual Pasta.

Ritual... Pasta. Like spaghetti?

Not in the least! Or, okay, this particular spaghetti is pretty creepy but that's not what I mean by creepypasta! Ritual Pasta is born out of Creepypasta, which is a website dedicated to creepy fiction stories, legends, and images from around the web. Some creepypastas have even become novels (my favorite is Penpal). Think of these as open source urban legends-- because plenty of people expand upon existing narratives. As I'm sure you can imagine, occasionally creepypastas can get out of hand and can be given too much credence from its audience. Today, we are getting into how this can be true with ritual creepypastas (or ritual pastas) which require a performative element to achieve something (usually) sinister...

Like Slenderman?

Wow!!! Good call! Yeah!

So to begin. If you are uninitiated, one of the most popular creepypastas is the legend of Slenderman. I've attached a video that summarizes his whole deal nicely:

WAIT WAIT WAIT did he say murder?!?

Yes, these girls were performing serving as "proxies" to Slenderman (that is, under his influence/possession or helping him). There are several rituals that can be found littered about the internet that are designed to assist one in attaining this status in some capacity, but the one that garners the most attention is that of two twelve-year-old girls in Wisconsin who murdered a mutual friend in order to demonstrate (or perform) loyalty to Slenderman (here is the BBC coverage of the event and subsequent trial-- which was so extensive I couldn't pick just one). If we want to talk about "realness" of a performative action being too much, this is Poe's Law in action (given that these girls accepted the legends of Slenderman to be genuine). I grant that this is darker than parody or satire, but it is still a strong example not only of the difference between illusion and reality being "too" blurred but also of there being serious consequences.

So... creepypasta needed a more obvious wink to its audience?

They have made it even more abundantly clear that creepypastas are not real. While I personally do not believe creepypasta failed to "wink" hard enough, it should be noted that the story became ever increasingly "too real" once it was a matter of worldwide interest (i.e. confusion in the public about whether or not Slenderman was indeed a real person). In the aftermath of the attack, creepypasta.com released a statement of condolences to the family of the victim, condemning the acts of the perpetrators, and emphasizing that the legend of Slenderman is completely fabricated:

"SLENDERMAN IS NOT A REAL PERSON/ENTITY. As far as I’m aware, most news outlets have done their due diligence and thus no media personality is claiming that Slenderman actually exists, so I’m not exactly sure where people are getting this misinformation. However, I’m still seeing quite a lot of comments from people who believe that A) he is a real person and B) he owns and is responsible for every single Creepypasta-related website, tumblr, YouTube channel, Facebook group, forum, and wiki. This is simply not true. Slenderman is not, nor has he ever been, anything more than a fictional character created by SomethingAwful user Victor Surge. As is the case with many other fictional characters, he has fans who indulge themselves by creating videos, games, and fanfictions about him, but this does not make him real any more than such fandom would make The Walking Dead or Batman real." To read more of their statement, go here: https://www.creepypasta.com/statement-wisconsin-stabbing/

Both girls were placed under psychiatric evaluation. One has already been sentenced to 25 years in an institution and the second will be sentenced shortly (her evaluation period was scheduled to be around November or December of 2017). While we are dealing with children who are clinically mentally ill, the fact remains that Slenderman inspired panic, confusion, and an intense debate about what sort of material we allow children to consume.

How many ritual pastas can possibly be out there?

184 on creepypasta alone.

Surely there aren't others taken seriously.

Oh there are. Cue the Elevator Game! (Rules and description in a fun video below.)

There are not only people who insist upon the game's authenticity, but also those who consider the performance of this ritual as component within the mysterious death of Elisa Lam. This belief is present enough that Elisa's picture is on the right hand side of the monitor when you google "elevator game."

I just hope we've all learned something today.

A Messianic Turducken!

What's going on? What are we doing?

We are going to talk about tweaking of the standard narrative for passion plays/films about Jesus Christ into Monty Python's The Life of Brian. First off, I want to emphasize that passion plays were born out of religious ritual and, while theatrical in nature, are performative acts given the intent toward inspiring worship and belief in facilitating a greater connection to the Christian God. While I think this fits neatly under Schechner's umbrella, for Butler we need to go into the socioreligious context of the Thatcher-era United Kingdom.



Britain has a long history of passion plays dating back to the middle ages. Now, by the time The Life of Brian premiered in 1979, the religious hegemony of Christianity was well established in the UK: all of the members of Monty Python had gone through some extent of religious education in their youth, the Anglican Church had been the state religion for centuries, and the majority of Britons identified as some denomination of Christian (I don't have a source for a statistic for the late seventies but according to the BBC 64% of the population identified themselves as Christians in 2010-- so one might imagine the percentage was greater 30 odd years prior given that it was about 80% in 1950). According to IMDb, there were at least ten films that were directly biographical tales of Jesus of Nazareth (many of which were a la passion play) by the time The Life of Brian came on the scene. I cover all this in attempt to say, that both the performance of Christianity and the performative act of a passion play are both being queered by the Pythons.

Statistics are boring! Get to the tweaking!

Right, right. Okay, so the film follows the unfortunate adventures of a neighbor of Jesus who gets mistaken for being the Messiah. We see a handful of parallels between the lives of the two men throughout the film that give way to the Pythonesque satire we know and love (some of us). Some examples (among many):

• The three wise men mistaking the newborn Brian for the infant Jesus, only to realize their mistake shortly thereafter (and shoving poor Mandy, mother of Brian, to the floor)
• Brian attending the Sermon on the Mount but being so far back that nobody can hear and the message gets garbled into being about dairy
• The iconic, controversial, and musical crucifixion:

Furthermore, the production team re-used many of the technical leftovers from the Zeffirelli Jesus of Nazareth while they were shooting in Tunisia. It literally had the look of filmed biographical depictions of the life of Christ. For other behind-the-scenes tidbits, here is a mentalfloss article that covers all of that.

John Cleese described the intent behind the satire of The Life of Brian was to criticize "closed systems of thought, whether they are political or theological or religious or whatever: systems by which, whatever evidence is given to a person, he merely adapts it, fits it into his ideology." The film was intentionally made not only to be funny but to encourage freedom of thought and, to once again quote Cleese, to "[...] take a critical view. Find out about it, don't just believe because somebody tells you to. Someone in a pulpit says something, question it, work it out."

Did people interpret this tweaking in different ways? 

Oh yes. People were tweaked.

Where to begin on this one? The Life of Brian premiered in the United States and was protested not only by Christians but also by some Jewish groups (New York Times article from 1979). That said, the film would also potentially face blasphemy laws in the UK. It was outright banned in some areas of the country. These bans and condemnations in the public discourse were spearheaded by conservative religious citizens (and organizations)-- most notably: Mary Whitehouse (to whom the script was leaked before its release) and Malcolm Muggeridge.

Muggeridge, in addition to the Bishop of Southwark, debated against Michael Palin and John Cleese of Monty Python on the program Friday Night, Saturday Morning. This episode was famously aggressive as the men argued interpretation (funny/satirical/having a good message vs. obscene/blasphemous/offensive/ridiculing a force of good in the world). The full debate is below for your viewing... pleasure... if you're into arguing... which I am sometimes.

I'm sure it will surprise nobody that the film still inspires controversy to this day (for example, two years ago when a vicar ruffled feathers by playing The Life of Brian as a part of fundraising for the church). Heck, the ban of the film in Aberystwyth was only just lifted in 2009.

Norway vs. Sweden

Here's a fun but telling little factoid that emphasizes the divisive nature of the film/its interpretation: Norway had outright banned The Life of Brian, so advertisers in Sweden had espoused the slogan, "So funny it was banned in Norway."

Excuse me! I was promised a turducken!

This is more bonus material for you all than anything, but... The sketch comedy show Not the Nine O'Clock News did a fun parody of the Friday Night, Saturday Morning debate (foliage on the set and all) in which a film about Jesus was upsetting the followers of Monty Python.

I hope we've all learned something today.

Theatre vs. Performance vs. Britney Spears

I want a performance theory discussion from the perspective of a theatre artist

So... performance... it's basically everything someone could do, right?

I mean. Yes.

In class I was slightly bewildered by the notion that essentially everything is performance. There was something vague about all of this "twice-done behavior," "not-me and not-not me," and Carlson's assertion on pages 6 and 7 that performance has brought a certain theatricality into all of the human sciences. It was handy to dig deep into my own thoughts on the matter. Upon reflection, I will maintain that performance is an all encompassing umbrella for human behavior after all! Indeed, I will further assert that, as Dr. Fletcher had suggested in his post, theatre is not different than performance but rather a specialized sub-category of performance.

Let's start with an ELI5 conceptualization of performative behavior. I know I need it.

I found it helpful to view performance as the action that is being examined, judged, or observed. For example, when Jerry has a performance review at his new job at the zoo, performance does not mean acting on the stage, how he performs traditional masculinity, or how he performs being American on a cultural level. Rather, the performance his superiors would be discussing would be things like the action of his behaving in an accomodating manner toward guests (which he doesn't) and his effectiveness (or lack thereof) in keeping the animals' enclosures sanitary.

I mean, come on, Jerry! The monkeys didn't get dysentery on their own. 

So where does theatre come in?

Okay. Like all things in life, I'm starting this by putting it in terms of cats. If performance is saying something is a feline (felidae), then theatre is like specifying that the feline in question is a tiger. To expand on this idea for those of you who do not speak fluent cat lady, the two things that make theatre its own distinct category in my estimation are as follows:

1. As a work of art, there is an apparent significance beyond the literal in theatre. That is to say, we are to espouse States' binocular view of the world (page 8 from the reading) but take it a step further to include his idea of theatre as "predatory... not just mirror up to Nature but also consumes it." This implies a certain hunger or need for expression of what human life is like. If you want to get really extra about this point, I think Nietzsche described it well (if a touch histrionically) in The Birth of Tragedy: "his oneness with the primal nature of the universe is revealed to him in a symbolical dream-picture (5)."
2. Everyone involved is aware that what is being performed has fictitious elements. This goes beyond an acknowledgement of the mimetic or semiotic; it is also important to note that neither the performer nor the observer(s) believe the theatrical event itself has direct supernatural consequences (thereby excluding things like ritual, shamanism, etc). I realize that this would put Greek plays in a position of straddling the line as the plays were a part of a religious festival. However, these theatrical productions were not thought to individually bring about something in a straightforward fashion (in contrast to, say, a shamanistic gut releasing a spirit or sacrificing bulls in order to petition a god for a favor).

But you're dying to know how football isn't theatre

I appreciate your enthusiasm, you cheeky MFAs.

Okay, so football isn't theatre because it certainly doesn't meet both requirements. First of all, there are few (if any) performers or observers who believe any given sporting event is fictitious. The players are real. The game is real. The dislike I have for the Dallas Cowboys is real. Furthermore, football is fairly literal with regard to what the audience is meant to interpret. Compared to something like Death of a Salesman, you are going to have a substantially more difficult time finding deeper meanings and themes in a game of American football through the lens of being a work of theatrical expression. I'm not saying it can't be done, but you'd have a time of it.

Crossroads (2002) would be somewhere on the spectrum of deeper meaning about our humanity. I'll leave it to you to decide where.

Emily and Britney Spears, you did your best but I'm still feeling a bit unclear

That's okay. I get it. This is a mind-boggling topic and I am an acquired taste. Here is an extremely helpful and concise guide on Schechner's distinctions by Calvin Ashmore: http://www.icosilune.com/2009/01/richard-schechner-performance-theory/

(Side note) If you're hanging out with our poor extraterrestrial friend, it might be helpful to point out that theatre has a handful of frequently used conventions that are decent indicators that said alien is probably watching something under the performance sub-heading of theatre. A particular favorite of mine would be that if people are engaged in mimesis of a story that follows the Hero's Journey as outlined by Joseph Campbell, it's a pretty safe bet that it's some variety of work of theatrical art. Theatrical events don't always follow this pattern (and I'm sure there are exceptions within the heroic formula-- I'm looking at you, elaborate rites for monomyth-type deities), but bloody hell it sure happens a lot!

I just hope we all learned something today