3 December 2008, Roberto Rinaldi, Alto Adige
Interview (it)


You have chosen a staging, which is very different from sceneries used usually in music theatre. You are concentrating mostly on the voices of the Hilliard Ensemble. Can we call your choice a minimal on, or it is better to say nonconformist? Lei opta per una messa in scena diversa dal modo convenzionale utilizzato nel teatro musicale in genere, preferisce concentrarsi solo sulle voci dell'Hilliard Ensemble. Possiamo chiamare la sua scelta minimalista o anticonformista? You are right. You can’t compare this piece with an opulent and overloaded opera, but for me very often I cant see anymore when there is too much to hear and I cant hear anymore when there is too much to see. So I think you can better speak of a reduction instead of minimalism. I separate the senses a bit: the listening from the seeing for example; but on the other hand, when you look at all three parts of this staged concert, you have also visually a very rich offer - when you don’t wait for the spectacular things and when are ready to discover in the details. How was it possible to assemble so different authors like Eliot, Blanchot and Beckett in order to figure out a relation between them? Which key of meaning did you impose yourself to transform three different stories in one coherent theatre piece? Come ha lavorato per assemblare tre autori così diversi come Eliot, Blanchot, Beckett, e creare un legame che risultasse coerente tra loro? Quale chiave di lettura si è dato per trasformare tre storie diverse in un linguaggio teatrale coerente? If this evening is coherent, that is something you have to decide. The texts are indeed from different times (1911, 1948, 1983) and in different styles. But they deal with questions of our individual existence, and they all fight against the difficulties of their genre in the 20th century and finally fail with great artistic success: Eliot with his broken ‘Lovesong’; Blanchot with his strange ‘story’ and Beckett with his invention of a modern, saecular ‘litany’, with which he invents a complete utopic new sort of language, where words are nearly completely dissolving into music. Is the message of the text unambiguous or is there any liberty of interpretation for the audience? Il messaggio del testo rappresentato è esplicito o lascia al pubblico la libertà d’interpretazioni? All texts, all images are made for our imagination. Thats for sure: they is no security in their meaning. And they help me to consider theatre as an art form, as an offer for an artistic experience, not as a simple messsage. You are often talking about fusion of the art of sound and the art of word. How is it possible to combine them in order that the audience can follow you? Lei parla di fusione fra arte del suono e arte della parola. Come è possibile fonderle insieme e trarre un linguaggio comprensibile al pubblico? Only if the audience accepts that they dont have to understand everything. Like when we encounter visual art, or read good poetry (and if we dont listen to those teachers, who want to nail down interpretations). Then it can be an endless but fruitful play with associations, and meanings, and questions ot ourselves. Contemporary art is often criticised of being incomprehensible for the great audience. Are there any experimentally contemporary art forms sharable by all? And makes your show part of this group? L'arte contemporanea viene spesso criticata per essere indecifrabile al grande pubblico. Esistono forme di arte scenica contemporanea sperimentali condivisibili da tutti? E il suo spettacolo appartiene a questo genere? I dont know if we can succeed on stage, but of course there are wonderful strong art works, which touch the spectator a lot though they are very abstract - like a painting of Rothko, an iron sculpture of Richard Serra, a light installation by Olafur Eliasson or James Turell. How did you manage to include the Hilliard Ensemble, famous for the interpretation of medieval, renaissance and contemporary music, but always as a vocal quartet, in this project. It seams that they are very open to experiment a new concept of singing? Come è riuscito a coinvolgere l'Hilliard famoso per le loro interpretazioni di musica medievale, rinascimentale e contemporanea, ma sempre come un ensemble vocale, mentre con lei si sono dimostrati aperti ad un nuovo modo di concepire il canto? It was actually their idea to ask me for a commission. And I immediately agreed, becaue I love their way of non dramatic singing. Have you also been inspired by sociological contemporary facts? Nel suo spettacolo ha tratto anche ispirazione da risvolti sociologici contemporanei? I think all my works are inspired by our contemporary ways and changes of living and seperation. In “I went to the house but did not enter” it is probably specially the second part, which can be read like this. And in this collaboration with the Hilliard Ensemble (and in my choice of the texts) I was specially interested if their capacity of creating a common fifth human voice - beyond their individual voices, which are beautiful! – could be seen as a metaphorical alternative to the individual struggles with which we have to fight competetively for our everyday existence. This voice has a utopian quality for me – specially now.

on: I went to the house but did not enter (Music Theatre)