fbpx Arlecchino Appleseed: How Carlo Mazzone-Clementi Brought Commedia dell'arte to the New World | HowlRound Theatre Commons

Livestreamed on this page Tuesday 7 July at 10:30 a.m. PDT (Los Angeles) / 12:30 p.m. CDT (Chicago) / 1:30 p.m. EDT (New York) / 17:30 GMT / 6:30 p.m. BST (London) / 19:30 CEST (Rome).

Blue Lake, CA, United States
Tuesday 7 July 2015

Add to Calendar

Arlecchino Appleseed: How Carlo Mazzone-Clementi Brought Commedia dell'arte to the New World

Produced With
Tuesday 7 July 2015

 

Thumbnail

 

Dell'Arte International in Blue Lake, California presented the talk "Arlecchino Appleseed—How Carlo Mazzone-Clementi Brought Commedia dell'arte to the New World" livestreamed on the global, commons-based peer produced HowlRound TV network at howlround.tv on Tuesday 7 July at 10:30 a.m. PDT (Los Angeles) / 12:30 p.m. CDT (Chicago) / 1:30 p.m. EDT (New York) / 17:30 GMT / 6:30 p.m. BST (London) / 19:30 CEST (Rome).

In Twitter use #howlround and #dai40th and follow @howlroundtv and @dellarte

Broadcast from Dell'Arte International's Carlo Theatre in Blue Lake California as part of Dell'Arte International's 40th  reunion—a celebration of 40 years of artistic creation, collaboration, community engagement, and actor-training. 

Italian-born Carlo Mazzone-Clementi (1920 -2000) and Jane Hill planted Dell'Arte Inc. in Blue Lake, California in 1974 and opened the school in 1975. Founding Artistic Director Joan Schirle presents a slide lecture on Carlo's early years in Italy, his arrival in the US, and his importance to the spread of physical theatre, New Vaudeville, and Commedia dell'Arte in North America. This will be followed by comments and perspectives on Carlo's teaching and his influence by those whose life he impacted—former colleagues, alumni, and family—in his always chaotic, contradictory, and visionary life.

 

 

About Dell’Arte International:
Dell’Arte International is the work of a community of artists located amidst the majestic redwoods and rugged beauty of California’s North Coast. The combination of our actor training programs, the original touring productions of the Dell’Arte Company, our summer festival, and our work in economic/community development make us a destination unlike any other on the American theatre map.

Mission and Purpose:
Dell’Arte is the North American center for theatre training, research, and performance of the actor-creator. We are a regional arts center serving the large rural area of California’s North Coast. International in scope, grounded in the natural living world and inspired by our non-urban setting, Dell’Arte explores theatremaking, theatre practice, and theatre training for ourselves and our community, for the world, and for the future. One of our deepest values is engendering the relationship between art and place, artist and community. We are a committed community of artists who for over 35 years have modeled and shared a sustained ensemble practice. DAI consists of a professional, international touring ensemble, the Dell’Arte Company; a professional training program, Dell’Arte International School of Physical Theatre, offering a one-year certificate program and the only accredited MFA in Ensemble-based Physical Theatre in the world; and the annual summer Mad River Festival.

We are organizational members of the Theatre Communications Group (TCG), Association of Theatre Movement Educators (ATME), and the Network of Ensemble Theatres (NET). 

About Joan Schirle:
Joan Schirle (Founding Artistic Director) met Carlo Mazzone-Clementi and Jane Hill in 1975 when they asked her to join the faculty of their newly open school. In 1976 she, Carlo, and Jon'Paul Cook founded the Dell'Arte Players Company, which has logged  three decades of international touring. She served as director of the Dell’Arte International School of Physical Theatre from 2003–2011. An actor, playwright, director, deviser, and teacher, her acting work was recognized with a 2006 Fox Foundation/TCG Resident Actor Fellowship. In 2004 she was honored at the 16th Cairo International Experimental Theatre Festival as a leader in the field of experimental theatre. Her essay on Mazzone's importance to the field of physical theatre and devising in North America appears in The Routledge Companion to Commedia dell'Arte.

About HowlRound TV

HowlRound TV is a global, commons-based peer produced, open access livestreaming and video archive project stewarded by the nonprofit HowlRound. HowlRound TV is a free and shared resource for live conversations and performances relevant to the world's performing arts and cultural fields. Its mission is to break geographic isolation, promote resource sharing, and to develop our knowledge commons collectively. Participate in a community of peer organizations revolutionizing the flow of information, knowledge, and access in our field by becoming a producer and co-producing with us. Learn more by going to our participate page. For any other queries, email [email protected], or call Vijay Mathew at +1 917.686.3185 Signal/WhatsApp. View the video archive of past events.

Bookmark this page

Log in to add a bookmark

Find all of our upcoming events here.

Upcoming Events

Comments

16
Add Comment

The article is just the start of the conversation—we want to know what you think about this subject, too! HowlRound is a space for knowledge-sharing, and we welcome spirited, thoughtful, and on-topic dialogue. Find our full comments policy here

Newest First

This is such a smart and daring article. Thank you Howlround for publishing it. Where do I start: I was on the honorable mentions list this year. I am very proud of that because I LOVE that play that got on the list. (ANTARKTIKOS which world premiered at Pittsburgh playhouse in 2013 and also won the Oregon Book Award that year if anyone wants to know). With my inclusion on this list I received a notice that if my play remains eligible (one production or fewer) next year that it can be nominated AGAIN and indeed I was told that some plays that were on The List this year were honorable mentions last year!!!

So what went through my head? Oh wow, how can I get myself on the list next year? How did writers who were on the honorable mentions list year get on the list this year? Mostly after plays have been seen in one year they are "out of sight and mind" the next year. So...So. What's a female playwright in her early forties, with a family in Portland, Oregon to do? I am not in all the most important clubs and I don;t get the sense from my agent that I have a fan base of artistic directors who read my work with bated breath vigilance. In fact mostly I feel like working in the American Theater is like begging for a prom date from the most popular football star. Maybe if only my TEETH were better?

My son offered me his 12 year old business take on things, "But Mom, tell me again, WHY do you want to be on a list of plays that are NOT being produced? Don't you want to be on a list of plays being produced?"

Well yes in fact I do.

But that's the situation I was in before the list.

And now the play is another year older.

And why again is it when I have my work considered blindly that I seem to be rewarded more than when it is a "who you know" thing.

I have no answers.

But maybe I will try to appeal to producers and artistic directors like this -- instead of asking them to please read my lovely play so that it can make it on the list, maybe I will ask them to read it and produce it so they can get it off the list.

Either way, this article brings up an interesting discussion to be had about popularity, access, and its relation to the "quality of work". So let's have that convo!

I guess I'll go ask my son for his advice. he seems to understand the business better than anyone else anyway.

We're working on restoring the six comments that should be appearing here in this comments section. (We had a website outage on July 4, and have been working to restore everything.)

I'm rereading this and getting more and more upset. Much excellent work, you write, "will be ignored" -- where is the excellent work you speak of? Excellent according to whom? I'm reminded of Cheney's "Unkown unknowns" -- How are the Kilroys supposed to find the hidden, noumenal, excellent work? In the woods? Under a cupboard? And "ignored" by whom? People in powerful positions who get a lot of media attention when they put on plays? But wait-- isn't that part of the nefarious "system" you speak of? As soon as one is in "the system" one is guilty, according to this article, of excluding other excellent women playwrights -- so it's a little tautological. Get writers attention "in the system" so then you can decry the system? And then look for other people who are being "ignored" -- to make sure that the process of fame-making is democratic? Who in the world thinks this is the case? For writers of either or any sex? Why is the assumption in this article that every writer deserves an equal chance? The curation of art is and should be completely subjective--not stemming from a matrix of pluralistic charity.

It does you credit, Jasper Taylor, to read something --twice, no less--that you so vehemently disagree with, so I thank you for that. Really, most people wouldn't take the time or trouble to do that. You also exactly demonstrate the mindset I am trying to call attention to and which I believe needs examining. I answer everyone of your rhetorical questions in my piece so won't do so again here. Thanks for commenting, in any case.

Years ago, I would say, nearly thirty years ago, several playwrights interviewed in the "Interviews with Women Playwrights" volume ed. by Kathleen Betsko and Rachel Keonig, plus Rachel, went to BAM, the Brooklyn Academy of Music, in my hometown, Brooklyn, to propose that since virtually all of the 30 of us in that book had said that our "best play" was either never produced or vastly under-produced, BAM present a Festival of Women's Plays. We negotiated for over a year. At first there was great excitement on the part of Karen Hopkins, who has just retired, and the others. But after months of meetings, that involved a constant down-sizing of the project, BAM announced that they lacked the $50,000 a now tiny list of readings would have cost them, and they dropped the project. I suppose some progress is being made? But just recently I've been communicating with a well-known, excellent woman playwright whose favorite play (and its a very, very good play about a very important subject) cannot get produced. The large regional theater that commissioned it would NOT produce it. According to her, and I agree, plays that are about contemporary issues are the most difficult to get produced. Last month, I went to a playreading by a young playwright who is brilliant and happens to be a former students. His play is a black coming out drama, sexy, strong, beautiful. The producer, a well-known black producer, said to the audience he only produces "conventional work". When I asked him after the standing ovation for this play if he was going to produce it--he whispered he could not, "because of money". Later, I told the playwright that I've had readings at major venues, 8 of them to count, and each reading was extraordinarily well-received by the audience--with tons of praise, and praise, often, from the producer present. None of these readings has ever led to a production of a play. "It's too risky," one major producer was honest enough to say to me. "I received negative emails two weeks after the reading," said another...and so it goes. Lists or no lists.

The term 'excelIent' that I borrow deliberately from the Kilroys seems to be most often used in the theatre as a code word for the status quo, for what is safe or appropriate, to reject what is uncomfortable or foreign or threatening, list or no list, as you point out, Karen. I would like to believe the Kilroys recognize this and are using the term ironically as an echo back to those who have used the term against women's work. I am certainly using it ironically. It's a really odd term when you think about it, a very general term which means nothing apart from the subjective position of its designator. What are the presumptions behind the request for excellence and why on earth would I let others determine excellence for me? Excellence, for example, has no bearing on content and depth of purpose/intention.

I hear your frustration, but I'm afraid this post reminds me a bit of the kind of comments you sometimes get at post-reading discussions: "you know what this play should be about?" Instead of giving notes to the Kilroys on what you think their project should be and how they should use all the time they volunteer for this cause, perhaps you could create your own advocacy project and run it according to your vision?

It seems to me that you would do more good by producing a different project based upon your own model and sharing it with the world than in suggesting those women disband their effort. I'm really not sure that the absence of advocacy projects benefits anything other than the status quo.

You mean we should not critique projects that affect us and our profession in a possibly profound way? And did you miss the positive regard I express for the intentions of the project? I don't think you really heard or understood my 'frustration', but never mind. As I said, most people fear critique because of responses like yours. Instead of addressing the issue directly, you denounce the act of critique.

I did not miss your expression of positive regard, but it did not seem to be a sincere one. I apologize if I have misinterpreted, but your Frankenstein analogy seems fairly clear.

This is an issue of making the perfect the enemy of the good. You have suggested The Kilroys disband their project. From my perspective, it seems to have had some effect on a long standing problem. I am curious what actions you have taken or plan to take to solve this issue. If the answer is none, as I suspect it is, the only people who should embrace this idea are those theaters who would like to keep programming male dominated seasons. We have seen what happens without the Kilroys work: a century with almost no progress.

We can wait for action until someone can think of a perfect project that treats all the hundreds or thousands of playwrights in this country equally. But I think we know what will happen in the meantime. We should. We have seen it.

I truly understand your concern and your passion. I have not suggested the Kilroys abandon their project to promote women and trans playwrights. I have asked us as a community to consider some unintended consequences of a project currently built upon the shakey foundations of a list.

By the way, many women and men have been working to improve inclusion. But I read from your reply above that you believe the Kilroys alone can transform a century of gender inequality with their list. I sincerely hope your confidence is not misplaced. Meanwhile, allow me the right to offer up some caution.

I'm sure we all want the same thing. As I say at the end of my essay, the Kilroys have offered up an amazing achievement in silencing the deniers. No one can argue with a thread of legitimacy that there is not enough great work by women out there to be produced.

"What can we do to further the project for all women playwrights, then?" -- I'm afraid art is curated and so are theatre seasons. Not every woman playwright will be celebrated. Not every play on this list will be celebrated. Not every play that gets produced is good. Not every play that gets a Times rave is good. Not every theatre that is promulgated as "great" is good. What the list does is give visibility to women writers who for whatever reason have managed to get on this list. There is no agenda, from what I can discern. This is who got on the list and it's a great thing for women writers. Life is unfair, as we know, and playwrighting is nearly impossible to build a career in. I think it's a great thing that a bunch of people got together to challenge the status quo. Lists are by their nature both inclusive and exclusive: so are production slots, grants, award, and things all artists covet. What your article is implying is that these are all bad and unfair and exclusionary because they deprives *other* people of these things and therefore aren't inclusive. Please think about how nonsensical a proposition this is. Madness, some philosopher once wrote, is trying to speak the whole of language all at once. Let's celebrate the list in its partiality, rather than bemoan its existence.

An excellent discussion of "The Trouble with Lists." Reminds me of "The Trouble with Tribbles," an episode of Star Trek that often makes "best of" lists itself (and serves as a metaphor for what can go wrong with even the most well intentioned ideas. My question to you concerns your first suggested solution. If we have to have a list, you say it needs to be truly representative, thus requiring a change in nominators, ones with no affiliation to an organization that promotes or produces plays. In an ideal world that makes infinite sense. But where might one find such people? The only people I know of who regularly read plays are people who promote, produce, direct or act in plays. Any ideas on that front?

This is a great question, thank you. I don't think we have to have a list! My suggestion for a list is far-fetched, I realize this, but it's the only one I could possibly come up with that had an element of purity about it. In a sense, the practical impossibility of my ideal list is its point. Because, yes, who would those nominators be? Well, directors, actors, other theatre artists, writers, readers, theatre educators ....

Wow... I wanted to perhaps have a point to make in addition to this, but is so thorough and well-wrought that I don't. I agree what everything you say, and fear everything you fear. Thank you for saying it all.