E, Ù CARESTIA?
by Benedetto Sicca
with Gabriella Aiello, Andrea Capaldi, Luca Carboni, Gaia Insenga, Vinicio Marchioni, Rossana Piano
and Fabrizio Belleni, Gennaro Del Gaudio, Guido Ferretti, Marcello Puca, Sergio Tassi, Mark Weir
performance Giuliano Pastori
training Cecilia Ligorio
set and light design Giacomo Vezzani
music Francesca Ferri
The performance is based on the reconstruction (completely hypothetical) of apocryphal Gospels, that permit us to tell a story that everybody know trough a shifted point of view and unbalanced to an human and archetypical feature of the Gospel's main characters.
All these texts are a celebrant's subjective camera, who will try to re take possess of the ritual to which he is condemned by his function/profession, about which he cannot find anymore the full meaning. So he want to take it back at the light of those texts that were considered, in the centuries, apocryphal or heretics, just to have tried, accordig to him, to say the truth in their way.
This new, private celebration is re-construed in the words, musics and icons trough a picture, an apocryphal altarpiece, that a performer – Giuliano Pastori – will paint on stage every night in the first part of the performance..
“E, ù carestia?” is a question. Is a path in the memory. And it is a chain of hypothesis. It is a attempt of a group of theatre worker, trough a “memories meeting” to shorter the distances between themselves and a theme – the one of the man and his natural vocation at spirituality – never solved and not fully solvable, if not in another question.
A group of theatre worker, a group of people, actors, singers, composers, artists, looking for new questions that can born from the emptiness in the mind of who listen a story in which he knows already everything of since he is born, and that, when a detail of that story is betrayed with a little different shade, it creates a “emptiness of memory” that the theatre is called to fill.
The boundary between what it is canonical and what it is apocryphal, between what it is holy and what it is profane, between what it is unpublished and what it is historical, it is the same territory in which to move looking for the synthesis between those (apparently) antinomies. Not looking for a whatever “subjective moral”, but looking for big individuals resources: his fragility; his ability to contradict himself.
How much the social and family frame, influence the possibility of everyone to have something to do with his fears and contradictions is one of the text ribs. As the dialogue with the tyranny, the pain of the loss are. And the meaning is to find out the struggle between “temporal things” and the spiritual vocation that can point to, trough the logos, a re-settlement.
But this re-settlement will be nothing more than a new question whith no other answer than another question.
The faith has the power to interrupt this chain of questions. But, when between the faith and the single man interpose men and rituals, that address, tie, educate, it happens that someones questions are presented as answers to the others. The faith isn't used to suspend the questions, but to avoid them. Who at this point isn't satisfied to receive answers, but start over asking questions, would find himself in front of new comprehension and knowledge of himself and of the world targets. And he would look for - between the words that he knows and the ones he doesn't know yet - a new path to land, freely, to new question or at their renunciation.