Reviewed by:

• I Was Sitting on My Patio This Guy Appeared I Thought I Was Hallucinating by Robert Wilson
• Loren Ringer

Robert Wilson’s I was sitting opened progressively to the awareness that an oversized, old-fashioned, rotary-dial phone located center stage was ringing. The house lights eventually dimmed and a man (played by Christopher Nell)—dressed entirely in black with exaggerated, expressive makeup, sitting on a settee, a glass of wine in hand, framed in stark backlighting emanating from three vertical rectangles—eloquently began to proffer crisp, methodical lines in English, changing subjects often and abruptly, engaged in a taut stream of consciousness. The flow of hyper-articulated text in which seemingly unrelated mini-scenes built by simple word associations dazzled, even mesmerized the audience. At times the soliloquy was interrupted by a disembodied male voiceover who repeated certain lines or interjected others before the actor returned to his solo performance. After forty-five minutes, the lights dimmed, blackened, and then illuminated a woman (played by Julie Shanahan), dressed all in white with equally dramatic makeup, who delivered the exact same text, in the same amount of time and in the same, well-articulated style, but with an entirely different effect. I was reminded of the “eternal recurrence,” a notion dear to Wilson’s early work with plays lasting hours, even days. This is perhaps to be expected given that I was sitting was first staged by Wilson in 1977, in a production in which he himself acted alongside Lucinda Childs.

In front of a small proscenium stage, the audience was immersed in this riveting theatrical experience. [End Page 380]

Julie Shanahan in I was sitting. (Photo: Lucie Jansch.)

[End Page 381]

Christopher Nell in I was sitting. (Photo: Lucie Jansch.)

Wilson has often said of his theatre that each piece needs to be put together by the spectator. In close proximity to the actors, the spectators were viscer-ally engaged through a bombardment of sudden light and sound changes and voiceover that was at times harsh and strident. Bits of music and images projected on a screen above the stage also varied in intensity and scope. The performance constituted a veritable spectacle in all senses of the word. Seemingly incongruous elements, oddly enough, came together to produce an aesthetically pleasing harmony and containment, fitting perfectly in a rectangular stage décor created almost entirely by light.

The actors imbued the text—elliptical, obscure, sometimes cryptic—with a dramatic sense of urgency. Recurring moments of verbal frenzy created a constant tension, with elements of violence sprinkled throughout. The repetition of the line “ready aim fire” most notably gave a staccato rhythm to the piece. However, the actors’ delivery of the line, differing in intensity each time, clouded the issue and the inferred crime seems instead to only indicate the staged histrionic pleasure of reveling in a dream-like state of gravitas, a consistent feature of Wilson’s theatre. Random associations led to gratuitous enumerations, such as the mention of a dog followed in subsequent lines by a giraffe, duck, mouse, seal, penguin, fox, antelope, and elephant. This was reinforced by numbers in series, most specifically one, two, five and then two, six, eight, which came across as an enigmatic Fibonacci sequence yet no interpretative guide was provided. Often the association of place and activity created a postcard, cliché image: the Bahamas with dice, for example, or the Fourth of July and Labor Day to evoke the atmosphere of US holidays and provide both a temporary geographical location and an ephemeral placelessness. At other times the actors commented on anonymous and unseen characters: “you look strange” or “are you alright”; the effect was one of intrigue and tension, leaving the spectator wanting to know more. However, that sentiment was nixed when the text veered off in an entirely different direction, leaving that thread behind. Finally, and undoubtedly as a result of all these elements...

审核人：

• 我坐在我的露台上，这个家伙出现了，我以为我在幻觉罗伯特·威尔逊
• 洛伦·林格

罗伯特威尔逊的我坐着渐渐地，人们意识到位于舞台中央的超大老式旋转拨号电话正在响起。屋子里的灯光最终变暗了，一个男人（克里斯托弗·内尔饰）——一身黑衣，化着夸张而富有表现力的妆容，坐在长椅上，手里拿着一杯酒，被三个垂直矩形发出的强烈背光框住了——雄辩地开始了用英语提供清晰、有条理的台词，经常突然改变主题，进行紧绷的意识流。由简单的词语联想构成的看似无关的小场景的超清晰文本流令人眼花缭乱，甚至让观众着迷。有时独白会被一个没有实体的男性配音打断，他重复某些台词或插入其他台词，然后演员回到他的独奏表演。四十五分钟后，灯光变暗，变黑，然后照亮了一个女人（朱莉·沙纳汉（Julie Shanahan）饰演），她一身白衣，化着同样戏剧性的妆容，在同样的时间和同样的时间里发出完全相同的文字，清晰的风格，但具有完全不同的效果。我想起了“永恒的重现”，这是威尔逊早期作品中所珍视的一个概念，他的戏剧持续数小时甚至数天。这也许是可以预料的，因为 ” 威尔逊早期作品中的一个概念，即持续数小时甚至数天的戏剧。这也许是可以预料的，因为 ” 威尔逊早期作品中的一个概念，即持续数小时甚至数天的戏剧。这也许是可以预料的，因为1977 年，威尔逊首次上演了《我坐着》，在这部作品中，他本人与露辛达·柴尔兹（Lucinda Childs）一起演出。

在一个小舞台前，观众沉浸在这种引人入胜的戏剧体验中。[结束第 380 页]

朱莉·沙纳汉（Julie Shanahan）在我坐着。（照片：露西·詹施。）

[结束第 381 页]

克里斯托弗·内尔（Christopher Nell）在我坐着。（照片：露西·詹施。）

威尔逊经常谈到他的剧院，每件作品都需要由观众拼凑起来。在靠近演员的地方，观众通过突然的灯光和声音变化以及有时刺耳而刺耳的画外音的轰炸而发自内心地参与其中。投影在舞台上方屏幕上的音乐和图像的强度和范围也各不相同。这场表演在所有意义上构成了一场名副其实的奇观。奇怪的是，看似不协调的元素融合在一起，产生了一种美学上令人愉悦的和谐和包容，完美地融入了几乎完全由光创造的矩形舞台装饰。

演员们为文本——椭圆的、晦涩的、有时是神秘的——注入了一种戏剧性的紧迫感。反复出现的言语狂潮造成了持续的紧张气氛，暴力元素贯穿始终。最明显的是，“预备瞄准射击”这句台词的重复给了这首曲子一个断断续续的节奏。然而，演员的台词每次强度都不同，这使问题变得模糊不清，而推断的犯罪似乎只是表明陶醉在梦幻般的庄严状态中的舞台表演乐趣，这是威尔逊剧院的一贯特征。随机的联想导致了无端的列举，例如在随后的几行中提到一只狗，然后是长颈鹿、鸭子、老鼠、海豹、企鹅、狐狸、羚羊和大象。这通过一系列的数字得到加强，最具体地说是一、二、五，然后是二、六、八，这是一个神秘的斐波那契序列，但没有提供解释性指南。地点和活动的关联通常会创造出明信片、陈词滥调的形象：例如，巴哈马的骰子，或 7 月 4 日和劳动节，以唤起美国假期的气氛，并提供临时的地理位置和短暂的无处所。在其他时候，演员们评论匿名和看不见的角色：“你看起来很奇怪”或“你还好吗”；效果是一种阴谋和紧张，让观众想知道更多。然而，当文本转向完全不同的方向时，这种情绪就被否定了，留下了那个线索。最后，毫无疑问是所有这些因素的结果...... 地点和活动的关联通常会创造出明信片、陈词滥调的形象：例如，巴哈马的骰子，或 7 月 4 日和劳动节，以唤起美国假期的气氛，并提供临时的地理位置和短暂的无处所。在其他时候，演员们评论匿名和看不见的角色：“你看起来很奇怪”或“你还好吗”；效果是一种阴谋和紧张，让观众想知道更多。然而，当文本转向完全不同的方向时，这种情绪就被否定了，留下了那个线索。最后，毫无疑问是所有这些因素的结果...... 地点和活动的关联通常会创造出明信片、陈词滥调的形象：例如，巴哈马的骰子，或 7 月 4 日和劳动节，以唤起美国假期的气氛，并提供临时的地理位置和短暂的无处所。在其他时候，演员们评论匿名和看不见的角色：“你看起来很奇怪”或“你还好吗”；效果是一种阴谋和紧张，让观众想知道更多。然而，当文本转向完全不同的方向时，这种情绪就被否定了，留下了那个线索。最后，毫无疑问是所有这些因素的结果...... 或 7 月 4 日和劳动节，以唤起美国假期的氛围，并提供临时的地理位置和短暂的无处可去。在其他时候，演员们评论匿名和看不见的角色：“你看起来很奇怪”或“你还好吗”；效果是一种阴谋和紧张，让观众想知道更多。然而，当文本转向完全不同的方向时，这种情绪就被否定了，留下了那个线索。最后，毫无疑问是所有这些因素的结果...... 或 7 月 4 日和劳动节，以唤起美国假期的氛围，并提供临时的地理位置和短暂的无处可去。在其他时候，演员们评论匿名和看不见的角色：“你看起来很奇怪”或“你还好吗”；效果是一种阴谋和紧张，让观众想知道更多。然而，当文本转向完全不同的方向时，这种情绪就被否定了，留下了那个线索。最后，毫无疑问是所有这些因素的结果...... 当文本转向完全不同的方向时，这种情绪就被否定了，留下了那个线索。最后，毫无疑问是所有这些因素的结果...... 当文本转向完全不同的方向时，这种情绪就被否定了，留下了那个线索。最后，毫无疑问是所有这些因素的结果......