Glasgow date on national tour for new show from ‘Pretty/Ugly’ maverick artist
It comes to Glasgow’s CCA on 14 September for the Buzzcut Double Thrills series.
‘All you need to make a movie is a girl and a gun’ Jean-Luc Goddard
The world has changed in many ways since then, but last year Louise Orwin started seeing girls and guns everywhere. She obsessed over them on YouTube, marvelled over them in music videos, felt a bit disgusted about them in video games, and tried not to see them in pornography.
She decided to make a show that would challenge those films, which use girls and guns as easy plot devices, and the audiences that watch them - whilst also admitting her own confusion, as a woman, at being simultaneously repulsed and attracted to exactly that kind of imagery.
Where did the inspiration for the work come from?
A few things happening at once
really. Beyonce released her
 |
| Louise Orwin by Field and McGlynn |
music video for ‘Videophone’ featuring her and
Lady Gaga scantily-clad bearing multi-coloured guns as props; I watched Springbreakers and the scene where two
teenage girls lie on a bed surrounded by guns and using them a sexual props
stuck with me; and I came across the work of B-movie mogul Andy Sidaris, who
essentially makes low-grade Bond-esque action films which always star playboy
bunnies running around with guns.
I kept thinking about the references
to guns in each of these contexts, how the images were stuck in my head, how
they all elicited different reactions from me (but overwhelming a mix of being
reviled and attracted at the same time), I wondered about the economy of power
when a woman in a bikini holds a gun (is it/can it ever be empowering), I
wondered who these images were for.
I then started thinking about my own
appetite for these kind of images, perhaps starting to realise that it was an
appetite that had started at quite a young age.
Realizing that there was something
almost unconscious about my response to these kind of films, I decided I wanted
to make a show that interrogated the allure of the image of the girl and the
gun on film, and interrogated how deeply embedded these kind of films can
become in our psyches.
You've presented the work at Buzzcut, I believe - does this
suggest that the piece is in a live art tradition. Is this fair, or do you see
it in another tradition?
Yes. I see the work as sitting
somewhere between live art and experimental theatre. Although I do find that
these terms become interchangeable depending on who I’m talking to. In many
ways, I feel like the work I’ve been making lately is live art for theatrical
spaces.
I’m interested in playing with
theatrical convention, and the idea of the ‘passive’ viewer. For this work in
particular, which is so much about the audience’s gaze, and the idea that we
can participate in a culture just by watching, it made sense to use a
traditional theatrical set up, and then find ways to subvert or toy with
audience expectation in the hope that I can make them see again, or anew.
Are there any artists that you feel a particular affinity with -
either in terms of influence or who are working in similar ways?
Over the past few years my work has
been likened a few different artists constantly: from Bryony Kimmings, to Tim
Crouch, to Action Hero. I used to struggle with these sort of comments, as I
wanted my work to be unique and be independent on its own. However, saying that,
none of us make work in a vacuum, and there will always be similarities between
my work and the work of my peers.
At the moment, I am particularly feeling
Sleepwalk Collective’s work. I love the way they play with pop culture, and the
image- and definitely feel an affinity with the content and tone of their work.
So... the stupid questions...
Any work with the word 'woman' in the title can be associated
with 'feminist' theatre. Is this a useful word for you, and do you see it as
'feminist' in intention... and if the answer is yes, what kind of feminist does
it align with?
Yes, I would definitely say that A Girl and A Gun is feminist in
intention, and personally I don’t have a problem with the label. If the work is
good, and challenging, and helps people be critical of their own politics, then
the show is successful. If it is all these things, and also labelled feminist,
then in my mind this can only be a good thing.
This show deals very clearly with
the construction of gender roles in our society through pop culture. As I am a
woman making this work, people might assume that the focus is on the standard
for female roles set by these kind of films, but actually I would suggest that
the show looks equally at the roles set for men and women in the films we
watch- how easy it can be to unconsciously strive to fit into these moulds, or
how difficult it might be to live up to those cookie-cutter standards.
I consider my feminism queer and
intersectional. I am constantly struggling with the idea and discussions that
are had around post-feminism, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some labelled this
show as post-feminist.
I believe this is mostly because of
the way I perform my role in the show as ‘Her’- which is ambiguously- and how I
show the clear struggle I have in being both attracted and repulsed by idea of
the femme fatale. To me this struggle is clear, but I have had older more
‘second wave’ feminists who have been angered by the assumption and repetition
of the almost-masochistic female role, and in my mind, have chosen not to look
beyond that.
The number of younger women who have
emailed me, tweeted me, congratulated me after seeing the show, however, says
to me that I must be doing something right. It’s important to me that my work
is never didactic, I want to be honest about the complexity of modern life, and
be open and clear in presenting how that can be a struggle.
Any work with the word 'gun' in the title suggests an association
with violence. Is that a helpful way into the work?
I think it is very helpful for this
show- because violence sells, we are attracted to it. And that’s part of what
the show is about. It’s not only about violence, but how we are attracted to violence
I once had an audience member come
up to me after the show and congratulate me- he told me that for him, the work
had started with show poster and title and how they reel you in. He told me
that all these things had made him feel an even bigger ‘drop’ as he left the
auditorium. I wont give too much away, but there is a moment later in the show
where the allure of ‘cool’ and the conventions adhered to in the beginning of
the show are broken.
In some ways, I guess the show
begins when you read the title, see the poster, and decide to book a ticket.
How do you feel about nostalgia?
That it’s bitter-sweet. I think we
live in a very nostalgic, and referential age. And I think you can see that in
everything from fashion to music to film. I don’t have a problem with it
aesthetically, in fact I love nostalgic references in film- but I think it
probably does become a problem with other things, like politics. I’m thinking
specifically about the nostalgia that I hear from older generations, where the
past is romanticized, as being simpler (‘men’s and women’s role were much
simpler in my day’ etc.).
Often these are the opinions that
you hear from the privileged though. It’s important that we continue to push
forward into the future politically, and that the past is used as a learning
tool. To bring it back to A Girl and A
Gun, I aim to use nostalgic references as a way of showing audiences how
embedded ideas can become within us, almost unknowingly, from the bombardment
of images.
Though it’s all original writing,
the show should feel to many audiences as if they’ve seen it all before- and its
what they do with that realisation, that counts.
What kind of process did you use in making the work?
Hours and hours of watching film
(Godard, Tarantino, B-movies), and listening to music. After this I did a huge
chunk of writing, letting myself be quite free, in order to see what came out
of the watching and listening by osmosis in my writing. From that writing I
picked out the elements that came out most strongly again and again, and based
my narrative and characters on those elements.
I then began to write a film script.
I’ve never done this before, so it was quite an interesting process. My work
always comes from a very visual place, but it was interesting to almost
story-board the script as well. The show features two cameras on stage too,
with live-feeds that are projected onto the back wall of the playing area.
During the writing process I found that these two cameras almost became
characters in themselves, as they fed into the script a lot.
Technically, it was quite a
difficult script to write. Although I could plan for my scenes, as the
character of ‘Him’ is played every night by someone who hasn’t seen the script
before, it was a balancing act between trying to be as clear and demonstrative
as possible for that person, while still staying true to the ‘experiment’ of
having an unprepared performer on stage with me. Not knowing quite what this
performer will do, or how they will perform their role is exciting, but you
still need to make sure that the show holds together as much as possible.
What audience reactions have you had - and what are you
expecting on the tour?
People often leave the auditorium
feeling like they’ve been ‘part of something’. I think the device of using an
unprepared performer on stage, can make the audience feel as if they are
watching one of their own up there. There is always laughter, and also a few
tears. I’ve had women come up to me and tell me that the show spoke to them about
how they seem themselves in society, or about struggling with past abusive
relationships. I’ve had young men come up to me and tell me that they’ll never
be able to watch their favourite films in the same way again.
Generally, I find that audiences around
my ages (maybe 20 – 35) are the audiences that enjoy the show the most. This is
probably because they will pick up more of the references. But I’d like to
think the show is open enough to be enjoyed by younger and older audiences too.
I’m expecting more of the same on
tour. I’m interested to see what the regional differences might be in how the
male role is performed (the male participant is always local to the venue), and
how far he will go. I’m expecting this to change quite a bit, and the audience
reaction to him, as the show travels.
Do you use any particular strategies towards these end?
The show aims to be manipulative of
the audience (nostalgic, the allure of women and guns and violence etc), but
the show will stay the same wherever I go.
I’ve had an idea that I’d like to
archive the decision making of the ‘Him’ as the show travels though. Perhaps
with a view of building up a map of how male-ness is viewed all over the UK!
Do you feel that performance is a good space for the discussion
of big ideas?
Yes- in fact it’s always an aim in
my work. I think the key word here though is ‘discussion’. I dislike being
preached to, and I think many people feel the same. I like to play with
ambiguity a lot in my work. In my mind, ambiguity can activate an audience-
keeps them alive with questions, and thus part of the conversation. That’s not
to say that I don’t have strong opinions, but often the work I make covers a
topic where there isn’t black or white. I want to make work that provokes
discussion and debate, that keeps you thinking, or keeps coming back to you,
niggling at you long after you’ve left the theatre.
‘From a young age I’ve been particularly drawn to the image of the femme fatale’ said Louise, ‘but as my politics developed I began to question this. By making an unprepared stranger the star of the show every night, it is my hope that audiences will consider how they might feel if they, too, were put in this position’
A Girl And A Gun is a live multi-media performance structured as a live film-making experiment for theatres and art spaces. It has a razor sharp satirical script and is performed by Louise with a different local male guest performer at every show.
The guest male performer will have never seen the script before. He will read his lines and stage directions live off an autocue, the audience seeing some of his lines and directions projected onto an onstage screen. As the performance progresses, He is directed to do increasingly violent things to Her, and He must decide what He will and won’t do.
‘performed with real talent and conviction’ The Stage
A Girl & A Gun mischievously challenges not only ideas of masculinity and femininity, but also pop culture and broader society’s appetite for violence. It creates audience anticipation and complicity to provoke the viewer to examine their own appetite for violence in the media, and the intrinsic sexual objectification of women found all around us.
Louise’s last show Pretty Ugly received international media attention- it has been featured in New York Magazine, Wired Magazine, The Independent, The Daily Mail, The Telegraph and on BBC Radio 4’s Woman's Hour. Internationally it has been featured in El Pais, New York Magazine, Suddeutschezeitung, and in online publications in France, Chile, Germany, Italy, Russia, Argentina and all over the US and UK
Louise Orwin is a London based artist-researcher. Her work spans the live and the recorded with incarnations in performance, video and photography. She is preoccupied with livesness, awkwardness, femininity and masochism, but above all she likes to have fun.
‘A Girl And A Gun’ was commissioned by Contact Theatre (Manchester) and MC Theatre (Amsterdam) as part of their prestigious Flying Solo Festival.
A Girl & A Gun: Louise Orwin
An unflinchingly provocative look at the relationship between women and violence in media, starring Orwin and a different male performer at each show.
14 September 7pm
Glasgow CCA 350 Sauchiehall Street G2 3JD (Buzzcut)
£8/£6 0141 352 4900
