It’s been a while since I have had the sheer graces of attending a Yasmina Reza production. This past May, myself and a few hundred, were able to catch one of the final showings of Alisa Stojanovic’s direction of Reza’s ‘God of Carnage’, at Atelje 212. For those of you who are familiar with Reza’s work – whether it be a production of the now seminal ‘Art’ or the playful ‘Life X 3’ – I need not relate the in-details of the excitement. I should preface all of my further comments by saying that I had always admired Stojanovic’s work in the theatre, as well as the bold choices of Atelje 212’s repertoire politics. Yet, this production does not seem to benefit from either’s thunder.

Once again, Reza’s world pays tribute to the power of the number 4. As in all of her previous works intended for the stage, this text by Reza benefits from its author’s stealth manipulation of all Eurocentric, past and present, with this seemingly pagan symbol of matrilineality. Hence, ‘God of Carnage’ centers around 2 middle class couples – though both parties would love to be counted among the bourgeoisie – trying to find common ground in regards to their adolescent sons’ behavior (there had been a playground brawl prior to the ‘living room’ deal-handling) while interlacing all of their shared insecurities (love vs. respect vs. desire vs. companionship), toppled with lots of lots of liquor (and some not so astute demeanor).

On that note, Darko Nedeljkovic’s set design simply enhances the sterility of these 4 peoples’ empty graces. The blankness of the darkened minimalism of the living room quarters of Mr. and Mrs. Vallon, with a bricked outline of a windowless house in the background, is indeed the most striking play with the power of (any) Judeo-Christian use of the pagan 4 – a void hearth signals a hostile womb but also a reluctant patriarch in a even more reluctant market economy of a post-industrial democracy. All else – the witty banter, the catchy one-liners, the whimsical interludes between partners and unlikely mates, human or otherwise – is cut short. Without the intent or the predisposition of a prophetic remark, this Yasmina Reza play has less of her and more of lukewarm pop-culture traits instead. Perhaps real-life couples do not belong in a production about couples who are drawn to be less character-like and more on the symbolic end. I did, however, appreciate the Svetozar Cvetkovic’s attempt at matrimonial self-play, no matter how misguided at times.

Sorry for the delay in sorting out my impressions of meeting the legendary footnote, Frederic Jameson, but here we are.

Jameson was invited by the Cultural Center of the city of Belgrade, to close an activity they call 'One Artist's Festival'. The artist is usually, but not necessarily, Belgrade-tied and of past lore. Jameson's role in all of this, the 2 lectures and the Q and As, were to shed some more light on that precipious line we call realism/modernism/postmodernism.

I caught the 2nd lecture, the one dedicated to his re-visitation of a (now) seminal 1984 essay her wrote on the 'Postmodern'. There was a round-table, a full crowd in the audience (not just students!), and two translators in a booth. All worked well.

Thus, what has struck me as important to share -

First, the openness with which he addressed some of our many misconceptions and apprehensions, about the postmodern, about postmodernity, about the future. Yes, the future. All of you, who are greatly familiar with the footnote's work, might find this a tad on the ironic side, but he did answer questions involving 'the future'. Not in a Star Trek kind of a way, more in a 'perpetual present' type of an existence. He dubbed this ('the future') just one of the many singularities we happen to create, not just encounter.

He mentioned Foucault, Derrida, and the rest of 'their gang', almost with a touch of melancholy, when brandishing all of their respective views on discourse and subjectivity.

As I write this, I have been wondering about the whole concept of 'singularity'. Should we even use it as a plural noun? Is it a noun? Can it be a part of language to begin with, since it seems to ellude all form of 'placement'?

Secondly, the ease with which he discussed art and its 'death'. Not wishing to rain on anyone's parade, but Jameson of this lecture, finds music the only one of the existent art forms that might have any credibility to pass as artistic creation (pure mimesis, or as he put it - mimesis of the mimesis) in the present, perpetual or otherwise. And some, but not all, aspects of photography. Mostly, he stressed, its re-creative format as a medium.

Thirdly, the clarity with which he explained for the wider crowds, to many a nodding head, the difference between postmodern, as he uses/used it, and postmodernity as we live it.

A gem of 2 and a half hours.

And did I mention, the translators were cool.