Reconstruction of horror

Milo Rau's play was performed in Belgrade Pelico Process (co-production of the Vienna Festival and the Avignon Festival) within the program "No: Bitef". This program was created as a form of rebellion against the non-holding of this year's Bitef, and the said play was supposed to be performed in the main program of the festival.

Pelico Process is a theatrical exploration of the court process that shook France and showed that in real life rape is something completely different from what stereotypical plays are. It is a married couple who lived in a harmonious marriage for many years, even according to the descriptions of the victim herself. However, the husband drugged his wife for years, pimped her out with other men he found on the Internet, and filmed it all. The perpetrator was caught quite by accident, after a second, minor offense. The "Peliko" trial is also specific in that it is one of the few cases of rape in which there is solid evidence of a crime. The process is also specific because it is rape in marriage (which is difficult to prove and very rarely reported), and the victim found the strength and courage to open the whole process to the public in order to draw attention to many rapes that are covered up. The mere presentation of the text of the trial is both astonishing and incredible. The text is chronologically complex - from the beginning to the end of the trial and gives a detailed insight into the psychological and social profile of the criminal and his accomplices, describes the social context in which the trial takes place and shows the victim's path from horror to self-awareness. Director Milo Rau, playwright Servane Dècle and performers carefully guide us through the case. It is clear to us that the rapist was abused as a child, that he wanted to live out his fantasies of domination, that he did not care about his wife's feelings and that he thought that he would not be caught and punished... Although the case is explained both from the point of view of modern psychology and from the point of view of law, the question comes back to the ordinary citizen again and again: how is this possible?

photo: Jelena Janković

The performance is made in the form of a so-called "concert performance" in which the actors/performers are like a choir or orchestra that moves minimally, mostly sitting and reading the text. Milo Rau often uses this form, which, in this case, is appropriate because the text of the play is composed of dramatized documentary materials from the trial. The entire play acts as a reconstruction of a trial in which the actors are the actors of the trial, and we in the audience are the jury or the audience. The "statements" in the court are additionally broadcast on the big screen so that we simultaneously watched the broadcast of the "trial" in close-up and the actor speaking on the stage. The use of the media here seemed justified because the process itself had a lot of media publicity. In addition, the audience was relatively far from the performers, and the lighting was "concert", so the close-up on the big screen helped us see the performers' facial expressions better. It was effective with those performers who were convincing in their acting. By the way, we have also seen this procedure in the previous performances of this director.

The performance lasts a very long time - more than four hours without a break. It is exhausting for the audience because they are sitting on hard chairs in a crowded hall, without the possibility to rest... However, although this was uncomfortable and tiring it was not pointless. The performance is not long because the playwright and the director could not "deal" with the material. On the contrary, this decision can be explained by at least two reasons, both of which are "hiding" in the audience. If we have already come to watch such a terrible story, then we have an obligation not to approach it "sensationally" - get acquainted with a few shocking details, take a position on the "case" and go home - but to try to get as deep as possible into the problem. Secondly, it seems to us that the director and playwright wanted the audience to feel the physical pressure, which should increase the emotional pressure - this is simply not a story that should be watched from a "comfortable" position. The audience must completely step into the position of a trial witness who spends hours and hours in the courtroom.

Another significant characteristic of the play is that the "performers" are not only professional actors from the specific theater but a mixed group made up of professional actors, theater professionals of various professions and activists... And this is a characteristic procedure for Milo Rau - he very often includes non-actors in his projects who are in some way connected to the theme of the play. On the one hand, it is noble that socially engaged individuals participate in a play that wants to be socially engaged. On the other hand, the consequence of such a choice is the uneven interpretation - the fact that someone is socially engaged in private life does not mean that he will be able to convincingly present social engagement on stage. Some performers played with immersion, some with distance, some were very convincing (the great Vesna Trivalić!), and some not at all, some were in their character even when sitting on the sidelines (Tihomir Stanić), and some simply waited for their turn to say the text, and even left the stage... This kind of performance led to many people in the audience losing concentration, which is by no means good in a show that lasts more than four hours.

It is important to point out that the choice of performers, in the context of this "No: Bitef", had an additional meaning. We had the impression that at FDU, both on stage and in the audience, a theatrical conspiracy group gathered in the best sense of the word. The theater once again became a community that brings together very different people with a common mission, and the mission was to preserve the idea of ​​Bitef. That desire to preserve the spirit of Bitef worked hard for the show Pelico Process and that is why the performance was better received than if it had been performed under "regular" conditions. Pelico Process has become an accurate theatrical metaphor for this year's Bitef and, in general, the position of culture in our country. There is no greater success for a theater performance than to be able to summarize the social moment in which it takes place. It's very beautiful and very sad at the same time. Everything about the show Pelico Process makes us question how this is possible. We know everything that happened and how it happened and how we got from Bitef to "No: Bitef". And we ask ourselves again: How is this possible?