Roger Bernat's Pendiente de Voto is a performance without actors. Instead of them, we encounter an enormous screen that talks to us (or better, writes to us) and directs us on what to do. We are instructed to use a remote control and answer the questions that the screen poses, by pressing the bottom YES or NO. Do you feel capable of taking decisions this evening? is followed by: Besides taking decisions, do you feel capable of realizing them? The challenge is on, but will this strategy suffice? Can a system with a pre-programmed set of questions engage an audience over a hundred spectators? and more importantly, what kind of participation will it create?
The theatre has been turned into a parliament where we are going to debate issues of the political agenda and also organize ourselves as a group. Questions such: Do we want a president? Should we have police? start popping up and faster than we thought, we have two police men (two spectators) guarding the theatre. We also decide we want to let the latecomers inside the theatre venue. Then, we open the doors and they come in. Suddenly the decisions we are taking as a group seem relevant and meaningful: they have consequences in the theatre space.
Voting results to whether we want to let the latecomers to the theatre enter the venue. Screenshot from results from the 29th February, available at www.rogerbernat.info
Roger Bernat's theatre is part of the tradition of the avant garde that seeks to establish a dialogue with the audience and make them part of the work of art. He is also part of current trend of authors who use the stage as a site for social exchanges. Instead of being a place where illusions are staged, the theatre is a place to have real honest dialogues between actors and audience, and among spectators themselves. As Shannon Jackson points out in "Social Works" (2010), the turn towards performance that started in the 1960s and 70s is now being substituted by "the social turn", which deludes artistic practice into social practice. While the fine arts have embraced this approach in the form of installations a long time ago, theatre is slowly engaging with it. Artists such as Gob Squad, Rimini Protocoll and Ann Liv Young are doing it, and Roger Bernat is one of them.
Pendiente de voto is divided into three main parts. In the first one, each spectator votes individually to very serious questions about healthcare, education and event E.T.A mixed with very humorist ones. Should there a be special reinsertion program for ex-ETA combatants? (answer: big NO) is followed by What do you prefer, Billy Holliday or Amy Winehouse? And Billy Holliday starts playing.
In the second part we are regrouped (by the theatre personnel, still no actors) with the person that voted most-likely with us, but now, instead of following the system one person = one vote, we have to share one vote among two and reach consensus. And now we are talking.
The system goes through some of the previous questions and asks us to share our opinions with the whole auditorium, much like in the assemblies that proliferate these days in parks and plazas around Madrid. But there are no actors to enforce this, it´s a computer typing! Will we start talking? After some hesitation, we do. And now the auditorium is debating.
In the third part we are regrouped again as if we were political parties, five groups of twenty-ish with one representative with the right to vote. Again, we have to reach consensus. The noise level of the auditorium has risen considerably since part one, when we were silently pressing YES/NO bottoms. NOW WE ARE TALKING. THINGS ARE HAPPENING. WE ARE ENGAGED. Could it really be that no actors are necessary? At this point, it certainly seems so: We, the audience, are doing the job and the theatre is thriving. And here the analogy is delicious. Could it also be that we -as in the people- can do the job of the actors -the politicians- and make the theatre -our community- thrive?
The value of Pendiente de Voto lies on how it fosters interaction and debate among strangers around issues that concern us all, in a time when democracy is at stakes, through instructions in a computer screen. Starting out quietly in part one, the performance slowly rises the level of interaction among people to the point where we felt comfortable enough to speak out, give an opinion and contribute to the debate. Even though there is never time enough to have a "proper debate" around an issue (the screen has programmed a minute and a half for each debate, and to enforce this rule, it has a count-down clock which automatically switches off the microphones and moves onto the next question), the debates provide a sense of the dynamics of consensus-making, and a taste of what it feels like being part of "fixing" a democratic system to better satisfy the needs of its members: Full of possibilities for some, full of limitations for others, depending on the degree to which they were able to participate in the debate.
The substitution of physical actors by the system interface obliges the audience to be short and concise in their interventions to be able to discuss several issues. In this sense, the system affords variety but also limits nuanced debate around the issues that this specific audience is interested in discussing.
After this, the performance goes astray. One of the five representatives is chosen to vote for the whole auditorium while we rest passively watch. The playful opinion exchanges and sense of possibility that arose among the audience in parts two and three are reduced to one-way authoritative and pre-programmed dialogue (between the system and the representative) where the system reveals that the whole voting system is a scam.
The final sets of questions suggest that voting is futile. The representative's way of participating in this dialogue is not through debate, but by pressing the YES/NO bottom in the remote control. Screenshot from results available at www.rogerbernat.info
One could argue that the closing scene is part of the dramaturgy of the piece and that Bernat's aim is to point to the unfairness and futility of democratic systems: The system mocks you and you have bought it (literally-we have bought tickets!). But why end with such negative message when the performance had been successfully building feelings of possibility among the audience? Why make the audience enter a passive mode at the moment we were most engaged and physically activated? and finally, Why make a performance about voting, its mechanisms, possibilities and misrepresentations if -in the end- voting is foolish?
After having slowly built an engaged atmosphere of debate and interaction among the audience, the last scene feels disappointing. The system interface takes over control, lectures us and reveals that our participation was futile. And I wonder: Was my engagement for nothing? All the work we did...was it for nothing? Perhaps Pendiente de Voto should care more about the experiences it is giving to its audience rather than being preoccupied with the dramaturgical message that it is sending. Perhaps letting the audience decide how the performance ends would be a more coherent take rather than taking back control to make a point. After all, this is a participatory piece that would not exist without its audience, so why not cede control?
Pendiente de Voto took place in Valle-Inclán Theatre in Madrid from the 29 February-4 March 2012. This review is from the performance on 1 March. Go to www.rogerbernat.info to see the voting results of the Pendiente de Voto performance that you participated in.