A friend in London asked me what was the most interesting thing I found out about the Coliseum. There are many aspects of it at various levels that are turning out to be revealing. When I come across some information that matches other things I have registered, about my life or my work, an idea comes to life. I write a post about it and the subject is done until new details and ideas on the same theme are found. I think the most surprising and inspiring for me at the moment is the one that continues opening up with new connections and references. This post, therefore, might be long, confused, perhaps boring.
One of the possibilities I am considering for the final project’s closing event is a kind of re-enactment of something that happened in the Coliseum. So many things have happened there! It is not defined yet, just a possibility to get hanging around my thoughts in the hope it matches something interesting.
For example, those are the type of shows that were put in the Coliseum:
1- Gladiatorial combats.
2- Beast hunting.
3- Beasts fighting each other.
4- Executions of criminals (including Christians) by throwing them to the beasts.
5- Other colourful executions of criminals by hunting, burning, disassembling them.
6- Re-enactments of nautical battles.
and the very exciting 7- Re-enactments of mythical and heroic stories.
The very special feature of the last one is that criminals were performing small theatre pieces in which they played the role of somebody who died in the story, to finally actually die in the performance. Let’s say that we want to re-enact the death of Laureolus, a famous bandit punished by the Romans: you just get another bandit, re-enact his capture and trial (or similar), finally nail him to a cross and leave him in the company of a Scottish bear. The historians point out the Promethean reference, with the guts of the hero eaten once and again by animals. Other plays in the repertory: the story of Attis (who castrated himself) or Hercules (burned alive).
Of course in my final event I cannot compete even at a far remove with the intensity of such re-enactments, but the only thought of it triggers a lot of speculations of the nature of art and representation. I am going to point out some in a very (for now) disordered way.
“Pornography”. A little narrative, very weak, is used just to go directly to the very explicit interest of the audience. There are not film elipses or suggestions: it is important to see immediately and in reality what the audience wants to see.
“Snuff”. Why use this narrative? If in pornography the story is just a cover up, in the Coliseum it can be an aesthetic element, because before and after this little theatre play you have strict, no frills, bloody killing. At the Coliseum there was even a perverted reverse (perverse) version of Orpheus’s ability to charm the animals: the animals did not know the script and despite their role they used to tear apart the actor playing Orpheus.
How important was it that the killing was real? In snuff movies the “illusion” of reality (the connection with the refrerence) has to be beyond any doubt. This character of reality in the killing was faked succesfully for a while in the popular 1980’s Cannibal Holocaust,which worked just fine in some circles. Just as a suggestion: What’s the representational realtionship of these Coliseum representations, porno movies and snuff movies with the story told in the trial and killing of Ceaucescu and his wife?
Does the reality of the killing, the contact with the horror, make the experience more artistic? More intense perhaps? It reminds me of the joke in which a doctor is at a show looking at a yellowish face in a Fauvist portrait and when the gallery person asks “what do you think?” the doctor replies: “I would say it is Malaria”.
Or in this 30’s Xaudaro’s comic strip.

The lady: I would like to buy this landscape. The critics say that is excellent.
The gentleman: It is up to you, but the painting is worthless. I’m telling you as an agronomist.
In the Coliseum the reality was shown as fiction while the doctor and the agronomist see in the fiction only the referent.
A few years ago I visited Venus Fort, a shopping mall in Odaiba, Tokyo, in which galleries and shop fronts mock Italian streets.

The ceiling of the corridors feels like the sky, and during the day the light changes to a spotless blue italian sky (painted).


At the end of one of the galleries there is a piazza de la Chiesa and some of the galleries which run across are called “della Fontana”.

Japanese employees do small representations dressed as Roman soldiers or Italian traditional music bands. I wondered at that time if, in order to enhance the Italian experience of the visitors, it might be an idea to include some other Japanese employees disguised as Neapolitan street robbers and pickpockets, who could operate on shoppers. The wallets could be collected later in a desk at the exit or, for the sake of the real experience, lost for ever. Normally you leave the shopping mall with less money that you entered, anyway.
Three last things:
The fact of people being killed in the representations makes the idea of real and fake very confusing. It seems that every representation is a presentation, as the level of reality and accuracy doesn’t matter in terms of having a new event. Or in the other hand, however many elements of reality you put into it, it never leaves the realm of the representation.
The plays were a repetition of any inaugural moment, artistic or religious. But then, why can the body and blood of Christ be just substituted with wine and bread?
This post does imply that I might have seen the Coliseum but that doesn’t matter, because conceptually it can be the same experience. It could be for the readers, but not for me (for the audience, not for the one-performance-stand actors). I haven’t seen it, anyway.