The unspeakable act

In 1973 the crimes of serial killer Dean Corll were unearthed. The combination of his appetite for strung out young boys and a tendency towards hypersadism proved ruthless as he wound his way through upwards of 20 victims.

In 2007 French director Gisele Vienne adapted a novella, JERK, about Corll by US author Dennis Cooper. The story was brought to the stage under the guise of a lecture of sorts - one of Corll's accomplices told the story of what had happened leading up the day of Corll's death. Using puppets and gruesome sound effects, the solo performer demonstrated the acts he had been present for and, when unable to talk about the crimes, he instead had the audience read from a zine he had constructed prior to the performance.



The masterful construction of the show had an emotional impact so strong that it became physical - it was as my stomach sank through me to anchor my body to the seat. This effect left me in a post-performance daze that lasted until the weekend was over. Once it lifted, one of the themes that struck me most was that of the unspeakable act (an act, a moment an idea that is so abhorrent that to talk about it is impossible) and how it was communicated throughout the show.

[An aside - to speak of something is to take steps towards comprehension and, in turn, ownership over an idea. I think we avoid this in some cases because we don't want to become even momentarily involved or acknoweledge involvement.]

In JERK we see different levels of ownership and avoidance of this act (or acts, as it were). I would divide it out into the production's use of the following:
PUPPETS This secondary medium (secondary in that the puppeteer speaks through it) allows the voice to be heard, but projects the actions onto a different object.
ZINES The actions are so awful that they can't be spoken. Instead they are written out, but remain unpronounced.
VENTRILOQUISM The actions are communicated through spoken words, but the lips and tongue refuse participation - the speaking organs reject their role in naming the act. The voice continues on, but the source of the words (the sight of the puppeteer in this case) is no longer recognizable.
DROOL The words will not remain dormant and force their way out in such a way that they become physical, in a liquid form.

In the above we see distancing, avoidance and, in some ways, acceptance as well. In the case of the latter two devices an interesting parallel to the story emerges and another layer is added on - complicity. David Brooks, the accomplice and the puppeteer in this play, was not directly involved in the murders or the torturing. He stepped back and often played the role of videographer. Towards the end he supposedly wanted it to all to be over; he no longer wanted to participate in the torture and the murder. But he did nothing to put it to an end; he sat back and let it happen. Fast forwarding to when he's in jail and trying to talk about what happened, he experiences something similar - he no longer wants to tell this story and own up to his role. The memories are overwhelming, but he remains complicit and unable to stop. His words go on, even as he physically shuts down.

So what bearing does this have on larger cases of the unspeakable? The case of JERK demonstrates how when we take a non-participatory stance, we are still connected whether or not we like it. The unspeakable will not just stop if it is avoided; if anything the consequences of such can be much larger (eg immaterial words becoming solid drool).