so, an idea i had was someone's story being told by another person or by multiple people (i was thinking an abusive relationship, but it could work for anything really). one thought was inspired by the color purple (the book not the movie or the play). in case anyone hasn't read it, it's written as a series of letters from the protagonist to god.
i was thinking that the protagonist of the skit keeps a journal/diary about his/her experiences in the relationship. a friend, family member, or a combination read the entries as if they were the protagonist. as the skit goes on the entries slowly reveal that this is an abusive relationship. in the end we find out something big. something has happened. this should probably be something bad that shows the consequences of remaining silent and in an abusive relationship. after that, the protagonist would address the audience him/herself. he/she could talk openly and give a retrospective look at the relationship. the protagonist and/or other people could offer statistics and/or information on how you can get help in this kind of situation.
the whole journal thing may not be completely necessary, depending on how the skit is written. i was thinking that, since a person is willing to write what he/she is not willing to say, that journal entries would be appropriate. maybe the relationship isn't something that the protagonist was willing/able to talk to friends/family about. also, writing in a journal is kind of like a conversation with oneself. maybe the protagonist is trying to convince him/herself that there is nothing wrong in the relationship, and this is evident in the journal entries. so yeah...
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Image theatre: Sexual assault
As of yet, I do not have a concrete idea of how we can work with image theatre dealing with sexual assault; however, I can describe some ways in which I've been involved in image theatre as a possible springboard for new ideas. This type of theatre has interested me since eleventh grade, and if used properly, I think it can be an effective way of social education.
Note: I have never performed a piece of image theatre for a group outside of my theatre class, and I'm not sure how image theatre is framed for a public viewing - to me, the power of image theatre lies in the active process of creating it, not in passively watching it "performed." Leading a workshop on image theatre and sexual assualt with a small group of students isn't really an option (or is it?), but I'll take you through the method I've used so that we have something to base our own piece on.
First, the group must decide on a topic/issue - in our case, sexual assault. Then, one person volunteers to be the initial "sculptor." He/she physically forms the rest of the group into a tableau that represents his/her idea of the topic. After this, the next volunteer jumps out of the image to be the next sculptor, and the old one takes his/her place in the tableau. This new sculptor modifies the image, and this process continues until the group has reached a consensus about their representation of the issue. This image can be realistic or abstract, but is usually most effective if it evokes an emotional/reflective response in the viewer. Once the "real world" image is created, the group then alters the tableau to show an idealized version or solution to the problem presented in the first image.
Note: I have never performed a piece of image theatre for a group outside of my theatre class, and I'm not sure how image theatre is framed for a public viewing - to me, the power of image theatre lies in the active process of creating it, not in passively watching it "performed." Leading a workshop on image theatre and sexual assualt with a small group of students isn't really an option (or is it?), but I'll take you through the method I've used so that we have something to base our own piece on.
First, the group must decide on a topic/issue - in our case, sexual assault. Then, one person volunteers to be the initial "sculptor." He/she physically forms the rest of the group into a tableau that represents his/her idea of the topic. After this, the next volunteer jumps out of the image to be the next sculptor, and the old one takes his/her place in the tableau. This new sculptor modifies the image, and this process continues until the group has reached a consensus about their representation of the issue. This image can be realistic or abstract, but is usually most effective if it evokes an emotional/reflective response in the viewer. Once the "real world" image is created, the group then alters the tableau to show an idealized version or solution to the problem presented in the first image.
If we were to use this kind of theatre during Sexual Assault Awareness Week, we could go through the devising stage as a class, come up with two images and "perform" them silently or with music in a public space or in a performance. Perhaps it might also be interesting to integrate images with film clips or projections, like Alexa suggested; however, that might distract from the impact of the image.
Sample Sexual Assault Awareness Month Proposal
Hey guys!
I thought a sample proposal of a possible theatrical program might help you design or come up with your own. Feel free to add your own suggestion to this, and to your other classmates ideas as they add them.
Type of Theatrical Engagement:
Staged and Image
Continuum of behaviors:
Physically violent relationship, rape, emotionally violent relationship, harassment
Methods of Reaching spectators/spectator population:
Personal testament/ally population
Proposal:
Setting: A quiet space that students often frequent but do not socialize in, for example wilder main or perhaps the inner atrium on the first level of the library
Scenario:
(STAGED) Testimonials of male bodied individuals who identify with the male gender are collected and digitally recorded. Testimonials range on a variety of topics, but generally come back to two main points: the knowledge of male and gendered based violence against women, the pain that this gendered violence causes to men who are allies against violence, focusing on their close bond with women in their lives. Narratives are broken abruptly, and do not follow a narrative flow. Audience members are encouraged to to hear the voices as one large testimonial.
(IMAGE)
At scheduled intervals, actors or dancers (as the action is silent) move with the ambient sound of the testimonials, responding to the words on a moment-by-moment basis, in metaphoric and exaggerated ways. They gradually recede and return, allowing the testimonial to become an accepted and expected sound in the space.
I thought a sample proposal of a possible theatrical program might help you design or come up with your own. Feel free to add your own suggestion to this, and to your other classmates ideas as they add them.
Type of Theatrical Engagement:
Staged and Image
Continuum of behaviors:
Physically violent relationship, rape, emotionally violent relationship, harassment
Methods of Reaching spectators/spectator population:
Personal testament/ally population
Proposal:
Setting: A quiet space that students often frequent but do not socialize in, for example wilder main or perhaps the inner atrium on the first level of the library
Scenario:
(STAGED) Testimonials of male bodied individuals who identify with the male gender are collected and digitally recorded. Testimonials range on a variety of topics, but generally come back to two main points: the knowledge of male and gendered based violence against women, the pain that this gendered violence causes to men who are allies against violence, focusing on their close bond with women in their lives. Narratives are broken abruptly, and do not follow a narrative flow. Audience members are encouraged to to hear the voices as one large testimonial.
(IMAGE)
At scheduled intervals, actors or dancers (as the action is silent) move with the ambient sound of the testimonials, responding to the words on a moment-by-moment basis, in metaphoric and exaggerated ways. They gradually recede and return, allowing the testimonial to become an accepted and expected sound in the space.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Skit Ideas
I really like the idea of working with Sexual Assault Awareness Month, and think that the immediacy of the issue in our lives makes it a good choice for a skit.
However, I've also been thinking about something Alexa mentioned on day 1 of class - that Oberlin students would be really into something that combined sexual health/gender roles with environmental stewardship. Bear with me for a minute:
-In Darfur, countless women have been raped, and sexualized violence has become a systematic tool of the Janjaweed militia and Sudanese army
-The conflict is largely fueled by environmental scarcity, specifically water scarcity
-Al Gore points out, in an Inconvenient Truth, that this is largely due to the drying up of Lake Chad. And, he continues, these kinds of conflicts will inevitably be more common if the worst affects of global warming take hold and drought increases worldwide.
Thus, individual choices, carbon footprints, and environmental stewardship clearly connect with human rights, gender roles, and sexualized violence. This is a connection that I've been very interested in for a long time, and have done a lot of work on in the past. Could we give it a try? I'd be willing to write the skit, and think it would be a very good challenge.
Monday, February 23, 2009
a third blog post
Once again, I'm sorry I'm always the last to post these things! I also apologize in advance for any incoherence in my writing, as I'm quite exhausted...
I too enjoyed Boal’s history of the changing nature of theater and its relation to society. It made sense to me except where he attacked individual playwrights. I mostly understand where he’s coming from when talks about the development of theater as a method of defining the place of the individual in society, and how it reflected and influenced the social norms of the day. It made sense that overall theater might have a dehumanizing effect—what I don’t understand is, as David said, how Ionesco can be classified as “[overshadowing] the achievements of all his fellow playwrights in the enormous task of dehumanizing man.”
It’s like Boal switched from arguing that theater works to oppress people, as in the audience, to arguing that a certain character in a certain play was somehow restricted and “oppressed” because he was constructed as an “[abstraction] of a psychological, moral, or metaphysical nature”. This is a difficult leap for me to make, especially when I feel like Ionesco’s characters are created very precisely for the purpose of social commentary. The only explanation I can think of is that perhaps Boal is suggesting that this increased denigration of the individual came about without Ionesco’s noticing it; that maybe Boal is saying that though Ionesco’s intentions were good, he unknowingly perpetuated this sequence of dehumanization Boal sees in theater.
On a different note, I found his characterization of the influence Hollywood has interesting, especially because of the nature of the influence. I’ve always found that it’s not the didactic, Aristotelian plays that influence people the most, but rather the subtly manipulative ones. In this sense, if we extend Boal’s “theater” to the media today, we see how people are no longer following prescribed outcomes, ie “you should feel this after watching this play;” instead we find audiences influenced by, as in his example, what characters are wearing and doing, how they’re talking, etc.
I too enjoyed Boal’s history of the changing nature of theater and its relation to society. It made sense to me except where he attacked individual playwrights. I mostly understand where he’s coming from when talks about the development of theater as a method of defining the place of the individual in society, and how it reflected and influenced the social norms of the day. It made sense that overall theater might have a dehumanizing effect—what I don’t understand is, as David said, how Ionesco can be classified as “[overshadowing] the achievements of all his fellow playwrights in the enormous task of dehumanizing man.”
It’s like Boal switched from arguing that theater works to oppress people, as in the audience, to arguing that a certain character in a certain play was somehow restricted and “oppressed” because he was constructed as an “[abstraction] of a psychological, moral, or metaphysical nature”. This is a difficult leap for me to make, especially when I feel like Ionesco’s characters are created very precisely for the purpose of social commentary. The only explanation I can think of is that perhaps Boal is suggesting that this increased denigration of the individual came about without Ionesco’s noticing it; that maybe Boal is saying that though Ionesco’s intentions were good, he unknowingly perpetuated this sequence of dehumanization Boal sees in theater.
On a different note, I found his characterization of the influence Hollywood has interesting, especially because of the nature of the influence. I’ve always found that it’s not the didactic, Aristotelian plays that influence people the most, but rather the subtly manipulative ones. In this sense, if we extend Boal’s “theater” to the media today, we see how people are no longer following prescribed outcomes, ie “you should feel this after watching this play;” instead we find audiences influenced by, as in his example, what characters are wearing and doing, how they’re talking, etc.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
blog!!!
i think i finally understand what boal means when he says that the masses/audience is oppressed by the aristocracy (i still find the use of the word "oppression" questionable, however). anyhoo, certain parts of the reading really clarified the idea for me. before, i was thinking of theatre as mostly plays and musicals and how that kind of theatre is more associated with the upper classes. so, i couldn't understand how any and everyone else was being oppressed. but thinking of theatre in a more general sense of the word and including more than just such-and-such-kind-of-play in such-and-such-kind-of-venue, i see how it has the potential to reach a much wider audience. boal also mentions television (even though he doesn't consider it art) and how dominant forms found in theatre can also be found in television shows. and of course theatre reaches a very wide audience. also, when boal talks about the "aristocracy" i no longer think of the aristocracy (i.e. fancy-pants, old-money, etc. kind of people). i think he just means the ruling class, those with the power and money. and since these people are the "dominant class," their art will be the "dominant art." i get it now.
I like how Boal has traced the development of Theatre through history, crafting a clear vision of how it has adapted with various periods and remained powerful. However, I am skeptical and slightly confused by his concluding examples that refer almost exclusively to Ionesco. He talks about Ionesco creating a new kind of theatre, and that he "overshadows the achievements of all his fellow playwrights in the enormous task of dehumanizing man." Sounds negative to me!
Indeed, Ionesco did work on the cutting edge of absurd theatre, depicting humans rediculously. However, it is no coincidence that he was also writing socially relevant plays. Further, it is no coincidence that these two characteristics of the man's work go hand-in-hand. Indeed, if one wants to make a political statement, it may be best to do so in an artistically radical fashion in order to engender deep emotions and make a strong impression.
Is there a reason that Boal does not mention the social revelance of Rhinoceros, which is far from an attempt at dehumanization? Indeed, the play is largely interpreted as a response to Fascism, Nazism and Communism before WW2, shedding light on individual identity, culture, philosophy and ethics. Maybe I am misinterpreting Boal, but I wonder why he ignores the social importance of his concluding example...
Indeed, Ionesco did work on the cutting edge of absurd theatre, depicting humans rediculously. However, it is no coincidence that he was also writing socially relevant plays. Further, it is no coincidence that these two characteristics of the man's work go hand-in-hand. Indeed, if one wants to make a political statement, it may be best to do so in an artistically radical fashion in order to engender deep emotions and make a strong impression.
Is there a reason that Boal does not mention the social revelance of Rhinoceros, which is far from an attempt at dehumanization? Indeed, the play is largely interpreted as a response to Fascism, Nazism and Communism before WW2, shedding light on individual identity, culture, philosophy and ethics. Maybe I am misinterpreting Boal, but I wonder why he ignores the social importance of his concluding example...
Blog #3: Character development
I thought it was interesting how Augusto Boal traced the function and presentation of the character with respect to political/religious agendas in theatre. The portrayal of characters and how they are played by actors has always fascinated me, as it is incredibly influential in terms of the style of the performance and effect on the audience.
I had not realized before that the development of the character in relation to realism vs. abstraction over time seems to form a bell curve parabola. This curve traces the political character from its feudal origin as an abstraction of moral values/object acting as a representative of the value it symbolized, to Shakespeare’s multidimensional portrayal of a character in possession of exceptional qualities e.g. virtù, where the character becomes a bourgeois conception, to the character as a concrete embodiment of an ethical principle à la Hegel, to realism, to the new abstractions of Bertolt Brecht and Eugène Ionesco.
In case the above paragraph was not clear, here's a general outline in diagram form.
I had not realized before that the development of the character in relation to realism vs. abstraction over time seems to form a bell curve parabola. This curve traces the political character from its feudal origin as an abstraction of moral values/object acting as a representative of the value it symbolized, to Shakespeare’s multidimensional portrayal of a character in possession of exceptional qualities e.g. virtù, where the character becomes a bourgeois conception, to the character as a concrete embodiment of an ethical principle à la Hegel, to realism, to the new abstractions of Bertolt Brecht and Eugène Ionesco.
In case the above paragraph was not clear, here's a general outline in diagram form.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Blog post #2! I have no witty byline..
I am dreadfully sorry to post this so late. I finished it last night (or, rather, early this morning) but since I refuse to publicly display just how late I stayed up, I decided to post it later this morning.
I think the use of coerciveness in Aristotle’s plays was very well explained, personally, and it made sense to me. Where I have trouble following is how the structure of Aristotle’s plays, which set out a very clear series of emotions he means for the spectator to experience, relates to the structure of modern plays (and movies and what have you) in general. I certainly agree that theater, like any art form, can be used in a coercive fashion. But I would not go so far as to say that Aristotle’s didactic structure applies to much of what I see today.
I also find Plato fascinating despite relatively little knowledge of his works. The idea of nature tending to, if not perfection (at this point the term perfection has so many connotations I don’t feel right using it because of the necessary explanations involved), then at least some end, makes sense. I like the way Aristotle extends this to say that art and science intervene where nature isn’t reaching its ends. I don’t agree that theater as a method of correction for the “mistakes” nature makes is necessarily a bad thing; simply that it depends who it is doing the correcting. It bears keeping in mind that the person writing the play will have certain aims in doing so, and it is certainly right to question those aims and, as Boal says, to try to figure out “what does [catharsis] correct… and what does it purify? (TOTO p. 27).
I think the use of coerciveness in Aristotle’s plays was very well explained, personally, and it made sense to me. Where I have trouble following is how the structure of Aristotle’s plays, which set out a very clear series of emotions he means for the spectator to experience, relates to the structure of modern plays (and movies and what have you) in general. I certainly agree that theater, like any art form, can be used in a coercive fashion. But I would not go so far as to say that Aristotle’s didactic structure applies to much of what I see today.
I also find Plato fascinating despite relatively little knowledge of his works. The idea of nature tending to, if not perfection (at this point the term perfection has so many connotations I don’t feel right using it because of the necessary explanations involved), then at least some end, makes sense. I like the way Aristotle extends this to say that art and science intervene where nature isn’t reaching its ends. I don’t agree that theater as a method of correction for the “mistakes” nature makes is necessarily a bad thing; simply that it depends who it is doing the correcting. It bears keeping in mind that the person writing the play will have certain aims in doing so, and it is certainly right to question those aims and, as Boal says, to try to figure out “what does [catharsis] correct… and what does it purify? (TOTO p. 27).
Blog #2: Zeno is... not deserving of modern readership (but I liked Plato's ideas)
Prior to this class, I had spent great amounts of time and energy meditating on theatre as a medium for activism, so I find it fascinating to see Boal connect this theme to ancient philosophers. While I don't see the connection/importance of all of these sages, the connections to Plato made a great deal of sense to me.
I've never studied Plato in great depth, but have always found his ideas fascinating when I hear them - and the connection to theatre as a medium for social change (or suppression of such change) makes great sense to me. If only ideas are perfect (as plato postulates), then portrayals of human faults and real-life departures from perfection certainly have potential for catharsis - especially when structured as Boal explains (in terms of plot progression in tragedies, leading up to the cathartic moment/catastrophe. And, in controlling an audiences emotions, I can see how Aristotle may have engaged in subtle manipulation. If humans are aware of their imperfections and the imperfections of the world, then tapping into those realities has great potential for both art and manipulation.
That said - I do not at all understand the point of talking about many of the other sages mentioned. Even Boal clearly understands that they were largely nutty! He even mocks them rather openly - specifically Zeno, - and with good cause. Giving context to Aristotle might require Plato, but do you guys see the connection between Boal's critique of Aristotle and the odd concept that having a bow shot at you is entirely safe because an arrow in motion can't possibly exist?
Sunday, February 15, 2009
my blog #2
after this week's reading, i don't really have much to say. i agree with abby that the word "coercion" has a too strong of a negative connotation, and i'm not sure if it's appropriate in describing theatre.
so, about coercion...who is theatre coercing? i'm pretty sure that boal believes it's aristotle's system that coerces the audience. but is it also supposed to be that aristotle's system of tragedy coerces theatrical artists to create theatre that follows his rules? then i can't help but think of what kind of audience theatre reaches. of course this isn't always the case, but theatre is usually associated with people of higher social statuses. the poor aren't as likely to take an interest in theatre. so is it that upper middle class theatre-goers are being coerced into behaving in a socially acceptable manner? and then, of course, there's the cultural aspect of this whole thing.
when boal says that aristotles system cannot be used during times of revolution, i wasn't sure whether he was saying "ok this system makes sense, but we can't use it during revolution" or "this system doesn't work for this reason." he defines cultural revolution as a time in which "all values are being formed or questioned." going from his definition, life is one giant cultural revolution. people aren't constantly going out of their way to change the world, but questioning of values is pretty constant. it's something we do everyday, even if it's on a smaller scale. and that means that this system of tragedy is never appropriate. i wonder if that's the point boal is trying to make.
(sorry if my blog makes absolutely no sense. my thought process is weird, and i'm sleepy. so...yeah...)
so, about coercion...who is theatre coercing? i'm pretty sure that boal believes it's aristotle's system that coerces the audience. but is it also supposed to be that aristotle's system of tragedy coerces theatrical artists to create theatre that follows his rules? then i can't help but think of what kind of audience theatre reaches. of course this isn't always the case, but theatre is usually associated with people of higher social statuses. the poor aren't as likely to take an interest in theatre. so is it that upper middle class theatre-goers are being coerced into behaving in a socially acceptable manner? and then, of course, there's the cultural aspect of this whole thing.
when boal says that aristotles system cannot be used during times of revolution, i wasn't sure whether he was saying "ok this system makes sense, but we can't use it during revolution" or "this system doesn't work for this reason." he defines cultural revolution as a time in which "all values are being formed or questioned." going from his definition, life is one giant cultural revolution. people aren't constantly going out of their way to change the world, but questioning of values is pretty constant. it's something we do everyday, even if it's on a smaller scale. and that means that this system of tragedy is never appropriate. i wonder if that's the point boal is trying to make.
(sorry if my blog makes absolutely no sense. my thought process is weird, and i'm sleepy. so...yeah...)
Blog #2: "Aristotle's coersive system of tragedy" response
I must admit, this week's reading was not what I expected. I had already read some writings by Augusto Boal on his experiments with invisible theatre, which were much more oriented towards the practical applications of theatre of the oppressed, and I expected this to be similarly written. As it is, I am unsure as to how Boal will tie this theory of Greek tragedy into theatre of the oppressed.
On a more focused note, I thought I'd comment on two points that Boal makes in this chapter. The first is the statement, "Theatre is the most perfect artistic form of coercion." This is a radical opinion, and I do not wholly agree with it. I do agree that theatre is a powerful force for influencing others, and that because of its immediacy and use of empathy, theatre has more sway than literature, visual art, or even film. However, I dislike the strong negative connotations of the word "coercion," and think that Boal makes theatre seem overly manipulated and abused by those in power.
The other statement that stuck out to me was, "Theatre is change." This I agree with wholeheartedly. I think it encapsulates the positive side of theatre's influence, and I am excited to see how Boal expands on this idea in realtion to theatre as a social and theraputic force.
On a more focused note, I thought I'd comment on two points that Boal makes in this chapter. The first is the statement, "Theatre is the most perfect artistic form of coercion." This is a radical opinion, and I do not wholly agree with it. I do agree that theatre is a powerful force for influencing others, and that because of its immediacy and use of empathy, theatre has more sway than literature, visual art, or even film. However, I dislike the strong negative connotations of the word "coercion," and think that Boal makes theatre seem overly manipulated and abused by those in power.
The other statement that stuck out to me was, "Theatre is change." This I agree with wholeheartedly. I think it encapsulates the positive side of theatre's influence, and I am excited to see how Boal expands on this idea in realtion to theatre as a social and theraputic force.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
my blog
So...I don't really agree that theatre is necessarily political. I believe that it can be created or interpreted in a way that makes it political, but I don't think that theatre has to be or always is political. I also question Boal's argument that "those who try to separate theater from politics try to lead us into error -- and this is a political attitude." Not taking a political stance on everything, whether in art of in life in general, doesn't make one wrong. And sometimes art is just art. It doesn't always mean something. Maybe Boal will change my mind. We'll see.
I don't understand why Boal is blaming the aristocracy for the introduction of the actor. I don't know the circumstances surrounding Thespis and his decision to step out of the chorus, but I doubt it was because of some plot on behalf of the aristocracy.
I agree with Boal in that I think it's important for an audience to be more than passive observers. An audience should be allowed to participate in a theatrical piece. But I don't fully understand/agree with Boal's view on the dithyrambic song and the aristocracy creating divisions. Boal didn't draw a distinction between ritual and theatre. Even though rituals like the dithyrambic song later evolved into "theatre," I'm not quite sure it was there yet at the point Boal is referencing. So what he's saying about people participating freely doesn't really apply. Maybe he's implying that the aristocracy somehow brought about the evolution of theatre. I view the change in the form/function and introduction of the actor as natural processes in the transformation of ritual to theatre. In my mind, it just happened. SO I'm interested in how Boal will explain the aristocratic involvement in these changes.
I don't understand why Boal is blaming the aristocracy for the introduction of the actor. I don't know the circumstances surrounding Thespis and his decision to step out of the chorus, but I doubt it was because of some plot on behalf of the aristocracy.
I agree with Boal in that I think it's important for an audience to be more than passive observers. An audience should be allowed to participate in a theatrical piece. But I don't fully understand/agree with Boal's view on the dithyrambic song and the aristocracy creating divisions. Boal didn't draw a distinction between ritual and theatre. Even though rituals like the dithyrambic song later evolved into "theatre," I'm not quite sure it was there yet at the point Boal is referencing. So what he's saying about people participating freely doesn't really apply. Maybe he's implying that the aristocracy somehow brought about the evolution of theatre. I view the change in the form/function and introduction of the actor as natural processes in the transformation of ritual to theatre. In my mind, it just happened. SO I'm interested in how Boal will explain the aristocratic involvement in these changes.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
I read the preface, but I checked and though it's in the Google Books version of the book, it appears not to exist in the hard copy that everyone has (and which I have yet to receive). That being said, I'll comment on what I read because I found it fairly interesting despite some disagreements I had.
The preface details the story of Thespis, who rebels against the classic Greek chorus structure and, by separating himself from the group and speaking his mind on stage, creates the first protagonist. I guess it was interesting to see how Boal seemingly approved of this move that Thespis made, but wished, I suppose, that ALL chorus members rather than just one had done it. This, of course, goes against the structure we’ve come to associate with Western theater, where there are some protagonists and then, often, lots of supporting roles and the equivalent of chorus members.
I agree with the others in that I don’t, inherently, find this to be oppressive. Boal also speaks to how the stage is the sole territory of the playwright (and the director too I suppose), and once again, perhaps because I’ve been so “indoctrinated”, I can’t see why someone who has a vision to get across shouldn’t be allowed to write a play, have others act it, and get his or her message out to the masses. I understand the appeal of having everyone be an actor, and the freeing power that can have. Indeed, having done some Theater of the Oppressed workshops while Hector was here, I know firsthand that the work he did with us creating images of oppression or of problems we saw, and then having us construct our ideal images and images of our “antidotes” to the problems, was a really interesting and powerful experience. I feel, though, that this idea calls into question the whole idea of performance art, whether it be music or theater or what have you. There is validity in saying that everyone should be a musician or an actor of equal value, and yet I enjoy listening to or watching someone else’s creation put into action by those who are capable of both comprehending it and doing it justice. Calling the spectator-actor divide oppressive is not something I feel ready to do just yet.
The preface details the story of Thespis, who rebels against the classic Greek chorus structure and, by separating himself from the group and speaking his mind on stage, creates the first protagonist. I guess it was interesting to see how Boal seemingly approved of this move that Thespis made, but wished, I suppose, that ALL chorus members rather than just one had done it. This, of course, goes against the structure we’ve come to associate with Western theater, where there are some protagonists and then, often, lots of supporting roles and the equivalent of chorus members.
I agree with the others in that I don’t, inherently, find this to be oppressive. Boal also speaks to how the stage is the sole territory of the playwright (and the director too I suppose), and once again, perhaps because I’ve been so “indoctrinated”, I can’t see why someone who has a vision to get across shouldn’t be allowed to write a play, have others act it, and get his or her message out to the masses. I understand the appeal of having everyone be an actor, and the freeing power that can have. Indeed, having done some Theater of the Oppressed workshops while Hector was here, I know firsthand that the work he did with us creating images of oppression or of problems we saw, and then having us construct our ideal images and images of our “antidotes” to the problems, was a really interesting and powerful experience. I feel, though, that this idea calls into question the whole idea of performance art, whether it be music or theater or what have you. There is validity in saying that everyone should be a musician or an actor of equal value, and yet I enjoy listening to or watching someone else’s creation put into action by those who are capable of both comprehending it and doing it justice. Calling the spectator-actor divide oppressive is not something I feel ready to do just yet.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Blog #1: Image theatre workshop
Since this is my first blog entry and the reading wasn’t very long, I thought I’d take this opportunity to expound on my limited background with Theatre of the Oppressed. I was first introduced to Augusto Boal and his ideas during my eleventh grade IB Theatre class, in a unit that covered predominantly invisible theatre and image theatre. I was asked to participate in a small invisible theatre piece within the class to start the unit, but what most interested me was a workshop we did on image theatre.
For this activity we broke off into pairs: one person was the sculptor, and the other person acted as the clay. In silence, the sculptor had to physically “mold” their partner into a position that represented a time when they felt oppressed, and the emotions associated with this situation. When the sculptors were finished, they moved around the room to view the images. Then, the sculptors had to alter their image of oppression to show how they might have resisted said oppression, and the group surveyed the sculptures again. Partners switched roles, and the activity was repeated.
I was strongly affected by this workshop, both as a sculptor and a model. It was helpful to represent my emotions using another person, as I could view my model objectively and present a better image of repression than if I had been sculpting myself. It was also freeing to be sculpted. My oppressed position was very cramped and low to the ground, whereas my resistance position was much more open. Through physical representations of repression I came to empathize greatly with my partner and the rest of the class.
For this activity we broke off into pairs: one person was the sculptor, and the other person acted as the clay. In silence, the sculptor had to physically “mold” their partner into a position that represented a time when they felt oppressed, and the emotions associated with this situation. When the sculptors were finished, they moved around the room to view the images. Then, the sculptors had to alter their image of oppression to show how they might have resisted said oppression, and the group surveyed the sculptures again. Partners switched roles, and the activity was repeated.
I was strongly affected by this workshop, both as a sculptor and a model. It was helpful to represent my emotions using another person, as I could view my model objectively and present a better image of repression than if I had been sculpting myself. It was also freeing to be sculpted. My oppressed position was very cramped and low to the ground, whereas my resistance position was much more open. Through physical representations of repression I came to empathize greatly with my partner and the rest of the class.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)