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...)
No comments:
Post a Comment