Political Protest Evaluation

How did the research you have undertaken affect the protest?

I wanted to do a topic that encompassed the soul & complexity of the capitalist system in one singular topic, which I thought that oil could fit perfectly. It meets the international scale along with the personal affliction of what it may cause to the everyday citizen on the ground. Knowing about the nationalised systems of Norway concerning oil & the absolute corruption found in modern day politics from the amount of money the industry has was an absolute drive to create the piece. Knowing about the war on Afghanistan, the falsified reasons for invasion & the amount of oil that drove the war forward led to America & Britain being major players within the performance. Hearing in the news about the Russian involvement in the Ukraine & one of the main reason for staying away from intervention is oil supply led to them being involved in the piece. Saudi Arabia has the second largest oil reserves in the world & has lead to the immense wealth & expansion that country has been seeing, leading them to be included in the piece.

What was your role?

I was playing America within the performance, leading the way forward in terms of consumption & cultivation. Britain followed close behind me at all times & I made sure that I was seen to lead the piece in every direction it took. Having a commanding presence & talking first to any people presented to me.

What did you achieve for yourself artistically?

I feel like I expressed a very complicated & polarising topic in a very experimental way, pushing myself forward to create an environment that was abstract. The point of pouring oil over each other while having a normal convocation is a play on normality & I feel like it was a successful exploration into the unusual, even in relation to such a strong topic. I feel like I should find more direction inside of these abstract concepts but also see the enjoyment & use in meandering on moments to be effectual.

Evaluate of the level of professional execution, how did your piece make an impact?

 

I think this piece had a large impact from a visual perspective as watching the piece for any length of time it became clear what the issue was & our perspective towards it without dialogue. I think a greater strength could have possibly been found in more dialogue to the audience in way of change but highlighting the topic in a direct way was what my real intention was. People were repulsed by the liquid that we were using & didn't want it to touch them, which was the tangible representation of what oil is in a metaphorical sense. Nobody wants it near them or to affect them yet they had to interact with us in order to pass through. We kept the scenes going, even with interaction from the audience, to show how the cycle of this reality is basically unbreakable when it comes to the conceivable 'normal' people witnessing the piece.

 

How can you quantify this?

 

I think that we cannot & that links in to what our piece is, there is no direct measure of it's impact as it was expansive & open. Talking to people afterwards to qualify what we were doing is the only way to understand what was gained on a personal level & that is the point of the performance, to understand the human impact on a substance that holds no human qualities.

 

Evaluate the overall strengths and weaknesses

I think the piece as a visual statement was very effective & the dialogue used throughout highlighted how vacuous the reality inside of oil really is. The piece gave a real sensory onslaught of what the issue held as well as a topic. I think that our position as to where we performed could have been better, as we didn't get the amount of traffic that we would've liked to watch the piece in the manner we wanted it digested. This added though to the performance in the sense though however as it made the whole atmosphere more disjointed & oddly choreographed with a larger amount of audience interaction.

 

Discuss the potential of protest as a theatre product.

I think that protest as a theatre product is a perfect way to convey a message in a multitude of different ways, to get the audience engaged in a subject that they may be ignorant to. It is very raw as well as a form of interaction, placing yourself in the wild of reality, with real people to question & react live to your piece, making it a real piece of theatre. I think the interesting question for me would be when does protest become art which is a different dichotomy. I think that it is definitely a successful utility if used in conjunction with an interesting subject & can draw very real, honest reactions from the audience.

Should Theatre Be Censored? - Exibit B Discussion

In today's lesson we debated the live art exhibition, 'Exhibit B' with the class & whether art in general should be censored, including what the piece involved. My opinion on the matter is that politics & misinformation led to confusion that inevitably clouded what the art meant. Art should never be censored, in any form as it is a freedom of expression. By regulating this subject with control & regulation you are stripping the individual of public free thought & discussion. Removing all pre-conceptual idea of what 'art' is as a medium, by removing what it is supposed to mean, life. Art is the simple expression of one human (or non-human) thing to others in order to engage them either with the piece in question or with themselves. Censoring this process & removing exhibitions that may force people to question themselves as well as others is removing the individual state of being. 'Exhibit B' was the expression of the lives of those repressed at this time & what it looks like against modern society, both in value & in society. The fact that a group threatened violence if this piece was to be staged shows that there was some miscommunication down the line of what this piece was. Highlighting the injustice through this period in a smart & affecting way, that doesn't tend itself to simple ingested belief. I think that 'Exhibit B' highlighted to me that censorship is always the wrong decision with art & that people just need to be able to apply the correct measure of thought to understand the perception of a piece such as this. Without the recognition by these people that protested the piece that their world view will be questioned & altered by art there can be no form of societal change. This stems into education & the way people need to see the world as not just one shade, rather a plethora of different strokes together & I just hold the hope that that will come one day for these people. Until that day, art must hold strong underneath & never bend to the will of the ignorant.

Is Brecht still relevant today?

Should we study him?

Of course, there is no question of the impact that Brecht has had on abstract theatre work & even other contemporary theatrical forms. He pushed the bounds of what theatre was as a digestible piece of entertainment & how to expand it to make people engage their ideological view. Without looking at this impact of pushing theatre forward you would not understand how we got to where we are now & how we must continue to progress as theatre makers & performers.

Is Epic Theatre out of date?

Only as much as other theatrical techniques are. Theatre as an art form is beyond the commercial pail by this point & artistically we must continue to innervate to make it relevant. To state that Epic Theatre is out of date without stating that Naturalism is as well is ridiculous because each art form only exists for the moment it is being used. Once beyond it in any way, artistically, it is by factor 'outdated' . It is a utility in a toolbox that can be drawn upon to still be effective, this comes with modifications however to keep pushing theatre as a medium forward but is still by essence 'Epic Theatre.' Making it still relevant & current in the climate we live in today, if applied correctly.

Do audiences want to watch this style of theatre?

Watch wouldn't be the word I would use in this context as I find that with a theatrical style of this kind the audience are being asked to engage in the piece. I think that an audience willing to open themselves up to an intellectual & moral exertion through the means of a piece do want to engage with theatre of this style. It makes them feel responsive & alive to the piece, compared to the stature of 'watching' a style of theatre.

11th November

In today's lesson we read 'The Most Horrific'. This play to me was really effective in communicating the social-political themes of modern society in a tight space of time. Holding no bounds to the structure or form of traditional theatre & having a Brechtian approach to performance gave the piece all the room it needed to breathe. It jumped around from place to place at an incredible pace without losing site of what it was talking about or had to highlight. It was unspecific in some areas for the readers to engage with & add the relevant meaning, making them process everything being thrown at them, digesting it & then coming out with a result at the end of that process.

I think there is a wide range of ways that the piece can be staged, that could be closely linked to the text format or separate. The fact that there are so many different ways to approach & execute the themes presented within the piece demonstrates to me the versatility of Brechtian performance. One company can apply the techniques given in a completely different way to another company yet still present the themes in an affecting & stirring way to the audience.

Something that has also came to my attention through the methods of Brecht is that comedy is a complicated thing when used to portray themes. It can be used for a quick differentiation of a political stance within the audience e.g. a joke about race. This in tern with other Brechtian  techniques used makes the audience evaluate all their collective principles on that issue. Making the audience aware that it is a group of actors making a joke about race, existing outside of the relevant context, which makes the joke seemingly funny, pushes the bounds of someone's views on an issue to a tangible reality.

Brecht Research

Brecht was alive from 1898-1956. This period was filled with two world wars which is a lifetime of violence to experience & formulated the need for more experimental theatre to express these things for an audience. He studied medicine in Germany before he decided to change direction in favor of expressionist theatre, challenging theatre as an art form & expanding its influence. This was within the new form of expressionism, established at the beginning of the first world war. This was to destroy convention in place of real emotion. This work was explosive & grotesque to a new audience however as it was so explicit in it depiction of life that it shook theatre as a process to it's core. I think that it's vital to the development of art to be continually pushed in a socio-political direction, stretching what the audience can stand against what they deserve to see to convey a message. Once this medium is reached between explicit & the political is where Brecht thrives. Finding the need to evoke such strong emotion through the political issues in order for the audience to recognize & expand their understanding of a subject was Brecht's pure goal.

Baal at this time, a play concerned with suffering caused by excessive sexual pleasures. It sensationally depicted what were considered immoral attitudes at the time. This was showing the direction that Brecht aimed for & that the issues that he would tackle had no limit to their scope or scale, politically or socially. By having such an apt way with words & a vision to rival many he was began to become an infamous artist within the theatrical landscape. 

4th November 2014

In today's lesson we got introduced to the idea of political theatre, the difference it poses to naturalism & Brecht as a practitioner. Political theatre is a piece that has a certain issue at the heart which leads & drives the piece forward as the leading cause for its creation. These can be a wide variety of topics ranging from country to country or specific to a certain topic prevalent at the time e.g. the Ebola outbreak & government intervention or lack of. This is then discussed through the form of 'epic theatre' which specifically is different from the naturalistic theatre we were offered before in 'dramatic theatre'.

  
Within the lesson we looked at the individual differences within these states, an example being the difference between 'plot' & 'narrative'. A plot is something in which the character's operate inside of in order to express a certain story they are experiencing. Narrative is outside of this as it abandons the need for character satisfaction in place of a larger, overarching issue within the piece. These definitive differences & choices make the political elements within a piece perfectly suited to a Brechtian style. Acknowledgment that within the space the actors are trying to achieve an image within gestation to show an image greater than the actors within the space. This is the need to show the world outside of the piece, within it. Reflecting the real political themes beyond the actors inside the space through these grand images at an 'epic' scale of imagination. We also got offered the question of 'what makes a pacifist ready to kill?' Brining to light the hefty question of when action is drawn upon in an ultimately needed medium. Making the piece reach a point where the pacifist has to kill draws the message to the highest point & shows the dynamic needed to make the actors effective with the messages they hope to portray.

We also had to learn about the 'Verfremdungseffekt effect' which draws the actors away from being a character & only a courier for the political themes. To establish this need for the audience, of the distance between actor & action Brecht utilises a number of techniques. These include; a narrator, actors stepping out of character to narrate the piece, actors speaking in 3rd person & singing narration. All to break down the forth wall for the audience, illustrate that the actors are aware of the situation & that it is a performance for the audience. Removing any characterisation in place of the greater theme at work within the piece, of the political message.   

We also had to understand situations from multiple perspectives to reach a greater meaning behind the piece by running scenes from multiple different angles. This involved duel images such as 'hero's of war' to 'the loss of war' showing the yin & yang of a subject matter due to perspective. Brecht wants to play with these elements to an extreme, making the audience engaged with their own political leanings due to the images presented by the actors in the space. We also broke into groups & had to devise two scenes with the same through line of topic. For our group it was the discovery of our doctor murdering a person. In the first scene, we showed outrage & fear before we offered some justification behind the doctor's murder, nullifying the issue. In the second playing we were less concerned about the murder & more involved around the fame that came with it. Both were political statements on different cultures within Britain with the audience needing to engage whether they agreed or disagreed with the character's reactions within the given circumstance. It was interesting to play with perception in such an overt & experimental way that it offered a style of theatre I had never experienced before. I want to continue to learn & develop techniques offered by Brecht & change my acting style by his offerings.