Today we performed the beginning of our piece, right up to the end of the ‘restaurant scene’, where we discuss if money can buy love. The feedback we got included praise for the comedic elements of the piece, because in the same satirical nature of Brechtian shows, our audience were invited to poke fun at the issues raised instead of mourn the injustices. We were also told that we made good use of Brechtian technique, such as Gestus (especially with the character of the mayor), random outburst of song (including the ‘Be our guest’ routine in the restaurant scene to highlight how women are used to entertain men), and including flashbacks to give the performance an episodic structure.
Nevertheless, I agree with other comments made that we must now focus on message we want to convey to the audience, because there is too much confusion for the audience in terms of the play’s subject matter - which is only made worse by the surreal nature of our delivery. The message would also be enhanced by serious or tense moments so that the audience don’t experience the political issues solely in a funny way, because this hinders their significance if done in excess.
After this feedback, we decided that we had set out too many questions to ask the audience, which, to recap, were:
- Can you buy justice?
- How has the justice system changed since the 1950s?
- Does a woman have to be a villain in order to not be a victim?
This reminds me of the dilemma we faced during the creation of our political protests, as we had trouble with making a clear message with all of the problems we wanted to present to our audience. It was only when we set out to display one political issue -the inappropriate use of face down restraint- that we made an effective and thought provoking piece. Therefore, it was imperative to condense our ideas into one question:
What does money let you get away with?
 |
| Final scene order and notes |
After this, we rejigged the piece to slot in a scene in which Claire takes Ill on to the Jeremy Kyle show, in true 'paternity trial' form. In the scene, Ill bribes Jeremy to avoid the condemning verdict, which highlights how money can be used to free oneself from responsibility, in this case leaving the vulnerable Claire to pick up the pieces. After this scene comes the restaurant motif to indicate how money can 'buy love' and also allow illicit practices that lead to human trafficking in the world of sex work.
Lastly, to adhere to the feedback that pointed out our need to make our political message clear, we added Claire asking for the death of Ill in return for a large fee. Ill’s killer would be able to hire 'the best lawyer in town to get out of it' and therefore citizens must either give into their greed or refuse the money and stay at the ridiculously low standard of living they face.
This section still makes use of gestus and comedy, but begins to take the piece into a darker place that ends with Ill’s murder, followed by monologues from each of us detailing how money can be used in the real world to oppress others and be unscathed by law. Mine for instance, is about how I allow illegal immigrants to work in my sweatshop, making garments for the likes of primark. Others include how people with money can afford better lawyers to excuse crimes, as well as how private education provides opportunities to moneyed families that potentially harder working but poorer people don't get. These speeches are undercut by us jingling bags of money to a solemn beat, to insinuate that as money provides the soundtrack, it dictates our lives, and can drown out rational thinking.
In doing this, we hammer in our message whilst making use of more serious tones, after befriending our audience with humour, and then criticising their outlooks by breaking the 4th wall. The speeches are especially condemning as they incorporate relatable situations such as the fact that (in terms of my monologue) lots of people in the audience could be wearing sweatshop clothes, and automatically they are part of the problem we are striving to change. The revealing monologues then end with the challenging line spoken in unison: 'what have you bought?' I.e what have you contributed to this issue?
Lastly, to adhere to the feedback that pointed out our need to make our political message clear, we added Claire asking for the death of Ill in return for a large fee. Ill’s killer would be able to hire 'the best lawyer in town to get out of it' and therefore citizens must either give into their greed or refuse the money and stay at the ridiculously low standard of living they face.
This section still makes use of gestus and comedy, but begins to take the piece into a darker place that ends with Ill’s murder, followed by monologues from each of us detailing how money can be used in the real world to oppress others and be unscathed by law. Mine for instance, is about how I allow illegal immigrants to work in my sweatshop, making garments for the likes of primark. Others include how people with money can afford better lawyers to excuse crimes, as well as how private education provides opportunities to moneyed families that potentially harder working but poorer people don't get. These speeches are undercut by us jingling bags of money to a solemn beat, to insinuate that as money provides the soundtrack, it dictates our lives, and can drown out rational thinking.
In doing this, we hammer in our message whilst making use of more serious tones, after befriending our audience with humour, and then criticising their outlooks by breaking the 4th wall. The speeches are especially condemning as they incorporate relatable situations such as the fact that (in terms of my monologue) lots of people in the audience could be wearing sweatshop clothes, and automatically they are part of the problem we are striving to change. The revealing monologues then end with the challenging line spoken in unison: 'what have you bought?' I.e what have you contributed to this issue?
 |
| My speech - based on research collected on sweatshops |
In finishing with a rhetoric, our audience are far more likely to question themselves at the end of our piece, especially as we begin with absurd caricatures of society and finish as normal people; reflections of our audience. In turn the mindset they have come to critique during our comedic section is revealed as their own, and the piece becomes truly Brechtian in instigating rapid self reflection by the end.
Next session we need to refine blocking to ensure that our audience are not restricted from experiencing the piece fully, and perfect our lines so that each bit of dialogue furthers the message by relating back to our question.
No comments:
Post a Comment