13/12/16 - Performance Evaluation: ‘The Debating Chamber

Today we performed our political theatre piece - ‘The Debating Chamber’ - to an audience. Overall I think the performance was successful in its tightness and refined subject matter, as we all clearly knew what we wanted to say in bringing the social issues to the attention of the audience.

The piece was fresh and exciting, and unlike our performance of ‘The Seagull’ last term, which was done three times with different actors in each scene. In this case, the audience had to stay present throughout to unravel the whole idea, whereas with ‘The Seagull’, the audience knew what to expect from the rest of the piece after it had been performed the first time, as well as it being a popular story. The audience therefore were more likely to have been completely immersed, which is essential in the genre of political theatre because the struggles of the characters are often the struggles of  real people, and it is imperative that attention is payed to their story in order to inspire social change.  

In terms of my group with our performance of ‘The Visit’, I thought we were able to relate the ideas of a piece written decades ago to the modern day in an effective way, by using pop culture references such as ‘The Jeremy Kyle Show’, as well as Beyonce’s clothing label ‘Ivy Park’ as an example of garments in high public demand although they have been made in sweatshops . These links put the issue into a modern day perspective, so that our audience could see how money’s power to corrupt is a prevalent issue that hasn’t changed since ‘The Visit’ was written, and in many ways, with the ability for markets to distribute on a global scale, the issue has grown worse. I feel we also made good use of humour, song, and dance - three key Brechtian techniques that aid in the ‘Slap and Tickle’ effect, which reels the audience into a comfortable position with light themes, and then is inverted into a dark reflection of reality. Our use of this effect made the audience believe that the plight of Claire Zachanassian in the story is not one they can relate to -which is a main part of Brecht’s distanciation technique (not relating to the characters) - and then highlighted how relevant the issue is in the world today with serious tones at the end of the piece. The audience then had to re-evaluate their understanding of the issue that they formed at the beginning, and how it had changed with the addition of our factual evidence at the end. After taking on the Director’s note that the use of gestus needed to be increased, it was used in a much greater amount by the time we performed the piece. The actor playing Claire made use of actions like smoking a cigar and stroking her fur coat, as well as myself and the other actor playing the mayor hunching our backs over to resemble the stance of someone villainous, and clasping our hands together in a calculating manner. This use of gestus greatly improved how the audience could compare what characters were saying (which could set them up as good natured) with their actions, in order to make a judgement on which side to take, like in Brecht’s idea that each performance should be like a boxing match; one against the other.

However, I regret that we didn’t rehearse enough with other aspects of character, like costume, or placards. The comical moustaches that myself and the other Mayor planned to wear (to make the difference in the multiple roles we were playing more obvious) were not tested out at all, and so we were unaware of how they wouldn’t stick properly on our faces. This resulted in me tearing mine off quite early in the piece as it hindered my acting by constantly slipping down my mouth. In the piece, we also throw off the jackets that portray us as the rich, and flounce around the stage as the young women in the restaurant scene. By not rehearsing this costume change enough, I found myself unable to get the jacket back on in time as it was inside out, and had to abandon the cause. I therefore delivered the last of my lines as the mayor whilst still in the young woman’s costume, which I’m sure confused some audience members! I also relied on my jacket to aid in my gestus as the Mayor, by gripping the lapel to insinuate authority, and using its broad shape to indicate my masculinity, and so the loss of it deeply hindered my acting. On the other hand, I also feel I should have relied less on voice and costume to provide gestus, and instead made bolder physical changes (like waddling with a fat belly, or remaining hunched over), so that I would in no way have lost the character. Secondly, if we had rehearsed the changes enough, I’m sure we’d have found a way to make them slicker, aiding to the aesthetic of the piece in turn and improving it professionally and artistically.

In terms of what I have learned as an actor, I wanted to abandon all that I had learned during the naturalistic term. This included the techniques like unitisation and physical action, which I think would have really helped me in deliverance of lines, and even coming up with character physicality that would have aided me in gestus. I know now that the genre shouldn’t dictate the way that I approach a text in order to act in the best way I can. I can take something different from each practitioner I learn about, and as I know that the Stanislavskian principle of unitising the lines and working out physical objectives really aids my acting, I will carry that with me until I potentially find a better technique. From this Brechtian term however, I have greatly developed my creativity in devising work, in a way that I didn’t have the freedom to do using Stanislavskian technique. I feel I can approach a text with lots of ideas on costume, and how to stage the story, which I think comes from the surreal and free way that Brecht wanted his pieces to be done, and this will really benefit me during directing work in the oncoming year.

Brechtian technique also greatly influenced ‘The Debating Chamber’ on the whole as we all multi roled by simply being politicians in the opening, then ourselves as we discussed the effects of the Eu on our generation, and finally, whatever combination of characters we played in our separate pieces. The setup of the opening, which was very physical and included song, was extremely Brechtian as it was subversive and broke the 4th wall multiple times during our address to the audience. The opening also acted as the ‘title sequence’ for the rest of the play in its episodic form - as each separate piece came together like small snippets to create a bigger picture, although completely unrelated in themes, but tied together in their effort to bring to light social issues.

Our commitment wall

The whole show left the audience with a lot of opinions and questions, and on the whole inspired the beginnings of the change that we wanted to ignite. It was easy to measure this because we asked all audience members to commit to doing one thing on post it note, to improve one of the things discussed during the show. We finished with a whole wall of post it notes, with really relevant but achievable commitments from each audience member, like ‘I will challenge homophobia in my social circle’, or ‘I will embrace my curly hair’ in response to the piece on racism (which commented on eurocentric beauty), as well as ‘I will avoid Starbucks’ after the piece of tax havens.

A few of the commitments

There were not, sadly, many commitments that could have been influenced by ‘The Visit’, and in retrospect this was due to the fact that we didn’t show the audience an obvious way to change the issue. We discussed sweatshops, and how students in private schools get better opportunities than those with less money, but the audience were not given a way to challenge these issues. I admire the group that made a piece inspired by ‘The Laramie Project’ about a young man killed because of his homosexuality for this reason. This group showed a real life story to highlight the seriousness of the issue, and wrote a spoken word piece beginning with the important question ‘What difference does it make to your day, If I am straight, trans, lesbian or gay?’ . In this they directly asked the audience to reflect on their feelings towards the question, and then they were able to easily decide if they needed to change their own perception of the issue, leading to the formulation of a very easy commitment such as ‘I will respect the sexual orientation of others.’

Although I think the group made the a Brechtian piece in terms of it being political, they could have made use of more of the practitioner's technique, such as the use of ‘Not… But…’, which could have been very interesting in highlighting the thoughts and fears of homophobes, so that even people who ardently believe in gay rights can take away an idea about how hate comes from ignorance, and the key to a better future is education instead of shunning. From this group, as a result of their pinning the issue to a person (Matthew Shepard, who was the murdered young man at the centre of the play), the audience were able to understand entirely the effects of the issue. Whereas our group made a whole piece about the issue, with no real stories attached to it that the audience could seek truth from, and so I think we could have greatly improved the piece by choosing a real life situation to parallel the plight of Claire instead of all the little stories we provided at the very end.  

My favourite commitment!

During this project, I have learned that political theatre will always be an important and relevant genre, as there will always be the need to improve society as it evolves and takes on new ideas. It is the most ‘sociable’ of the theatre sub-genres, as it relies directly on a dialogue with the audience in order to further spread the message, and we did this by having an actual conversation with the viewers to discuss their commitments. Political theatre can also be the easiest to create and be passionate about, as it takes inspiration from real life situations, and proves that once we understand the plights of each other, the world becomes smaller and smaller, as we become one body instead of separate countries, faiths, and languages. Through Brecht’s techniques, it can be surreal in form, but I realise now that it cannot be surreal in story. The audience must be able to locate their place in the issue, and the world that they see on stage, otherwise the passion for change that we aim to instill in them won’t be planted, because they must care. The most important thing is to make the audience care, perhaps not by relating to characters as Brecht believed, but by understanding that although the people they see on stage may be hard to relate to, the characters are merely representations of themselves, and they must strive to make the reality on stage different to their own, before it ends in fire and brimstone.

I have really enjoyed this term, because of the freedom I have been given to discuss issues important to me, as well as learning about the world through the discoveries of the others working on different pieces. I also know that what I have learnt is important in the next part of my training, because, in the words of Kate Tempest, ‘We live in times that are so mental, we can’t tell a story without it feeling political.’

06/12/16 - ‘The Visit’ Class Feedback and Creation of ‘The Debating Chamber’

Today we performed our rendition of ‘The Visit’ in front of the rest of ‘the Debating Chamber’ cast. I think our first run went well, and the feedback we got confirmed that adding a serious moment at the end including present day politics concerning how money can corrupt was a good contrast to the piece’s humourous quality. This is because the sudden change in tone signifies that an important part of the plot is being unveiled, and the audience are snapped out of the comfortable watching made by our jokes. We also received praise on the beat we created by jingling coins in bags of money, as in doing so we formed a sombre tone reminiscent of a death march. Our combination of light and dark subjects in the ten minutes serves to comment (in my opinion) on the ease of those who have money, and the grim effects it has on the lives of others.  

However, we did receive constructive criticism about needing to make more use of gestus, especially in the scenes using extracts from the script because establishing that Claire is a very rich woman, who was once poor, and is dealing with an oafish mayor in front of starving townspeople, comes laden with opportunity to make use of Brechtian technique. Using gestus is also important in terms of showing our understanding of the practitioner, because we make frequent use of techniques that build on the presentation and interpretation of the piece - such as an episodic structure, use of song, and multi roling-  but we have yet to show that we grasp the core of Brechtian theatre: representing a character instead of embodying one. By using gestus, a caricature is made, which is so obviously different to the truthful Stanislavskian approach to acting. Therefore, even an audience unfamiliar with Brechtian style will be sure to recognise that this type of theatre doesn’t aim to create life on stage, but to warp it, and critique it in doing so.

Taken from google images

We can take on this criticism by returning to the idea that gestus is made by an action that the audience can have an opinion towards, and really drill this into the performance.  Therefore, if we want the audience to see the mayor (for example) as a gluttonous, money grabbing, and slightly insidious, we can give him actions like putting his hands together in a calculating manner, which characters like the slimy Mr Burns from ‘The Simpsons’ are seen doing, as well as holding an imaginary large stomach to indicate his lavish diet. So far I feel myself and the other actor playing the mayor have aimed to communicate this just through vocal decisions, but by physically embodying these choices, we would embrace Brechtian theatre even further.

Standing in the way of control - lyrics

As a class, we were then taught a physical routine to perform as an ensemble for the opening, to the song ‘Standing in the Way of Control’ by Gossip. I think this song choice is effective in summarising our piece for the audience because it very explicitly tells the listener to ‘Fight back’ and that this can be done by ‘not giving in’, in a way that could be lost in the abstract performances to follow. The physical piece includes us taking on the role of politicians by swinging on suit jackets and bouncing to the beat with the attitude of a self assured power player; yet another place where gestus is used to inform the audience of status without speaking. This status is then contrasted by us pushing each other out of the way in order to be the one standing at the front of the line, showing the cut throat world we live in today, reminiscent of the phrase ‘dog eat dog’. Then, we progress to grouping into a clump, hemmed in by the linked arms of people on the outside of it, and breaking out one by one by pushing through these chains to highlight the importance of how one person can start a chain reaction by simply striving for freedom. In turn the audience are shown their own power as an individual, and their ability to -with perseverance- create a ripple effect.

We finish the opening by sitting on benches that mimic the House of Commons set up, and deliver a script that discusses the affect that not being able to have a say in the EU referendum had on us as a generation. We deliver this by interjecting like babbling politicians, and the whole speech indicates that although we may not be trusted with decisions that affect us directly, we will use all the tools we have to show that we know what is happening in the world, and will fight to change it. Hopefully, as our audience is a group of adults, we will challenge their perceptions of the younger generation. By showcasing a series of political plays that have received no adult supervision or input in the making, we can show that our voices are clear, informed, and passionate, as well as the fact that we are skilled enough to take on the techniques of an historic theatre practitioner. Therefore, even before our opening finishes, the older generations may become more aware of how their ability to vote and make legal change affects us, as we inherit the earth they endorse.

The Debating Chamber Script

Page 2 of the Debating Chamber script

29/11/16 - ‘The Visit’ Rehearsal and Improvements

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?

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.

16/11/16 - ‘The Visit’ Research and Preliminary Devising

‘The Visit’ was written in 1956 by Friedrich Durrenmatt, a swiss writer. Like many plays at the time, the script features morbid and surreal humour to discuss serious political situations. In this case, (arguably) the question to the audience is ‘Can you buy anything i.e justice?’, as we see the main character ‘Claire’ offer money to the poor people of her hometown in exchange for the murder of a man that wronged her years ago: the local family man Alfred Ill. Like a Brechtian play, the characters and the audience in turn are presented with a moral ultimatum: kill and be rich? Or be poor and morally correct? Additionally, the surreal character descriptions and situations leave room for lots of gestus, and creative direction in terms of establishing setting through physicality (actors as inanimate objects for example), or skipping back and forth in time in an episodic fashion to present the audience with the material they need to decide their opinion on the situation.  

At the time that the play was written, Switzerland had recently seen the end of a second world war in which it had retained its neutral stance. During World War II, Switzerland was an ideal country for fleeing refugees. However, Switzerland did not take in the large numbers of people fleeing wars, and of those granted citizenship, working was not allowed. In terms of context, the justice that Durrenmatt is questioning could be based on that which Jews were not given.

More research must be done on this context to further our ideas however.

Previously, we had a workshop with the creators of an adaptation of August Strindberg’s ‘Dream Play’, and their tip for devising with text as a stimulus was to note the landmarks of the play or scene chosen, which was also even more relevant to us because we too were adapting an old text. The ‘landmarks’ can be defined as the main events that happen in the play, and the parts of the plot that need to happen in order to propel the story. Like ‘Dream Play’, ‘The Visit’ is a classic and often revisited play, as well as being a frequently studied text in Germany.  Creating a fresh take on the story was consequently imperative, and working out the landmarks of the extract means that we can take our interpretations of the play and devise according to our own intentions as a political company whilst not going too far off tangent, as well as ensuring that a coherent narrative is still present. The landmarks that we have chosen are:

1.       Ill and Claire meet again + reminisce about youth

2.       Town Celebration of Claire’s ‘donation’

3.       Mayor thanks Claire for generosity

4.       Claire presents donation on the condition that Ill is murdered

5.       Butler presents Claire’s case

6.       Blinded witnesses confess

7.       Claire shares past – death of her baby and life of prostitution

8.       Mayor rejects Claire’s attempt to ‘buy justice’

From these landmarks we then sat down as a group and talked about what questions we wanted to present our audience with, as with Brecht and Durrenmatt also, the political theatre we have studied reflects on societal issues by prompting its audience with a question that the audience should answer by reflecting on their response to the play. For instance, in Brecht’s ‘Caucasian Chalk Circle’ the question is ‘Is a mother defined by her blood relation to her child, or her evidence of love and sacrifices made for them?’. As a result, we decided on three questions that interested us:

1.       Can you buy everything i.e. justice?

2.       Does a woman have to prove herself a villain in order to not be a victim?

3.       How has the justice system today changed since Durrenmatt’s time?

Taken from google images

These three questions for us would answer the ‘Why now?’ rhetoric posed by our teachers – Why is ‘The Visit’ relevant today? I would argue that the play is very relevant in terms of it contemplating how justice could be freely given to those willing to pay in some way, which for me echoes the ‘injury lawyers for you’ franchise, as well as the slightly more pop culture medium of ‘Jeremy Kyle’ doling out justice through paternity tests and embarrassing TV confessions.  Our second investigative question, which was highlighted by Claire’s abusive past compared to her cold blooded present appearance, resonates with the societal view of women today. As a woman, I see ‘myself’ (by that I mean representations of femininity) being killed, beaten by abusive partners that I won’t leave, and raped in the name of television entertainment. I am outraged by the cliché that a woman’s murder in a detective programme is usually down to a jealous partner or sexual predator, whilst a man’s death can be the result of a high espionage mission to take down a corporation from the inside, or a monetary dispute.

Taken from google images

This propagation of women’s sexual abuse in particular for entertainment has even come to the point that an entire television franchise –Law and Order SVU – is dedicated to it. This has dangerous effects, as it desensitises the public to sexual abuse, as well as women being victimised too often in the media. Therefore, it is easy to see a woman as fragile and weak, because of the stereotypes we have been fed, unless she is a monster. Lastly, our ideas of the justice system have evolved rapidly over the past decades. Court cases are now brought out into newspapers for the public to discuss and sensationalise, such as the ‘Amanda Knox Trial’ that has even led to the creation of a Netflix series. The justice system could be now seen as a means of entertainment, which we would like to further explore during devising.

Taken from 'The Visit' by Durrenmatt

We were then given the task of creating a rough sketch to encapsulate some of the work we’ve done on the play so far, and to do this my group decided to devise around the question ‘Can you buy anything?’, as other questions would have required research that would use up valuable devising time. As we have been given a lot of freedom about how much or little of the actual text we want to use, we have decided to take bits of the script that support the themes we think are most important to bring to light. For the question ‘Can you buy anything?’ we chose a section on page 36 of the extract, entailing Claire’s condition that her donation to the town acts as ‘buying myself justice’, followed by the mayor stating that ‘Justice can’t be bought’.

This extract goes after the staging of an advert titled ‘Justice 4 U’, complying with the modern day link to buying justice, which features a woman on her couch, phoning her friend and asking where she ‘can get a new cup of justice’. In this part, we use the Brechtian technique of actors creating the furniture by creating the physical resemblance of a sofa for the actress to sit on. The thing I think we need to work on is the reason why this technique is used, as our piece will only be truly effective if the techniques we use are meaningful instead of being included for the sake of ticking a box. Then, I hop onto the back of another actor, Sherene, to create the caricature of the mayor in the extract. The idea is that a) the gestus of a fat mayor is created by my legs around Sherene’s stomach acting as an enlarged belly, which in retrospect we could push even more with the smoking of a cigar and the constant inspection of a coin bag in front of the starving peasants, as well as b) I deliver all of the mayor’s rational lines, whilst Sherene delivers all of the dismissive, oafish lines in the extract. Therefore, I act in a way as the conscience of the mayor, whilst my body adds extra limbs to the character, pushing perhaps the idea that his obsession with money and corrupting the people could be best symbolised by him being a spidery creature.

Having the mayor’s conscience present also makes use of Brecht’s ‘Not…But..’  Technique, as the lines that prove him conceited are contrasted by him being considerate and even polite. Again, I think we need to refine our use of this technique by making the difference in our outlooks even more obvious, perhaps with added props like angel and devil horns, or added lines to enhance our personalities. Lastly, when the Mayor says that he still doesn’t understand how ‘Everything can be bought’, we transition into a restaurant scene, in which the dishes marketed by the charismatic maître d are actually women, sold as brides in the same way that Claire was sold in her past. This explores the age old saying ‘Money can’t buy love’, but with increasing use of mail order bride websites, such as the leading website ‘Anastasiadate’ having 2.6 million visits per month, this statement is close to being retracted. This section acts as an insight into Claire’s past, as well as providing social and cultural links to today’s society.

For our next session, I think we need to have some more research to help in creating work to answer the remaining questions, as well as working out (in the same way that was essential for our political protests) what we want our audience to do with the information. Do we want them to change the way they behave? Sign a petition? Stop buying a certain newspaper? After we know this, we can work out how we will make this clear, so that our audience can succeed in continuing our political plight.

22/11/16 - Protest evaluation

Today we performed our protest in front of our school. Overall I am very pleased with our journey from the first showcase in front of classmates, to the informed and considered presentation we gave today!

The actors playing patients were very successful at gathering crowds to play the game we had designed, and I was often quite surprised at how many people were lined up on the start line when we as Doctors turned around! This meant that we could build on the atmosphere of fun and community before the violent contrast of restraining the patients. Furthermore, in some feedback we were given, a participant confirmed that having audience interaction was effective and got people to really take in the whole protest instead of giving it a glance and moving on. The time we spent really synchronising our movements paid off to a great extent, as it added to the clinical feel of the performance and gave us greater ‘stage presence’ as a cast because our powerful movements turned heads.

Taken from Google images - The original 'Grandma's Footsteps'

In terms of the props we used - the tally chart and the postcards given out at the end - both were very effective in carrying out the final explanation of our cause, and helped people who didn’t quite get the gist from our physical routine. In fact, I even heard people say ‘Oh’ in understanding when they saw the three doctors add to the tally chart named ‘Number of Inappropriate restraints’ at the end of the piece. The use of black paint also confirmed my premonition that it would make the whole protest grotesque and visceral, and as the piece looped over and over, the patients became more and more tainted by the oily liquid and this foreshadowed the danger that the doctors were, as our hands were dripping with the stuff. After the protest, some groups said that they had realised that they hadn’t given their viewers a call to action in terms of what to do in response to the protest. I think in giving out postcards people could read the information present to firstly gain a wider scope on what our protest was about, but also to make us successful in deciding what we wanted to come out of the piece. Viewers could then have a clearer vision of the fact that face down restraint is a real thing; happening all the time, and they too can do something about it by signing the petition on the postcards.

The finished tally

On the other hand, there were definitely some things we didn’t plan properly for! The aesthetically pleasing technique we chose to use in order to restrain the patients became quite tiresome after only a few repeats of the protest, and coupled with slippery paint splatters on the floor, the technique very quickly turned into just falling on to the patients. Although I don’t think this detracted from the meaning of our piece, it put the people being restrained in danger of injury because the way in which they began to fall to the ground didn’t support them - I even found myself slipping as well - and landing on top of my patient, which could have caused serious injury. In the future I would do more rehearsal with the paint and in the actual location (which featured a hard concrete floor) to work out the logistics of a safe - yet attractive- maneuver to the ground.  We also didn’t plan for the sheer amount of people that would be interested in our protest, and so the postcards handed out at the end of each ‘cycle’ quickly ran out. This meant that many of the people watching our piece either didn’t receive the information that would have clarified our cause, or didn’t have a way to take matters into their own hands and sign the petition. This has taught me to plan for the best! Next time, I would plan for masses of people coming to see my piece, and therefore would be able to cater fully for whatever amount I receive on the day, so that no one comes away from a protest feeling that they are unable to do their bit for the cause also. Speaking of furthering the message, one of the actors in our group picked up on the fact that many viewers only got the message after their eyes were directed to the ‘Number of Inappropriate Restraints’ tally chart, and some didn’t realise that this prop was part of our protest because it was placed a distance away from where the action happened. Consequently, we could have placed this tally chart on a board in front of the doctors so that it was immediately received as part of the piece, and maybe viewers would even have the gist of the protest before it started instead of having to wait until they were given postcards and such at the end. I have learned from this that in any future protest, all the information that you want the audience to receive has to be immediately available to them, instead of revealing it in ‘bits’. This is due to the fact that the medium of a public performance means that some viewers may not stay to watch the whole piece, which could jeopardise all of the work the cast has put in to create meaning.  

When we began with our first showcase, our piece was clouded with separate ideas about mental health all squashed together, making a much too ambitious attempt to give the audience several different commentaries on the mental health system, including face down restraint, the prevalence of medication instead of therapy and government cuts. Today, our principle complimented our ability to channel just one issue within a wider problem - face down restraint - as a political theatre company has to trust that its audience will have some knowledge on the bigger picture due to them having an interest in politics already. I definitely think our concise explanation of the issue meant that our audience on the whole received the message. Therefore, I know now that not every detail has to be laid out, and political theatre is a genre that relies on its audience’s past knowledge of the situation, and in that they become part of the piece as well; unlike a naturalistic play that sets out all of the information ever needed in the two hour slot. The narrative of a political piece also carries on after it has finished, unlike the story that dies in a conventional performance after the curtain falls. In this world, the audience must go and seek more, so that they may carry on the initiative of the cast. With the power that our protest had overall, I think we have achieved this.

Bertolt Brecht

Bertolt Brecht is heralded as the creator of theatre that was driven by a political message, which was controversial at the time because it was not widely accepted to criticize the government. In many ways, Brecht made people aware of their own power to spread change through speech. Born in 1898, Brecht experienced both world wars, at first from the perspective of a medical orderly, and then after his fleeing of Germany and hearing about his country's plight from the polished throne of America. This meant that Brecht both experienced war in its horrifying grit, and then from an alienated position where the idea of patriotism would seem truly ridiculous. Therefore, Brecht was shaped by his past as a director who challenged both the actions of the government, and the tolerance of its people. 

In terms of form, one of Brecht's inspirations was the English comedian Charlie Chaplin, who used slapstick and body language to create humour in his silent films. This explains firstly why political theatre is usually surreal and 'jokey', but also where ideas of Gestus came from. Chaplin conveyed character and sensibility solely through physicality, and thus Brecht's heavy use of the physical to indicate social standing, age, and gender can be pinned to his love of Chaplin's comedy through the body. 

Taken from google images

A Brechtian play will also have a skewed timeline, with 'episodes' instead of scenes in chronological order. This way the viewer can piece the story together in whichever way they want, meaning that the conclusion they draw from the play could be different to the person sitting next to them. As a feat in his career Brecht created the Berliner Ensemble, a company committed to performing only his plays, which meant that his political messages could be broadcast without having to seek permission from the government in terms of being allocated space and 'air time'. Instead, the Berliner Ensemble could create, show and tour their work whenever they pleased. 

I am very thrilled to be studying the techniques of such an influential practitioner, and further research can be found in my diagram below: 

Protest Update #3

We got started straight away on how to make sure that the audience had a connection with the patients, which would firstly inspire them to watch the whole of our protest, but also create more of a shock when the people they have seen on such a human level are treated like animals with the use of face down restraint. The answer was simple: they would get onlookers to play ‘Grandma’s Footsteps’ with them! Whilst the doctors were marking on their tally how many times they’d restrained patients, the actors playing patients would ask onlookers if they’d like to play the game, and then they would really be up close and personal to the issue, and they are experiencing it instead of being shouted at by us as angry protesters.

After getting a few people to play the game as well in order to test this theory, our results were positive, although all agreed that the speech we were using - a mix of the patients saying ‘get off of me’, and the Doctors telling them to calm down all at once- was hard to pick out and form a message out of. From this, we came up with a set script of patients saying ‘I can’t breathe’ until this noise builds and becomes desperate, and then the doctors in unison saying ‘I can’t let go of you until you calm down’. Then the doctors will stand up, and the patients, sitting up will say ‘Face down restraint is a dangerous practice’, to which the doctors will reply, pointing to the start line, ‘It’s for your own good’. The piece will then begin again as doctors mark off their tally chart and patients gather more players.

In this session, we also solved these questions that we set for ourselves:

How will we stop the audience playing with us from being harmed if they are so close to the action? - We will have a point in which the patients instruct civilian game players to ‘wait here’ and not cross a certain line. After this, only the three patients will cross to touch the backs of the three ‘Grandma’s’, and this way there will be no way that an audience member can be caught in the crossfire between the doctors and patients, or be restrained by accident because they won’t have the opportunity to touch the doctors themselves. This will also mean that the view of the restraining will be better because people won’t be clumped around the actors at this time.

What will the back of the doctors’ coats say? ‘The Mental Health System’, which both specifies exactly what our protest is about - mental health - and that it is attacking the ‘system’ and not the workers. In the same way that actors represent social groups in Brechtian theatre, so will the doctors in this case, which reflects on it being a broad, expansive protest about society in terms of mental health as a whole.

How will we draw on the advice of our principle and prompt the audience to do something about the political issue after the protest? Some of our members requested that the cast of ‘Tomorrow I was Always A Lion’ provide us with the same postcards they hand out at the end of their shows, which are petitions that can be signed and mailed to local districts requesting address on the issue. The cast very kindly did this, and so our 7th member will act in arguably the most important role, of moving along audience members that have played the game after the end of each ‘cycle’ saying ‘There’s nothing to see here’, whilst handing out these postcards. This very effectively urges them to find out more about the issue as well as acting as clarifying the subject with the information on the postcard.

I am very excited to perform this protest tomorrow, and think that whatever happens, we have become more socially aware actors because of it. Furthermore, our knowledge of politics in my opinion is one of the sharpest tools an actor can have.