Schutzman's "What A Riot" Findings- Jade Robinson

Reflections on Schutzman’s methodology/approach:

-The themes for the play UPSET! were decided by the youth participants and there was focus on learning about historical complexities. The specific framework employed to choose historical figures not only provided an opportunity to further educate youth about important and not often recognized figures of the past, but by giving the youth a platform to speak about these issues through the lens of a younger generation it sent a message to the public that people of this age group are worth listening to and that they are able to contribute valuable, diverse opinions to society.

-In a Boalian Joker System play, many ideas and feelings about a historical character or event are presented to an audience and debated. Dialogue is highly encouraged, as are questions from the audience, and varying points of view are incorporated. I love the idea of “aesthetic eclecticism” in the storytelling, as it allows for a mosaic of opinions and an opportunity to identify links between varying opposing techniques.

-I appreciate that Schutzman wrote a play that didn’t try to hide the rehearsal process but rather “included the young people’s experience learning about the characters they were to portray”; I  am a firm believer that questions that arise from discussion in rehearsal should not be disregarded, as they can often be more poignant than the actual script.

-This article reminded me of my research on Paolo Freire, creator of Pedagogy of the Oppressed, who spoke on how detrimental “banking” education system is, where there is a narrative aspect of a teacher lecturing while students just listen, and how this creates an alienating quality where the “lesson” does not really affect the subject. Freire insists that it is still possible to actively learn during a performance without one person in the role of a teacher simply “narrating” to students, which seems to be what Schutzman was able to achieve in this process as a Joker, since she was still able to establish personal connections while having authority.

-I realized that my acting teachers take the role of the “Joker” in my everyday life. The professors who instruct multiple studios are sensitive to the different dynamics and needs of each group, and they adjust their teaching pace and exercises accordingly. The training from CalArts encourages students to formulate a collective experience, and as a Joker would, my teachers facilitate dialogue by establishing “horizontal” communication that is investigative and proactive. All of our in-class exercises are followed by periods of questioning where we can voice our concerns and analyze what is happening in our own bodies. Not only do these questioning periods help us investigate how the exercises are conducive to our own processes, they also offer us comparisons with other classmates and allow us to learn more from the diverse opinions being expressed. The closest similarity between my acting teachers and a Joker in Theater of the Oppressed is their purpose, to “help people discover their own potential, to know themselves better, to express their own ideas and emotions, and to analyze their own problems and seek their own alternatives.” Instead of offering solutions for a scene or for portraying a certain aspect of a character, the acting teachers use methods to help us come to our own conclusions.

-Questions of identity arise in this form of theater, which further proves the power that performance has bring about wonderings and challenge people’s understanding of their place in the world. A physical manifestation of this in such an intervention-encouraged format forces audiences to really place themselves “in the shoes” of the character.

-The fact that the youth listened to stories from adults who were witness to the Rodney King riots and were then motivated to “[go] home to ask their parents” about the event was powerful, because in doing so they engaged people in their inner circles and thus allowed space for more intimate dialogue within the home about racially charged violence.

-The choosing of Claudette Colvin as a character was fascinating because she is relatively unknown, and the youth was able to relate themselves to someone their age who did a brave act. This relation proved that powerful, influential statements can be made by anyone at any age as long as they have faith in their cause.

-Students taking their own agency and refusing to play into roles that oppressive society sees them as was an act of “political defiance”. The students’ beliefs  that they might be able to delve even further into their own histories by exploring one vastly different than theirs rings true for me as an actor because even in playing someone with the complete opposite personality type as my own, I am able to discover similar traits within myself.

-I appreciate the trust that Scultzman put in the youth participants; she did not dumb anything down and instead saw their capabilities to handle difficult material.

-“The penchant for black and white will always triumph over shades of gray.” Democratic dramaturgy and divisive opinions need to be made visible. We can no longer “tiptoe around” controversial topics.

Wonderings/concerns about the approach:

-Have there ever been any Jokers that have learned so much and have had to adapt so much through their own experiences with groups that they have discovered or created new forms of Theater of the Oppressed?

-In this project, the Latinx youth’s ability to make connections between characters of the past and their current lives was central to the project. However, if a piece is addressing cultural issues and certain spect-actors do not belong to that culture, is it appropriate for them to jump into those scenarios and propose solutions, or should the interventions be exclusively reserved for members that belong to the heritage?

-Many interventions were scripted by the Plaza students alone, and for this to happen the youth participants were provided with critical historical context. Though this context may be key for informed playwriting, what can arise from an improvisation with no information? Would this allow us to glimpse how preconceived ideas derived from stereotypes influence a portrayal of a historical event?

-Though the author insists that exploring violence through the Joker System (giving kids a permission to be “as violent as they liked”) is beneficial because it allows for people to “speak to racism as racists,” I have major concerns about giving oppressors a strong platform (even in an imagined scenario). Youth is easily influenced, so this type of “freedom” might allow for hateful thoughts against other groups to arise and be validated because of the setting in which they were discovered.

- The statement “of course we know that all playwrights put words in people’s mouths” is problematic, and although the author does defend her participation in this by claiming that she intentionally acknowledged the power dynamic between author and community, I wonder if she ever considered subverting this hierarchy even more by asking community members to write their own monologues or bring in written portions of a script that they would like to test out.

-Boal’s techniques invite a degree of empathy, and participants are asked to locate “potential for badness” within themselves. While I believe that this is an effective way to explore the complexity of identity, is it appropriate for youth that is going through a tumultuous period where their changing bodies further complicate their idea of what role they are expected to play in society?

-Schultzman writes that selecting the two characters (Rodney King and Claudette Colvin) that the youth participants did not have much information about automatically “rendered themselves students and respondents from the start." I think this is an unfair, definitive claim because even with little information to begin with, research and exploration can quickly move a person past the “student” role.

-What kind of discussion was had with the audience after the performance? Was there space given for the audience to ask questions directly to the Latinx youth without intervention or supervision from the Joker?