Resonances and Reflections:
-Oppressed theater is about tearing down walls and changing passive “spectators” into people who can influence/transform, and it is crucial to consider theater as a language that can be utilized by anyone (regardless of artistic talent or experience) to reveal deep, personal truths and provide a means of expression.
-Simultaneous dramaturgy” is a very effective way to engage the audience, because in performing the play until the moment of crisis and asking the audience what the protagonist should do, the audience and actors are learning together and discovering new solutions that may not have been seen previously.
-Solutions that come from people within the community are more authentic and plausible in Forum Theater because they are generated by people who are at the center of the issues being represented. Additionally, if it is the members of the community who suggest these solutions and see them played out in real time, there is a greater chance that they will feel more compelled to implement it into their own lives.
-The level of involvement in Theater of the Oppressed is similar to Brecht’s theater, where he wanted the audience to be active participants, but in this theater it is achieved by allowing the spectator themselves to either shape an image (in Image Theater) or come on stage and carry out an action, so it turns into something very personal and allows others to see the individual rather than a social class, and a person in conflict rather than the state of conflict itself.
-A body becomes muscularly alienated in accordance to the type of work it is doing, and this science of muscular structures being developed to help with a craft emphasizes the importance of viewing the body as a vessel for communication.
-I like the definition of “undoing” participants’ muscular structure in first stage of this work as “raising a level of consciousness” instead of following the common drama program methodology of “tearing someone down to build [them] up”; this prevents someone in a position of authority from “shaping” member of a community in such a way that reinforces an unhealthy hierarchical structure.
-One of the exercises that stood out to me in the first stage was the slow motion race, as it is only described with the aim to “dislocate” the participants’ center of gravity in order to force the body to find a way to maintain balance; I believe this to be an effective game, but as an actor who explored this exercise extensively in a clowning course as a way to become more comfortable with my peers, I would suggest adding the objective of finding joy within this intense, tiring task.
- It is true that as a culture we are accustomed to closing off our bodies and only using our words, and as an actor who has grown immensely from movement classes during my past 3 years of training I completely agree that there is a very valuable untapped resource of expression through the body alone.
-In Image Theater the spectator is forced to participate more directly, and the way in which they “sculpt” situations visually shows that it is okay to have vastly different perspectives on a topic and therefore creates space for meaningful discourse. Avoiding language in this format not only proves the importance of making thought visible, it also avoids the potential for misunderstanding from connotations, tone, and inflection.
-Many humans are very cerebral, even performers, so stripping them of this language challenges them to explore new realms and thus judge themselves less.
-I love that no idea is imposed in Forum Theater, and that people have the chance to “rehearse all possibilities” and verify them in theatrical practice. Though brainstorming is powerful, nothing matches the reality of seeing a situation played out, and this mode of presentation makes audiences reconsider their ideas and come up with more plausible and appropriate solutions. Conversely, certain ideas that are scoffed at for being too illogical may be played out and validity may be found within them.
- The idea of Invisible Theater intrigues me, and there is validity in the statement that often unsuspecting spectators (people who happen to be around the actors) tend to listen more closely to dialogue if they are unaware that a “show” is being put on. Removing the theatrical rituals and thus the performative aspect serves to further blur the boundary between actor and audience and thus allows people to intervene authentically.
-“Perhaps the theater is not revolutionary in itself, but it is surely a rehearsal for the revolution.”
Wonderings/Challenges:
-How does an actor avoid an inherent paternalistic, condescending approach in which they assume that they know everything, and therefore that the audience has nothing to contribute to the story? As actors, we already adjust our performances based on audience responses, so what is the best way to extend that to make the experience more interactive so that there is a sense of us being “co-investigators”, people who are in dialogue and are involved in the decision making, rather than just accepting information?
-Communities usually have a preconceived notion of theater due to what portrayals they’ve seen in the media, so how can a facilitator best address these ideas (in a non-patronizing way) and assure that the theatrical experience doesn’t begin as something “alien”?
-The control over one’s own body is key in changing from witness to protagonist, so how is this addressed in community members who struggle with control of their muscular structure due to physical disabilities?
- In Analytical Theater, people are broken down into social roles; what is the best way to address community members who are hesitant and unwilling to participate in this format?
-Since active listening is already a huge component of Forum Theater, how could other norms of collaboration such as pausing and paraphrasing be naturally integrated into this work?
-In Forum Theater the participants who choose to intervene must still continue the physical actions of the replaced actors- they aren’t allowed to come on stage and just “talk”. Does this format cut off opportunities for meaningful dialogue? How are situations handled when a member of the community jumps onstage and begins to "just talk", and in this situation how can a facilitator be sensitive to the fact that they appear as authority trying to confine someone within a strict structure?
-The idea of “breaking repression”- recalling a moment when you felt repressed and choosing participants to reconstruct an incident- is interesting, but if said moment is too traumatic, how/when does a facilitator decide to step in in order to assure that there is no mental harm incurred?
-Giving protagonists a chance to try what they would ideally liked to have done at a particular moment in a non-cathartic way is effective in theater as it is intended to help someone see ways to resist in similar future situations. However, I fear that the damage that could arise by bringing back traumatic memories in a non-therapy setting.
-In an made-up situation in theater where all sides are considered, how do we assure that we do not give too much voice to an oppressor? How do we humanize a “villain” without justifying or pardoning their actions?
Comments
Post a Comment