Upset! Gave freedom for the youth to be able to gain insight into historical figures that the may not have known too much about. As well as created a dialog that highlighted on the youths view of the past and their understanding of it. “Aesthetic Eclecticism” was introduced in the Joker system, which allowed for pastiche of ideas to be presented and dissected. Encouraging audience participation is a clear way of starting a coherent conversation where all sides are valued and it is not one side telling the other how it is. Showing the process is fundamental in showing how one COMES to understand, not through statements but more and more questions that we might not have the answers to yet, but this is the beauty of the process. The aim in this was to keep the dialogue going and keep discovering. The students were asked to explore identities and cultures that were different from their own and see what they find. This is particularly interesting when we are asked to play the villain, or the other side. We have to find the empathy within us to understand those that are different from us and will inevitably learn more about ourselves. I wonder what the consensus was after the performance, what did the audience take home from this experience.
Theater of the opressed exists to engage the audience and community in the perfrmance. It offers a vehicle for social change at a very accessible level. I think the idea of asking the audience what the right choice is or to come up on stage and be a part of the performance is such an interestig cocept. It reminds me of those books that are "choose your own adventure". This seems to be a belief that many different theaters have in their own company beliefs section so it seems to be a relatively popuar idea within the theater world. Or, at leat, well known. I wonder if having the play interrupted would ruin the imaginary world which has been created. Is there a better way to get the audience involved without changing the traditional structure of a play?
Comments
Post a Comment