I think the use of the Joker system is very interesting structure to begin working with, because the students get a look at their own history by exploring that of others. They are allowed to explore bodies that they do not inhabit, and play the oppressor or the racist and feel what it is to be on the other side.
Although the Joker system allows people to play different roles and express different sides of a problem, I don't think that it necessarily means that the actors get to put their own words into the story. I think this is a very important distinction. The students in Upset! did get to express and use their own words, but I'm not sure they were used directly in the context that they might have meant them. Could it be possible that their words were put into different contexts than originally said, or that the situations in the play might have changed using their words? But again, this is not the structure of the Joker system, or how CAP usually does things.
I think perhaps then what is important in a process like this is that the participants understand the full complexity of the piece they are participating in, so that they are aware of everything they are doing without the possibility of being exploited in every way. I know that Mady Schutzman did take time to have discussions with the students regarding specific terms, and perhaps because of a time crunch, she was not able to talk through the meaning of every single thing. That being said, I think that if the students were smart enough to understand the material in the play that they also would have been smart enough to understand the implications and structure, had it been properly explained to them. Perhaps the play should have been something that they understood fully.
That being said, I do think it is a bold artistic effort. I suppose it depends how much the students really did understand and how much of what they were doing was unknown to them. I think knowing these two things would help me to craft more of an opinion, but I'm interested to talk about this and see what other people think. I think all of these processes are much easier talked about rather than actualized.
Although the Joker system allows people to play different roles and express different sides of a problem, I don't think that it necessarily means that the actors get to put their own words into the story. I think this is a very important distinction. The students in Upset! did get to express and use their own words, but I'm not sure they were used directly in the context that they might have meant them. Could it be possible that their words were put into different contexts than originally said, or that the situations in the play might have changed using their words? But again, this is not the structure of the Joker system, or how CAP usually does things.
I think perhaps then what is important in a process like this is that the participants understand the full complexity of the piece they are participating in, so that they are aware of everything they are doing without the possibility of being exploited in every way. I know that Mady Schutzman did take time to have discussions with the students regarding specific terms, and perhaps because of a time crunch, she was not able to talk through the meaning of every single thing. That being said, I think that if the students were smart enough to understand the material in the play that they also would have been smart enough to understand the implications and structure, had it been properly explained to them. Perhaps the play should have been something that they understood fully.
That being said, I do think it is a bold artistic effort. I suppose it depends how much the students really did understand and how much of what they were doing was unknown to them. I think knowing these two things would help me to craft more of an opinion, but I'm interested to talk about this and see what other people think. I think all of these processes are much easier talked about rather than actualized.
Comments
Post a Comment