My first impression of the play was positive. I like how the play explores horrific events in society in an crude and dark comedic way through the use of the talent show. Its interesting how they use the talent show almost as a metaphor for the news company's as they are fishing and competing for the most horrific story. This is such a twisted but true fact as the media thrive off stories that drum up the most interest.
I also really like how the characters A and B represent the secular part of society who only inform themselves through gossip magazines and social media.
Monday, 26 January 2015
Should Theatre be Censored
Theatre
be censored?
Personally i believe that theatre should never be censored. Theatre is an art from that explores, reveals and investigates the world we live in, the challenging topics or un-discovered stories and with this comes creative freedom and expression. If we were restrained or that expressive freedom was taken away then i believe the whole point of art would be destroyed. Because we live in a democracy think it is so important that we are allowed to have freedom of speech in whatever area, whether it be in the workplace, politics, housing or art etc. However i do see how we as actors and story tellers have a responsibility to be sensitive and factually right when tackling difficult subjects.
With Exhibit B it was interesting find out that London was the only location in which Exhibit B was stopped from being shown. I find it sad in fact that the theatre makers creative freedom was censored, as i believe that both the audience and the maker should have freedom in choice - so the audience have the choice to watch or not watch a performance and the theatre maker has to right to create and exhibit a piece. I understand that people found the piece disturbing and disrespectful as for many people is still a prominent part of their history and culture, but the question i ask is are people too afraid to face the brutality of past events, ultimately the piece was only re creating a past event, this has happened and around the world it is still happening so why do we feel we cannot show it?
London likes to see itself as cultural and artistic hub of the world, so this made me question this, perhaps we are less open to live art as a form and its rawness and it made me question.
Art response
To me this piece shows how in today's society anyone could become homeless. The fact that he is in a graduates outfit shows that even an educated man can be out of work and have to beg n the streets in order to survive.
It's interesting because statistics show that 1 in 4 people may become homeless a some point in their life meaning that roughly 17 people in theatre could potentially become homeless, this is a sad statics as we would of all had a successfully education behind us.
Monday, 12 January 2015
Political theatre protest - Evaluation
For our political protest each of us stood or sat outside the main foyer entrance to the school. Some were sleeping, asking for money or busking. Each of us had signs made from cardboard making a statement, mine quoted "we're not just asking for spare change, were asking for a spare change".
If i could an element of the protest i would make something where the audience could actually physically write down their opinion and views and get all members to interact with the audience as some weren't. I think doing this would further draw the audience in and drum up more conversation with written evidence too of peoples views.
We wanted highlight the issue of people not being housed and the attitudes people have towards people who are homeless. The feeling that the audience had waking past us and ignoring us highlighted in their minds their attitudes towards homelessness and society awkwardness when it comes to talking openly with them.
I personally selected my topic out of an interest and personal closeness to the subject. As having a family member that became homeless, i understand the domino effect it has on the outer family and the person itself. I also could see how someone can become homeless so easily and how that person once had a family, a job and a home. Because i had seen it first hand i wanted to tackle why people feel so negative towards people living on the streets and talk about how people living on the streets shouldn't be judged on the person they have been or are but the person they have the potential to be.
As a group we bean by discussing our person opinions on the matter and our experiences. It was interesting to hear that homelessness had actually affected more people in the group then we all realized, that's when i realised that its actually more prevalent then people realise. We then started mind mapping ideas, quotes and statement that we wanted our piece to represent. Then we began to look at other areas like housing and squatters rights, this helped us piece together ideas and individual story lines for characters.We then went on individually and researched statistics and used videos etc. to find story's.
I believe our piece was successful because the response from the audience was positive and insightful. Making the choice to not just sit in our places but to actually interact with the audience, generated useful discussions and allowed our piece to be more thoughtful as people began discussing the issue between themselves. Because we felt like homelessness was quite an un-talked about and awkward topic in society we enabled fruitful conversation to occur, that in it self made our piece successful. In addition giving out leaflets with information and links to charity's where the audience can help, further strengthened our piece because we were not just offering a problem but a solution, although not the only solution of course.
Another effective element was our costume and plaque cards. The way we dressed ourselves and having sleeping bags did help the audience feel like we really were homeless and because some of us only had a blanket and it was very cold outside people started to emphasise with us more, which was another aim of our piece - to challenge people's perhaps harsh view on the topic. In addition the plaque cards helped make short and snappy statements that i believe would have stuck in people's minds for example my card said "we're not just asking for spare change but for a change", this statement caused a reaction in the people and made people think about how they could actually make a change as a whole.
The audience responded well, interacting with us and discussing the issue. This allowed us to get instant feedback because people would make a comment about how the piece made them think or changed their view. However evidently there were people who didn't respond and just ignored what they were seeing, which in a way highlighted the fact that they ignore the issue and i would imagine they would get that same feeling of guilt and awkwardness that you get in real life.
Monday, 1 December 2014
Is Brecht still relevant?
In my personal opinion i believe Brecht is still very much relevant as his methods are continuously used throughout theatre. I think that every practitioner from Stanislavsky, Artaud, Chekhov etc will always have a prevalence in theatre as their methods and teachings can be used and adapted. In many ways their methods are simple like the 'magic if' method or narration - that can be applied across the board to anyone wishing to extend their understanding of their character or distance the audience from the characters. Even though Brecht is seen as 'old' in some sense he is still relevant to today.
Monday, 17 November 2014
Dramatic vs Epic
Here i'm going to talk about some of the key differences between Dramatic theatre and Epic theatre and which techniques i believe are more effective.
Feeling vs Reason
In dramatic theatre you are often compelled to feel a certain way toward a character, emotionally investing in that character whereas in epic theatre you are often not allowed that opportunity to feel connect to the character in a personal way but are reasoning with yourself about how you feel toward them but above all the message of the play.
In epic theatre you are lead to question and challenge your self on the whole topic of the play rather than the individual topic of each character.
I believe that dramatic theatre in this sense is more effective as for me i am more likely to feel a connection to the play AND its message if i am emotionally involved with characters. I think you can say a lot more when you allow your audience to invest in the characters and can create an interesting dynamic for example: you could make your audience emotionally invest in a criminal and use that strange idea that you are routing for someone who is socially seen as a "bad person" which in itself makes you reason with yourself and the social norms.
Eyes on the finish vs Eyes on the course
Throughout dramatic theatre they play if focused on the final outcome of the plot and often the finish is where the characters reach their realisations whereas in epic theatre the characters change, grown and realise throughout the course of the play, creating a piece which is ever changing as it isn't cemented to having a defining end point.
In epic theatre you focus on the characters journey throughout the play and i believe this is more effective than dramatic theatre as you get to see more of the characters destination, for example in dramatic theatre you only really see that characters defining point at the end of the play which is a summary of the plot but with epic theatre you could have multiple defining moments through the journey which shapes that person.
I like epic theatres "eyes on the course" more than dramatic theatres "eyes on the finish" as it opens up the play into more freedom, you are constantly see the characters grow and realise which i believe is more interesting and funnily enough more naturalistic as this is what happens in real life.
Feeling vs Reason
In dramatic theatre you are often compelled to feel a certain way toward a character, emotionally investing in that character whereas in epic theatre you are often not allowed that opportunity to feel connect to the character in a personal way but are reasoning with yourself about how you feel toward them but above all the message of the play.
In epic theatre you are lead to question and challenge your self on the whole topic of the play rather than the individual topic of each character.
I believe that dramatic theatre in this sense is more effective as for me i am more likely to feel a connection to the play AND its message if i am emotionally involved with characters. I think you can say a lot more when you allow your audience to invest in the characters and can create an interesting dynamic for example: you could make your audience emotionally invest in a criminal and use that strange idea that you are routing for someone who is socially seen as a "bad person" which in itself makes you reason with yourself and the social norms.
Eyes on the finish vs Eyes on the course
Throughout dramatic theatre they play if focused on the final outcome of the plot and often the finish is where the characters reach their realisations whereas in epic theatre the characters change, grown and realise throughout the course of the play, creating a piece which is ever changing as it isn't cemented to having a defining end point.
In epic theatre you focus on the characters journey throughout the play and i believe this is more effective than dramatic theatre as you get to see more of the characters destination, for example in dramatic theatre you only really see that characters defining point at the end of the play which is a summary of the plot but with epic theatre you could have multiple defining moments through the journey which shapes that person.
I like epic theatres "eyes on the course" more than dramatic theatres "eyes on the finish" as it opens up the play into more freedom, you are constantly see the characters grow and realise which i believe is more interesting and funnily enough more naturalistic as this is what happens in real life.
Lesson 1
Narration - Why did Brecht use it?
Throughout Brecht's work he uses narration. This could be in 5 main forms:
1.) A separate narrator
2.) An actor stepping out of character
3.) An actor speaking in 3rd person
4.) Singing narration
5.) Written narration (plaque cards, projection)
Brecht wanted to come away from naturslim whilst still dealing with real life situations and economic/politcal issues. The narration opened up the opportunity to remind the audience that what they were watching on stage was not in fact reality but a warped view and brought the shows back down to earth in some way as it allowed the audience to step outside the situation.
Brecht did this to futhur insure that the audience weren't emotionally connect to the characters but instead constantly debating and challenging themselves.
Gestus
Gestus is where you use your body to suggest emotions/messages and express yourself in appose to just using facial expressions. Brecht wanted to show how a persons circumstances/upbringing could have an effect on the way they move and wanted to break conventions of that era which hadn't really began to play with the way you can move your body as a better tool in theatre.
Gestus are gestures you make to indicate a message so when my group created two opposing images of politicians we created 1 image of the politician looking proud at a podium and other mp's cheering and looking pleased, the another where the politician was giving money to one homeless person but holding up his middle finger too others on the street as the camera only filmed the one he was giving money two.
These two simple gestures told a whole heap of messages for example the second image was indicating that politicians only act like they care in front of the camera but behind the scene they couldn't care less, it also asked questions about the governments personal attitudes and policies on the homeless.
I like the technique gestures as it allows you to be create with your body but at the same time be simplistic which allows the observer to think for themselves.
The Message
Brechtian theatre is all about the message it is conveying. Brecht always wanted to have a strong political or social statement behind his work that provoked the audience to have an internal conflict with themselves on an issue or situation.
In his work , Brecht explored themes related to war, ownership, sacrifice, the notion of justice and the theme of the inequalities produced by 'superior' people in power over the 'inferior' lower class. He challenged society's opinion of the oppressed. Brecht tried to teach his audiences not to accept the world as they found it. he also tried to teach his actor the same thing.
Throughout Brecht's work he uses narration. This could be in 5 main forms:
1.) A separate narrator
2.) An actor stepping out of character
3.) An actor speaking in 3rd person
4.) Singing narration
5.) Written narration (plaque cards, projection)
Brecht wanted to come away from naturslim whilst still dealing with real life situations and economic/politcal issues. The narration opened up the opportunity to remind the audience that what they were watching on stage was not in fact reality but a warped view and brought the shows back down to earth in some way as it allowed the audience to step outside the situation.
Brecht did this to futhur insure that the audience weren't emotionally connect to the characters but instead constantly debating and challenging themselves.
Gestus
Gestus is where you use your body to suggest emotions/messages and express yourself in appose to just using facial expressions. Brecht wanted to show how a persons circumstances/upbringing could have an effect on the way they move and wanted to break conventions of that era which hadn't really began to play with the way you can move your body as a better tool in theatre.
Gestus are gestures you make to indicate a message so when my group created two opposing images of politicians we created 1 image of the politician looking proud at a podium and other mp's cheering and looking pleased, the another where the politician was giving money to one homeless person but holding up his middle finger too others on the street as the camera only filmed the one he was giving money two.
These two simple gestures told a whole heap of messages for example the second image was indicating that politicians only act like they care in front of the camera but behind the scene they couldn't care less, it also asked questions about the governments personal attitudes and policies on the homeless.
I like the technique gestures as it allows you to be create with your body but at the same time be simplistic which allows the observer to think for themselves.
The Message
Brechtian theatre is all about the message it is conveying. Brecht always wanted to have a strong political or social statement behind his work that provoked the audience to have an internal conflict with themselves on an issue or situation.
In his work , Brecht explored themes related to war, ownership, sacrifice, the notion of justice and the theme of the inequalities produced by 'superior' people in power over the 'inferior' lower class. He challenged society's opinion of the oppressed. Brecht tried to teach his audiences not to accept the world as they found it. he also tried to teach his actor the same thing.
"... above all s/he [actor of Brechtian theatre] must be aware of the theme with which the play is concerned."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)