Tuesday 18 December 2012
Friday 7 December 2012
Political Protest Evaluation
Why did we choose that subject?
We chose the subject of 'Torture in Prisons' because we felt that it was such a disguised and forgotten issue that people would be interested to hear and witness something related to it. The subject also allowed us to create a piece of engaging and active theatre, rather than being static. I think this kept the audience engaged whilst simultaneously making the message clear and obvious.
Torture in prisons in not something that particularly occurs in Britain however the British government is aware of it and yet does nothing. Although the subjects of this torture are prisoners in high security bases, the torture is completely unnecessary and is only there to make the prisoners weak both mentally and physically.
When we were discussing ideas for this topic we had countless suggestions of how the demonstration could be displayed, we felt the fact that we had so many ideas suggested that the idea was strong.
Why was the demonstration successful?
When we were staging our protest we could sense the audience was stirred by the performance by both their vocal and physical presence. We had many people staying to watch the protest three times, and we could hear people gasping at the sheer shock of our piece. The routine of our performance meant that after a few times we were confident and assured in our presentation.
Why was the demonstration not successful?
We had a few people questioning our topic, implying that it was not a strong enough subject to form a demonstration about. Someone even questioned why we wanted to stop torture in prisons. This questioning suggested that our message was perhaps not clear enough.
For the future I would make sure that our message was more understandable and perhaps less debatable. Arguably torture in prisons is not something people should be concerned about.
Overall Grade: 7/10
We chose the subject of 'Torture in Prisons' because we felt that it was such a disguised and forgotten issue that people would be interested to hear and witness something related to it. The subject also allowed us to create a piece of engaging and active theatre, rather than being static. I think this kept the audience engaged whilst simultaneously making the message clear and obvious.
Torture in prisons in not something that particularly occurs in Britain however the British government is aware of it and yet does nothing. Although the subjects of this torture are prisoners in high security bases, the torture is completely unnecessary and is only there to make the prisoners weak both mentally and physically.
When we were discussing ideas for this topic we had countless suggestions of how the demonstration could be displayed, we felt the fact that we had so many ideas suggested that the idea was strong.
Why was the demonstration successful?
When we were staging our protest we could sense the audience was stirred by the performance by both their vocal and physical presence. We had many people staying to watch the protest three times, and we could hear people gasping at the sheer shock of our piece. The routine of our performance meant that after a few times we were confident and assured in our presentation.
Why was the demonstration not successful?
We had a few people questioning our topic, implying that it was not a strong enough subject to form a demonstration about. Someone even questioned why we wanted to stop torture in prisons. This questioning suggested that our message was perhaps not clear enough.
For the future I would make sure that our message was more understandable and perhaps less debatable. Arguably torture in prisons is not something people should be concerned about.
Overall Grade: 7/10
Sunday 25 November 2012
Beauty Is The First Test
I saw this today, it reminded me of the statement 'Beauty = Power?'....
This message made me think of how cruel modern day society can be, beauty is no longer something special it is an expectation. In a world filled with celebrity image and a lack of individualism how can anyone expect to succeed without beauty?
(Of course Blondie avoids any confrontations or failure by being beautiful and drawing attention to the fact that she holds a desirable image.)
I think this idea of beauty being something that we take for granted is explored in Blondie slightly. It is arguable that if beauty is normal then why do people think she is so special, but I feel in the context of politics it is a new and exciting idea that people are drawn in by.
Further questions relating to Blondie:
What is Blondie's motive, is she trying to prove a point that you can't trust beauty?
Can we ever stop judging in relation to beauty and image. Can identity ever be examined?
Saturday 24 November 2012
Tuesday 20 November 2012
Friday 9 November 2012
First Impressions of 'Blondie'
To my dismay this play was not about the culinary delight that is white chocolate brownies.....
Instead it is a hard hitting play about four characters (A,B,C,D) discussing and sometimes fighting about their political beliefs.
The characters remain unnamed throughout the play, only being referred to as letters. This immediately distances us from the characters also creating uneasy tension about the play.
-Why are they not named?
The play is incredibly bland and simple, with only a handful of stage directions. These stage directions are almost always instructing one actor to go and physically interact with another;
'catching his throat'
'Stopping his airflow'
'almost choking him'
In light of the recent presidential elections the theme of how a presidents appearance can affect the voters seems particularly poignant. I asked myself 'Did Obama deserve to win?' and 'Would America have voted for Romney if the other leading candidate had been white?'.
I feel this play really attacks the idea that politics is so easily affected and altered by our human reactions and sensibilities.
The line 'You thought you were safe because I wasn't an under sexed, over paid, unattractive, privately educated, smug middle aged man. All you saw was my face.' challenges all of our political history. This play is brutally honest in it's aims, It really holds to fingers up to politics and says 'Your ugly and I don't like it.'.
The staging of this piece has been intriguing me ever since I read it, If I were to stage it I would have a true Brechtian setup. All actors would remain on stage, dressed in a generic and unimportant grey t-shirt and trousers. The set would be bare but well equipped, by this I mean If a desk is needed it is fully described and set and not at all in a simplistic way. I would want this because I feel that the way the characters interact with their props is crucial and should be as believable as possible.
The Houla Massacre is a key stimulus for this piece, such a vivid and strong stimulus could make this play hard to act in a brechtian fashion.
I say this because Brecht liked to make his audience appreciate the humorous side of things.
Instead it is a hard hitting play about four characters (A,B,C,D) discussing and sometimes fighting about their political beliefs.
The characters remain unnamed throughout the play, only being referred to as letters. This immediately distances us from the characters also creating uneasy tension about the play.
-Why are they not named?
The play is incredibly bland and simple, with only a handful of stage directions. These stage directions are almost always instructing one actor to go and physically interact with another;
'catching his throat'
'Stopping his airflow'
'almost choking him'
In light of the recent presidential elections the theme of how a presidents appearance can affect the voters seems particularly poignant. I asked myself 'Did Obama deserve to win?' and 'Would America have voted for Romney if the other leading candidate had been white?'.
I feel this play really attacks the idea that politics is so easily affected and altered by our human reactions and sensibilities.
The line 'You thought you were safe because I wasn't an under sexed, over paid, unattractive, privately educated, smug middle aged man. All you saw was my face.' challenges all of our political history. This play is brutally honest in it's aims, It really holds to fingers up to politics and says 'Your ugly and I don't like it.'.
The staging of this piece has been intriguing me ever since I read it, If I were to stage it I would have a true Brechtian setup. All actors would remain on stage, dressed in a generic and unimportant grey t-shirt and trousers. The set would be bare but well equipped, by this I mean If a desk is needed it is fully described and set and not at all in a simplistic way. I would want this because I feel that the way the characters interact with their props is crucial and should be as believable as possible.
The Houla Massacre is a key stimulus for this piece, such a vivid and strong stimulus could make this play hard to act in a brechtian fashion.
I say this because Brecht liked to make his audience appreciate the humorous side of things.
Thursday 8 November 2012
First Impressions
Our introduction to Brecht has taken me by surprise, I imagined Brecht to be a rather obvious and simple style of acting. In reality Brecht's teachings offer us as actors an opportunity to 'represent' rather than 'become'.
After an entire term of Stanislavsky which obviously requires the actor to think about our objectives and super-objectives, Brecht is a refreshing contrast.
Betolt Brecht hoped to highlight the constructed nature of the theatrical performance, this made the audiences own reality clearly constructed and therefore changeable.
This would be done for instance by having the actors costume changes on stage. Or by having no offstage. Typically a Brechtian performance would be suitably bare and simple possessing no elaborate props or set features. The simplicity draws the audiences attention to the actors and takes the attention away from the 'irrelevant' features such as costume and set design.
Immediatley I began to think of what plays might work well as Brechtian pieces, I think a good choice would be something like 'Mad About The Boy' or 'The Witness'.
I think these would work because of their small cast and focus on dialogue and not on action.
I am looking forward to a term of exploring a new theatre style that has become an irreplaceable style for some practitioners and directors.
After an entire term of Stanislavsky which obviously requires the actor to think about our objectives and super-objectives, Brecht is a refreshing contrast.
Betolt Brecht hoped to highlight the constructed nature of the theatrical performance, this made the audiences own reality clearly constructed and therefore changeable.
This would be done for instance by having the actors costume changes on stage. Or by having no offstage. Typically a Brechtian performance would be suitably bare and simple possessing no elaborate props or set features. The simplicity draws the audiences attention to the actors and takes the attention away from the 'irrelevant' features such as costume and set design.
Immediatley I began to think of what plays might work well as Brechtian pieces, I think a good choice would be something like 'Mad About The Boy' or 'The Witness'.
I think these would work because of their small cast and focus on dialogue and not on action.
I am looking forward to a term of exploring a new theatre style that has become an irreplaceable style for some practitioners and directors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)