Reflecting on getting it right

The appropriateness of our form and content for our intended audience and their needs has mainly been self regulated by the group. We did not have any articulated standards to begin with besides what was written in the brief. The difficulty is in being able to maintain that outside eye while so close to the project. This is why we have gladly accepted advice and feedback from Deakin staff which includes marketing who were able to act as that outside eye. We had intended on a work-in-progress viewing for a group of similar age high school students but this never occurred.

It became apparent for me three weeks ago after a work-in-progress viewing for my supervisor Jo and marketing the real purpose of this piece was to reinforce the information that will be presented before we perform in an entertaining and humorous manner. It is not just art it has information and a message that must be present. This is difficult because how does one inject this information without making it sound preachy or instructional? It is a difficult question to answer but a necessary one. It has just as many implications for my next project because how do I present a story about cyber-bullying which doesn’t moralise, preach or dictate to its audience and addresses the following questions:

· What bullying is?

· The effects of bullying?

· Societies view of bullying?

· What should be done about it?

Do I take a road similar to Arena theatre and just create stories that are interesting and presented in interesting way avoiding the specific educational aims or objectives? Or do I as an educator have a responsibility to the audience to create something that is interesting, presented in an interesting way, and have an educational aim at the same time?

Working for marketing I have a responsibility to them to create and present something that fits with their ideas. In this same work-in-progress viewing we were told that the performance had an inherent negative meta-message towards tertiary study. This was something that was debated constantly throughout the process. O’Toole (1976) argues that even if theatre is educational it will only be so minimally compared with the many of other developmental factors in a young person’s life, such as friends and family. Even so, just because the effect will be minimal that doesn’t mean that the message should be negative or have a negative slant. O’Toole contends that the most that could be hoped from in theatre ‘is that the balance of outlook might be shifted a fraction (if one is didactically inclined), or at least a microscopic fragment of significant experience might be added to the individual’s power of choice action’ (O’Toole, 1976: 31). For so long I overlooked this. I needed to return to Cahill (2006) and realise that the minimal affect or shift could be the tipping point for someone deciding that tertiary study is too hard and not for them. Tertiary study may not be for them but who am I to disempower them and their choices before they have even had a go? I guess it is even more the case when I’m being paid to present tertiary study in a positive light.

The week before performance week we had one last viewing for marketing. It was here we really got to understand what they meant by inoffensive. Some clarification was needed in regard to form and content but the majority were cuts we needed to make:

• Remove second F from Jaffy and therefore its implication
• Remove pictures of beer due to binge drinking problem
• Try and find another word for crap if possible

We changed the top two but not crap as we really couldn’t see anyone being offended and considering we had already lost two jokes we decided we couldn’t find another word for ‘crap’. Throughout the process we had constant discussions on who would find what offensive and why. Would a telemarketer, waitress or chick-out person find the job section offensive? Marketing raised a question in regard to the spoon feeding section and if students would be offended by it. There was not a performance at Melbourne where this didn’t get a large laugh from the audience. Where do we draw the line and say enough is enough we can’t please everyone someone could be offended or maybe we would just rather live in a 100% PC nanny state.