So in response to the process undertaken for the TIS piece I wanted to undertake a gestation period for the ensemble so we could develop aims and objectives. I also wanted to and have undertaken that gestation period for myself as director facilitator. In undertaking this I have developed some aims and objectives as well as a plan for the concept, context, process, and product. After a couple of weeks asking the ensemble what their aims and objectives for the piece was hit with a decidedly undecided opinions. It was mainly they agreed with mine and didn’t have anything much more to add.
- Was it too soon, did they all need more time to gestate and discover what they want to achieve with this performance?
- Or does by undertaking that process myself and giving them my opinions immediately hinder them being able to create there own, maybe not wanting to go against what I say?
- Or is it that my research and gestation has lead me to these points for a reason and that they all relatively on the ball for this topic and issue?
It is interesting to note that any and all the discussions we have lead us developing our ideas further, sometimes making concessions with what other think or believe and sometimes debate and division occur. I believe this is fundamental to the process because it is through this that discoveries are made and it is these discoveries that inform the final product.
I went to see Australian Marriage Act at a high school today. Australian Marriage Act is Arena theatre’s newest show. Arena is a professional community based theatre group which focuses on creating work specifically for young audiences. They are not TiE but theatre for young people; the difference which I should sum up in another post not now.
The show told the story of two young lovers, Victoria 16 and Rod 22 who whilst engaged fall pregnant. Rod and Victoria determined not to have an illegitimate baby decide to fast track the wedding, the problem is that neither of their single parents know about the engagement or pregnancy. Breaking the news to the parents, Rod’s is understanding and supportive while Victoria’s is completely against the idea. Applying to get married under the Australia Marriage Act (an act in which the magistrate decides is the couple be allowed to wed if one of the parties is under the age of 18), Victoria’s mother Hilary declares to the court they are not fit to be wed and the magistrates decision is in line with her declaration. The media intervenes its ugly head and pays the couple $10,000 and invests in a solicitor to appeal the decision to the supreme court; for only the small fee of the exclusive rights to the unfolding story. The story climaxes with the supreme courts decision to allow the marriage and a huge change in tempo from the tense and full on unfolding conflict to a slightly comedic and lighter conclusion with Rod and Victoria’s whirlwind marriage and the birth of their child.
The story is non-naturalistic in form told through a non-linear narrative and time sequence linked together by the courts proceedings. From start to finish the performances and atmosphere was vibrant, energetic and at times chaotic in appearance. This effectively worked in engaging the audience for the shows entirety. Moments through out students could be noticed whispering to those sitting next to them but it seemed this conversation was related to the events unfolding on the stage. Whether they were discussing the shows content or form I’m unsure.
The language of the piece was simple and easy to understand and the use of sexual innuendo seemed to work effectively in engaging the audience at the start after a physical and movement based introduction.
The use of swearing throughout the piece also effectively developed and created the necessary tension in certain scenes. The students responded well because in my opinion it was a break with the school convention of not being allowed to swear in such a public manner. The only ‘fuck’ spoken during the performance (at least I think) was delivered with booming eloquence during a particularly tense scene in which Rod and Victoria’s engagement was about to fall apart. To which certain members of the audience responded with ‘ooooohhhhhhhhhh!’ followed by sparse sniggering.
The three actors gave an even and and consistent performance for each and all of the multiple characters played. The transformation between them was distinctive, seamless and rapid combining for great effect especially when the actor playing both Rod and his father held a conversation between the two only drawing distinction through some minor physical and vocal (accent) gestures.
The shows design was very simple, with no lighting and minimal set, props and costume, although the sound design played as huge role. The set design consisted of some yellow and black traffic hazard tape, taped around the stages floor in a simple box. There sound equipment was also set up minimally down stage, prompt side. There was also three objects (also different but similar in design) that initially looked like one, they were made from steel with a grate across the top side and were transformed in their uses through the entire performance. Changing from car seats, to the witness box, supermarket crates and many more. An interesting scene using these set items was when the show was drawing nearer its conclusion and the three performers all entered into a form of manic movement piece in which the steel was brought down on the stage to create loud clanging and crashing sounds. This scene used in conjunction with the traffic hazard tape and other various references throughout to cars highlighted an metaphor concerning love and relationships being like driving a car. If your not careful and paying attention at all times BANG out of no where you can hit a bump and how its handled is the factor that determines what happens to your car.
The costumes were very simple and were no more than really just street clothes (although I’m sure they were chosen for a reason). Specifically one of the actors had a t-shirt on that had a print of someone holding a baby with blood coming out of its head which is significant. The main use of costume that grabbed me though was their use of black and red wearing little else of any colour. Again like with the set this seemed to signal another metaphor about love and relationships (when young?) being full of red – love, passion, romance – and black – despair, sorrow and the unknown.
The sound played a huge role int he piece and it was designed very well. At first I thought they had one CD running for the entirety of the show, because it constantly seemed like music or some form of sound was running through the entire piece. I thought that it must have been incredibly well timed to get the piece working so fluidly and allow for any mistakes that were made. As it turns out each of the actors had a remote control on their wrists which they could use to change the track whenever needed. This worked well because I didn’t pick it up their using it while on stage. The actual sound design reflected the shows energetic, manic and vibrant structure, style and atmosphere. It was loud, heavy and articulate creating and dropping the required mood and atmosphere where necessary; adding to the tension when it looked like Victoria might miscarriage or the anger during one of Rod and Victoria’s fights. It was noticeably used well never drowning out or taking anything away from the performances taking place.
Overall the piece was very minimalist in relation to the design I would argue this worked well and was for the best because it really gave the actors a chance to perform the show rapidly without those hindrances of excessive props or set. Furthermore the absence of lighting design and ease of sound meant they did not have to have someone running the tech aspect of the show. The performances were core to the show and this showed because they were well rehearsed and held the audience engaged for its entirety. A really fantastic show overall.
That is my own synopsis, reflection and review on the show but before wrapping this up I want to discuss some other points that relate to the show but not specifically related the theatrical side of the performance. First of all the show began with an introduction in which one of the actors explained a brief synopsis of the show, the time length and that there would be some question time at the end. This seemed to work well because the students initially had some idea about the overarching story but the direction it would head in I very much doubt that. O’toole (1976) argues that surprise can be a good thing in relation to TiE as much as a bad thing. Since this was theatre for young people and not TiE it seems suitable that the performance wasn’t a surprise (students knew they were seeing theatre). Therefore it seems that enlightening the students a little more about the issue they were covering seemed probably makes their job as audience easier and promotes more engagement for them.
The question section at the end of the performance unfortunately the question asked only related to superficial things nothing theatrical. An interesting tactic that one of the actors used was to redirect the question session after it came to a halt which was to ask the audience if there was anything they didn’t like – trying to elicit feedback. This again didn’t really work for them because it just aroused another series of superficial questions. I think the questioning is an important part of the process because it has the opportunity to initiate some really interesting discussion; although this time it didn’t work. They also invited the audience to speak with them if they wished whilst they packed up for 20mins, the school bell was about to go and most seemed like they were out of there and since I left before seeing if anyone spoke I cannot really comment. On reflection I should have stayed to observe what happened, next time.
It’s interesting to note here that one of the second round questions (which I must amend wasn’t superficial), one student asked about the three metal stage objects. This in fact initiated a quite detailed response form the group of actors about set design and the intended purpose of the designer creating the objects like they were. Even though I think a lot of this went over the heads of the audience because they were talking about attitudes of the working class. It seems that this could really best be handled through additional workshops that the company could run at different dates or even after the show not just relying on the teachers to get the point across with the aid of the teacher notes.
When I arrived at the theatre some students had already taken theri seats and were waiting ready. Overall their seemed to be an atmosphere of excitement and energy which was conveyed through boisterous talking and laughter. It has to be wondered if this excitement was because they were getting to watch a great piece of theatre or if it was just a break in routine, more than likely it was combination of both. Once the introduction was given the audience seemed basically engaged for the entire performance. The jokes were laughed at and even sometimes the emotional (’bounced my head off the back of a chair’), drawing on O’toole (1976) it could be said that those students were bored or uneasy with the content of the show. The whispers of students could be seen and minimally heard throughout the show but this is normal for any audience watching any theatre and I would argue showed engagement with the shows content. The audience were seemingly behaved throughout the performance. One severe change I most note though was after the change in the shows tempo from a highly tense and rapid mood to something a little lighter and comedic. At this point the audience metaphorically gave a sigh of relief showing signs that the show had climaxed and that their full engagement was no longer necessary. Considering the intensity of the show this is not really a surprise, I just wondering if the quickie wedding and birth was necessary but on the other hand this really brought closer to the entire piece. A couple of students left promptly after the shows conclusion but the majority remained and continued to engage with the question section.
I have a couple of concerns which came up during a brief discussion before the show with two teachers from different schools who were there also to view the show. The first issue was a lack of understanding in the difference between TiE and theatre for young people (something I will have to investigate a little myself). One of the teachers brought up the argument that most theatre is educative in nature so couldn’t it all be considered TiE. This led us to discuss the purpose and aim of the theatre whether it be to specifically educate or just entertain. This needs more investigation and thought before I make any further comment.
That leads me on to my next point about the actual show which screamed to a certain extent a particular moral standing somewhere along the lines of young people will make mistakes this is how they learn so let us be in making those mistakes. The show did seemingly neglect the parents view, not to say they weren’t present but instead they were portrayed negatively in the context of disapproving with the young peoples view. I guess this is the reason it is considered theatre for young people and not TiE because to be educative theatre must at least show two sides to the story rather than just further cementing an already idea established in the young peoples minds. O’toole (1976) writes about this commenting that bad TiE will often set about to vilify teachers, parents or others in positions of power just to give themselves an ego boost. While I don’t believe this is the case for Australian marriage Act I do think it shows how easily a group or company could fall into that trap and which I must be especially careful working on my own cyber-bullying project.
O’toole, J. (1976), Theatre in Education: New objectives for theatre – new techniques in education, Hodder and Stroughton: Sydney
So one of my first objectives has been to get in touch with some theatre in education groups that are operating in the Victorian area that are staples of best practice in theatre in education. I decided to get in contact with Zeal theatre because I have seen some of their work and in my opinion as in others (my supervisors) they definitely constitute best practice. Also a couple of weeks ago when I was attending an drama ensemble making workshop it was also suggested that I get in contact with Arena theatre. So the results are in and I have managed to organise a short meeting with the Erin the general manager of Arena to discuss some of the processes that they go through from the conception to the post production stages. Unfortunately Arena is in between artistic directors so I’m unable to speak with one which would have been the best person to speak with. Erin did mention that a number of thesis’s (honours, masters and PhD’s) had been written in relation to different aspects of Arena. So this is something I will have to follow up and find out how I can locate these. Zeal unfortunately for me are currently overseas touring The Stones and since they are no longer based in Melbourne once they return to Australia they won’t be in Melbourne until early August. At this point I have not organized a date to meet with them but have told them that it is still on the cards and that I will contact them again in Late July to get the ball rolling. So that’s best practice for now, well at least until the week after next.
