Recount

This was the first rehearsal when we actually have had the entire ensemble present which was great. We started quite late at 5 and worked through until approx 7.30. The first part of the session was really a catch up on what we had been doing in the rehearsals for the absent ensemble member and making sure they were up to date on the research.

I then discussed how I saw the first section of the performance resembling. I had developed a rough draft script and score. It followed this sequence:

• Narrator (Current affairs journalist) talks about cyber-bullying epidemic
• Slow music build accompanied by a torture scene with neutral masks, keyboards, phones, etc at same time another sits typing miming words flash (hard, punch, hit, etc) on screens slowly but building pace and this persons internal torrent builds to climax in unison of torture and music.
• Narrator dialogue about how it was better in times without tech
• 1950s family – father smoking pipe reading newspaper, mother mixing in a bowl, kids playing with wooden toys – one of the children bullies the other and father and mother look on like it is normal part of life.
• Narrator connects the 1950s family some sort of movement piece to connect them – costume change (loose jackets or something) – narrator further dialogue
• Narrator depicts the stereotype of the bully and the victim

Explaining verbally with some visual cues I then asked the ensemble to respond. There were some likes about it and some dislikes and these sparked some minor discussions and further ideas.

• The narrator character must be careful as to not trivialise the issue through language and tone
• The idea of the narrator is ideally pictured as a current affairs journalist, since everything they say is insincere it was meant to b e ironically questioning the media’s automatic response to blame young people and technology.
• The word Cyberia spoken would be just plain confusing so it was suggested that we could create a tourism Cyberia video.
• Use 1950s commercials to introduce 1950s scene.
• There needs to be some indication that time is passing when the family is plugged in.
• Design idea of actually having network cables attached to everyone.
• Don’t we want to avoid stereotyping the victim and bully so as to avoid victim blaming and bully demonising? Cahill (2006) and Cassidy & Watts (2000; 2002)
• Could this be done in a way where we highlight how the media (60 minutes) painted the picture of the bully in order to juxtapose ‘our’ bullies and victims against those stereotypes hopefully showing that anyone can be either and that they are behaviours and results of behaviours rather than characteristics.

The next step was to begin walking through what I had scored/scripted and workshop all of our ideas.  We started with the opening torture sequence.  We devleoped this scene into something more of a movement piece.

• movements separated by a certain number of beats – 8, 8, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 1, 1
• a sound of bone snapping or neck breaking on each of these beats
• white noise building in volume and intensity as beats get faster
• 12 words – myspace, facebook, mobile phone, MSN – flying on screen on each beat
• The other internal torment building as if beaten on each beat.

The narrators dialogue needs more work but I’m working on currently.  We then worked on a 1950s bullying scene.  Creating the stereotypical scene idealistic 1950s family.

• father mokign pipe reading newspaper
• mother mixing something in bowl looking content
• children playing with wooden toys
• son talks to father about being bullied at school
• father tells son to toughen up its natural
• Son bullies daughter and then repeats back what father told him

We worked on attempting to get the plug in scene to work but never reall decided on anything.  However a good line came out of it – ‘Please refrain from feeding the forum trolls’ – which was great and will be used.  The other discussion were exemplified in the dot points above.  We ran out of time and had to organise times for Septembers rehearsals.

Reflection

The rehearsal was successful because we began work shopping what became or has became the prologue for the piece.  The interesting part about this is that while it was still developing I had a clear sense that’s this is where it would sit in relation to the rest of the performance.  Now after rehearsing more and developing the piece further.  It seems that what was developed needs to be broken up and moved around to better suite what we are trying to say and ask.  Working last semester on the TIS performance this was a constant working process as well.  Developing material, reworking it and then moving it around to best suite us.  I always had an idea though of where it would sit even if that idea would change rehearsal to rehearsal.  I wonder if this self defeating in a way because I’m trying to pidgeon hole everything before we  even had a real chance to explore it?  On the other hand it is necessary to have an overall picture of the piece even if that is shifting constantly.  The important part is not tot become immoveable in regards to the material’s shifting and fluid form and content during the development of the piece.

Last semester working on TIS one of the ensemble said that the only way to develop a piece was to create the content and then work on the form.  I think this fundamentally ignores the force that content has to direct form and visa-versa.   Pammenter (1993) argues that form and content are inexborably linked.  The process at anyone time is focused on devleoping either one of these.  Therefore what occurs in the process should define what develops in the long run.  What occurs can be described by the events but also the people, places, focus, aims, objectives, rehearsal variables, times and anyhting else related to it.

Is this a question of determinism and free will? If the process determines the overall form and content of the piece and the factors of the process determines the what occurs in the process then what are the choices and to what extent are those choices made which will have an affect on the overall created piece? When the ensemble make a decision or a choice to take a certain path with the material how much of this is dictated by the the pieces aims, objectives or guiding principle.  Does the asethetic values of the ensemble dicate the development of material?

Does working on youth theatre mean these choices are even more restricted.  Youth theatre in one way seems to have more restrictions on it then non-youth theatre.  A citizen who attends a performance and finds that it is against their beliefs can leave but generally this is not the case when it comes to youth theatre.  Young people don’t have any other choice but to sit there and watch.  This means that an ensemble creating youth theatre has responsibilities to the audience to promote soceities values.  These responsbilities are a further deterministic factor that directs the development of the work.

I guess the choices come in when the ensemble say we want to create a piece of theatre on this problem and we want to focus it on these specific issues of the problem.  In creating the piece some deterministic factors will direct the development of the piece but there are choices from the very big down to the very small.  It is these choices that will determine if the performance is educational, relevant, aesthetically pleasing and overall successful.