Recount

So I began the rehearsal with the idea of scripting and blocking the first act, however more absences caused this plan to fall on its arse.  So we started by scripting the first act which is now up on the wiki.  Then we moved onto look at where we could go from here into the second act.  We had basically hit a wall so we spent most of the time throwing ideas around and seeing where they would lead and this was generally hit but what about this what about that.  I took away these ideas from the rehearsal and have been working on the second act in my own time planning what I see as happening so I can take this in for the following rehearsal and we can workshop it to see what work, what doesn’t and how we will fill the void.  I’m hoping to get this up on the wiki soon.

Reflection

Once I had put together the second act I began to heavily wonder if what I was doing was in line with the research, aims and objectives of the piece.  This is a hard question to answer.  It does show that I’m engagin in a process of relfecting on the work and what it is saying to ensure that is in line with my intentions.  This was something that i overlooked during the TIS process.  This process is certainly difficult and the hardest part is placing oneself into another perspective.  If I was neutral to come and look at this piece what would I see.

• Can all of the intended bullying events be clearly defined as bullying?
• Are we victim blaming?
• Are we demonising the bully?
• are we successfully showing the bystander as the central character with the power and responsibility to influence the outcome?
• Is there too much focus on the suicide indicating it might be a viable option for a vulnerable student?
• Or are we just showing the worst possible case scenario which is supported by literature as being a possible outcome of cyber bullying?
• Are we effectively highlighting positive coping strategies?
• Are we saying anything about the media?
• Should we be saying anything about the media?
• Does the audience need to receive a definite definition of what bullying is?
• Are the bully, victim and bystander roles clearly established?
• Does the mixing of these roles highlight that any and all of us can be bullies, therefore showing that bully is not a characteristic but a behavior?
• Who is to blame?
• How do we approach the no blame issue?
• Are we going to offer any strategies for dealing with the issue of cyber bullying?

This line of questioning for myself has lead me to come clarify things in my own mind and actually work towards making the pieces statement clearer.  It’s helped to cut through the some of the side issues and come to the realisation that there was more then one play developing.  This then means that I can re clarify and redirect the focus to something smaller yet with a deeper dig to make the piece overall more manageable.  The material that is moving to the periphery just goes to the library for future use.

This has also meant that i’m starting and needing to re-engage more heavily with some of the bullying litreature.  This re-engagement is an effort to ensure that what we have developed is going to fit with what is socially acceptable and valuable, and what will be engaging for a 14-15 year old audience.

It has also made me think about what Chris Kohn (2008) said during the interview with him about how at Arena they will always ensure that they have work-in-progress viewing with audience of the intended age so as to recieve feedback on waht’s workign, what’s not, if its clear and so forth.  This has been a large factor in deciding that what we will present at the start of october will be a work-in-progress.  Engaging in a series of work-in-progress viewings will give me the oppurtunity to recieve feedback that can be used for the benefit of the piece.  It should hopefully allow me to refine the piece through further workshopping.   Hopefully then I can take it on to other places.

Recount

So we were missing one of the ensemble totally during this rehearsal and another one had to leave for about an hour which seems to be a recurring theme for my life.  I guess this just comes with the territory.  We started the session by hot seating the characters that we cast last week.  I felt people may have wanted more time to think about them but that’s what the ensemble wanted to do so we did it.  My plan had been to plot out and devise the scenes around the narrative structure we had developed during the last rehearsal.

So we started with the hot seating and it went very well and some distinct traits and characteristics about each of the characters developed.  Home work was set to develop a myspace and facebook profile for each of the characters. I’ll try and get those all up on the wiki but we need to get photo’s and other things done for them as well.

We then started working through the narrative structure and eventual constructed what I am currently calling the first act.  This is up on the wiki currently.  The workshop basically consisted of devising the scenes I had planned.  This was difficult not having all present of the ensemble present at any given stage.  We reached a point in which my planning had stopped but the momentum of the rehearsal kept the devising going and we continued to devise a number of scenes in sequence.  It was great to note that the momentum was still present when the rehearsal stopped but disappointing we couldn’t have continued.  Especially since coming into the next rehearsal we had hit a wall.

Reflection

It has become apparent that a part of working with people is that things will ultimately develop and ensure chaos with plans.  This cannot be avoided and I think that there is for certain a huge part of being a student and working with students in a university context.  Trying to juggle everyone commitments is depressing and and exhausting at times.  Someone not able to come one day then another person and then another person.  Then I feel I’m wasting my own time because I can’t achieve what I want to achieve.  Is my time better spent writing a draft and compiling a script and then to bring it in and workshop that with the ensemble.  At this point for this project I feel yes.  I guess this just comes with the territory of devising and especially devising with university students who really don’t have the time when they are already juggling so many things in their life (TIS transistion piece, Mawson et al, 2008).

What is the difference between the type of momentum that grabbed hold of this rehearsal and took it to a place I had no anticipated and the feeling of uncontrollable chaos from being unable to really workshop the ideas with a full ensemble?  Phelan (2004) argues ‘Great art accumulates relevance and meaning as it moves beyond the control of its creators; weak art decides in advance what the piece is about’ (571).  I’m not tryign to put my work under the banner of great art.  I believe what Phelan is saying is that deciding in advance what a piece of art will be and mean is fruitless because it may never actually amount to these aspirations.  This is advice to not restrict the process but let it be free and go where it needs and wants to go.  Ultimately this is because the audience is the one who will decide it’s meaning, relevance and if it is successful.  How do I embrace not having ensemble members present to develop the work and how will this can be a driving force for the creation of the piece?  I guess in a way it can’t but then I guess it becomes an excercise in planning and drafting as much as possible to then workshop this material with the ensemble and then let the process go where it needs and wants to go.

Schirle (2005) argues that working with students when devising will ultimately lead to them bringing themselves to their roles.  Is this true? Has it occurred? Will it occur?  How can I stop it from occuring? I think their is an issue with this line of thinking.  Don’t all actors being themselves or their lives to their role in some way.  Whilst not playing oneself the irony is that you are always yourself and this is somethign that cannot be removed.  For example an  actor must draw on their own experiences viewed, enacted, real or created.  How can an actor attribute the characteristic of a character if they had never encoutnered those charactertistics in themselves or others? How can an actor play sad if you had never been sad nor seen another be sad or play sad.  Her argument is that a devised work shouldn’t be just a piece of self centered self indulgence for the devisors.  They need to create work which will engage an audience.  Product cannot be overlloked just for the sake of process.  She suggest ’students must develop a rigoruous attitude towards their devised work [which] is to continally pose questions: What is the intent of the devising project? Why make this? Who is it for? Why does it matter?’ (Schirle, 2008: 97).

Before begining the process I have had this type of aims, objectives and understandings for the piece.  This has been due to a lot of other litreature which suggests the same for begining devisors (Oddey, 1994; Pammenter, 1993; Bicat & Baldwin, 2001).  Will the ensemble bring themselves to the performance? Yes but not in the way that is self centered and self focused.  We are creating a performance with intent, aims and objectives, for a specific audience, in a specific setting, and for a specific reason.  However this does not mean that the process need be restrictive to these because it needs the flexibility to be taken where it needs and wants to go.

Recount

We had that many space issues in this session that we missed the first hour and a half at least and I was quite pissed off at the space people for not doing their job.  This reflects some of those rehearsal variables that can altar what was planned and the direction that the rehearsal takes.  Although this meant letting the ensemble go and get lunch where we spoke with another student who put his two bob into the piece and some interesting points were raised.

One thing I did forget to mention in the last post was that we did attempt at the end of the session to formulate a web of of relationships and how the bullying would occur.  Originally my concept for the piece was that there would be a bully, bystander and victim character and basically one major incidence of bullying and several minor.  it was suggested in the first rehearsal by one of the ensemble that we could have several bullying events occur all revolving around the bystander.  The ensemble members had discussed all the incidents occurring not being central to the narrative but I believed they need to be in order to be effective.  This is also sparked conversation about the Australian movie 2:13 about a student who commits suicide.  The story involves five central characters and their lives are all entwined.  We discussed the effectiveness of this form.  This was all laid to rest until the previous rehearsal.

At the end of the rehearsal we developed a web of character relationships that resembled this:

These bully victim relationships were taken from our individual bullies that we created in the second session.  I took this idea and did some reworking over the days until this rehearsal and came in with the following relationship web.  It was still based of the characters were created early on in the process.

I had developed an idea of the bullying sequence of events and I informed the ensemble.  We then spent the rest of the session work shopping the bullying sequence of events.  The following is what we finally established:

1. Young girl bullies pop-girl – texting, facespace
2. Alt guy breaks up with young girl to protect friendship with pop girl after young girl has sent naked pictures of self to alt guy
3. pop girl pissed off at young girl, finds photo’s of nakedness and emails them to all including young girl
4. young girl confrontation with alt guy – he is confused
5. young girl copes by going to dance classes and talking to bystander
6. Alt guy confused turns to pop girl for support – she is guilty
7. pop guy jealous decides to bash alt guy and it is filmed
8. alt guy turns to pop girl for support but she turns back on him feeling trapped he commits suicide

We also established a role for each characters for each ensemble member.

Reflection

This rehearsal had it’s problems but overall it was successful.  I never engaged in a process such as this for the TIS performance.  We never developed a narrative structure.  I think it was essential for this project to develop such a narrative structure.  Prior to begining the process I had my own coneption of what this structure would be.  However once beginning the process and engaging with the ensemble this has to change and adapt as necessary and it has.  This narrative structure has given us a base to work from and develop specific scenes.

It may be complex but this should work towards meeting my primary aim to show cyber bullying as a complex issue with complex consequences.  This will hopefully be achieved through showing the complexity of the many different layers and elvels in the narrative structure.  Second to this it hopefully can show how easily bullying can occur and really asks the question who is to blame? and why?  Hopefully we can steer the answer towards applying a no blame approach for cyber bullying as advocated by Rigby (2007) and is the case and suggested strategy for non cyber bullying currently.

The complexity could work against us in that it may be too complex for the students to follow.  However growing up in a post modern world where we are bombarded with information from multiple sources constantly throughout our lives it seems that the students should not only be able to handle this but should also really be able to engage with the contant and form more easily.  Morrison and Stinson (1995) argue that TiE needs to begin to work with the post modern form because this was what young people deal with on a dialy basis.  So a complex structure such as this working on multiple levels at once should allow us to ask multiple questions of the audience and hopefully allow them to walk away from the piece asking those same questions.

I’m constantly due to my experiences with the TIS piece questioning if we are travelling down the right path to meet my aims and objectives for the piece.  The strategy used by Kaufman (Brown, 2005) definitely needs consideration makign sure that their is a set of guiding principles for a piece that ensure it is on the right track.  I look back at my aims for the piece and I cannot help but think is it developing in the right direction:

Primary aim:

• To develop an awareness of the complex problem of cyber-bullying and its consequences.

Subsidiary aims:

• To explore how the issue of cyber bullying could be dealt with.
• To explore what cyber bullying involves.
• To explore the complexity of the bully, bystander and victim dichotomies.
• To explore how the media is contributing to or helping this issue.

The litrature discussed by many on the subject of TiE and YPT is to at all cost avoid suicide (Cahill, 2006; Cassidy & Watts, 2002; 2000; Mirrione, 1993; Pammenter, 1993; O’Toole, 1975).  We seem to be definitely heading in the direciton of suicide and I’m constantly throwing around in my mind how we can approach this without encouraging the idea that suicide is alright.  It is definitely a consequence and it is proven that cyber-bullying can and has on multiple occasions led to suicide or attempted suicide.  I guess the question that I’m really asking is how do I ensure that our message is in line with our intentions because the wrong message not just in regard to suicide could lead to some places we didn’t intend on going.

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.

Recount

I began the session making sure the ensemble was going alright with their assessment which has been a little bit of an ongoing problem. Next we discussed the research material that everyone had viewed or read from the previous session. Some points that arose were:

• The 60 minutes video was amazing to show how ineffective or even harmful that the media was for bully demonising, victim blaming, and provoking a situation further.
• The insight video was interesting but railroaded itself a discussion on bullying rather than just cyber bullying.
• This prompted a discussion on if the two are separate, it was the general consensus that they were not and that each played effectively off the other.
• Destroying Avalon – junior fiction – highlighted the attitudes of young people towards the issue, not knowing that it is bullying, students being ‘addicted’ to needing to know what others think about them, not foreseeing the end result or who the bully was.

I wanted to work on and develop a scene on bullying through Chinese whispers on the mobile phone looking at how rumors spread and develop. I explained the way that I saw the scene occurring.

The victim moves from there position as the arrows direct and as they pass each of the ensemble says ‘LOL – something’. This is more showing how easily a rumor can spread but if the language got progressively worse that could also show that the rumor was getting worse.

I then asked what and how they saw the scene working and a number of great ideas came up:

• Austin powers (pennis, boob joke) progressive story… with the jump in on the next word.
• Split focus action and text on the other
• Hit by metaphorical rumors and getting pushed down
• Sharks circling getting more intense
• tunnel ball passing the rumor
• true, false, falser on each point

The ensemble wanted to start working with actually creating some rumors. This seemed like a semi futile task as since we discovered in the previous rehearsal we can’t really use definite examples of bullying so as to avoid copy cat behaviour (Cahill, 2006; Cassidy & Watts, 2000; 2002). I went with this as to just see where it would take us.

We basically played Chinese whispers except out loud and we would have more than one turn. We tried a number of different rumors – sexual, physical and emotional – and each would continue until it reached a point that was extremely inapropriate. The difficulty is that we don’t want to give the audience ideas and this practice highlighted the discovery we made in the previous week.

I decided after enough of this that I wanted to try and workshop some of the above ideas into scenes. We started with the hit by metaphorical rumors.

The idea was that the ensemble would walk around back and forth past the victim saying the rumors and the victim would get hit as if by blows until eventually they were beaten to the ground. The bullies/rumours would move about the space randomly exemplifying the rumours (which we drew from before). After each rumour was said the victim would start off subtly feeling pain which developed into overwhelming pain falling to the ground as if punched, kicked and beaten.

When then repeated this same concept of the metaphorical beating from the rumors spreading except this time as if sharks were circling the victim. This developed and we attempted to build the pace (physical and vocal), volume and intensity (physical and vocal). A nice little moment developed from this work shopping those ideas. One of the ensemble suggested we could start circling in closer and actually push the victim down as we said the rumour but then alongside have things that brought the victim back up and actually pull them back up. This worked but it’s context would have to be in relation to more of a coping strategy and the effects of friends/family enabling that person to be brought back up.

We moved on and then attempted to try the tunnel ball scene.

This scene was played like a game of tunnel ball where the ball is rolled through the tunnel to the end and the last person grabs ball and runs to front and rolls again. I really wanted to steer clear of the actual rumours so we played with some non-naturalism. The first person whispered into the phone of the second person. They would then listen and say some text talk – LOL, OMG, and something relating to the rumour – like depicted in my original scene.  This worked well with the action taking place rapidly and another moving to the front.

Reflection

The rehearsal was successful because we developed a number of scenes which may be used in the final product or adapted in later rehearsals.  It is the beginning of a library of scores.  At the end of the day these scenes may or may not be used but they have some value for the process, product or perhaps both.  This then makes me think about the value in undertaking the Chinese whispers exercise.  I am reflecting now and thinking that it was futile as we had already decided in the previous rehearsal that we should and wanted to avoid enabling copy cat behavior.  Was I aware of this at the time?  More than likely not or I would have said something.  However there must have been value in it for the ensemble or they would not have directed themselves there.  Maybe this was the extra step I in fact needed to come to this realisation and potentially the ensemble.  If this occurs again I think it is best for me to tell them what I have realised and then put it back in their hands to see what they think and let the process move in the direction it needs.

The power of non-naturalism is to be able to overcome this situation of prompting or enabling of copy cat behavior.  If the rumours were watered down to such an acceptable PC level that they become trivial or even farcical in the eyes of the young audience?  By not saying much are we allowing their imaginations to do all the work and write the rumours themselves far worse than what we probably could anyway.  This is the trick of insinuating that a rumour is being spread and let the audience do all the work.  This is what happened in Burnt (Cassidy & Watts, 2000; 2002) when they let the burning down of the school occur off stage and only mention in in subsequent scenes like a Greek tragedy. This will be the same bridge we have to cross once we start working on the suicide aspect of the show and determining if we fact go down that road.

Another thought comes to mind about using words such as slut, whore, or others that schools may consider profane.  Australian Marriage Act (Arena Theatre, 2008) used the swear words on occasion throughout the performance.  This seemed to startle the audience into giggling because they have sworn.  Does this negatively or positively influence the engagement of the audience with the piece? Does it actually promote the use of those words? Could we be promoting students to use those words when bullying others?  How will the school feel about this language being used? There are multiple arguments that could be made either way.  I guess the real conclusion comes down to each and every individual situation.  If the language is being used in a way that isn’t just for the sake of it but which is used to convey a specific point and message then that should be considered acceptable.  Otherwise it probably shouldn’t be in there to begin with.  I think O’Toole talks about this in Theatre in Education I’ll ahve to have another look.

Performing has seen the show tighten and the energy fluctuate, I had difficulty ensuring my energy was where it needed to be after three shows a day and sitting through that presentation before performing. The size of the audience has also been a factor that seemed to vary the performances. Big audiences seemed to have less inhibitions laughing and engaging with the material more easily but with this they brought difficulty in overcoming the acoustics of the space because the noise would just thunder throughout the theatre. This meant at times longer pauses to ensure and a less rapid pace at times to ensure the material could be delivered correctly. The smaller audiences were much more intimate and the acoustics were never a problem however this intimacy also reflected a more reserved atmosphere in regards to laughing and engaging with the material. I guess this could be a result of peer pressure and not wanting to be identified as the person who was laughing the drama presentation that wasn’t funny, or maybe it actually wasn’t funny. This is all just conjecture although what can be said is that every audience is completely different no matter whether large or small. There was always a couple of golden moments for me as a performer when the audience really responded the way you had hoped they would. For example I received heckling from one small audience and concern from another in the initial scene with the fumbling presenter and the rude lecture patrons. I wonder:

• What about the difference between Melbourne and Geelong audiences will be like?
• Was the humour pitched at the wrong level, too high or low brow?
• Did being constrained by marketing have an effect on the overall pieces success?
• What effect did each of the performers have on the success of the piece?
• What about the environment of each day?

I would say that the piece was successful which is not to say that neither it nor the process was flawless because I believe there was many. If approaching this project again I would do some things the same but other very differently. I have learnt a lot and would not trade that for anything else in the world.

After each show I can say with some degree of confidence that at least one teacher who had just watched the performance approaches with positive and sometimes constructive feedback.

• ‘Seen a lot of these [TIS performances] over the years but it was great to see something new and fresh’
• ‘Best one I’ve seen’
• ‘Lightening in the space was very poor’
• ‘Loved the moment with the big wooden spoon’
• ‘Excellent work’
• ‘Fantastic job’

At times students would also do this and a couple of times students approached the group to enquire about the courses we have done and are currently undertaking with a keen interest. Can this be put down to politeness and social protocol? I don’t think so because I could see if we had approached them asking for verbal feedback considering they approached us I would expect it to be genuine. I guess the only real way to attain genuine qualitative feedback would be through anonymous surveys. An approach I hope to utilise in my next project.

The rest of the ensemble received some condescending remarks from various employers from the different tertiary institutes.

• ‘No drama kids this year’
• ‘Thank you for ruining my plans’
• ‘We are going to enjoy some light entertainment that the Deakin drama club is going to present’

The first two were a direct result of one of the ensembles actors not arriving on time meaning we could not present the show for the morning group. The last one was one of the introductions we received prior to commencing our performance even though we had asked to be introduced in a specific way. The first and last of these comments reminds me of an anecdote that O’Toole (1975; 1995) draws on in a book and at least one paper I’ve read. He writes about how a principle before a TiE performance is about to begin says to their primary school aged students. He writes ‘Now we’ve got some people here today who are going to perform a little play for you. And I’m sure it’s going to be very humorous. And you’re going to show them how polite you can be, aren’t you?’ (O’Toole, 1995: 80). O’Toole is attempting to highlight how drama and theatre are perceived by educators as having little intrinsic value other than to entertain. This seems to reflect my experience with this TIS performance. This is only conjecture but it seems those various people from the different tertiary institutions thinking is probably along the same lines. The performance unlike the dry presentation was engaging and somewhat informative, the change in atmosphere and attitude of the crowd from the presentation to performance was immense. It is in my opinion that the performance reinforced everything they had just said but in a different medium. I’m not trying to take a moral highroad and content that in anyway the performance was a better medium for conveying this information. Rather that the effects of both working together a surely better than either on its own. I wonder why people cannot see this; arrogance, ignorance or both?

It was decided very early on in the process that design would be a more organic process. Once we had a look at the space it became clear that any design would have to be minimal and use of the digital projector would be essential. This was also a consideration because we knew we would have to move and transport our goods from Burwood to Geelong. Our first design idea was to use milk crates and we planned on using them for as many things as possible, this included riding them in the horse racing scene, sit and stand on them. This never eventuated as it became apparent further in the process that they weren’t necessary and even burdensome. It floated in and out of discussion from time to time and then a basic slide slow presentation was thrown together some weeks before. This presentation was edited and re-edited over the course of the following weeks and became our central design element. Eventually we added sound, animation and colour. This was organic and it grew and developed as people had ideas and tried them out. It looked poor and cheesy but that’s what we were going for. The props and items of costume that we used were generally just an agreement between the ensemble about what would be necessary to convey our message. We tried to keep these as minimal as possible but reflecting now I wonder if all were necessary?

Considering that my next project will involve touring at least two different schools the space will also be different from school to school. Therefore any design will have to be easily transportable. This therefore has me concluding that it would also be optimum for the design to be minimal with a few key and specific pieces that contribute to the performance on a design level. Questions about the capabilities of using media, sound and lighting are also present in my mind at this time. The last few touring TiE or TFY performances I have seen did not really utilise media, sound and lightening. These I would argue were all excellent and didn’t require these extra production values; not to say with them the show could have been enhanced but that they stood on their own competently without them. Depending on the show this should more than likely be the case for all theatre. I guess the point is will add to or distract from what I want to say.

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.

My pitch that I handed to marketing included a description of what the piece was intended to look like. This was a series of vignettes that would cover the issues that a student might face transitioning from secondary to tertiary education. There would be a central metaphor and hopefully a narrative thread that tied it all together. The metaphor I guess looking back now is probably that life is like a relationship because there are always choices, problems, good times and always plenty more fish in the sea. Reflecting now I wonder what the show could have been like if this was the central metaphor and vision that I had approached the ensemble with? The issues and ideas about further study we wanted to cover developed in the research stage through brainstorming and discussion. These became the basis for our series of vignettes. The first rehearsal I conducted a skills and interest audit and what came across was a mixed bag although generally we all had an interest in non-naturalism in some form. We wanted to create something non-naturalistic at least in part. Initially some scenes were headed in a non-naturalistic direction:

• Horse race
• VTAC monster/beast/animal
• Choices (matrix pills)
• Moment of truth (dropped)
• Ready steady crap
• The lecture
• Student services saved your life (dropped)
• Spoon feeding

These all began with ideas or comments made during brainstorming and discussion sessions. We workshopped people’s ideas:

• What happens?
• How do you see it happening?
• What does this convey?
• Is it clear?
• Is there text or objects we can draw on?
• What does it look like?

These were questions for the ensemble to answer not just the ideas originator. Some developed quickly and easily, some slowly and arduous, some have changed beyond recognition, and others have been dropped. The horse race for example came from an idea which got thrown around about year 12 seeming like a race to the finish with the horses wearing blinkers. When the blinkers are taken off there is a realisation a whole world exists out there. I particularly liked this idea. It has developed slowly week by week and almost dropped a few times but eventually it became something that we decided to use because we did like the point it made. We drew on text of the meblourne-cup-call which was edited and reedited time and time again, tried being the horses, the jockeys, the jockeys riding crates, and a transformation of student to horse. It was really just a process of trial and error mixed in with discussion and reflection. As was the case for all the others listed above, some made it and some didn’t but I believe the performance was stronger for this reason (Dijt, 2006).

A lot of other issues or areas we wanted to cover didn’t stem from a non-naturalistic idea as was the case for those listed above. Running dry improvisations tended only to lead to naturalistic scenes and banter. One of the Deakin staff suggested looking at these scenes non-naturalistically; you could have actually seen the light bulbs turn on. This started a process of thinking about what was the core message we were trying to convey with these scenes and then how could they be portrayed non-naturalistically? A prime example was making friends (which has drastically changed since its inception). Further study can be difficult initially with people experiencing feelings of loneliness and isolation but after some effort everything gets easy. The idea then became to portray through the space a sense of isolation and a cold and lonely environment which gradually eased as the new student found there place approaching different groups. The other ideas that were very naturalistic were worked in this same manner and then everything was workshopped in the manner discussed above.

Morrison and Stinson (1995) argue that young audiences need post modern content as well as a post modern structure. This they argue is due to young audiences growing up in a rapidly changing complex and multi-layered post-modern world. Was the performance inherently post-modern? The project was not approached in a deconstructive sense but it did contain elements associated with post-modern form such as pastiche, collage, non-linear narrative and others. I would not call it an example of post-modernism but it contains the elements which Morrison and Stinson (1995) argue are essential for promoting and developing artistic and aesthetic experiences for young audiences. This they argue is a ‘responsibility as educators for widening their cultural experience’ (Morrison & Stinson, 1995: 40). Considering the brief this was not an intention when beginning this project but it has been on my mind regarding my next project for some time. I wonder why then it developed in this way and the age of the ensemble is the first thing that comes to mind, considering we are all young ad have grown up in this post-modern age as well. Nonetheless it could have been beneficial for the audience in widening their culture experience and I hope it was.

The group tended to work well together from the start although there were a number of difficulties associated with working as an ensemble. There were also other interesting points that I have noticed through working with this ensemble. They are:

• It was difficult working when people would not attend rehearsals.
• It has been difficult with people dropping out.
• Creativity seemed to flow better when someone was absent from rehearsal.
• This project seemed secondary during the uni semester period – I can understand this.
• Working as a democratic ensemble everyone pulled their weight and was not overzealous or precious with their creative ideas.
• Working with an ensemble who are individually and as a group flexible, open, reflective, constructive and enthusiastic was both positive for the group and the process.
• I feel like I could have been more of a leader in the process and that this could have hindered the process to some degree.

It seems contradictory for me to say that people not turning up to rehearsal had a negative impact on the process but then go onto say that we worked better creatively when someone was missing. The difficulty was in not being able to flesh ideas out in the space as well as we could of because of the missing person. Ironically this seemed the time when we would be getting passed the blocks that had been stopping progress. Reflecting it probably has nothing to do with the number but more likely we had hit the block in the previous week and after a week of it rolling around in our heads reflecting we had come into the space and they just rolled straight out into the space and worked for us..

Since beginning we have had two members drop out. The first was only after a couple of weeks and due to life’s pressures; this brought the group down from five to four. The second only occurred a few weeks ago due to a family crisis. It’s difficult to think if these events changed the group’s dynamics but I’m certain they would have to some degree. The reason the first was not very significant was that it was at the start of the process before anything had really even been started on the floor. Nothing was locked in, nothing was set we were just playing and seeing where it would take us. The major concern was if we would want another person or just go on with four. We decided to go with four and it has worked out very well. The second person dropping out was at a pivotal moment in the process but also a moment that did end up working out for a new person to step in and take her spot. We introduced the new actor at the moment after we had received some feedback from both marketing and other Deakin staff. From here we just walked the new actor through the piece and then set about tightening and fixing what needed to be. The new actor has slotted in very well and it has been good to get her opinion of the piece from a new perspective as well.

Working with people that are not overzealous or precious about their creative ideas was such a positive for the group and the process. The reason although I can only speculate is that I felt that all the ensemble were generally flexible, open, reflective, constructive and enthusiastic. This created a positive environment that contributed to everyone being comfortable with their ideas and themselves in the space so that play could take place. This play was what would generally lead to material being generated even if in the long run it wasn’t kept in. It will be great to be able to continue to work with one of the original ensemble and the actor who has come in at the last minute to save us. I also hope that I can foster the same positive atmosphere in the future that was so beneficial for the ensemble this time round.