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.

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.