The Most Horrific- Evaluation

Overall I thought our performance went well, not noticing any mistakes apart from a few little stumbles of lines due to nerves caused by our want to do well and portray the play's message clearly. 

I thought the staging worked well as, according to an audience member, "the divide was good because it clearly displayed the apathy of the media, showing how it takes a lot to get the truth noticed and representing what society has become". I agree with this believing that it aided the audiences understanding showing a physical divide as well as the behavioural divide between the conflicting characters which may not have been so clear with just our different movements. I believe this because both groups found it difficult maintaining high energy throughout meaning that it was had to distinguish between the two as they were no longer working at level 7s for their objectives (A&B's being to look disinterested, whereas C&D's was to get attention).

However as C&Ds were trying to get the others attention and the divide was down the middle of the stage, the majority of the piece was directed towards the other actors instead of the audience. As there was a lot of them it also meant that they blocked off some of the audiences view and due to their hectic actions some of the dialogue was lost and acting missed. Next time I would create a large gap between the two groups and make sure that only a few performers can move in front of the white board as this too was sometimes blocked from sight. A larger gap would help the C&Ds to spread out more too, because I felt that most of the time they were using the front of the box. 

In rehearsals we noticed that when it was A&Bs cue to leave, far too many people went to leave as though keen to get off stage, which looked bad because there was still a lot of C-D dialogue left. With too many people leaving the scene then became dull and the audience would've lost attention so in the actual performance I thought that it looked with a more staggered exit because it really helped to build up the others desperation, enforcing our message that there is a need to express the topics that the media avoids.    

I thought that I did well at trying to project and speak with clarity because in this piece I felt as though every word needs to be heard, as, in my opinion, this is the most important way the play portrays its message about the apathy of today's media. I tried to vary my tone of voice as well because although being an A meant I had to sound bored/lazy/uninterested I couldn't let my voice become these things and cause the audience to disengage. This meant that by changing the tone of my voice I could still make it sound as though I was bored but it was still interesting for the audience. 

On the other hand I did struggle to come up with different actions to occupy myself with as I instantly found myself reverting to naturalistic tendencies. I found it difficult to find an array of exaggerated movements that wouldn't be over used and then becoming boring for the audience so if I performed it again I think I might pre-plan more movements and this might also help me to make them more over the top, enforcing the idea that these characters cannot be relatable, merely just pawns in the story. 

Devising our piece we'd made sure to include different Brechtian ideas. We began by looking at the Verfremdungseffekt, otherwise known as the V-Effect, which focuses on distancing the audience from the characters and story to avoid them forming any emotional attachments and instead helping them to focus on the topics being discussed. The topics included in 'The Most Horrific' are pinnacle to the play so we felt we needed to distance the audience by exaggerating the physicality and voices of both the As&Bs and Cs&Ds. Everything had to be performed at a level 7, which meant for me, as well as the other A&Bs, level 1 was interested and 10 was disinterested. Therefore level 7 we had to behave rather blasé so we showed this through exaggerated slouched or hunched positions and very relaxed voices. However it was difficult to maintain because by pretending to be bored it is incredibly easy to actually become bored and consequently lose focus, draining energy from the piece and sometimes causing actors to miss cues. 

I felt as though in both performances though, we did manage to keep a focus, especially bouncing off the energy and reactions our first audience gave us. Whether their lively reaction could be blamed on the fact that they're our classmates and found it amusing that half our class was lounging about performing with terribly exaggerated snobbish accents, I'd say it definitely boosted our confidence to perform later.  
This distancing was also helped as no characters had names, so they were therefore unable to connect with the characters and could then become emotionally detached as they were un-relatable, allowing spectators to have sole focus on the topics. 

There were also moments of gestus as we presented the relationship between the two groups through their contrasting behaviours performed by the actors. A&Bs lazy posture compared to the C&Ds upright more lively movement meant that there was a clear contrast between the two and whereas levels are often used to symbolise status, with those higher seeming to have more power, we flipped this on its head having the superior A&Bs sitting.  

I thought Rhianne performed really well in both productions, making sure she kept up her energy, portraying her role at a clear level 7 throughout. I also felt she did this consistently, not once disengaging from the action going on around her. However I did feel as though her high energy led to her words running a little too fast, causing some lines to become mumbled and the diction dropping. Therefore those who didn't know the play might not have heard or understood what was being said, although for most of her lines she managed to avoid it, mainly getting to excited whilst saying the lines about the Ugandan lesbian at Yarlswood.  

The Most Horrific Rehearsals

3rd December 2014

From this rehearsal there were strong moments of gestus (a Brechtian technique which helps to show the relationship between characters). This was done as we portrayed the As & Bs looking down on those being Cs & Ds, which we showed by having them interrupting, talking over or turning away from the Cs & Ds. I think this clearly showed how As & Bs thought they were superior, not giving the others the common decency to listen to what they were saying and this emphasised, what I believe is, the plays point, suggesting that the media don't listen to news unless it is glamorised with dramatic climaxes, celebrities and/or sex.
I also thought it was good that the play's characters don't have any names because this means the audience doesn't connect with the characters, distancing them and making sure they focus more on the topics being addressed. With no names it can help to symbolise whole groups of people that share the opinions of the characters in real life, for example the group of As & Bs implying they're the media.
The divide between the two types of characters (those wanting to glamorise the news and those trying to tell it all) worked really well in my opinion because not only is there a physical split where the two types are on either side of the room, it is also portrayed through body language. The As & Bs all remain in a rather lazy position, slouched in chairs, backs facing away from whoever is talking, where as the Cs & Ds are more energetic and upright, with there attentions focused on the reaction of As & Bs. However we also show them as submissive which is, again, helped by moments of gestus as they scurry about fetching things for the others, as well as having to wait the others to be silent before resuming speaking.
We use a white board in the piece, to highlight key words and phrases from what's been said which I feel works similar to Brecht's idea of using placards.

I felt that As & Bs, however, needed to maintain more focus to appear disinterested because otherwise we might miss cues for group movements or the energy could lull, causing the audience to become bored. I felt that after a while we also ran out of things to do do appear uninterested which led to As & Bs becoming slightly bored with what we were doing, so I think in the next rehearsal I will (as well as others) come up with conversations to quietly have with each other and different actions that are possibly planned because this might maintain peoples focus better as we wait for it to happen. 
In the next rehearsal I think this improved focus will help to make group transitions slick, making it more aesthetically pleasing. It will aid peoples cues and give the piece a better sense of pace, keeping the audience more engaged and therefore more likely to listen/understand the point the play is trying to put across. 

I feel as though we could incorporate more placards into the short scenes at the beginning because I think it will help the audience to have a clearer understanding of the topics, allowing them to then form a more justified opinion. The placards will also help to distance the audience further because they are something that's used in naturalism and therefore the audience is less likely to relate or sympathise with the characters, allowing them to focus mainly on the issue at hand. 

Exhibit B Censorship- The Debate: For

Jo Daly Executive Assistant to Sir Nicholas Kenyon (Barbican) Sir Nicholas Kenyon

"It has been brought to our attention by the Guardian newspaper on the 11th August "Edinburgh's most controversial Show Exhibt B- The Human Show", that the Third World Bunfight/ artist Brett Bailey's Exhibit B, is due to be shown in the multi-cultural city of London from the 23rd-27th September at the Barbican. We wish to register our utmost disgust at what we consider to be an outrageous act of complicit racism with the Barbican agreeing to the housing and display of this production. White South African Brett Bailey claims his human zoo vanity project is “art”; just how are we as Black African's supposed to respond to this? We think the response of several of the participants in his project is telling. This is simply an exercise in white racial privilege – if it isn’t, then perhaps Bailey can explain why he didn’t use white people in his zoo. After all, wouldn’t him doing so be both more striking and send a clearer message? The attempt to justify it, as Brett Bailey says, on the basis that it is ‘challenging’ and that “I’m creating a journey that’s embracing and immersive, in which you can be delighted and disturbed, but I’d like you to be disturbed more than anything.” is nothing more than that of a racist white man taking the opportunity given to him on the platform that the Barbican is providing to repaint a picture that puts Black African people back into a space which we are superficially encouraged to believe we have been ‘freed’ from. We as Black African people, do not need to be reminded or re-brainwashed into thinking we are less than. To camouflage this assault behind the mask of a ‘respectable’ institution such as the Barbican is tantamount to mental terrorism. What Bailey and his ilk (disturbingly many of whom are black) are doing is cynically courting attention to generate attention, thus sales. And they are using black bodies and the bloody history of white supremacism to do so. None of these artists would dare confront, say, Muslims or Jews in this way, because they know the potential ramifications for them. But it seems Black African people, continue to remain fair game, just as we have been for centuries. We would argue that The Barbican, by default, agrees with Brett Baileys statement; 'What interests me about ¬human zoos is the way people were objectified. Once you objectify people, you can do the most terrible things to them’. The likes of Bailey and his apologists need to think about how it would feel if they had their ancestors and relatives caged in the name of art. Failing this, they should always expect to be seen and shown for what they are: smug, privileged cynics, exploiting Black African lives and history. This is a statement of fact and when couched in the comfort of the Guardian newspaper it suggests intellectual validity however the rhetoric falls apart when it appears only Black African people can be occupiers of human zoos when in fact as another human, Sir Nicholas Kenyon, you should experience directly what it means to be in these human zoos. For this piece to be truly 'challenging and disturbing” to those who originated and perpetrated these atrocities should be subjects in these human zoos, but that will not happen as it is all too evident that a white supremacist mind-set has come into play here. We are deeply offended yet not surprised that the colonialism this piece purports to expose does nothing more than reinforce how effective it was and remains as a caging instrument of white supremacists. We charge the Barbican with exhibiting institutional racism for agreeing to stage this poison. We demand you reconsider your decision and choice of material and withdraw it from the programme. If you do not withdraw this exhibition from your programme we intend to protest outside the Barbican on the 23rd September 2014."

Read more at: 

 https://www.change.org/p/withdraw-the-racist-exhibition-exhibition-b-the-human-zoo

Now in Paris- 
http://www.france24.com/en/20141119-human-zoo-exhibition-comes-paris-amid-racism-row-france-art/
http://news.artnet.com/in-brief/protests-turn-violent-over-controversial-exhibit-b-performance-in-paris-184990

Exhibit B Censorship- The Debate: Against

Stella Odunlami, artistI chose to take part in Exhibit B because I was inspired by the premise of the work. I was to play the role of Found Object Number 2, a 25-year-old Nigerian asylum seeker. At my audition, director Brett Bailey clearly set out his intentions, explaining how the piece was a damning critique of the horrors of the systematic dehumanisation of a people that occurred throughout the era of the European empires; and the far-reaching effects that continue to haunt us. I knew immediately that it was an important production. 

Those against the work claim it is simply another exploitation of the narrative of the black community that desecrates the memory of our ancestors. This simply is not true. It honours them, restoring humanity to the faceless, acknowledging the centuries of atrocities upon which Europe is built. It denies the spectator and the performer the luxury of hiding. It forces us to examine the darkest corners of our mind. It is brutal, unforgiving and unapologetic. I decided, as an educated black artist, that it told a story that should be shared with the world, but sadly that will no longer be the case. My freedom of expression was taken the moment the protesters decided to attempt to storm the venue, causing it to be evacuated and deemed unsafe. It was at that moment that the protesters retained their right to free speech and I had mine taken away.

From the Edinburgh production

Exhibit B lies somewhere between performance and exhibition. 13tableau vivant installations featuring black performers look at the themes of racism, 'othering' and the colonial history of Europe in Africa.

This deeply moving work, researched and created by South African artist Brett Bailey, gazes into the hidden Curiosity Cabinets of European racism. It focuses on the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when Europe's powers scrambled for Africa's rich resources, and the continent's scientists formulated the pseudo-scientific racial theories that continue to warp perceptions, with horrific consequences.

Drawing on the 'human zoos' and ethnographic displays so popular during this period, this site-specific exhibit places Africans and African asylum-seekers in display cases, unpacking the histories, and turning the gaze back on Europeans.

"terrible and magnificent...should run for several months so that all government ministers and scholars can attend" - Le Soir

http://www.eif.co.uk/2014/exhibitb#.VHzlddKsWSo

Exhibit B Censorship- The Debate

The debate offers a platform to air your own political views on whether this kind of Live Art performance (using live people to replicate and show the horrors of what happened as parts of racial prejudice) should look address such provocative subjects. However, on the other hand it proposes the other idea that should this kind of work be allowed to be censored, although our country claims to have freedom of speech. 

Questions:

• Is Exhibit B racist?
• Should the show have been cancelled?
• Freedom of Expression?

Synopsis -
Exhibit B critiques the ‘human zoos’ and ethnographic displays that showed Africans as objects of scientific curiosity through the 19th and early 20th centuries. Translated here into twelve tableaux, each features motionless performers placed in settings drawn from real life. Collectively they confront colonial atrocities committed in Africa, European notions of racial supremacy and the plight of immigrants today. 
As spectators walk past the exhibits one-by-one, to the sound of lamentations sung live by a Namibian choir, a human gaze is unexpectedly returned.

My Opinion
I believe that the show should've been aired because the show wasn't trying to make a human zoo, which can be seen as racist, it was trying to give the impression of one to imply the horrid events that occurred in our not that long ago past. I got the impression that a lot of the anger towards the show was the fact that a white creator, Brett Bailey, was using black actors which some people felt was rebuilding the divide between the races, some white people feeling guilty for something past generations did and visa versa with causing anger within some black people.
The anger towards Brett Bailey being white and creating a show like this, makes me annoyed as people were suggesting that just because he's white he can't understand the prejudice that faced/face blacks which in my opinion is untrue as although white people may not be able to empathise, they can sympathise and want to help show the racism to make sure it never occurs again.

I felt that this show should've shown in London, especially due to London's extensive diversity,  because it is merely used as a tool to highlight what should never repeat, not trying to be racist but stop it from happening.


Both sides of the debate-
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/27/is-art-installation-exhibit-b-racist

Not/But

"Not/But" is a Brectian acting technique where actors will perform a scene, firstly the way it is written but then show it again ( with alternative outcomes, in order to make the audience think about what the outcome could've been if the characters had made those different choices and suggesting there are other options so that the audience starts to question why the character chose to do what they did. It also suggests and replicates that in life that there is never only one option.

In class we looked at The Caucasian Chalk Circle, a scene where the Governor's Wife is told a Mob surrounds her home and she grabs all her jewellery before abandoning her son. We had some people to act this out first as how it is written but then we then suggested other options the Wife could've taken.
For example: 

• Taking her child
• Staying to fight
• Letting her child escape

Doing the scene TJ, as the Wife, broke the fourth wall, directly addressing the audience as she weighed up what she should do next. I felt this was a clear way to show how the character had alternate choice because the different options were clearly voiced, causing the audience to question why the Wife chose to save her jewels, suggesting how her love of material goods out weighed her maternal love.
He then also chose to repeat the scene, although showing a different outcome to before, to physically show how there was other options, which I felt gave the spectators a glimpse into what they'd like to see her do, before the scene reverted back to what is mentioned in the text, when we see the her true colours. 

I found this idea was very helpful to make audiences question characters motives behind what they do, asking them to think about why the character chose to do what they did and not the another option. It gives an insight into the character's true self, comparing them with different versions of them self which are a contrast to what the text suggests.
However it can also help audiences understand why a character might chose a certain option, as they can compare alternatives and are able to see which best suits the character.

Research: Guantanamo Force Feeding

Detainees held in the United States' Guantanamo Bay detention camps have initiated both individual and widespread hunger strikes at Guantánamo Bay, and camp medical authorities have initiated force-feeding programs.

In 2005, Captain John Edmonson, who was then Naval Base's chief medical officer, asserted that force feeding was a last resort, used only when counseling failed, and when the detainee's body mass index fell below the healthy range. According to Edmonson detainees normally cooperated, and restraints were unnecessary. According to Edmonson detainees were normally only given 1500 Calories per day.

The UN Human Rights Commission said it regards force-feeding at Guantanamo as a form of torture and the World Medical Association specifically prohibited force-feeding in its Declaration of Tokyo.

Articles about the force feeding:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_force_feeding

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/07/guantanamo-olive-oil-force-feedings-astonishing-doctor-court

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/08/us-legal-challenge-guantanamo-force-feeding

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/guantanamo-bay-detainee-force-feeding-case-continues/2014/10/07/04544bb2-4e52-11e4-aa5e-7153e466a02d_story.html

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/03/guantanamo-force-feeding-videos-released ... (include video of US actor and rapper Yasiin Bey, formerly known as Mos Def, recreating a force-feeding scenario) 
-Having watched this video, I feel as though this, so called, force-feeding is a form of torture which should not be used on anyone as there are other means of getting fasting detainees the correct nutrients that they need to survive. There are more humane ways to treat them, allowing them to maintain some dignity. By putting people through this kind of torture, which has both physical and mental effects on the victim, it will cause them to build a greater resentment towards those inflicting it, with blame falling on US leaders and finally the West, therefore discouraging them from complying with demands for information. However, I'm not condoning the behaviour of the detainees if they are involved with terror groups and plots, agreeing that they should be punished. Although the way in which they are treated is not acceptable because it will fuel their lack of cooperation and possible future terror threats on Westerners (or maybe encouraging more uprisings in the middle east much like ISIS in Iraq and Syria), consequently harming/killing more innocent people as a result. 

Research: Yarl's wood Detention Centre

Claims about the centre:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/serco-faces-fresh-allegations-over-its-running-of-yarls-wood-detention-centre-9849243.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27906730

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/03/yarls-wood-immigration-removal-centre-death-family-detainees

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/14/detainees-yarls-wood-sexual-abuse

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/serco-facing-inquiry-over-claims-of-sexual-assaults-at-yarls-wood-detention-centre-9391631.html

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/clare-sambrook/truth-about-sexual-abuse-at-yarls-wood-detention-centre

Research: Ugandan Homophobia

The Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014 (previously called the "Kill the Gays bill" in the western mainstream media due to the originally proposed death penalty clauses)was passed by the Parliament of Uganda on 20 December 2013 with the death penalty proposal dropped in favour of life in prison. The bill was signed into law by the President of Uganda on 24 February 2014.

The legislative proposal would broaden the criminalisation of same-sex relations in Uganda domestically, and further includes provisions for Ugandans who engage in same-sex relations outside of Uganda, asserting that they may be extradited for punishment back to Uganda, and includes penalties for individuals, companies, media organisations, or non-governmental organisations that know of gay people or support LGBT rights.

The private member's bill was submitted by Member of Parliament David Bahati on 14 October 2009. Same-sex relationships are currently illegal in Uganda—as they are in many sub-Saharan African countries—punishable by incarceration in prison for up to 14 years. A special motion to introduce the legislation was passed a month after a two-day conference was held in which three American Christians asserted that homosexuality is a direct threat to the cohesion of African families. Several sources have noted endemic homophobia in Uganda has been exacerbated by the bill and the associated discussions about it.

On 1 August 2014, the Constitutional Court of Uganda ruled the law invalid.

Continued... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Act,_2014

In Uganda-

---http://www.newsweek.com/uganda-russia-homophobia-spreading-worldwide-230358

---http://www.huffingtonpost.com/logan-nakyanzi-pollard/whats-really-going-on-in-uganda_b_3406445.html

---http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/23/africa-homophobia-uganda-anti-gay-law

Research: Australian Detention Centre Suicide Attempts

Australian perspectives:
--- http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/asylum-seeker-mothers-on-christmas-island-attempt-suicide-in-bid-to-help-children-20140708-3bl0j.html 

---http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-24/triggs-self-harming-in-detention/5621706

International opinions:
---http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/24/call-to-process-asylum-families-onshore-after-human-rights-commission-visit

---http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1404885529&section=16&typecate=06

Political Protest Evaluation

“Protesting can topple governments, informs, illuminates, entertains and raises awareness and it's impossible to imagine life without it.”


My group, of Sophie, Willa, Chloe and I, chose our protest to highlight that victims of rape should not be blamed no matter what the circumstance are (primarily focusing on women).

"Women are not guilty for the violence committed by men on their body, mind and spirit". This first quote, had our group focus on the idea that no victim should be blamed for their rape and we chose to repeat it throughout the protest to enforce this opinion and reason for the piece.

We began by finding quotes about victim blaming, sourcing peoples ideas/opinions that suggest some people think sometimes its the girls fault, instead of the rapist, who we agreed was to blame and should take sole responsibility for the crime.
As we looked further into researching quotes we found ourselves becoming angry, which only made us more passionate about our cause. It encourages us to come up with the tag line, that each of us wore around our neck, "we are not asking for it". This enforced our idea that there are no excuses for rape.   

Examples of quotes found:

• “Some girls like to be raped.” - response of Israeli Judge Nissim Yeshaya in an appeal court ruling on the gang rape of a 13-year-old girl by four Palestinian boys.
• “She drank too much”- Hong Kong Security Secretary said 
• “Rape isn't always rape”- By Crimewatch presenter Nick Ross
• “Just let it happen, it’ll be over soon.”
• “She led me on.”
• “Boys will be boys.”
• “She was asking for it.”
• “She was walking alone.” 
• "If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

We had the idea to print out these quotes, taping them around our protest area as we relayed them to spectators in order to help people hear and react to the ideas that we felt they should oppose. By shouting these quotes we felt we could elicit a strong reaction from our audience as they couldn't escape what we were saying, unlike if they'd been able just to walk past the written quotes. Hopefully, we would get a small portion of that heard annoyed  by what was said, therefore encouraging them to evaluate their own opinions to victims of rape. 

It was important that we said the quotes aloud because it would make people realise that real people said these things and held theses opinions. However we also made sure to hang up the quotes so that people could read who said them and realise they were real opinions, or confirm what they'd heard us shouting if they'd previously misheard.  

My role in the protest was to relay the quotes to the audience, with the other girls. I was also (with Willa) dressed more conservatively in long trousers and a long sleeved top to contrast with Sophie and Chloe who had dressed in a more revealing fashion. With the the signs around our neck saying "we not asking for it", we were trying to imply that no girl should be raped and it shouldn't be excused if she is wearing something society suggests is not appropriate because she has "too much leg out" or "cleavage on show". Willa and I's dress code insisting that if we were raped it should be treated no different to if we were dressed similarly to the others.    

I felt that our protest was quite "in your face" as we came across quite abrupt shouting quotes, whereas some other group chose silent or lesser approaches to gain peoples attention. However in my opinion I thought this loud approach was better for us because, as well as being noisy in the foyer and needing to vie for attention, it helped people to hear and listen to what we were saying, drawing their attention. In some rape cases some victims are frightened to speak out in general, scared they may be blamed, so for us to protest about it I feel as though we should not take that same approach, needing a contrast and get our voices heard (both literally and mentally).

I felt that as a group, we worked very efficiently, having organised all that we needed ready for the day before our protest. Each of us had a set job to do, gathering the props (signs, speakers, music and posters) and we all knew what we were saying so that we could focus on the topic. This then enabled us to immerse our selves, delivering our protest passionately which then hopefully rubbed off on our audience and encouraged them to also become passionate about the subject.

I got the impression our protest had a good impact on spectators because I saw that a lot of people stopped to listen and few people asked us questions about the topic, challenging certain things we said. One boy asked what he could do to stop this kind victim blaming, which got me evaluating what we were trying to say. I realised that we wanted to highlight that people should not have these opinions and re-evaluate how they deal with victims of rape. If we managed to make one person change the way they deal with it, we'd have achieved what we wanted. 

We also had a couple of teachers that told us, in passing, they agreed with our idea that we shouldn't treat victims, giving me the impression that 

I thought one of our strengths was that we had a great deal of focus because we really wanted to do the topic justice. Having done lots of research on victim blaming and knowing our message, I felt that we became more passionate which meant we could immerse ourselves and let us truthfully portray the subject. This meant spectators were more likely to understand and accept what we were saying.

I also felt that as we were a group of girls it made the topic more relatable for those watching, because we're the most common group targeted with victim blaming. Although weren't suggesting that the male sex aren't targeted, we just wanted to highlight how it occurs more frequently to the female demographic. Also by having us saying the offending quotes meant it gave a nice contrast, as it would've shocked spectators to see ourselves being so derogatory to our own kind. I feel this worked to enforce that these statements/ideas are futile and stupid.

On the other hand our music was quiet and as we'd chosen the song "Blurred line" to purposely emphasise our point (due to popular belief it's about date rape), I thought that it was a shame it couldn't be heard. We'd also developed a chant that fit to certain parts of the music but as we couldn't hear it we then couldn't do it. I thought it was good that all made the silent decision to improvise around it, either not doing it or doing it when we felt appropriate, instead of every time how we'd originally planned. 

Protests as Theatre.

Theatre often focuses on making audiences think, with writers and producers focusing on hard hitting subjects in attempt to change people's opinions and affecting them to change.

Protests similarly focus on these subjects, often traditionally be based around petitions, marches, sit ins etc. However some theatrical performances can also be considered protests, focusing on the same subjects instead just using a different format. For example in a performance, actors might be able to physically show the effects and results of certain issues, allowing audiences to sympathise better with the cause than if they'd just heard/seen facts from chants and banners.

For theatre to occur there must be an audience, which is the same for a protest. If a protest has no audience, who will listen to what you are saying and consequently there would be no ability to change it.  

Questions asked:

What would society be like if expression was banned, suppressed or denied a platform?

Society would become ignorant to having their own opinions, indoctrinated by those in power to share similar views. Although a small minority may eventually revolt against the obstruction of expression, causing possible rebellion. 
If we couldn't express ourselves people would begin to resent the government, leading to rebellion or the need to change. There would be no variety and it would inhibit the opportunities to evolve and develop. Entertainment would cease to exist, with no platforms such as theatre, TV, film, music and art.Those growing up with ideas like this would lead to an ignorant generation and their lives would become dull and rather futile, with poor prospects of bettering themselves.

What gives us the right to discuss potentially upsetting topics? 

Freedom of speech within our society. Because our ancestors involvement in these movements, we must change what they did wrong, learning from our/society's previous mistakes.

Theatre/Art is a great opportunity to educate the masses and prevent future injustice and with the use of upsetting images, to make spectators think and react.

If it is truth, it deserves to be told. 

Gestus

Gestus is an acting technique created by Bertolt Brecht, which combines gestures and attitudes to help explore relationships between characters or how they are feeling. 

Actors must adopt generic actions in order for audiences to clearly understand what is trying to be shown, making it easier to assume their relationship. They then add attitude to the actions, giving more depth to the character and story, also provoking audiences into having an opinion towards it. I feel as though the actions can also be used to clarify a character's thoughts or parts of the story, letting actors easily deliver their desired message. 

It is a simple, yet effective, technique because it tells a lot about a character. We saw this when Josh and Ivory played out the relationship between a servant and the master. With Ivory seated, back straight and nose turned up, we immediately got the impression of her power. Although paired with a beckoning gesture and head turning away, with Josh's slumped character's hurried arrival, I felt as though this added more insight, allowing me (as an on looker) to assume that Ivory felt as though she was superior to Josh - not giving him the courtesy to look at his face- and with his rushed response representing how he believed he was inferior, letting me infer that he'd maybe grown up in a prejudice society towards the class system, Josh's character possibly been indoctrinated. 


A quote that I seem is fitting to Gestus is:

"Actions speak louder than words." 

I believe gestus tries to let the audience think for themselves, allowing them to come to their own conclusions and having a greater impacts, being more powerful than audience members being force-fed what they should believe and agree with. Which is what I think Brecht wanted when he introduced the idea, relying on the gestures and attitudes to convey parts of the story/character. It also shows how words aren't always needed, suggesting it is often better to be simplistic. 

In this picture we can clearly see the social classes of the men just by the fact that the two taller men look down on the lower to suggest their higher class.

First notes on "The Most Horrific"

It is produced by a company called Theatre Uncut which responds to political issues in hopes to evoke change. Working with a group of playwrights this year they explored the idea:
"Knowledge is power, knowledge is change."

The play is written by Vivienne Franzmann, who's first play was Mogadishu which was based on racism. She then later wrote "The Witness", with themes focused around a war photographer.  

My first notes on the play:

• A & B focused heavily on the child abuse scandal, maybe Rolf Harris
• D addresses many of the worlds issues, eg. racism, human rights...
• shows peoples ignorance as A & B stop listening
• with A & B zoning out, it maybe suggests they only listen to what excites them or is glamorised by sex and celebrities (which is highlighted by C trying to get D to change the stories)
• emphasises how the west doesn't listen/doesn't want to listen
• deals wit the issues quite humorously
• A & B copy what each other are saying to show their reluctance to stand out and have own opinions
• the mentioning of glamorising stories with celebrities suggests how the media relies on entertainment instead of knowledge  

Introduction to Political theatre

Bertolt Brecht is the key practitioner for Political theatre. 

Born in 1898 and dying in 1956, he lived most of his life in Germany before fleeing to the USA when Hitler became chancellor due to his communist beliefs. He worked, during The Great War, as a medical orderly, helping in military hospitals and witnessing the horrific injuries and the death caused by it. This then encouraged him to become a life long pacifist and influenced much of his works.  

Brecht created the idea of the Verfermdungseffekt, also known as the V effect, distancing or defamiliarisation. This is the idea that the audience must not forget they are watching a play and therefore not becoming attached to characters by swapping the actors in and out of scenes to make a point, meaning that they can then focus on the message of the play. He would encourage the actors on stage to wear placards and announce their stage directions to remind audiences that they were watching a play. Brecht also felt as though audiences should focus on the reason why events in the play happened instead of the final result, often telling an audience what happens at the end so they can do so. 

A quote explaining another idea of the effect is: 

The artist never acts as if there were a fourth wall besides the three surrounding him. He expresses his awareness of being watched. The audience can no longer have the illusion of being the unseen spectator at an event which is really taking place. - Willet

He also thought that, unlike Stanislavski, characters should be created from the outside-in, therefore looking at their physicality and seeing how that represents certain characters. In class we looked at this when Simon told us to pretend there was a piece of string pulling out our noses and bottoms. Observing Euan with his bottom out, it gave him a bent over, hunched look which we said made him look as though maybe throughout his life he worked in manual labour, maybe something that required heavy lifting. From the simple change, we had quickly come up with a reason and part of the character's story, showing what Brecht had wanted, developing character through physical movement and appearance instead of extensive research and our own experiences like Stanislavsky.

We then looked our own opinions of what we wanted to change in the world, with Will sparking off the debate that our generation was too apathetic to actually change anything. This was done to encourage our own political views and to get us to start thinking about means of protesting that would be affective to get those views across. 

I personally agreed with the statement due to our overwhelming use of technology that distracts us and our want to keep the comfortable live that we lead without any risk of danger. I thought that technology has become a distraction for us so we can avoid and ignore these big problems because that it the simplest option.

We had the idea that you could hold a protest by becoming a physical barrier for others (us partaking in something apathetic) to express how this apathy is hindering them from their lives and actually doing something worth while. I thought this was an effective idea because by actually making people get annoyed of your hindrance the would actually begin to notice our cause. This seemed to be affective when we trialled it in the reception as lots of people started to get annoyed before realising it was a protest and asking what it was about.