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.