Final Post-I need to eat too!

As a whole, I had a lot of issues surrounding the distinction between performance and theatre. I have found that I’m this weird pseudo-traditionalist yet an experimental fiend all at the same time.  I have no qualms with accepting the idea that everything we have discussed is performance, but in my mind most “performances” are not theatre and it is frustrating when something that, in my mind, clearly is not theatre is just thrown into the theatre category because no one knows where else to put it.  An example of what I mean, even though I have a huge soft spot for Boal, is Invisible Theatre.  My only qualm is that they don’t do something like bow and then run off or tell the spect-actors after the fact that it was a performance when it’s over.  There needs to be some mutual exchange or knowledge that theatre is happening for it to be theatre, in my head.  And I know this sounds ridiculous but it really bothers me.  It has everything that satisfies my inner traditionalist like a texted core, a clear concept and reasoning behind it, and rehearsed actors and it satisfies my experimental side by leaving so much in the air about the spect-actors reactions and doing it in non-traditional spaces because that’s awesome and exciting.  However, since the audience never knows that they are the protagonists and the audience all at the same time the whole concept is lost on me.  I think it honestly makes me sad for selfish reasons more than anything else.  This is the sort of theatre that I would like to do.  But the way it’s set up makes it impossible to be able to do it for a living and leads to me having no career. It’s upsetting that this is the way we have to let our art resonate.  Artists need basic necessities like food and places to sleep too.  Why can’t we be compensated for our hard work and still be effective? So since there is no recognition between the audience and performers I can’t call it in good conscience theatre. I'm unfortunately still struggling with my apparently limited opinion on what theatre is but, I'm hoping I will find peace with it once I'm forced to think out of the box more because I can't afford groceries anymore.  

Blog 11--Her: A Love Story by Spike Jonze

When my group was working on our experiment this week, we discussed the movie Her a lot and how the uncanny is very much present within it.  Now some may disagree, but regardless, whether it was intentional or not is of course left to the individual viewer. Personally I think the uncanny was intentionally placed in it, yes it was a “love story” because Spike Jonze literally calls it “Her” a love story by Spike Jonze, by the other major theme of it is-is what Theodore and Samantha (the ios system) had actually love?   I decided for my self that it wasn’t love, because she can’t have feelings, even though it felt like at times she did—I maintained that distance and didn’t by into it (Not that I didn’t enjoy the movie, I loved it and it was flawless).    I think I didn’t by into it because the un-comfort-ability of the thought of something like that actually happening was not something I could actually believe.  It was too out thee and off-putting.  It was uncanny, and kind of scary that in a couple of decades that could be a reality.  People dating computer systems as those computer systems are simultaneously dating hundreds of thousands of other humans.  I think a feeling of uncanny could be a valuable sensibility for artists to develop because I think the uncanny forces us to see things or feel things that shake us out of our sometimes mundane day to day lives and that sense off-ness can lead to a lot of inspiration of how to interpret old things in new ways and could lead to greater creativity and discovery.  Any jolt for the usual can teach us something depending upon how keenly aware we are with the change. 

Blog 10 Empathy

According to Ghandi, “If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. … We need not wait to see what others do.” In short Ghandi is saying that we, as individuals, need to live the way we would like others to live in order to make a shift, over time.  I personally would need to abandon cynicism, narcissism, and apathy in my daily life in hopes that through example, my attitude would adjust the attitudes of those around me and so forth. Now, I don’t think that this means that theatre can’t be the answer in adding combating issues of oppressors vs. the oppressed, but I think that there is too big of a separation from theatre to humans on an individual level.  By it’s nature, even though invisible theatre isn’t “theatre”, but “real life” to the unbeknownst audience, theatre is still strangers trying to connect to or enact a change or thought in other strangers.  I think theatre can be powerful in creating a sense of connection from human to human, but a connection as strong as one needed to really bring out that sort of drastic change on an individual level is something theatre can’t do, but only probe at.  I’m not sure what the final answer is or if there even is an answer to make that sort of change.  But I do think theatre can aid in creating empathy and in taking steps to making this shift. 

            As to if those who can take theater seriously are only those already interested in making a change, I don’t think that’s true.  I think that theatre can be taken seriously by anyone.  I don’t think it will necessarily change a radical’s mind, but I think that depending on tact, subject matter, and timing it can cause a shift in any person, as to if it is a desired shift may be debatable.  People do have to be willing and open to change for one to happen, and no matter what is done, enforcing views down someone’s throat is ineffective. In' my ideal world theatre would be able to pull that much wight in making the world a better place, but alas.  

Blog 9 Activism

This is a bit of a nation and even world wide issue of social importance more so than a community importance but regardless I am very much against the death penalty, which is very controversial among many, but it’ something I feel very strongly about.  I don’t think it is ever ok for the government to decide when someone’s life should simply be ended due to his or her misdeeds.  As an act of protest I would probably make a film about the inmates’ lives leading up to their death.  I would create a connection with them through interviews with them personally and their families and friends and the event that condemned them.  I would highlight the humanity in the inmate and reveal the chance for forgiveness and hope in them even if it’s just a sliver and I would show to anyone willing to watch.  I think that the media could definitely be advantageous.  The more media the more circulation my film would get.  I only have so many resources so as much coverage it could get would be ideal to allow more eyes to see it and hopefully more hearts turned to compassion rather than condemnation. 

I think my protest will be over after the completed project is seen for the first time by someone who had no part in helping me make it, regardless if it was an effective video that purges my desired to turn someone towards compassion or not.

Blog #8 Time

Time and Pace reinforces the reality effect of the types of theatre we have discussed this week because it allows the audience to experience the experiences that the performers are experiencing at the same time.  If the audience has been in the theatre watching a performance for 20 minutes, it has only been 20 minutes that has elapsed on stage as well rather than a “normal show” in which sometimes months or years could elapse on stage within only 20 minutes, depending on the show.  It creates a stronger sense of reality between the performer and audience. The audience buys into it more, thinking it is more “real” because time is operating under the same rules in the show as it does in their normal reality.  For example, in Forced Entertainment’s durational Quizoola, after a while the performers’ answers to the questions became less creative and it was obvious that they were getting tired due to the exhaustion of having to be on point for so long—this created a sense of uncertainty in spectators because it was no longer easy to tell what was a fabricated response as opposed to what their responses would actually be if they weren’t in this performative setting.  The link to reality seemingly got closer and closer as the timing and pacing burden affected the performers and the audience.  It didn’t feel like any sort of performance anymore.  It was reality. Or was it?

The first thing that popped into my head was this video I saw a couple of months ago in which a girl took a picture of herself everyday for 6 1/2 years and compiled it into a video.  The photos are technically in real time because they are taken a day apart but the pace at which we see them in is obviously accelerated to mark her development.  I think this is a nice example of achieving the real time goal.  We are limited by only seeing one snap shot of her every 24 hours, but it allows us to be able to go through the motions of her essentially going through puberty—We are still taken on that 6 1/2 year journey. Through a period of the video she was also going through depression and when watching it, the audience can almost go through the motions and see her battle with it.  It’s fascinating to watch.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRvk5UQY1Js

Blog 7 Space and Fancy New York Homes

I would totally take Neil Simon’s Rumors and put it in an actual fancy house in New York.  Essentially, I would have each couple be sort of a leader for a track, so there would be 4 tracks one per couple and depending on the ticket you have you follow that couple you picked.  The audience would only be able to see the folding of events from that couple’s perspective, because the other couples’ side conversations would be told to a completely different group of people.  The farcical chaos would ensue even more because I would also have some local focus utilized.  For example, I would have Claire pull someone aside in another room when Mailee the maid calls and have that actor get the audience member to help her make up an excuse for Myra and Charlie being gone and so forth.  It would be pretty funny and in the end I would like that when the officers do come in for questioning that all the groups meet up and actually concluded the show in the living room.  

I think that this framework can definitely serve this script and be successful, if it’s not directed by me.  I think that fact that it’s farcical and already is meant to confuse the audience and have them jolted out of being able to keep track of everything as is could work really well.  The play sort of center’s around each different couple’s drama and rumors and they all come to the party at different intervals so I think that following any particular couple’s story could be kind of fun and exciting.     At the same time though, I think that it could also be a dis-service to the script.  The holistic piece is fast paced and dependent on the comedic rhythm for it to be successful, the show could be clocked at an exact time every night because of it’s flow and I think that messing with that could very much tarnish the energetic spark it requires for audiences to be able to enjoy it.   Personally, I would love to see an experimental theatre version of it, but only because I love and know that play.  I would honestly be upset if some one saw an experimental version of it without having ever seen it how it was originally written.  That would be a travesty.  The audience would miss out on all the funnies. 

As for Kantor’s quote, I disagree.  Maybe I’m taking his quote to literally, but “anything” is always happening, it’s constant and undefined so regardless if your believing in something happening or not, it’s happening and it can’t be stopped or controlled.  It just does.  So if something happens, of course you would unquestionably believe in it.  If someone randomly pulls out a taco in front of me and eats it, that just happened.  I didn’t prompt that and of course I unquestionably believe in that because I’m a stable human being with sensory abilities.  In addition, if I’m an audience member, often if I really want to go see a show that looks interesting to me, the chances are that I have read the script and I full expect to know what will happen in front of me and if something is going on stage in front of me and in my mind I consider it “good” and accept it (which Is what I’m expecting if I know I like the show) then my neurons of connection to the piece are firing and that drama is being materialized within and before me.  I see where Kantor is coming from, but I think that it’s a very limiting view, though I would assume that he may think that my view is limiting as well.