Evaluation of Performance
In the performance I only have one line; "6 million Jews wasn't enough he should have killed more". I didn't have much of a character to try and embody, I was just a girl on Take Me Out hoping to get a hot date. This made me frustrated as to how to go about performing and in the end I admit that I feel like I lacked a lot of the energy required for our performance. I was very much out of my comfort zone as our piece was improvised and required some dancing, both of which are not my strong points and I have a great lack of confidence in which I am trying to overcome, and therefore felt very self-conscious which I think added to my lack of energy. What I was surprised at was, although marginally, my performance in front of my peers was better I felt than the final performance. I think it surprised me because I was worried about looking stupid in front of them and when I saw my friends in the audience encouraging me I realized I didn't actually care how stupid I looked. Due to my lack of character though I felt like I didn't have much character work to do, again this was frustrating. I felt I could have done much better but I lacked the confidence to put forward my ideas or partake in a role that involved more characterization. This is something I know I need to work on and will try my hardest to break through in the future. My performance in the final performance was not as good because my confidence sunk again and I felt very self-conscious. I know this is a problem and hopefully as the year goes on and I feel more comfortable in the school and in front of my peers I will gradually start to loosen up and allow myself to look as stupid as I want to.
Altogether I feel my group's performance was good. I think it was quite eccentric and out there which is what we were aiming for. It certainly was shocking. For instance one of the lines was:
Adolf Hitler: (to Esme playing a potential date) I have some industrial sized ovens, what would you put in them?
Esme: I would put the homosexuals in them, I can't stand them.
Hitler: Yes good choice good choice.
This shocked our audiences both times round as it was so out there.
I think I was surprised that our performance went as well as it did because I had no idea what the reaction would be like. My personal favourite performance was given by Safia. I felt she stayed true to the Brechtian techniques as she played a character that was very eccentric and stereotypical and she interacted with the audience. My favourite piece was the one with Jacky, Devon, Maya (who filled in for Hana) and Shyanne. I felt they embraced the Brechtian techniques and it was shocking as well as funny.
Thursday, 12 December 2013
Wednesday, 11 December 2013
Performance
We felt that we wanted to provoke our audience and to be true to the Brechtain ideals we know to be of importance to us. In order to do this we needed to play with the audiences specific reaction to certain characters that invoke extreme reactions. In Brechtain terms context is all - in other words the importance lies not just in the characters that you place but also the situation in which you place them. Following the idea of Gestus, if you place a strong character in a completely unexpected situation the effect on an audience can be alienating, but also incredibly powerful and provoking as well. One of our characters was Hitler. Now if Hitler is placed in an environment that you expect to see him in, ie surrounded by members of The Third Reich or giving a speech to the Hitler Youth, the impact is strong but not unexpected. However if a powerful character like Hitler is placed in a totally different situation, like for instance in a dating game like take me out the effect can hopefully be at once disorientating, funny and provocative. If you take another character like Anne Frank whose context one would expect to be with her Jewish family hiding in the family loft hiding from the Nazis and place her in a dating game too, this effect would also be intriguing. Yet if then you put the characters of Hitler and Anne Frank together, as we did at the end of our piece this would dramatically create the contradictory and powerful feelings that Brecht created so successfully with his audiences.
The other huge advantage of using characters such as Hitler and Anne Frank, is that you create a political dialogue within the piece that you can use to deliberately provoke an audience. We attempted to play with the audiences universal attitude towards one character, in this case being the character of Hitler. The context in which we placed him, that of a dating game also provokes a specific response in the audience. Finally the character of Anne Frank can be seen to provoke a universal response from an audience. So, we have a character everyone despises (Hitler), a character everyone sympathies with (Anne Frank), two characters who are also from history, and we placed them in a modern context in a situation everyone recognizes. The audience would naturally expect the hated character to behave in a certain way and to receive his comeuppance. The audience would also expect the heroine to be seen in an entirely positive light. The fact that at the end of the piece the two characters go off together to enjoy their "date" hopefully provokes a plethora of responses. For instance the situation could be seen as funny yet at the same time the audience could almost feel angry that Anne Frank behaved sympathetically towards her historical tormentor. Equally Hitler's behavior could be seen to be surprising and frustrating - we want our villains to behave villainous and not to gain the sympathy of an audience. Or do we? Whatever the response the situation can be seen to be truly dramatic, and the variety of emotions invoked by the action is what drama is all about.
We felt that we wanted to provoke our audience and to be true to the Brechtain ideals we know to be of importance to us. In order to do this we needed to play with the audiences specific reaction to certain characters that invoke extreme reactions. In Brechtain terms context is all - in other words the importance lies not just in the characters that you place but also the situation in which you place them. Following the idea of Gestus, if you place a strong character in a completely unexpected situation the effect on an audience can be alienating, but also incredibly powerful and provoking as well. One of our characters was Hitler. Now if Hitler is placed in an environment that you expect to see him in, ie surrounded by members of The Third Reich or giving a speech to the Hitler Youth, the impact is strong but not unexpected. However if a powerful character like Hitler is placed in a totally different situation, like for instance in a dating game like take me out the effect can hopefully be at once disorientating, funny and provocative. If you take another character like Anne Frank whose context one would expect to be with her Jewish family hiding in the family loft hiding from the Nazis and place her in a dating game too, this effect would also be intriguing. Yet if then you put the characters of Hitler and Anne Frank together, as we did at the end of our piece this would dramatically create the contradictory and powerful feelings that Brecht created so successfully with his audiences.
The other huge advantage of using characters such as Hitler and Anne Frank, is that you create a political dialogue within the piece that you can use to deliberately provoke an audience. We attempted to play with the audiences universal attitude towards one character, in this case being the character of Hitler. The context in which we placed him, that of a dating game also provokes a specific response in the audience. Finally the character of Anne Frank can be seen to provoke a universal response from an audience. So, we have a character everyone despises (Hitler), a character everyone sympathies with (Anne Frank), two characters who are also from history, and we placed them in a modern context in a situation everyone recognizes. The audience would naturally expect the hated character to behave in a certain way and to receive his comeuppance. The audience would also expect the heroine to be seen in an entirely positive light. The fact that at the end of the piece the two characters go off together to enjoy their "date" hopefully provokes a plethora of responses. For instance the situation could be seen as funny yet at the same time the audience could almost feel angry that Anne Frank behaved sympathetically towards her historical tormentor. Equally Hitler's behavior could be seen to be surprising and frustrating - we want our villains to behave villainous and not to gain the sympathy of an audience. Or do we? Whatever the response the situation can be seen to be truly dramatic, and the variety of emotions invoked by the action is what drama is all about.
Tuesday, 3 December 2013
Racist British English Lady with Baby on Tram in Croydon South London
We also performed this in our Protest. Hana played the racist woman in the clip and the rest of us were the public. We performed this to show, however shocking it is, that there are people like this in Britain who agree with the policies of the BNP.
Political Protest
What we had to do: Give a theatrical political protest on something we feel strongly about.
What we chose: Protest against the BNP having two seats in the European Parliament, one in the regional constituency of Yorkshire and the Humber region, and the other in the North West region.
What we did: We (Lucy, Esme, Hana, Khai, Ben and myself) tied ourselves to the railings outside of the main entrance to the school. We held up signs such as 'DO YOU BELIEVE IN AN ALL WHITE BRITAIN?' and 'THE BNP'S VIEWS ARE VERY SIMILAR TO NAZI BELIEFS'.
The BNP is an extreme right-wing political party that centers its policies against immigration. It also believes that Capital Punishment should be re-introduced and it also opposes same-sex marriage. John Tyndall, the man who founded the BNP once proclaimed that "Mein Kampf is my bible." So, if there is any doubt that the BNP is a racist, homophobic and dangerously fascist organisation it can be dispelled by this clear statement of intent. I fundamentally and passionately disagree and oppose every aspect of the BNP and its beliefs. This is the reason behind the need to perform our piece in the way we did.
What we had to do: Give a theatrical political protest on something we feel strongly about.
What we chose: Protest against the BNP having two seats in the European Parliament, one in the regional constituency of Yorkshire and the Humber region, and the other in the North West region.
What we did: We (Lucy, Esme, Hana, Khai, Ben and myself) tied ourselves to the railings outside of the main entrance to the school. We held up signs such as 'DO YOU BELIEVE IN AN ALL WHITE BRITAIN?' and 'THE BNP'S VIEWS ARE VERY SIMILAR TO NAZI BELIEFS'.
The BNP is an extreme right-wing political party that centers its policies against immigration. It also believes that Capital Punishment should be re-introduced and it also opposes same-sex marriage. John Tyndall, the man who founded the BNP once proclaimed that "Mein Kampf is my bible." So, if there is any doubt that the BNP is a racist, homophobic and dangerously fascist organisation it can be dispelled by this clear statement of intent. I fundamentally and passionately disagree and oppose every aspect of the BNP and its beliefs. This is the reason behind the need to perform our piece in the way we did.
Saturday, 30 November 2013
Brecht in Theory - Helene Weigel on Epic Theatre
Helene Weigel
Born: 12 May 1900
Died: 6 May 1971
Helene Weigel was from a Jewish family. She was also a Communist. The fact that she was these two things gives an idea as to how difficult life would have been for her in Germany in the 1930s and 40s. Yet despite or even because of these circumstances, Helene Weigel was one of the most important and brilliant actresses of the twentieth century, and her performance as the central character in Mother Courage is a benchmark for all acting. Given this, she still resolutely refused to see herself as a "star", and remained incredibly loyal to her theatre and to her husband's (Brecht's) beliefs and ethics. Pretty much all her professional work was for one company, The Berliner Ensemble, and there is very little record of her performances. Yet when in 1956, the year that Brecht died and The Berliner Ensemble came to London the influence of the three plays they performed and in particular of her performance as Mother Courage in many ways can be seen to be incalculable. The English Stage Company at the Royal Court which through its Kitchen Sink Dramas changed British theatre for good, Joan Littlewood's company in Stratford East and ultimately the major companies - Peter Hall's ensemble at the RSC and Olivier's tenure at the National Theatre were all directly influenced/transformed through their experience of Weigel's and The Berliner Ensemble's work. She was the perfect embodiment of the theories that Brecht strove for. Every moment and every image of her work was honed down to its simplest and most meaningful statement. These are not my words, even though I wholeheartedly agree with them, they are the words of Bill Gaskill who was a director who was central to the work at the Royal Court and at the National Theatre. Helene Weigel's most famous image was probably that of her silent scream, at the moment when Mother Courage hears of her son's death. This embodies everything that is extraordinary about her work. There was no sentimentality, or melodrama, or excess emotion about her work. Just the pure direct, intensely honest power that her work embodied. Even though she does not ask for sympathy, this moment still carries such overwhelming power that we can't help but be moved. Brecht's fundamental idea of Gestus which is the combination of gesture, facial expression and body language establishes a meaning which is communicated to the audience via the circumstances in which these gestures are placed, is perfectly indicated by Weigel's scream.
Helene Weigel's Silent Scream in Mother Courage
Thursday, 21 November 2013
Brecht and Marxism
Brecht's desire and need to change the world be it society or theatre found its natural home in his belief in Marxism. Once he'd realized that the teachings of Karl Marx were the one true way forward, he allowed those teachings to infiltrate all areas of his work. The challenge of Marxism to question the accepted "truths" that society took for granted and to revolutionize the way people thought about the world and specifically society chimed with Brecht's desire to challenge the way that theatre saw itself in the early part of the twentieth century. His creation of the ensemble embodies the Marxist idea of a collective striving and fighting together for the good whole - everyone's own ego and personal need to "stand out" is subsumed into the good of the group striving together for the good of the play. Brecht loved to contradict. Marx and his beliefs was a way in which Brecht could explore that. Be it contradicting, accepted political ideas in his plays, or be it contradicting accepting acting methods in his direction of his actors, Brecht intellectually strived to forge a new way of seeing both the world and the theatre.
Brecht also realized that once change has begun, the need to explore and question and excavate never ends. This creates a very active and "alive" feeling in a rehearsal room or on a stage, and the reports of how Brecht worked with his actors bears this out. Brecht's desire for inquiry and for his need for his actors to have inquiring minds often manifested itself in a desire for inquiring about history. Marxism played a pivotal part in such inquiries - the more aware his actors were of what his theatre was about the more he knew the process would be fruitful. In an unashamedly political play such as Mother Courage or The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui, a vital expose and critique of Hitler and his methods, Brecht wanted his actors to not shirk from the idea log inherent in the work. The actors' shared political vision with their playwright would give the theatre of the Berlin Ensemble its undeniable power.
Brecht's desire and need to change the world be it society or theatre found its natural home in his belief in Marxism. Once he'd realized that the teachings of Karl Marx were the one true way forward, he allowed those teachings to infiltrate all areas of his work. The challenge of Marxism to question the accepted "truths" that society took for granted and to revolutionize the way people thought about the world and specifically society chimed with Brecht's desire to challenge the way that theatre saw itself in the early part of the twentieth century. His creation of the ensemble embodies the Marxist idea of a collective striving and fighting together for the good whole - everyone's own ego and personal need to "stand out" is subsumed into the good of the group striving together for the good of the play. Brecht loved to contradict. Marx and his beliefs was a way in which Brecht could explore that. Be it contradicting, accepted political ideas in his plays, or be it contradicting accepting acting methods in his direction of his actors, Brecht intellectually strived to forge a new way of seeing both the world and the theatre.
Brecht also realized that once change has begun, the need to explore and question and excavate never ends. This creates a very active and "alive" feeling in a rehearsal room or on a stage, and the reports of how Brecht worked with his actors bears this out. Brecht's desire for inquiry and for his need for his actors to have inquiring minds often manifested itself in a desire for inquiring about history. Marxism played a pivotal part in such inquiries - the more aware his actors were of what his theatre was about the more he knew the process would be fruitful. In an unashamedly political play such as Mother Courage or The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui, a vital expose and critique of Hitler and his methods, Brecht wanted his actors to not shirk from the idea log inherent in the work. The actors' shared political vision with their playwright would give the theatre of the Berlin Ensemble its undeniable power.
Tuesday, 12 November 2013
Brechtian Techniques In Action
One of the most acclaimed British productions of Brecht started at the Citizens' Theatre in Glasgow in 1967. Michael Blakemore directed Leonard Rossiter in the title role of Arturo Ui and it was said that he created a vividly alienated caricature.
Brecht's own wife, Helene Weigel had huge success as Mother Courage. In more recent years a production at The National Theatre directed by Deborah Warner and starring Fiona Shaw was successful. In that production a lot of these alienation techniques could be seen. For instance, the stage was stripped back to the walls of the theatre and teams of stage hands and stage management who would normally be expected to wear black could be seen in their everyday clothes. Rather than an audience experiencing sound ethereally, sound effects were created by a man standing at the front of the stage in full view of the audience.
One of the most acclaimed British productions of Brecht started at the Citizens' Theatre in Glasgow in 1967. Michael Blakemore directed Leonard Rossiter in the title role of Arturo Ui and it was said that he created a vividly alienated caricature.
Brecht's own wife, Helene Weigel had huge success as Mother Courage. In more recent years a production at The National Theatre directed by Deborah Warner and starring Fiona Shaw was successful. In that production a lot of these alienation techniques could be seen. For instance, the stage was stripped back to the walls of the theatre and teams of stage hands and stage management who would normally be expected to wear black could be seen in their everyday clothes. Rather than an audience experiencing sound ethereally, sound effects were created by a man standing at the front of the stage in full view of the audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)