The acting class
as the site of enquiry provides an optimal arena for the exploration
and discovery of the function and form of Raw Theatre. Actors are typicaly
used to taking creative and emotional risks. Raw Theatre aims to facilitate
learning through the interplay of 'true life' situations and acting
principles.
In addition to facillitatiing a strong relationship to story telling
Raw Theatre encourages empathy, improvisation, sensory awareness and
response, ensemble, a broadening social and cultural awareness and creative
communication.
The quote opposite exemplifies the impact of Raw Theatre on a participant
at a level of experiential understanding relating to emotional investment
and role.
|
In
the encounters with Raw Theatre that I’ve had, I’ve
discovered a number of valuable ‘ins’ both dramatically and
personally. The most significant of which being clean access to emotion.
Finding
the situation which creates an immediate emotional response and then using
that for dramatic interplay between participants, bypasses the need to
‘perform’ and creates a safe environment in which to ‘play’.
Dramatically this taught me to find organic response first and then insert
the given text or circumstances. The value of this, I found to be a rich
and genuine inner life and a freedom to follow impulses and react to other
players. It exposed the foundation of emotion from which to build.
Holly
Day - Actor |
|
The
basis for RT may be described as a set of ‘method acting’
principles, combined with various forms of participatory theatre (PT),
also known as Interactive Theatre: Interactive Theatre [IT] expands the
experience of the audience by offering them a proactive role, in which
they are invited to join as a collaborator in the creation of the performance….
[IT] combines … the spontaneity of improvisation, and the empoyerment
of participation. (Wirth 1994) … theatre in which the audience actively
and spontaneously cocreates with the actor the unfolding drama. (Izzo
1998).
Key areas of influence on Raw Theatre stem from forms of Interactive Theatre
known as: Process Drama (O'Neill 1995) dealing mainly with theatre education
in the social context, Playback Theatre (Salas 1999) creating theatricality
with the personal story, Theatre of the Oppressed (Boal 1995) improvised
dramatic forms examining roles of power and oppression, – these
forms of PT and their respective structures, processes, reasons for being
and outcomes vary slightly in nature.
While the practices of Raw Theatre are influenced by and concentrate on,
acting and theatre it is clear that the playing of, and telling of, the
personal story may at times act therapeuticly for participants and observers.
Raw Theatre is not a form of drama therapy but may at times may be therapeutic,
as any good story, piece of music, poem, dance or work of art may have
therapeutic value. In making this distinction it is however necessary
to acknowledge the contribution Jacob Levy Moreno (1889-1974), the developer
of Psychodrama, has made, informing much of the poetics and practices
of RT. It is possible to make connections between the practices of RT
to the four pillars of Psychodrama: 1) Role Theory. 2) Sociometry. 3)
The Theory of Spontaneity/Ceativity, and 4) Psychodrama Intervention Constructs
(Lewis and Johnson 2000). In particular Moreno’s technique of Role
Reversal informs many of the enactments of RT.
RT finds itself developing a unique position in the field of PT. The key
to RT and what sets it apart is the depth of examination of the ‘personal
story’. The immediate benefit as discussed above, at a pedagogical
level, revolves around the lived experience being converted to engaging
performance in the workshop context. This will lead to future examinations
of RT’s inherent entertainment values. The extended benefit is that
stories shared with commitment and emotional truth will invariably inform
participant’s relationship with the ‘universal story’.
And in doing, the actor in training experiences the possibility of an
expanded world view.
By knowing and sharing myself through story enactment I may come to know
and share more of the human story. To understand the other is to understand
the self.
The need to develop RT lay in a personal desire to create structure around
improvisation which would both enrich and inform the actor’s experience
of dramatic content and story telling elements. And to generate content
with a sense of play and creative freedom within a set of forms that relied
on the story material to emanate form the lived experiences of the particpants.
The lived experiences of the actors are a rich source of material. Exploring
this material through improvisation deepens understanding and creates
connection to stimuli for use in other roles. RT focuses on Role and Relationship.
Connections again are made with Moreno’s – Role Theory and
Sociometry. How we behave in the company of others and the examination
of those behaviours through enactment and role play witnessed /experienced
by observers and participants of RT may be described as energetic differences
or the energetics of body story. RT is very interested in examining how
much of the story is being told at this energetic level. So much of which
is inferred and detected non-verbaly. |
Focusing
on the site of the class we commence an exploration using the
lived experiences of the actors are a rich source of material. Exploring
this material through improvisation deepens understanding and creates
connection to stimuli for use in other roles. RT focuses on Role and Relationship.
Connections again are made with Moreno’s – Role Theory and
Sociometry (Lewis and Johnson 2000).. How we behave in the company of
others and the examination of those behaviours through enactment and role
play witnessed /experienced by observers and participants of RT may be
described as energetic differences or the energetics of body story. RT
is very interested in examining how much of the story is being told at
this energetic level. So much of which is inferred and detected non-verbaly.
The derivation of the story material comes specifically from the ‘body-story’
of the class member being interviewed by the facilitator. The ‘body-story’
refers to the current focal energies of the conscious and/or subconscious
mind, or put another way, the stuff we are feeling most about, right now.
The interviewer/facilitator will initiate a series of questions that will
promote the participant to identify an aspect of his or her body story
they are willing to share.
The RT project undertaken has seen a set of rehearsals with a team of
actors who are proficient in recognised forms of improvisation and possess
a sympatico with method acting principles. The rehearsal workshops have
set out to explore, discover and define the processes of RT. After some
initial trials and experimentaion it was evident that key elements needed
to be streamlined for sessions to be effective.
Problems to be solved include
@ the derivation of stimuli and story material, flexibilty
in dealing with actor competency and ability, sensitivity to story material,
enactment structure and defining and differentiating the participant roles.
@ the derivation of stimuli and story material –
Where and how to start the process? – What impetus would give rise
to material that would be both potent and relevant?
@ flexibilty in dealing with actor competency and ability
which enactments should go before others? – will actors be able
to develop the story as it progresses, be inventive and create a sense
of mystery or ambiguity?
@ sensitivity to story material –
how deeply should we delve into personal material?
@ enactment structure
what are the forms of enactment? – how to involve participants?
– how to frame or set up the enactment to derive the best outcome?
how to
@ defining and differentiating the participant roles
who does what and when?
@ plot line and subtext – how to introduce story
telling components in order to avoid exposition and lack of surprise?
@ for the facilitator - how to feedback acting principles
as they relate to the enactments and separate feedback or observations
relating to the actor’s choices when creating the structure of the
story?
@ Do enactments inherently possess enough structure to
be dramaticaly interesting?
@ Do RT enactments require a problem or is the desire
of the participant/player enough to manifest inherent causality
@ Should enactments follow a three step structure: problem
– complication – resolution?
@ Or are the three steps in RT: desire – conflict
– catharsis?
@ Should RT players aim to provide conflict in Enactments
in order to provoke catharsis?
@ Does RT need to distinguish between the four types
of catharsis as cited by Boal? Medical – Morenian – Aristotelian
– Catharsis per TO?
|