Theatre of Cruelty:
I really admire Artaud's theories. Theatre of cruelty in particular i like because no one dares venture in to that line because of the boundaries socity has put upon drama. However, Artaud goes past that, to scare the audience as much as possible to create raw emotions, not just sympathy to what is going on within, but providing them with pure emotions rather than imagining what emotions someone else must be feeling.

An exercise we did to enhance our understanding of Artaud was to write down an impossible task within that room. I.e- To eat the radiator. We then put all the pieces of paper into a bag, and everyone was to take one out of the bag, and made to attempt this task. This was artuadian because even though they were impossible, we were made not to act. We literally had to try by whatever means possible, to achieve that task despite it's impossibility. This was very Artaudian because he believes that anything is possible, and it is only ourselves that convince us that the task is impossible. Because his style of theatre is so raw and animalistic, these impossible tasks should be possible, when you set your mind to it. These tasks then seem like nothing in comparison to everything else that occurs within the performance. This fits in with theatre of cruelty again because when trying to achieve these impossible tasks, people return to animal instincts, not as actors but as humans. We did not try to achieve these as if we were someone else, with a need to act, but literally try. We were allowed to do whatever was needed and the room soon turned into mayhem, scaring the audience because of the fact we did so without any form of acting, but true, personal inner intentions of the individual, which scared the audience because even with some form of acting, amounts to nearly nothing compared to that of Artaudian's theatre of cruelty.

Evaluation:

Our piece focused heavily on the use of visual poetry. I really liked this because this meant that the audience focused on the emotions rather than the story plot. However, i also found this effective because it meant that the piece meant something different to every person, and everyone had their own interpretation on the piece. However, I do not think some people were 100% committed, and so the visual poetry did not work as well as it could have. Some of us were out of time and so the visual poetry looked it like it wasn't serious, and so the audience weren't as emotionally connected as they could have been.
One thing that Artaud focuses on is commitment from the actor too. Because of his other desires (such as theatre of cruelty), only a committed actor can pull this off. One needs to be living in his characters in order to effect the audience. After all, if the actor doesn't believe in himself, why should the audience? So, the actor must commit fully, not only because of that, but because of his theatre of cruelty, an actor must return to animal instincts and have physical ability in order to look visually scary, which can only be achieved through living through the characters. We used theatre of cruelty fairly often in our piece. My personal favourite examples of this are when taking shots and a certain moment in one specific group's piece. When taking the shots, the audience also took a shot, of lemon juice. When this had happened, assaulting the audience (Artaudian) with music started playing, and the actors started reacting very in a raw manner. This scared the audience because they assumed there was water in their shot glasses, so when they took the shot, they had a sense of sympathy, but lost trust, and realising what we had done to them, making their minds wander as to what else we had the guts to do to them. In one groups piece, actors told the audience to close their eyes, and repeatedly did so until everyone did. This was a difficult task because it was natural instinct to open their eyes, and because we were so persistent, they were scared as to what we would do to them, not only because of the shots, but because it's a natural thing to do, and being forced to do something in order for a performance to work which goes against human instinct, is very difficult and psychologically challenging for both the audience and the actors.
Artaud also focuses on skilled actors, which we showed in our piece. There were balloons tied to the ceiling,  each with the title of the groups sub performances written on a piece of paper within. Then, an audience member would be made to walk up on stage and pop a balloon, and read out the title. This shows off the skills of the actors because different pieces were set up so uniquely, that everyone had to be thinking on their feet. Not only the actors involved in that specific piece, but everyone around them, as every actor was involved as a whole in every piece. This again, shocked the audience, because it was unexpected that an audience member would determine the order of the show. However, this showed to the audience too, that anything could happen, putting everyone on edge. I think this was really effective because it really fit in with the Artaudian theme of skilled actors and even creating a dream world. No one knew what was going to happen and so the audience had no idea what was going to happen yet they had all control. I also think the video in the background helped. The video consisted of unrecognisable shapes and colours with trance like music, and actors were forced to watch this, being held back by fellow actors, screaming like primates, as if this video was their biggest nightmare. It was done so because not one persons biggest fears are the same, so this video summarised everyone's fears, by the actors reaction, not by the thing he was reacting to, as was demonstrated by the fact that the audience had previously written their own personal fears, both an invasion of privacy but also a person and unique dream world

Strengths:
I believe that there were many strengths because of the constant referal to Artaud's objectives. For example, theatre of cruelty was achieved through lighting, video images and interaction with the audience. We spoke to the audience and allowed them to become involved with the use of shot glasses etc. This was succesful because they were completely unaware of everything, so that all the suprises that were put upon them allowed them to experience the rawest emotions without being emotionally detached from the actors. I believe that the use of string also helped because they were literally involved. This was used to demonstrate and educate them about nerves, and allowed the audience to feel the nerves all around them, but in diffrenet way. These things were effective because the common misconception of drama is that an audience goes to watch actors. This however, is false, because audience members play a huge part in drama, and so our piece really played with that. The contrast also made this piece succesful going from energetic to really slow which made the audience's emotions go through a journey. This was because of the really energtic intro, they expected the whole performance to be like that, but changing everything so that nothing was what the audience thought would happen, allowed again, the emotions to be totally true, because if they expect something, they already prejudge their emotions and prepare themselves to handle them, but doing the opposite, allows the audience to watch instead of guess.

Weaknesses:
There are some weaknesses however. Even though we had the Artaudian intentions as such, some of them were not applied. These weaknesses were often due to the individual actor rather than the performance and it's objectives as a whole. I believe this weakened the performance because of theatre of cruelty and Artaud's desires, requires full commitment in order to achieve so, but had not happened. Even though this was not achieved, the audience still felt emotionally violated because of the overall applications of Artaud's intentions and so the audience focused on the emotions as a whole, rather than the actor's commmitement.

Overall, i think the piece was fairly successful. I think this because we used many Artaudian techniques within our piece, not only in generally, but we interepreted the differently and applied them to our pieces, making it unique too. However, the one issue was being fully committed. This was not much of a big issue since Artaud focuses on the performance as a whole, rather than the actor and his emotions, he focuses on how the performance in general can effect the audience and their emotions and interpretations of the piece. This on its own affected a few other factors, such as timing, interest and fluidity, but that was personal to the actor, but the piece as a whole, went very well in my opinion.

Our piece is very Artaudian. During the beggining, we have a "dance" montage, that links into visual poetry/state of a dream world. This is bit is very effective because of the abstract feel it has to it, which late contrasts immensley. I really enjoy this piece because we were given lines from the poem "The nerve meter" and physicalise them, so every move that is done, relates to the poem and gives off every emotions from every line from the poem, the audience just don't know it, and are experiencing the emotions of the poem without realising it, creating a dream world. This also allows the audience to be open with themselves. They do not know yet what this will develop into, so their emotions are open to anything, and so whatever happens next brings out nothing but pure emotion from each individual. This dance montage is also literally visual poetry, one of Artaud's aims. We went into groups and were given lines. We then physicalised these lines without any words. So, even though we are using no words, we are reading out to the audience the poem, but only with our bodies, which even though we are aware, the audience are not, so they focus on the imagery and emotions that poem gives out, rather than the linear story telling within the poem and the vocuabulary within.
I also like the still image and torch scene. I really like this because again, there is a rough scene going on here, but there still isn't a linear story line and so the audience is still basing everything they see with their pure emotions rather than WHAT is going on.
I love the use of masks during our ensemble pieces. This allows the audience to pick one of the actors out, which may represent something other than a human, and pick out little actions that he or she may do, focusing on detail rather than the plot as a whole. There are many aspects to this piece that i admire, something that would not usually be picked out from a normal theatrical piece. It also scares the audience because we do not know what they represent and then they do not judge the character based on how the actor potrays the character, but of the body movements, allowing it to be raw, animalistic and dream like. This is because people often focus on the facial expressions and the way the actor does everything, rather than one thing in particular, like body language. And so, because of the focus on that and the contrast with the simple face, the audience were emotionally detached from the actor, but emotionally awake within themsleves because of the strangeness of it all.

After all of Artaud's beliefs, none of them can work without skilled actors to portray all this successfully. An actor must believe what he is acting in order for the audience to feel what he is giving to us, as the spectator.

Creating a dream world.
This is personally, my favourite aspect of Artaud's style. I say this because there are so many piece based around real life. I do not see much point in this, because we have naturalistic theatre everyday-our lives, yet we pay to watch someone else reinact them. Dream theatre allows us to experience unforeseen emotions using a world that someone has made up. I admire this because it allows us to experience things that we do not usually get to feel everyday, and so watching something that is not related to everyday "issues" allows the audience to open up to issues and emotions that are not triggered by everyday events. This then allows people to walk off and see everything in a new light, experience same things they experienced previously, but with a new outlook on them. THIS is what I believe theatre is about. People can make this happen in any way possible, but I believe the outcome of this particular theatre, is what all theatre should aim to do.

Visual Poetry:
I admire this aspect of Artaud's theory. I really like this because again, too many theatres use words, yet they don't realise that actors can act without the use of words. Not everything that humans communicate is done through the use of words. I really like this because it gives a different light to emotions. Not only that but when humans communicate through words and body language, they can be manipulated to hide their true intentions due to certain circumstances. However, through Artaud's style, visual poetry can be used to show true intentions. I believe this will be shown because in daily public life, people primarily use words and body language to comminuate with others. However, visual poetry is pure because we do not use it in public, so when it used in theatre, everything that society has put boundaries on in public, can be communicated through this, and the audience experience this because of the emotions that are given out, that we, as as audience feel experience-we know the emotions that are given off, but is so rare to see in theatre, that we recognise it when we see it, and also because we do so much to hide it, but is instantly given off when using abstract yet pure methods as such.

I really admire Artaud's style.
I especially love his "theatre of crulety." I really like this because even though, in my opinion, theatre is focused on actors, it is focused on actors to provide the audience with emotions on certain topics. However, with Artaud, he achieves just that, but by using cruelty towards the audience to do so. I really admire this because it is not a safe choice, and that is what everyone is prepared for when they go to watch a piece of theatre. However, there are issues in life where sympathy cannot be achieve unless they are scared or "abused" into feeling so. This is important because when they are scared into doing so, they experience raw emotions. For example, if someone was about to get murdered in theatre, then using theatre of cruelty, the audience will feel exactly what the victim would have felt using visual to create the atmosphere of primative emotion rather than words of emotion, which can be repetitive. So, i believe that you can only have effective "theatre of cruelty" with "normal" theatre, as it makes it more effective after being exposed to a line of normal theatre.

"Written poetry is worth reading once, and then should be destroyed. Let the dead poets make way for others. "
I really like this quote because even though Antonin feels very strongly about certain topics, he knows that other people feel very strongly about other things, and so they should have just an equal chance of expressing so as he does. I think this is inspirational because sometimes, people are so caught up focusing on one poem or things as such, that another poet out there may have just as much talent or emotion, but are not even given are chance because they have all been spent focusing on one poet. This is very inspirational because he WANTS people to to stop focusing on his work, and allow the work to see light from others, giving us more open oppurtunities for everything.

The first exercise we had to do, was based on Grotowski's ideology, which involved physical exercise, in order to surface pure emotions. We were instructed to run around the room, freely. After several minutes of this, the running was organised, in the sense that we were told to run in an anticlockwise manner, with equal spacing between every student. This would then alter to go in the opposite direction, and so forth.
This exercise was developed by Grotowski, as he believed that exhausting actions would then stimulate emotions. So for example, he took his actors to the woods of Poland to run for hours on end. 

This was useful because even though we'd only been running for several minutes, it allowed us to see the sense in his theory. This theory consisted of the hypothesis that the more physically exhausted one is, the brain has no energy to collect and organise one's thoughts and emotions. So, in essence, this meant that the true emotions were at surface, as they usually are when you are exhausted, but for the actor, this means that when he is given a character, the appropriate emotions can be selected, and because of the manner at which they are accessed from, means that the emotions are pure and undisturbed, benefiting both the actor and the spectator. This is Artaudian because Antonin believed that to create true theatre of cruelty, an actor must be skilled, and so must be able to convey these to the audience, only by convincing themselves that they are having the emotions (which are forced out, so they are raw and pure) to which only then the audience can feel genuine emotions coming from the actor.

Our second exercise was developed by Brook. The class was made to stand in a circle and force an emotion out. For example, our teacher started laughing, and we had to respond to that by laughing.

However, it was evident that these emotions were contrived, and so it was explained to us, using one of Brook's practises, that we had to find something and convince ourselves that anything in the room triggered the desired emotions, and this would eventually allow the emotions to become natural because of the self-persuasion. This was effective because it allowed us, as actors, to naturally force an emotion, by using anything as a trigger to stimulate an emotion that was not natural, but in doing so, it became natural. This is an important skill as an actor as it means that an actor can emotionally think on their feet and also become aware of their surroundings and how they can use that to their advantage. This was Artaudian because again, Artaud had a  desire for an actor to be skilled and committed fully. This exercise enhanced both because an actor has to be committed, and we were made to force out any emotion that our teacher decided, and make it real. However, this was difficult because it was forced and if we didn't believe it (which we didn't) then the audience surely cannot. So, to enhance this skill, we were told to find something, anything in the room to trigger that emotion. For example, if we were made to laugh, we were told to convince ourselved that anything in the room caused that. So, the patterns on the carpet were absolutely hilarious, and so it would give ourselves something to enhance that emotion, convincing ourselves, leading to the convincing of the audience's emotions.

Another exercise we did was to walk around the room, and become aware of what other actors were giving, and to react and give back, accordingly. So, for instance, once actor may suddenly become aggressive, and everyone else would have to interact either by becoming involved to that one particular event, or start their own off, by being influenced by the emotions that the other actor made available to everyone in that room. 

This exercise was useful because it allowed actors to become aware of the atmosphere surrounding them, and to use that to trigger their own emotions. This also meant that emotionally, the actors had to be alert and be able to switch emotions in an instant, which could potentially, be at any time, an important trait to hold as an actor with the presence of ever changing objectives.

Another exercise we were involved in was to lie down in the floor, making sure everyone made contact with someone. This then progressed in the sense that we had to hold hands with two different people within that bundle, and had to then form a circle without loosing contact with either of the people we were connected to.

This exercise helped us because it helped us to enhance our team building skills. Because we were allowed no contact throughout this, it also helped develop both our team work skills and communication skills. I personally, also think that this exercise helped in the physical theatre aspect. We all had to move in strange patterns, all whilst being attached to everyone, which provided both interesting visuals and allowing us to explore our own body movements, since there was such a large opputunity to do so, all of which was unavoidable.

We also partook in another exercise, in which we were made to get into a circle, and hold hands with everyone within the circle. We then began to walk around the room individually. Out of nowhere, we were made to stop and immediately close our eye. From there, we used nothing but the memory of our partner's hands and how they felt, to try and find the people we were with at the beginning, with no communication or sight.

This exercise was useful because it allowed us to concentrate and enhance one of our senses by excluding the others. I think this is important to an actor because every sense must be enhanced as much as possible, in order to create a realistic piece, as much as possible, and by focusing on every sense, allows the actor to create a clear image in his mind of the piece, which in turn, allows him to react to his surroundings. This exercise also focused on diffrentiating using only one of the senses. So, when memorizing the hands, we had to remember every little detail. Not only this, but when we were to find the hands of our partners, we had to use our memory and compare what we had and what we remembered, which helps as an actor to focus on the small details, which can then be applied to reactions, facial expressions and body language.

The final exercise we partook in was listening to music. We were made to stand in a room, and music was played. We had to react to the music, but in a way so that our body overpowered our mind. We were not to entertain, but if we felt something, we should go along with it, if not-then nothing must be done. However, we did not know how long the music would be played for.

This was a very interesting exercise. Simply because we had lost all our senses but hearing, yet hearing can be deceitful. For example, many people became paranoid, thinking that everyone was told to watch them and they'd be the only one dancing or such. This exercise allowed us to become comfortable, because all in all, the music was played for a total of 25 minutes, so after a while, people became comfortable and senses were lost, in the sense that they became irrelevant. It also helped us because we went through a journey, because of the lack of sense of time. This meant that as the journey progressed, so did our emotions because we were lost in time, and so we were free to feel as we wanted, not knowing how long we would be there. This exercise was useful because it allowed us not emotionally, but physically, to become pure.

The Nerve Meter: Antonin Artaud

I really enjoyed reading the Nerve meter. The poem itself was very chaotic, in terms of language. Despite it being a fairly dark poem, the language used to create this imagery was very poetic, and both beautiful and sophisticated. From what I can gather, this poem deals with (lack of) sanity and intelligence. What I like about this poem is that it deals with both a general and personal problem. Generally, topics like this apply to everyone, but is completely unique for every single person, making it personal. The fact that it is written in first person, both supports this and makes it feel as though he has written this in a diary, giving us the illusion that we are invading his privacy. I like this because even though Artaud portrays that he finds it hard to communicate his thoughts to the open world, the structure of how this play was written achieves the objective, because we get to see what he is really thinking, not only invading his comfort zone, but when he goes on to  describe the difficulty of putting his thoughts to words, we understand him, because we have seen his true thoughts, and there is no mask and the poem is made up of raw thoughts.
The structure of the poem is just as complex as the language. When Artaud comes to describe the darkness in his emotions that reside in his mind, he write in long sentences and using endless clauses, as if to say his emotions are endless and there is much to say. However, when he starts to talk of either how others perceive that or when these thoughts are attempted to be put out in the open, he writes little than a few words, implying that despite the infinite thoughts that run through his mind, they come out as nothing, compared to what is actually stored within. This is really effective, because in contrast to knowing the (almost) full extent of his mind, we then witness, in contrast to this, how the outside world perceive his thoughts. To us, it seems like a disappointment because of the sudden change in both length and language, but this allows us to see both his true emotions and the "fourth wall" between his mind and reality.
I also adore the penultimate paragraph, simply because of the contradiction within his thoughts. During this stanza, he goes on to describe how sometimes, only a "single word" is needed, yet it takes a whole paragraph to establish this. The reason why I find this effective is because there are so many reasons for needing so, yet only a simple word is needed for these infinite purposes. This fascinates me because it allows the reader to explore the depths of the mind. It is also effective because Artaud himself believes that within drama, words should not be the focus, but the actor himself, and this stanza allows us to see that, but only because he goes back on his words, to we pay attention to his theory.

Lesson 1, Term 3.

The first exercise was to imagine that the floor was made up of an imaginary grid. Each individual  had to also think of something they desired, to be at the end of our journey. To get there, the actor must follow his own imaginary journey, taking the paths created by the grid. For instance, one can only turn 90 degrees as such, and avoid any contact with everyone else.
This exercise was useful because it allowed the actor to concentrate something (the grid) which was, unsurprisingly, boring. However, the desire gave everyone motivation. So, even though they we doing something monotonous, there was a reason to do it so in the end, we walked with purpose and accuracy, two things that are hard to do spontaneously. This was useful in relation to Artaud because he focuses on visual poetry, which focuses on the visual imagery created by movement-something this exercise focused on. It allowed us to both discipline ourselves AND make sure we had “light in our eyes” because as Artaud himself said, “acting is not to entertain, nor instruct, but to effect” which the individual motivation allowed us to achieve. Artaud also believed that an actor has to have total commitment as an actor. Each actor must be emotionally involved, and this exercise allowed us to achieve this because each actor had their own motivation, so the actors where emotionally attached and committed as a result of this. Had the exercise had a general desire, some actors may have become more attached than others, but where we created our own, it was personal, and something that everyone wanted, therefore achieving emotional attachment, in order to effect the audience, and give them the motivation, which allowed the actor to become emotionally attached.

The second exercise was very physical. All the actors were told of an inanimate object to become. However, they all had objectives. For example: “Baked bean warming in the microwave.” or “a potato growing underground” or “a sausage on the grill.” We had to exaggerate these as much as possible, because they were inanimate, so they had no emotions, and so the movements in our body had to compensate for this.
This exercise contributed to Artaud’s theory of “Deliberate cruelty.” I think this contributed to this because of the utter chaos that this could cause if it had been used in a theatre piece. There were no limits when people were doing this and so with the right music and lighting, these movements could have put the audience in shock because of the mayhem caused by all this. Especially with the sausage one, we had to emphasise on how hot the grill was, and did not stop for quite some time, forcing us to persuade everyone it was really THAT hot. Because we have never been in that situation before, there were no limits as to how anyone would react, and so everyone was stripped of all dignity, and reverted back to animal like states, which would contribute further to assaulting the audience’s comfort, because the actor is voluntarily making himself vulnerable for the audience, which not only allows the audience to connect with the actor, but assaults them too, by revealing their true-selves whilst the audience conform to certain social rules.

Our last exercise was to play tennis with a partner in absolute slow motion. We were told it was never slow enough.
This exercise contributed to several of Artaud’s theories. One of which being creating a dream world. Where we live so fast, we do not take into account small details that affects everything that happens, wether we see it or not-they are all vital. So, when performing this exercise, not only was it a dream like state because we took a vigorous sport and slowed it down, but it involved our entire body, and so all the movements created a whole new world. Even though we partake in these movements often, they are only seen for a split second, but when it is broke down into slow motion, we see the journey that everything takes, and our thought towards our every move and why we do it, and the contrast between real life and what actually happens, creates a dream state. It also increased our skills as actors, because we had to depict to the audience that this is what happens, and allow the audience to think about their every move. It allowed us to become fit, because our body was constantly tense, and so we had to control our muscles as well as concentrating on how to get from one position to another, rather than just spontaneously doing it, as we are used to in everyday life.