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.
Wednesday, 20 February 2013
Tuesday, 19 February 2013
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 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.
Friday, 8 February 2013
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)