Last Thursday, we did our oops/ouch activity. I found it very helpful, actually. I needed a bit of resolution, and I certainly can always use a lot of hugs. I got to resolve my one outstanding conflict, and I hope the other party feels less weighed down by how that all went. Good juujuu all around! I think it was especially important to engage with something like that before heading into Rainbow. My goodness. I think we all would have felt really up tight if we hadn't done something like that. It also had a wonderful effect on the rest of my life--it's good to make a space for peace to happen instead of relying on it to happen spontaneously. I think that's important and a good lesson for a lot of us to learn and re-learn.
I like Rainbow. A lot. It's rough, it's rocky, it's personal. It's kind of all of the things that I love most about theatre. It puts theatre-making in the hands of any person. It doesn't rely on much privilege, and it offers an opportunity to resolve the unspoken or to rehearse (as Melissa used her experience) for future conflicts along the same vein. What I love most is that Rainbow takes this high-art, abstract idea of making theatre and turns it into an accessible, useful practice even for people who have never done theatre before.
Melissa's particular experience is something I greatly identified with. It was almost the exact conversation I was waiting to propose. I don't have a whole lot of unresolved conflict in my life, thank goodness. I didn't open my particular can of worms, though, because my mother got into town on Tuesday and I was in no place to be vulnerable to something like that right before encountering her. The relationships we have with our mothers...they're tough. It's difficult to recognize that someone loves you when what they're doing or saying is so obviously hurting you. Conversely, I imagine it's difficult to recognize that you're hurting someone when you're trying so hard to prove your love to them.
It was helpful to see Melissa's rainbow pan out. I felt that a small part of my own conflict was resolved. I hope that she does well when her mother and aunt come to town for Thanksgiving. I think I'm going to tell her that she can text me for encouragement while they're here--like if she needs emotional back-up.
One thing about Rainbow that really intrigues me is the audience spotter. I'd like to give that a try, so I'll probably volunteer for it in class today. I feel like I want to be a professional spotter. It would be interesting to practice that in conjunction with energy healing, even if only to sense disturbances and "ruffles in the field". I feel like it could be very useful and very productive--I also think that it would be difficult to know what will help certain people. Joshua, for example, is an introvert and needs people to go away when he's upset. Jennie, though, would probably welcome physical contact and a soft voice of reassurance.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Forum Project!
I thought our forum piece went so well!
It was surprising to me that people told us we were right to stick to our guns--we proved ourselves and proved that our vision can work. Even if that vision is non-realistic. We proved that a non-realistic style of forum can be functional. I was SO happy that it went well.
At one point, it was suggested that we should use a powerpoint to communicate our information about cops in the street versus cops in the head. Looking back, I find this idea uncomfortable. It delineates a certain amount of privilege, yes, but it also implies that I should put my audience in the dark, show them words and images, and then try to play forum games with them. Forum is about communication, about confrontation, about person-to-person being. So why would I want to miss out on an opportunity to look my audience in the eye? Why would I want to avoid exchanging energy with them, smiling at them, welcoming them to a new world of emotional exploration? It just seems like an odd suggestion to me.
The interventions were interesting--it seemed like everyone got an opportunity to combat a specific facet of oppression that they have felt more than the others. I was surprised when V responded and dove in as quickly as she did. I thought there would be more hesitation--I didn't expect her to intervene at all, to be honest. Her intervention seemed almost a little helpless, a little meek. I think Rumor Girl is also one of the trickier interventions for our triad, though, because she doesn't care if what she says is factual. She doesn't care if anyone likes her or not. She just wants to seem knowledgeable and feel confident, probably because some not-so-great things happened in her past.
Joshua's intervention went beautifully, and I am SO happy that he got something out of it, so happy that there could be a learning experience and that Ben was able to dive in like that. I mean, Joshua has a lot of knowledge on conducting a confrontation with a person and handling himself rationally. I would have been terrified if he had chosen me. I am SO proud that Ben just did the damn thing. So proud.
Dylan conducted himself beautifully and genuinely in his interaction with you--finding a common language and agreeing on topics of discussion and prohibited conversation may be the best we can do with Nanas. I thought it was very brave of you to intervene, Dr. B. Knowing that this is one of your hot-button issues and very personal to you means that we know the courage it probably took for you to intervene, particularly with someone as immoveable as Nana. I hope that it was a productive experience and that it helped absolve or lay to rest some of the poisonous things that were said or handed down to you.
I felt seriously empowered that we created a functional, brave, non-realistic, non-ITT format and that our piece as a success. YAAAAAAAY! Snoopy dances! Kermit arms!
It was surprising to me that people told us we were right to stick to our guns--we proved ourselves and proved that our vision can work. Even if that vision is non-realistic. We proved that a non-realistic style of forum can be functional. I was SO happy that it went well.
At one point, it was suggested that we should use a powerpoint to communicate our information about cops in the street versus cops in the head. Looking back, I find this idea uncomfortable. It delineates a certain amount of privilege, yes, but it also implies that I should put my audience in the dark, show them words and images, and then try to play forum games with them. Forum is about communication, about confrontation, about person-to-person being. So why would I want to miss out on an opportunity to look my audience in the eye? Why would I want to avoid exchanging energy with them, smiling at them, welcoming them to a new world of emotional exploration? It just seems like an odd suggestion to me.
The interventions were interesting--it seemed like everyone got an opportunity to combat a specific facet of oppression that they have felt more than the others. I was surprised when V responded and dove in as quickly as she did. I thought there would be more hesitation--I didn't expect her to intervene at all, to be honest. Her intervention seemed almost a little helpless, a little meek. I think Rumor Girl is also one of the trickier interventions for our triad, though, because she doesn't care if what she says is factual. She doesn't care if anyone likes her or not. She just wants to seem knowledgeable and feel confident, probably because some not-so-great things happened in her past.
Joshua's intervention went beautifully, and I am SO happy that he got something out of it, so happy that there could be a learning experience and that Ben was able to dive in like that. I mean, Joshua has a lot of knowledge on conducting a confrontation with a person and handling himself rationally. I would have been terrified if he had chosen me. I am SO proud that Ben just did the damn thing. So proud.
Dylan conducted himself beautifully and genuinely in his interaction with you--finding a common language and agreeing on topics of discussion and prohibited conversation may be the best we can do with Nanas. I thought it was very brave of you to intervene, Dr. B. Knowing that this is one of your hot-button issues and very personal to you means that we know the courage it probably took for you to intervene, particularly with someone as immoveable as Nana. I hope that it was a productive experience and that it helped absolve or lay to rest some of the poisonous things that were said or handed down to you.
I felt seriously empowered that we created a functional, brave, non-realistic, non-ITT format and that our piece as a success. YAAAAAAAY! Snoopy dances! Kermit arms!
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Group Work
Last Thursday was certainly eventful. I just referred to it with Josh as "The Alex and Vanessa Yelling Show". We all get caught up sometimes in what we're passionate about, but they were wild, man! I've never had a rolled up piece of paper shaken at me before. Wiiiild. I'll just never understand why people treat classrooms like gladiatorial arenas. If that's how some folks do academia, though, they're welcome to it. It's just not for me--that's all.
So, after the weekend, my group met again on Tuesday. We decided to go to the Berg to talk through some script issues and de-compress. We all felt the same way: we love our script. We're not going to change it just because other folks didn't get it. It's a working system. Yes, it's difficult to demonstrate cops in the head. It's a challenge. And it's not in ITT structure, which seems to be the structure everyone is going for besides us. We altered a few lines to make things clearer, but we're happy with it the way it is.
It seems to Shannon and I that the other groups may be jealous of our group's ability to make "work" and "play" into the same thing. It occurs to us that the other groups may feel threatened or that our pleasant group dynamic may be recalling some fear or triggering some kind of anxiety in them.
I wonder about the bullying group. Their idea requires projections and lights and spectacle. It requires the audience to read social media. It seems to rely on a lot of privilege that may have gone unrecognized. If it were to tour to schools, it would require that the schools have a projector and projection screen as well as internet access to transfer the appropriate documents. It demands a certain familiarity with social media as well as a certain reading level. It just...makes me uncomfortable. I think forum theatre should be as simple as possible. As few props and set pieces as necessary. No person should feel so out of their element that interjecting feels impossible. Difficult, yes, but not insurmountable.
Then I begin to wonder about out piece. It's very non-realistic. I think, though, that when we address that in our facilitation/joker speech at the beginning, it might help prepare the audience for what they are about to see. I think it will also help for us to incorporate our intervention proposals. Our plan is to offer up two suggestions and then issue the disclaimer that these are NOT the only ways to intervene. We will tell our audience that they may intervene in whatever way feels most natural or most beneficial.
We'll see.
So, after the weekend, my group met again on Tuesday. We decided to go to the Berg to talk through some script issues and de-compress. We all felt the same way: we love our script. We're not going to change it just because other folks didn't get it. It's a working system. Yes, it's difficult to demonstrate cops in the head. It's a challenge. And it's not in ITT structure, which seems to be the structure everyone is going for besides us. We altered a few lines to make things clearer, but we're happy with it the way it is.
It seems to Shannon and I that the other groups may be jealous of our group's ability to make "work" and "play" into the same thing. It occurs to us that the other groups may feel threatened or that our pleasant group dynamic may be recalling some fear or triggering some kind of anxiety in them.
I wonder about the bullying group. Their idea requires projections and lights and spectacle. It requires the audience to read social media. It seems to rely on a lot of privilege that may have gone unrecognized. If it were to tour to schools, it would require that the schools have a projector and projection screen as well as internet access to transfer the appropriate documents. It demands a certain familiarity with social media as well as a certain reading level. It just...makes me uncomfortable. I think forum theatre should be as simple as possible. As few props and set pieces as necessary. No person should feel so out of their element that interjecting feels impossible. Difficult, yes, but not insurmountable.
Then I begin to wonder about out piece. It's very non-realistic. I think, though, that when we address that in our facilitation/joker speech at the beginning, it might help prepare the audience for what they are about to see. I think it will also help for us to incorporate our intervention proposals. Our plan is to offer up two suggestions and then issue the disclaimer that these are NOT the only ways to intervene. We will tell our audience that they may intervene in whatever way feels most natural or most beneficial.
We'll see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)