Laura
07-19-2003, 12:36 AM
I was wandering if you could help me. For my studies, I am doing a research project on The Theatre of the Oppressed, I have to come to my own conclusions to make my project applied. I have very much benefited and seen the importance in Boal's work. But, some of his theories seem problematic. I'm discussing what theatre is and wanted more opinions. Do you believe that when the boundary between audience and actors is blurred, this is still theatre? I believe it becomes psychodrama. As the audience becomes the actors. Where to draw the line?
On another note, I find invisible theatre very problematic and I see it as contradictory to what Boal says about not sending messages when you are not running the same risks. The spectators in Invisible Theatre are the public who are unaware they are the participants in a piece of theatre while it is happening and even after the event. The actors appropriate a public space and set up a scenario, which will instigate a reaction from people and involve them in a debate on the chosen issue.
My feelings on it are quite mixed. I am struggling to work out whether or not I think it is a good thing. I tend to see it as something very intrusive and manipulative, as the people involved are not aware that they are participating in a theatrical production. When does it become too far? Though it might be helpful and empowering, how would you feel if you were part of a staged scene, expressing yourself with the support of people you saw as having the same view as you, without knowing it, without knowing that they actually are just actors?
The people participating in the debate will think the actors are of the same opinion as them and support them. They will feel more confident to speak out, as they will see other people doing so. Though, at the end of the day, if influenced by this discussion they stand out and take risks, it will be there lives in peril. The actors will not do so; the people they feel supported by aren’t real.
Do you believe that this is ok, if it’s for a good cause? I would really appreciate ALL ideas to help me with my dilemma.
Thanking you in advance,
Laura
On another note, I find invisible theatre very problematic and I see it as contradictory to what Boal says about not sending messages when you are not running the same risks. The spectators in Invisible Theatre are the public who are unaware they are the participants in a piece of theatre while it is happening and even after the event. The actors appropriate a public space and set up a scenario, which will instigate a reaction from people and involve them in a debate on the chosen issue.
My feelings on it are quite mixed. I am struggling to work out whether or not I think it is a good thing. I tend to see it as something very intrusive and manipulative, as the people involved are not aware that they are participating in a theatrical production. When does it become too far? Though it might be helpful and empowering, how would you feel if you were part of a staged scene, expressing yourself with the support of people you saw as having the same view as you, without knowing it, without knowing that they actually are just actors?
The people participating in the debate will think the actors are of the same opinion as them and support them. They will feel more confident to speak out, as they will see other people doing so. Though, at the end of the day, if influenced by this discussion they stand out and take risks, it will be there lives in peril. The actors will not do so; the people they feel supported by aren’t real.
Do you believe that this is ok, if it’s for a good cause? I would really appreciate ALL ideas to help me with my dilemma.
Thanking you in advance,
Laura