Prompt 5

Having an object represented in theatre as opposed to being shown in its entirety can have a very powerful effect on the audience. It creates a sense of mystery by not allowing you the satisfaction of knowing what it is while it simultaneously forces one to use his or her imagination to see the object for themselves. I think a perfect example of this use of representation is the contents of the briefcase in Pulp Fiction. The entire film revolves around the existence of a briefcase and the contents which remain unknown throughout the duration of the film. All we know is that it is extremely valuable to the interested parties. The most information we get as to the contents is that when the briefcase is opened, a golden light glows from within. Even the light being emitted is not necessarily a naturalist convention. The light itself could easily be considered just another representational tool to express the value of what is actually contained inside when considering the narrative. As an audience member, we must rely heavily on the other factors to discover what is so special about this mysterious object. For one, we must pay extra attention to the circumstances surrounding the briefcase. This would be the fact that everyone and their mother is trying to acquire it for themselves. A group of young thugs steal the case from their employer, disregarding their own lives by forfeiting their own loyalty. When the briefcase is involved in a robbery in a diner, it is the only valuable item that is not stolen (apart from Jules wallet proclaiming "bad motherfucker" which is stolen then returned out of fear). Also, we must rely on the reaction from the actors upon seeing what's inside. Each actor who opens the case, releasing the all-powerful light from within are stunned by what the find inside. It is clearly breathtaking to behold and can only be the most desirable object to have ever been presented to man kind. This reaction never changes no matter who encounters the briefcase, and so we know that it is an object that everyone wants, needs, etc.

Personally I think an abstract representation of the holocaust could be very effective. While a naturalistic view of the holocaust tends to be jarring, graphic, and emotionally disturbing, I think it can sometimes keep the audience from an emotional response. It is difficult to see those events which occurred in concentration camps and know exactly what that feels like to undergo. Instead I think there are better ways to evoke an emotion by relating the pain, fear and suffering in a way that the general population can understand. I think that this puts alot of pressure on spectacle to make this happen. In a modern day theatre, a production team would need to make the theatre feel smaller than it is, darker and full of sounds that would be common to hear. The lack of light, creating fear, faceless Nazi soldiers each as ruthless as the next. We must find ways to feel a fraction of the fear and chaos that was at one point a reality, and only through this simulation can we succeed in representing the holocaust abstractly. As a related topic, I once read a graphic novel called Mous. Mous is the story of a holocaust survivor, and what's interesting about it is that each nationality is represented by a different animal. The Jewish are mice, the Nazis are cats, the Polish are pigs, the Americans are dogs, etc. I thought this was a very interesting way to portray the events which had occurred and served in successfully representing the holocaust in a different way. It would be interesting to see how symbolism and association can play into a staged representation of the holocaust and how an audience would react to that.

Prompt 4

I watched a documentary once called Superheroes. It is an interesting tale of several people who dress as vigilantes at night and patrol the major cities in an effort to bring justice to the unjust. These remarkable people have costumes, secret identities, super-alliances, the whole nine yards. It's a little bit ridiculous in my opinion. These people are entirely dedicated to their vocation, and they truly believe they are serving out their purpose on this earth. To me this act has numerous theatrical aspects and even acts as a form of destructive theatre. It disrupts the daily lives of those lucky enough to live in the vicinity of such beings, and also contains a certain amount of spectacle used to turn heads towards the good cause. The various costumes and character persona's each display a certain aspect about the people and what their goal as a superhero is. It is disruptive to daily lives in small ways. Sometimes these vigilantes are able to bring criminal activity to the front steps of the courthouse by notifying the correct authorities. While the "superheroes" state that their goal is to bring hope and awareness to the masses, and to inspire others to follow in their footsteps. I'm not convinced that it is entirely effective. Most people who encounter the hero's see them as having a serious mental instability, and therefore the validity of the task force is questioned. Also, the documentary shows times when the vigilantes themselves are behaving criminally in order to entrap more criminals. This is also a contradictory act in the eyes of the audience, those who notice these men and women patrolling the streets. 

I think the most effective way to bring theatre into the 21st century is a new vision for the spectacle of theatre productions. Theatre, while often thought as the least important aspect, is often the easiest part of theatre for an audience to digest. This puts more pressure on technical designers and operators to design theatre that can pull an audience into an entirely different world. It should serve as a way to transport the masses into an entirely new reality by overloading the senses with new sights, sounds, waves of emotion, etc. Another way to accomplish this notion is to blur the lines between audience and performers. In The Twenty-Fifth Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee, members of the audience are brought onstage and become part of the performance by acting as participants in the competition. While I have never been one of these lucky participants, I can imagine that their experience becomes far more real when they become equal to the actors. If we can find a way to fully involve every audience member in a similar way, theatre will have changed in meaning and purpose by creating an entire virtual experience for everyone involved. 

Prompt 3

Two productions I’ve seen recently that stand out in my mind are A Free Man of Color and Elephant Graveyard. I found both production to be moving and powerful and I felt a strong emotional response from both. However, I found it hard to relate the former to any form of truthfulness. While I was strongly invested in the character’s and found myself enjoying the show, A Free Man of Color was very clearly entirely fictional. From the production style to the sense of humor presented with the show, I could not easy take the events occurring down from the stage and out into the real world. In my opinion, having a strained relationship with truthfulness does not necessarily hinder a production. As someone said in class recently, we rarely go to the theatre expecting the truth. Most of us go expecting a good story told in an entertaining way. Often times this experience is easier to pull off if proximity to truthfulness is a bit distant. That being said, if an audience member can find truth in what they are watching, the experience is made a thousand times more enjoyable. In Elephant’s graveyard I found myself very invested in not only the character’s but in the various parts of the story they were telling. Because I could feel the truth behind the words being spoken, I found that I was much more entertained by the narrative. It wasn’t until later that I discovered the events were based around a true event, and suddenly my response became clear. Before even knowing the play was based on true events, I could sense that the story was being told as if it were a collection of interviews about a real occurrence. Because I could feel the truth behind what was occurring on stage, my experience with the show was made much more memorable.  I find that often times productions revolving around real events such as documentary theatre can give too much focus the event and less on the character’s who were affected. To me this gives the audience a weaker connection with the show even though the events are real. However, when a show is able to portray real events in way that connects and audience with the character’s experience a very strong emotional response can occur.

Prompt 2: Performitivity

I've had trouble thinking of an example for this one, but I think I have something that works. In the final sequence of Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight, Jim Gordon performs an act that Harvey Dent intends to be infelicitous. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F2M6sgjXTE. It is a fairly common thing for a father or a mother to tell their child, "everything's going to be alright". It is almost as common for a parent to do so when they don't know the true outcome of a troublesome event. Also this scene hints at the fact that Two-Face had to tell the love of his life that that everything would be alright just before she is tragically blown away by The Joker. What I like about this scene is that although Dent intends for Gordon's statement to be one of deception and malice, the Caped Crusader turns this performative act into one not of malice but of truth. For Gordon's child everything is going to be alright (in relative terms). If Batman had not intervened Gordon's kid could easily be dead, bring victory to Dent in his lustful vengeance. It is also interesting to me to see how much Dent is affected not by Rachel's death in general, but in how he handled the situation. It is devastating to him that he was the one who was saved instead of her, and what's worse is that He told her it was going to be okay. Because Dent was unable to follow through on his performative act by saving Rachel, he is forced to strongly question his character, motives and his very existence in Gotham City. Consequently, Dent's identity is changed forever. He becomes Two-Face, the obsessive super criminal who no longer considers himself citizen of Gotham, but rather an instrument manipulated by The Joker to bring about chaos to the unsuspecting people of Gotham. Because Harvey is unable to follow through with making everything "all right" for Rachel, he loses his sense of self. This forces him to project his anger on to Gordon, who's version of the same performative act is made valid by the intervention of Batman. This of course sets an entirely new story in motion. One where Batman must wear the mask of villainy in order to protect not only Harvey's reputation but the entire city of Gotham.

Blog Post 1 - Performance

The article just read provided me with plenty of insight regarding performance as a contested concept and how it compares to the conceptual norms of theatrical evens. A statement in the article that stands out to me claims that performance artists "do not base their work upon characters previously created by other artists, but upon...their own specific experiences in a culture...made performative by their consciousness of them and the process of displaying them for audiences." This idea I think goes back to the concept of restored behavior, the version of ourselves that is consciously aware of our own actions. Performance has so many vast mediums that qualify it, however performance can not exist unless the one performing is aware of his/her behavior.

While reading this chapter I keep thinking about a mocumentary film called I'm Still Here. It is a documentary chronicling Joaquin Phoenix as he "retires" from acting and begins his career as a hip-hop artist. This is now considered one of the greater hoax's in Hollywood, though at the time it was being filmed, Joaquin's change of heart along with his heavily increasing drug addiction was considered infallibly genuine. The reason this film is present in my mind is because Joaquin, in hindsight, was clearly giving a performance. Through restored behavior, Joaquin created a character version of himself that was put on display for the public eye for a specific purpose. The most interesting thing about this social experiment is that for several weeks, without knowing Joaquin had no real intention of being a rap star, the public followed his deteriorating star status with such viscosity and judgment that it really made no difference as to whether or not Joaquin was performing. The public viewed and treated it as a performance non the less. I feel there are several times in everyday life where we as the subject have no intention of performing for a person or a group of people. Yet those who are viewing you hold all the power with their judgments and perceptions. We do not get to chose whether or not we are giving a performance. Only the audience can do that for us.