A big sticking point for me in today's reading was the lack of distinction between audience and actor. Early in the semester, we talked about the idea of protest as performing, and the lack of separation that exists here between performer and audience, but this reading made the concept more concrete for me. In Theater of the Oppressed, Boal describes the scene at the restaurant, when an actor refuses to pay for his food, and ends up introducing the group to an idea of redistributing wealth, and he ends with “it is always very important that the actors do not reveal themselves to be actors” he develops this thought by claiming that in leaving out that identification, the actors leave the audience unresolved in the frustrations that they have evoked, so they will bring these thoughts out into their lives rather than leaving them at the scene of the performance (125). This idea of not making clear that you are acting feels morally iffy to me on an instinctual level- if I was made to feel or do something by something someone said, and I wasn’t aware that they were playing a role, I would feel wronged in some way. However, upon deeper thought, I wasn’t sure if I believe that there is something wrong with this, given that the actors do believe in the causes that they are supporting, and the stories are real, even if they aren’t always that specific person's experience. It reminded me of a current social protest movement in Russia, where women paint themselves with fake bruises and cuts and post it on social media to bring attention to domestic violence- which is a huge issue in Russia. Link here (Content warning: domestic violence) https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-49081045
One other note that didn’t quite develop into a full post- so many of the Activities that Boal describes are games that kids play (three-legged race, versions of the museum game…) it seems like much training the actors, when he was helping them get out of the physical forms that their jobs had taught them, was returning to a state more like childhood.
I think the concern that you're getting at here--is it ethical to keep an audience in the dark about their status as audience--is an important one. We do, however, make some kind of compact by simply going out in public, and once in public, we have little control over what we're exposed to. I suppose what I'm getting at here is--is this kind of performance different IN KIND from something like a flash mob? Or is it only different in purpose? Rarely do people feel taken advantage of by encountering a flash mob, but something like Invisible Theatre maybe feels more political and therefore in need of consent. I would argue, however, that this emotion may be a result of feeling implicated in the performance--which, of course, is Boal's goal. It's a complicated question, and I appreciate the attention you give it here.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I agree that Boal is trying to encourage a return to "child-like" behaviors--as emphasized in the fact that he often calls his exercises "games" as a way of making them more approachable for people who would be less inclined to participate in something more formal (or more theatrical). The upshot, though, is to undermine those learned, embodied habits we adopt due to our work as adults--and the ideologies that those embodied habits promulgate.