When reading Theatre of the Oppressed, one thing that stood out had to do with the Invisible Theatre. I thought it was interesting to have the actors blend into to their surroundings. It sounds and is slightly risky. As the author explains, "And it is precisely this invisible quality that will make the spectator act freely and fully, as if he were living a real situation - and, after all, it is a real situation!" (Boal, 125) I think invisible theater helps bring both spectators and actors together. There is no wall between them. Without the spectators knowledge, they are part of the show and can easily engage with whatever situation or scene is in front of them. I agree with what the author says, "the impact produced by this free theatre is much more powerful and longer lasting" (Boal, 126). I can imagine all the interactions the spectators have stays with them. When reading this portion of the chapter, the first thing that came to my mind was the show "What would you do?" Actors show up to a well populated location and act out a pre-rehearsed scenario. These scenarios are made provoke some type of reaction from the regular people around them. The scenarios played out have to do with serious themes like bullying. The point of doing all this is make viewers at home ask themselves what would they do if they were witnessing these type of scenarios. I've embedded a clip from the episode "College students try to drug a woman at a bar":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuY4snHIaQU
Miriam--You are absolutely right that "What Would You Do?" is a pop culture version of Invisible Theatre! Do you think that the kinds of encounters prompted by this type of performance are effective in spurring social change? Who do you think we want to change--those who are participating (unknowingly) in the event, or those (like us) who are watching it from afar?
ReplyDelete