An evaluation of our experimental show performed on Tuesday 13th February
Our experimental show, I would generally argue, was mainly a success as a pre-dominantly interesting and exploratory piece in challenging the perception of the audience who came to see it, and also delving deeper into our main stimulus for this term on dreams and the subconscious. It was composed of two parts: our site specific pieces which were distributed across the school and performed and presented by small groups of solos, duets and threes inspired by our collections from the Tate Modern and subsequently the group pieces which took place in the theatre rooms, but transformed these rooms into the canvas of a production that would hopefully be mind altering and innovative in its effect on the audience. Arguably, a lot of it was bold, visceral and fresh and challenged the minds of parents, friends and family that may or may not generally attend theatrical productions. On the whole, the transition from the site specific piece to the main group pieces occurred smoothly and this made the whole show, including both of these components, more of an experience for audience members involved.
SITE SPECIFIC PIECE
As our site specific piece took place first, I will be evaluating this primarily. I think on the whole, the devising process for myself and Nastassja, my partner, was largely simple and straight forward. We took the main assets of the space we chose (outside the musical theatre department/peri rooms, near the science stairs) and knew quite quickly that we wanted to respond to the evoked themes of the space with the history of the school, which we already retained a knowledge of. I was also quite keen on responding to the art piece
'Good Boy Bad Boy' by Bruce Nauman which I had seen at the Tate Modern, and so we integrated the knowledge that the school used to be a war hospital and our joint interpretation of the piece (explored in more depth in my linked blog post) as a basis to create the work. The end product consisted of a piece which attempted to integrate the thoughts, feelings and morale of soldiers in a war hospital like those that the Selhurst War Hospital may have hosted in the past, attempted in the same style as the actors in Bruce Nauman's piece, with the outset of the effects of war and post traumatic stress disorder, as well as glorification of war. Following the template of Nauman's piece, we used these four words/phrases: 'dying', 'longing', 'fighting' and 'having fun' to communicate the paradox of war for soldiers invested in it, and alternated between the phrases through the sentence structure of 'I am... We are... You are...This is...'. The performative aspect of the site specific piece involved myself and Stash lying on the floor, racking through the phrases with different exaggerated and heightened emotions, such as elation, anger, enthuasism, boredom, reluctance etc. At each end of a cycle, we would sit up from our lying positions, positions that were strategically staged to mimic the idea of a injured soldier sleeping, rotate, swap directions and lie down again. This continuous cycle and routine I think was effective in helping to communicate to the audience the monotony of everyday life for a soldier in this position, as well as correlating the idea of regimented routine in the military. For an audience member walking past and observing our piece, I think that this from the outset was strong in communicating the themes of our piece, and was delivered with full commitment by myself and Nastassja throughout the 30 minute period to do this to the fullest extent.
Furthermore, I would argue that the way in which we dressed the space was also arguably successful as a living component within our site specific piece. We made a lot of posters based on the dialogue within our piece and references to actual wartime propaganda from the world wars and also used old actual pictures of the BRIT School as a war hospital to dress the space. I think that this was effective, adding to the piece within the existing space, because it evoked some of the meaning of the piece in correlation with the space to the audience. However, in hindsight, the way we dressed the space wasn't particularly visually pleasing or detailed, and as a site specific piece I think it is debatable on whether this kind of set quality enhanced the piece for the audience, or made it too literal for them. Based on my understanding of site specific pieces, I think a lot of the meaning of the piece has to be evoked from audience perspective and interpretation as opposed to being spelt out for them, and therefore from a perspective of hindsight I think that myself and Nastassja could have been more careful in evaluating the way in which we were going to dress the space, whereas this was more of an overlooked detail in the devising process. Nevertheless, I think that we definitely perpetuated an atmosphere of eeriness or msytery through utilising the natural advantages of the space, and the fact that it was night time and slightly dark, and this meant that the way we dressed the space added to any potential meaning of our piece. Funnily enough, only half an hour earlier when setting up, myself and Nastassja were panicking about the darkness of the surrounding space because we knew that it would mean that all of the space we had dressed with posters couldn't be seen. However, we quickly solved this technical issue by taping a light to the wall that shone directly onto the space, and I think that surprisingly this actually tied into the eventual successes of the piece, as our bright and harsh space contrasted nicely with the darkness of many of the other pieces taking place in the dark around us. This atmosphere undoubtedly may have transpired meaning for audience members, and the experience of going through contrasting areas with different lighting and moods may have been an interesting, even disorientating experience, which works effectively with the aims of experimental theatre. Having said this, other problems that did arise during the performative process included being slightly overshadowed by the loud and bold prospects of other pieces nearby, whereas our piece was a lot more subtle and quieter. This meant that myself and Nastassja were often having to tackle with other groups in being seen or heard, and it was somewhat stressful for a lot of the time.
Another drawback of our piece was the lack of interaction between myself and Nastassja, as well as lack of movement around the space. While we were quite restricted, I think that considering we were a duet, we definitely could have utilised interactions between eachother to amplify and enhance the meaning of our piece, and the experience for the audience. One thing that I would argue was an advantage of us being slightly separate from eachother was the fact that we could create the paradox of emotions that we endeavoured to through communicating contrasting heightened emotions to the audience. However, I think that this would have been more effective if it actually involved immersing the audience through audience participation or direct audience address because we were completely disconnected from them, and this was one of the most significant drawbacks of the piece.
Finally, I think whether our site specific piece was actually site specific has an element of debate. While it did have qualities that linked to the school, I think that it could be classified as more site generic in the fact that it could have easily taken place anywhere within the building and still been just as effective, or even more effective. Furthermore, I think that a more ideal space for the piece to be would have been in 'The Space', which was our other choice for designated space early in the devising process. With the darker lighting and/or options for technical lighting, as well as spacial proxemics, I think that our piece could have had more scope for being more interesting and detailed, whereas in the space we were in it ended up that we were quite restricted, and any physical theatre choices that we had originally decided to implement had to be cut, and therefore I don't think our piece was eventually as effective as it could have been. The links to the chosen art piece from the Tate Modern were strong but I would argue could have also been stronger in a darker more versatile space such as 'The Space'. However, overall, I think that our site specific piece was successful because it had a strong concept that was also inspired by the artwork of the Tate Modern, and therefore was a fairly intriguing experience for the audience coordinated with commitment by myself and Nastassja.
GROUP PIECE
There were many varying assets of our piece which I think made it an interesting audience experience. Some of these involved the beginning part, which led the audience into a room where they would be involved in a sleep ritual, and then whole group ensemble moments, the devised pieces which sometimes interweaved audience interaction and the final part of the piece which involved creating a tribe like ritual with the audience and then leading them out individually to have private moments with specific audience members. Some of these moments were stronger than others, and I think a lot of it depended on the audience and how they responded to these different moments, as well as the way we as an ensemble coordinated them, and the amount of energy/commitment we put into doing so in relation to this.
Overall, I think that the strongest aspects of our piece involved moments that were mainly ensemble led, as well as the devised pieces. I think that this is because as an ensemble in these moments we had freedom to improvise and to create something new, fresh and exciting that continually gave the production spontaneity and freedom. In particular with the devised pieces that were coordinated in divided groups, it felt like although many of these had been rehearsed countless times, when there was any opportunity for improvisation, it gave the dynamic of these pieces a new feel. Personally, having seen the work of other groups' many times, I felt really proud and inspired watching the work of the other cast members as it involved a fresh new audience and I could see that this was really pushing and developing the work even further because the actors involved were committing even more than in rehearsals. For our group, I felt this especially - it wasn't just about going through the motions with the piece we had put together, but I felt like collectively everyone was committing fully to their role within it and put audience experience at the forefront by interacting with the audience and using their presence in the space to amplify the quality of the work. Because of this, I think that our devised piece really came together and we were able to also use the music that we overlayed in the background, 'Four Years and One Day' by Mount Kimbie, a somewhat last minute and spontaneous choice, to bounce off of with energy. It was moments like these where I wasn't just performing the piece, but I felt like I was enjoying it and truly empowered, and in correlation with Grotowski's ideas, it really felt like as an ensemble we were 'stripping off the mask'.
Similarly, other improvised moments that truly worked included the improvisation exercise where we would individually follow an individual objective within the space, and eventually become unified as an ensemble by only following one person's objective. Not only did I feel like as an ensemble we were all very aware of eachother and collectively engaged, having exceptional spatial awareness and mutual silent interactions, but it felt like the audience were equally as intrigued in what we were doing as we were as an ensemble, deeply concentrating. One very vivid moment I believe involved Amy's dad, where in response to Martha's instruction, to stare at one person, we all collectively stared at him for a period of time. This seemed somewhat shocking towards the audience, especially Amy's dad, and created an almost uncomfortable atmosphere where the audience didn't know what to expect. This almost satisfied the aims of the philosophy of Grotowski, Brook and Artaud who wanted to challenge and subvert the norms of a conventional theatre setting in which the everyday bourgeois would engage in a pre-set uninhibited theatrical setting, and would come out of it feeling no different to how they entered the theatre. Types of moments like these, although sinister, evoked Grotowski's 'series of shocks' in not only immersing the audience members but allowing them to embrace the idea of a challenged actor-audience relationship, and therefore find deeper meaning within the work. Despite this, I think this is fairly hard to achieve within reason. Grotowski and Artaud and even Brook were appealing to much larger audiences - people who wanted to see experimental theatre would mostly engage with them, and they also had the funding to create these large brilliant spectacles. But as a very budget school production with limited resources, as well as audience members who were probably appreciating the prospect of seeing a specific person in their end of term show rather than the artistic vision, it wasn't always easy to challenge the relationship since many audience members simply wouldn't tolerate it. As the experience of the audience member should always be the priority of any production, I think that this is acceptable but it did affect the energy in the room, as I think that we anticipated that more audience members would want to be involved in the sections that depended on their investment, and so when they didn't it inadvertently affected the energy of the ensemble.
Moreover, in terms of 'assaulting the audience', in terms of Artaud's vision, I think we did it. They were not embraced in this piece, and their hand wasn't held, or if it was, it was by a tentative Divon who hastily led audience members individually through a dark room where their picture was being put up - a shocking, almost insidious vision you wouldn't expect for a school production. From the start, the audience had to be invested, having to engage, and some audience members definitely took it easier than others. They experienced watching, observing and seeing vivid and nonsensical images being created before them as soon as the play began, and this would have likely been strange and uncomfortable. What it did more than anything was highlight Artaud's vision of a 'dream-world' where grotesque, strange and impossible elements that are often naturally suppressed by human nature, or which aren't conventionally seen, exposed or recognised within the general mass consciousness were definitely brought to the forefront of the work and in my opinion was the driving force of what made the work effective - by continually challenging audience perception. I thought that a devised piece that did this very well was Eva's group piece inspired by Sarah Kane which highlighted the basis of human insecurity and how we use drugs and alcohol to suppress those feelings. Their song with the lyrics 'I am fat' consistently being repeated was shocking because in reality no one really likes to talk about their insecurities, and its part of our everyday human nature in this current society to create a facade in which we idealise a version of ourselves. Sarah Kane's work really does highlight these suppressed themes and I think that using it within our work, as well as the work of other experimental artists, became really powerful by the production because in spite of us become very familiarised with it as a group, many audience members may not have been familiar with these works so the whole prospect of what was being delivered to them was more alien, and in turn it could be argued that this fulfils the vision of Artaud, for example. Having said this, I think that more focus on a range of experimental innovators, as well as writers, but artists and musicians too may have made this impact even more powerful.
Likewise, text was another strong driving force of our show, particularly in the pair duets where we used text couplets to inform a small devised movement piece, that trailed throughout the ensemble. This was a powerful moment which used text as a basis to evoke deeper meaning in the piece, and I thought that this was one of the only moments within the play where because we weren't directly interacting with the audience, they actually had a moment to reflect on what was being delivered to them, and any possible meanings of what it could show. It also created Artaud's vision of 'visual poetry' because the dance and movement communicated a meaning in itself. Similarly, the impact of not interacting with the audience and instead moving around them was equally as powerful at moments within the piece. Our piece shifted from being very bold and in your face, to having genuine moments where we created spectacles for the audience to see, particularly the continual idea of the 'city of dreams' that became most vivid after the improvised sections where we created various rituals of city life, including walking clockwise, being on a tube, grid walking etc, and using this to challenge audience perception. This contrast seemed very useful as it meant that we had moments where we were 'assaulting the audience' by being in their face and challenging the actor-audience relationship, but what might even be more assaulting is the prospect of presenting aspects of everyday life for the audience and challenging how they view it. Artaud believed that this should be done to 'shock' the audience out of the rut of their everyday structured lives, therefore I think that this with the combination of text was highly effective in doing so.
I think our professional execution of the show could have been improved slightly, particularly during aspects of the show like the sleep ritual and the part at the end where the audience were having private moments with us as cast members where we told them our dreams. Based on my personal experience, these were weaker moments because I think the illusion of it being a very macabre and strange experience was almost broken and it became apparent that it was all acting as opposed to creating a vivid and real disorientating experience for the audience members. It seemed as though because of this the audience weren't as willing to engage, and didn't seem as connected or interested in what was going on. The sleep ritual didn't exactly go to plan, and this could have been because we as an ensemble could have approached it with more commitment in making the soundscape, or whether the audience in the beginning of the show weren't prepared or invested in the prospect of what would be a very full on experience. Nevertheless, I think that on the whole our professional execution could have been improved in continually picking up the energy in moments like these with commitment. However, overall, with this in mind I think that as an ensemble we handled it very well and overall the show went very well. As an experimental theatre product we were able to experiment with the visions of Artaud, Grotowski and Peter Brook, for example by creating an audience involved ritual-chant at the end, and with the elements of improvisation, freedom and bizarreness we created something quite beautiful and thought provoking.
Putting visceral and raw themes on stage almost engages with Artaud's idea of embracing the Theatre of Cruelty, and as we are devising a piece for experimental, research into Sarah Kane has really informed my awareness of how far the boundaries can be pushed through theatre between the audience's comfort and the actors conveying these themes.
When the theatre closed in Opole, Jerzy Grotowski relocated his ensemble to Wrocław, reviving its adaptation of Acropolis in collaboration with Józef Szajna. This new theatre based in Wrocław was referred to the 'Instytut Badania Metody Aktorskiej' by Grotowski, or 'The Institute for the Srudy of Acting Methods'. Grotowski's break through production at this new and continued theatre was a play called Apolcypis Cum Figuris, which embodied a Christian stance through drawing on quotes from the Bible, the works of Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Thomas S.Eliot and Simon Weil. Along with 'The Constant Prince', the premiered play of the time of the theatre's opening, and Akropolis, this play became one of the most famous of Grotowski's productions throughout the world, recognise din three different versions of 1968, 1971 and 1973. In 1971, the Wrocław theatre eventually acquired new name: 'The Actor's Institute - Laboratory Theatre'. His subsequent productions were then created with his leading actor, Ryszard Cieślak. In the 1960s and the 1970s, the Laboratory Theatre went on many grand foreign tours and participated in the majority of the world's most significant theatre festivals.
As a result, Grotowski at this time was beginning to significantly create his own 'program'. He wanted to research deeply into the relationship between the stage and the audience and therefore the actor-audience relationship. For example, in Sakuntala the audience became the role of the collective hero, in Forefather's Eve they were immersed as participants in the ritual and in Kordian they were the patients of a psychiatric ward. Grotowski focused in new and exciting ways for actors to express themselves on stage, particularly through the exploration of 'Shakuntala', which Grotowski later stated that they had used to test 'the possibilities for creating signs within the European theatre. Our intentions were not entirely deprived of mischievousness: we sought to create a production that would be an image of Oriental theatre, not entirely authentic, but similar to the manner in which Europeans would imagine it. However, below the surface of this search that was at once derisive and directed against the viewer, there was a hidden program - the effort to discover and reveal a system of signs that would be appropriate to our theatre and appropriate to our civilisation". Through this process, Grotowski discovered a set pattern and began 'the initiation into a search in the realm of organic human reactions, and to the creation of a structure of these reactions. This is what resulted from this most fruitful adventure in our troupe's history, specifically, it resulted in our research into the art of acting'. 
The book was an encapsulation of how Grotowski developed as a director in his primary creative period where he focused on specific acting methods and formulating the idea of a 'poor theatre'. A 'poor theatre' subverted from technological resources used in 'rich theatre' and any other theatrical trappings: he wanted the actor's voice and body to be central to the work, with minimal lighting, costume and sets. The book illustrated on how physical work by actors that took place for long periods of times and was largely inspired on East Asian techniques, with a big emphasis on the voice resonators. He was enthuasiastic about tapping into the sources of ancient expression, and was also interested in Carl Jung, a psychiatrist and as a result sought out archetypes to ensure that roles could be built authentically, with the actors committing to it almost like an act of sacrifice. These acting techniques were not intended to be like a state of trance, but were committed to nurturing precise acting in a state of sharpened consciousness. 
Some landmark productions include Measure for Measure in 1950, The Winter's Tale in 1951, Titus Andronicus in 1955, Hamlet in the same year, The Tempest in 1957 and King Lear in 1962. This involved a European tour with Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh who was in Titus Andronicus. His ground-breaking production of A Midsummer Night's Dream at the RSC which won critical aclaim. At this time, Brook was becoming increasingly influenced by and associated with Artaud's theory transpired from Artaud's 'Theatre of Cruelty' and won international fame through producing Le Balcon by Jean Genet in Paris and Peter Weiss's sensational play Marat/Sade in 1964. In these plays he explored the dynamic of a different actor-audience relationship and unconventional staging, obviously inspired by the pursuit of Artaud's ideas. 
In 1968, Jean-Louis Barrault invited Brook to Paris to inspire his work as political and cultural upheavals were becoming commonplace on the streets and as a result Brook moved to Paris with his wife Natasha Parry to document this through the establishment of the International Centre of Theatre Research. This involved a multinational company of actors, dancers and musicians who travelled widely in Iran, India and Africa, funded by the French government. In fact, he recalls that he felt more embraced by France than England at the time in the way that the 'company was international' and 'Paris was a natural place for people of all races to come together'. His book, 'The Empty Space' was published and he was able to adopt the techniques of Jerzy Grotowski.
In the mid 1950s, he worked on adapting the Indian epic poem the Mahābhārata into a nine hour stage play which was eventually performed in 1985. It received overwhelming critical acclaim as it had 'transformed Hindu myth into universalised art, accessible to any culture'. Nevertheless, it was equally problematic as many post colonial scholars described that it was astute in orientalism. In 2015, Brook revived it as a version tieing in the myths of Hindu culture and the current political context of the time, highlighting the 'unseen cycle, in every human activity'. By 2016, it travelled to France, Japan, Singapore and Mumbai as a sequel called Battlefield.
Instead, Peter Brook was fascinated with the 'holy theatre' - a new, fresh theatre that adds to the art form. He talks about the idea that theatre can happen and occur anywhere, and wanted it to be full of endless possibility where it is always changing in response to society. He was constantly determined to 'net the golden fish' and transform our thinking, and as a result he liked to create massive visual spectacles and subversive pieces of art: for example, his version of A Midsummer Night's Dream at the RSC in Stratford in the 1960s was his breakthrough performance. It involved a white, bare set with all the actors flying around the stage on swings on various levels. Through this production, he created memorable, elaborate images through using Shakespeare's text as a basis and re-imagining it in a fantastical way.
