Forum Theatre & Invisible Theatre Training

Focus Atelier, Cluj, Romania

24th-31st March, 2016

Forum Theatre & Invisible Theatre Training

Focus Atelier, Cluj, Romania

24th-31st March, 2016

CONTENTS

2 … Project Goals & Beneficiaries

Future Aims

3 … Notes on The Content of the Workshops:

4 … The Dilemma of A Safe Space

5 … Invisible Theatre Experiments & The Metaxis of Theatre

6 … The Forum Theatre Pieces

7 … The Rainbow of Desire Workshop

9 … Overall

10 … Invisible Theatre Examples

“I had no idea I would be so deeply touched by this 'apparently random workshop'. I appreciated your way of communicating with different types of personalities. I felt free to explore concepts and ideologies I've never thought about. Also the quality of people involved was very high, so I am grateful to have learned something from everybody”

- Workshop Participant

Project Goals & Beneficiaries

The main aims of the project:

1) 5 hours x 8 days of workshops delivered, totalling 40 hours over the week, were delivered to groups averaging around 20 people per day. A total of approximately 30 persons attended over the week. The days roughly divided into 2 days of image theatre, 2 on invisible theatre, and 4 about forum theatre.

2) An additional 3 hours was delivered on one day, focusing on an introduction to the techniques of the Rainbow of Desire.

3) This series of workshops developed in a more personal rather than analytical manner, meaning that through discussion with the group it was decided to focus more on each other than in performing for an audience. Because of this, there was no final 'showing of work'. However, the group did design and participate in a forum theatre piece amongst themselves.

Future Impact:

1) Participants expressed a strong interest in more workshops, definitely next year, but hopefully in the interim 12 months. Discussions were held on the potential of running Rainbow of Desire workshops or a series to investigate direct action.

2) Participants wanted to initiate a public game playing project called 'In Front of The Block' where people would engage in the games and exercises they trained in on the streets of Cluj.

3) GW has been invited with organiser Lorand Maxim to visit Moldavia to facilitate TotO workshops as part of a Focus Atelier franchise there in autumn.

4) GW has also been invited to visit Bucharest to give a talk and performance on arts-activism and the current state of squatting in London sometime in May.

5) Organiser Andras Erdelyi visited from Budapest, and made links between members of the Cluj collective, with a mind for future collaboration on projects. This is a major success is developing an interdependent network of TotO-based cells in Central/Eastern Europe. Discussions were held for participants to visit the Tu Fuokan festival in July.

NOTES ON THE CONTENT OF THE WORKSHOP

“During the teamwork because I've learned how to listen and calm my energy and give space to the others to express themselves. After this experience I realised that I can influence a lot during the day, so now I pay more attention on what I do and how I act in different situations.”

- Workshop Participant

Some Notes On The Games & Exercises

Walking With Power: a relatively simple exercise of embodying the movements of someone we know from our life who we consider 'has power' and another who 'does not have power'. The range of responses is what is most remarkable, and also the connection with the person we begin to think of. People interpreted power as confidence, physical strength, money, status, emotional intelligence and much more besides. One person in the group reported thinking of themselves as someone who had not much power, and so moved as themselves. To their shock, they encountered another participant who was also thinking about him! These two versions of 'himself' met in the dialogue component, and had much to share on this position of powerlessness.

The Merry-Go-Round of Oppression: six images of oppressions, six protagonists rotate from one to the other, attempting to find a way to break each oppression. The atmosphere was electric, and not just because one scene featured the physical beating of a child by one parent, whilst the other looked on impassively. Afterwards, participants reported having an intense connection with the six forms of oppression, and finding definite connections between all of them.

Multiple Images of Happiness: different artists create images of happiness, and go through a process to see them evolve and change, resulting in one group image of happiness. The image we ended with featured many people lying around a fire, whilst an irregular line of people stood around them forming some kind of shield, or universal hug, but one that was not all uniform. The exercise could have continued – with the result being that our ideas of happiness constantly change too!

The Dilemma of a 'Safe Space'

Upon reviewing feedback from other facilitators, for this series of workshops I decided to forefront the concept of 'a safe space' and explicitly examine the parameters and requirements of this idea with the group. Previously this had always been done implicitly, but several persons had expressed doubts over the effectiveness of this approach. At the beginning of the sessions, I asked the group what they needed to feel safe, and this concept of a safe space became a key feature of every discussion afterwards for the next three days. During those 3 days, a key event took place each day that highlighted the discussion:

1) During the 'actor-as'object' exercise, one participant was very nearly dropped by the others, which could have resulted in a physical injury.

2) During the 'flocking' exercise, a participant tried to withdraw from the process by sitting on the side. The rest of the group, interpreting this as an action to be followed, did the same. The participant then tried to exit the room, and again the group followed her out of the workshop space, only realising afterwards that she was attempting to withdraw from the game. Afterwards, the participant reported a high degree of emotional stress during the game, and was aghast at the responses from the others. She was on the brink of leaving, and I told her she was free to choose what was best for her. I offered to allow space for her to share at the end of the day, should she choose. She returned and immediately explained how she felt to the group, prompting apologies and discussion over what had happened. She remained with the course till the end, reporting a high degree of satisfaction with the process, despite its intensity.

3) On the third day, during an invisible theatre exercise, someone used the word 'gypsy', prompting a participant to request that the group used the word 'Roma' instead, due to the socio-political connotations of 'gypsy' meaning 'slave'. One participant reacted strongly to this, and another, from Hungary, tried to explain that in Hungary the connotations are completely different. This was right at the end of the session, when everyone was tired, and I drew the session to an end without allowing the argument to escalate. Afterwards, the participants involved continued to discuss in separate groups how they felt about the incident. I spoke to each in turn, and they reported that they were on the brink of leaving the course, unable to continue. I listened and explained that they were free to do so, but asked them to consider returning to discuss the next day. The next day we had a two hour round-circle discussion and sharing on what had happened, allowing space for everyone to share their feelings and debate the matter. The group also raised the question of whether it is appropriate, or appropriation, for someone to 'play' a character from an oppressed group, such as a Roma, and if so, does this apply to non-racial oppressions, such as sexuality, or gender? Can a man play a woman and vice versa, and what about those who are indeterminate?

After these three incidents, which interestingly relate to 3 different forms of safety (physical, emotional, and mental/political), I no longer used the phrase 'safe space.' One participant reported that last year we never mentioned the phrase, and throughout the course, people felt safe. Indeed, once this phrase was dropped from the vocabulary, people got on with what was requested and no longer constantly assessed how safe they felt. Perhaps this was because we had already been through so much that the trust was formed. Perhaps it was because we feel safest when we aren't aware of potential danger. I am still torn as to the best way to progress, but from the feedback received feel that the precautions taken for people's well-being were adequate. Also, at the beginning of each day, we did a 'check-in' with a partner, allowing people to share how they were privately, and then allowing space for everyone to address the group afterwards, should they wish to. I believe the concept of safety to be different for each person, and requiring a great deal of sensitivity to the power we have over ourselves and others, be that physical, mental, emotional, political or otherwise. I believe these experiences formed a core of learning for many in the group, and several reported great satisfaction with how these spaces were facilitated.

Invisible Theatre Experiments & The Metaxis of Theatre

Invisible theatre, where the 'audience' has no idea that what they are experiencing is theatre, presents some tricky problems as a subject for workshop analysis. To tackle this, I divided the group and gave each an example of an invisible theatre piece from 200 Games For Actors & Non-Actors – Boal's seminal handbook (included in the appendix here)- to prepare in secret. Each group had then to adapt and prepare a piece to present in the workshop space. However, for each piece, a number of 'non-actors' would be placed in the scene as members of the public, whilst a number formed the 'audience' to watch from outside and observe the results.

Immediately, the distinction between actor/non-actor was lost, as the observers and indeed people within each scene forgot who was a 'plant' and who was there improvising responses, with fascinating results. In the train scene, arguments broke out between passengers; in the conference scene a furious discussion around immigration erupted from the crowd; in the road-block picnic, members of the audience leapt into the scene to join the cyclist blocking the road. Everyone was a spec-actor, or a potential one, and the results were dynamic and stimulating.

As mentioned in the previous section, one scene dealt with racism towards a member of the Roma community on a ferry, and lead to someone using the word 'gypsy' during a post-show analysis, which lead to a furious argument. Such was the effect of these exercises that afterwards people had suspicions that they had been part of a piece of invisible theatre within the workshop, beginning to question the reality of what was happening around them, and indeed, our perception of reality itself! It lead perfectly towards the idea of theatre as a metaxis – a condition of inbetweeness. When we are onstage, we are simultaneously ourselves and the 'character' we are playing. In this workshop, we were inbetween actor, specactor and observer, all at the same time, inbetween workshop, theatre and the imagined reality of performing these actions in the streets. The invisible theatre exercises worked in a different way from the formality of forum theatre, and the structured imagery of Rainbow, in that they blurred the distinctions between audience and actor in a much subtler and more complicated manner.

And of course, we never revealed whether it was really invisible theatre or not ...

The Forum Theatre Pieces

Four pieces were created, and the group voted on which one to explore. Here are descriptions of two of them, plus some of the interventions in the selected piece.

Education

Five students sit awaiting their TEACHER. She enters, forces them to stand, to sit, to stand again, sit again. She orders them to read a page from their books. One student raises a hand. Standing, the STUDENT explains that they have already read this page. The TEACHER is furious, and calls the STUDENT to the front of the class, where she proceeds to humiliate her. She then picks on a second student, and similarly humiliates and belittles them. Returning to her seat, the TEACHER places her feet up on the chair in front of her and relaxes, satisified that she is completely in control of the situation.

We Are Equal But …

A WIFE works furiously to prepare dinner, clean, and serve drinks, whilst FATHER sits serenely at the table. DAUGHTER and GIRLFRIEND hide in the bedroom, only emerging to simiarly demand drinks from WIFE. GIRLFRIEND makes awkward conversation with FATHER, who wants to know if his DAUGHTER is seeing any boys at school. In the bedroom, GIRLFRIEND pressures DAUGHTER to reveal her sexuality to her parents. BOSS arrives for dinner and has a business conversation with FATHER, waited on by WIFE. A WOMAN from the Feminist Society drops in, wanting to discuss domestic violence with the family, who insist that everything is fine.

1) The first intervention the WIFE completely changed and rejected doing any more work, slumping down in a chair and refusing to move. The family seemed extremely shocked by her sudden change in behaviour, and she challenged them all. She attempted to form closer bonds with her DAUGHTER, now swearing and offering to bake cookies together, ignoring the bewildered and suddenly lost FATHER.

2) The second intervention replaced the WIFE character, making her much more proactive in engaging with her family beyond a servile manner. She is affectionate, interested and engaging, asking questions and negotiating her position, whilst still appearing happy and satisfied with her role. On the arrival of the BOSS, she sits down, forcing the FATHER to go get the food. She engages with the BOSS almost flirtatiously.

3) Upon changing the FATHER figure to explore different forms of oppression, he became much more manipulative in his domineering. He put on a show of being 'a modern man' in front of the BOSS, going to cook dinner and bring the food, but behind the scenes would insist on dominating the WIFE and DAUGHTER, telling them that they have obligations to the family. This attitude causes the DAUGHTER and her GIRLFRIEND to run away from home. They were brought back to continue to play the scene, with someone else playing the DAUGHTER.

4) The DAUGHTER character engages with her GIRLFRIEND, resisting her pressures to come out to the rest of her family. On the entry of the WIFE, this revelation is made to her in the midst of an argument, but a reconciliation seems possible.

5) At one point, the family seemed able to sit down together to discuss issues around the table, but the harmony of the image quickly shattered as the daughter begins to argue.

This scene was a complex, subtle and detailed exploration of our personal conceptions of family, and indeed secrets and accepted oppressions within the family unit. People were attracted to different aspects of the anti-model, and portraying different ways of relating to the roles within the image. Several times the family seems on the brink of the collapse due to the domination of the patriarchal father-husband-employee figure at the centre, and indeed the whole scene changed dramatically when we swapped the gender of the actors playing each character. The model suited the discussions of the week which had recurrently addressed gender roles, patriarchy and traditional familial roles. There was a great deal of intensity in the exchanges, and it is unfortunate that due to time and energy constraints we could not explore what our visions of an 'ideal' or best outcome would be in this scenario.

The Rainbow of Desire Workshop

“To me it felt like therapy, so I'll be using what I discovered about myself in healing my relationships with myself and others.”

-Workshop Participant

A Family Decision … A participant created a model of a moment where she did not know what she wanted, featuring a family meeting with her FATHER, MOTHER, GRANDFATHER, GRANDMOTHER and UNCLE. Four of the relatives were sat in a line, with her inbetween, and the MOTHER was sat separately, directly across from them. The scene was improvised, with the participant trying to explain to her relatives why she wished to change her course at university and pursue film-making as a career path.