Book Review - Playbuilding as Qualitative Analysis

[shadowkat]

Recently finished reading the non-fiction novel Playbuilding as Qualitative Analysis, which I borrowed from the woman that I'm currently co-writing a play with for an informal theater project organized through First UU of Brooklyn.

The book surprised me, on the surface it's mainly an academic analysis and history of a Canadian Educational Theater experiment entitled "Mirror Theater", where social issues are examined via improvisational, and planned performances, some filmed, some theaterical. But in reality, it explores things such as bullying, miscommunication, bigotry, gender politics, play-building and play-writing, collaborative research, and interpersonal relationships. If you are a play write, an actor, a sociology major, or a teacher - I highly recommend reading this book. Although it doesn't really matter, since I'm certainly none of those things, yet it taught me a great deal.

Amongst the interesting tid-bits:

1. The term "slapstick comedy" derived from using "slap-sticks" to hit each other on stage in a comedic style of combat.

Stage fighting is a precision art. It takes a long while to rehearse, with safety at its core. In the second vignette, a slap was used as the consequence [if the character picked the correct number, he got slapped, if he didn't he got twenty bucks in the play], and the actors practiced the slap to make it realistic. The "victim" would turn his/her head as the perpetuator's hand passed by. To heighten the effect, we employed a slapstick to create a loud sound. Fires used in commedia dell-arte (Rudlin and Crick, 2001) a slapstick is two slats of wood fastened by a spring. As it swung back, the slats separate; as it is brought forward, they connect with a loud snap. Actors would feign hitting each other with these on stage, hence the root of slapstick comedy.

2. Communication Responsibility - how a simple word such as "NO" can mean various things depending on body language and tone of voice. This passage was eye-opening and managed to articulate something that I've been struggling to say in various online debates regarding "consent" since 2002.

In workshop discussions with the audience, issues of communication responsibility were raised. "What message do you want to send?" was an emerging question, as was "Are you interpreting the message appropriately?" [Too often, I see people being blasted for not writing something well but rarely do I see responsibility for how we listen or interpret what we see or hear. And that, is just as important.] ....in a scene that was originally named "Tickle" ....a male is playing a video game and his girlfriend enters. He laughs and says "No." He's really into the game, but she persists. Again he firmly says "No." The third time he says "No," he is referring to his loss of the game. They then playfully begin to tickle each other, and each advance is countered by a "No," albeit with a different inflection. Eventually, the scene escalates, with her on the floor, him on top and she screaming "NO!" It is a powerful scene and plays metaphorically. It can be, but need not be, about sexual or physical abuse.

In workshopping this.....the issue of the responsibility of the receiver was highlighted. In "Tickle", the audience was asked why she didn't stop after the first tickle. The common response was "HE laughed when he said it [No]." This led us quickly into how words are more ambiguous than they seem, that much of a word's meaning is in its oral expression. During a tour in a rural community where we were informed by the community's social workers of a possible date rape, "Tickle" became the focus of the high school students. As the discussion progressed, it was evident that it had an impact on the male audience members. The issue that emerged was "You need to listen carefully to all the signals being sent, and that isn't easy."

3. This quote about the purpose of theater and to a broader degree all art, be it a painting, a book, a film or a television series:

Theatre acts like a mirror, reflecting back at us glimspes of our lives. Its purpose is to help us stop, think, and examine our actions. When we look into a mirror we make sight adjustments. We straighten a tie, brush our hair or beard, and generally check out our appearance so that our public image resembles how we would like to be seen. The purpose of this video is to act like a mirror. The vignettes you are about to see depict many examples of prejudice. The easy part is to recognize prejudice in others. The more difficult and challenging is to recognize it in ourselves. When we do, change is possible, as we move from awareness to making adjustments. We invite you to look into the mirror.

We ask a lot from our audiences. We challenge them not to define their oppressors but to examine how they may oppress others. When one identifies with the oppressed, one blames a person who is not present, and thus change is not readily available. When one identifies with the oppressor, one can change one's behaviors.

I think sometimes it is really hard to look in that mirror. And to think, damn, I didn't realize I was a bully - I need to work on that. Most cruel or hurtful acts - I've noticed, are unintentional. No true malice was intended. It wasn't deliberate.
And the oppressor was most likely completely unaware that they were hurting someone else. Too caught up in their own agenda, own issues, etc. I think this is true of everyone. I've noticed often in re-reading a rant, or a thread, that I inadvertently hurt someone, and ironically so, in the exact way that I was ranting about. While it's reassuring to know everyone does this more or less, it's hardly an excuse.

4. Friends/Communities/Cliques/Gangs - I've often thought that no matter where I go or what group of people I interact with - I can't escape the clique or the feeling of exclusion, whether it is me or someone else.

Communities are problematic in that they celebrate both inclusion and exclusion. People typically identify with some but not others. Staff rooms can have the jock table and the bridge groups, and school corridors can by divided by race or other interests. Some communities are passively exclusive and could be considered cliques, whereas the more overt groups may be called gangs. To a large extent, identity is referenced in relation to others - to those who are similar and to those who are different- and we often associate with those with whom we have things in common. This is natural and could be considered healthy; however, there are implicit rules at play that could be forms of systemic violence. Articulating them may assist in more inclusive decision making.

Through the vignette [the vignette is actors are split into four groups, one group wears red sweatshirts, one group wears blue, one group wears green, then one actor has a sweatshirt that is half green and half blue or a combo. She doesn't fit and can't find a table to sit at. Either leaves. Creates own space. Tries to join and is booted out. Or fought over as "exotic".] we ask - "What are appropriate/inappropriate reasons to include/exclude others? What implicit rules dictate who can associate with whom? How do we (should we) treat an outlier? What can an outlier do to be included?" Prejudice and bullying are both underpinned by a sense of indifference to those who don't belong. The vignette challenges the rigidity of a community's boundaries, in search of more permeable boarders that may accomodate those on its margins.

Education and therapy through theater and art - seems to be useful, it's a safer means of doing it - providing a mirror, that allows adjustment without unnecessary conflict or confrontation. Sometimes I think art works as a sort of peaceful diplomat or ambassador.

Great book, will haunt me for a time. And very useful.