Add a Comment

Comment by Leo Kay on December 9, 2011 at 3:44

to re articulate my opinion on political theatre, which seems slightly misinterpreted. I feel theatre can be political not only in its content but also through context and form. The fact that someone aspires towards a context in which the audience can commune with the performer or concepts explored does not mean that they want to run to the hills and live with hippies. For me it is attempting to swim against the flow, within the society we live, and explore alternatives to the accepted ways in which we are fed information.

Comment by Brent Morgan on December 8, 2011 at 13:26

I don't think political theatre is ever one thing, it is something that changes it's form to adapt to the message and points that the piece is trying to raise. I love the idea that the Occupy movement is an effective piece of political theatre and perhaps the main point that I would take from that is that truly political theatre is something that grabs the attention of those trying to ignore it.

Comment by National Theatre Wales on December 8, 2011 at 11:36

Here's the link to the NTS debate on AgitProp tomorrow at 3

Comment by meredydd barker on December 8, 2011 at 11:21

He has an Article 32 Hearing on the 16th where he can make an unsworn statement. That will be fascinating.

Comment by National Theatre Wales on December 8, 2011 at 11:07

This is hugely stimulating - thank you everyone for your thoughts. I'm still digesting it all but a few thoughts leap out to me - Rajni's championing of 'active listening' - surely what Brecht was aiming for - in contrast to the model of participation (which has often been central for me).  Meredydd's line 'we now have more politics than we know what to do with' (remember 'the end of history'!!) - one thing that a play does is focus us, help us out of the confusing mass of contradictory information towards .. action?  Whereas Leo is advocating the action being the theatre event itself - the way in which we chose to be in space together, an approach perhaps politically closer to the establishment of an alternative community than to a struggle with current society? 

One of the fascinating strengths of the Occupy movement is the refusal to articulate a clear set of demands.  That places the movement open to ridicule ('Our only goal is to have no goals - and we've already achieved it!) But it also disarms the usual antagonists and interogators with a very bold statement - we are not a unified demand, we are a political expression of anger in its many forms.  The implied political challenge is that it is not Occupy's job to come up with solutions, but to express the need for solutions.  In some way this is why it often seems theatrical (in the best possible way) to me.

So, I ask myself, how does all this apply to a play about Bradley Manning? 

Comment by Julie Barclay on December 8, 2011 at 4:15

I think theres a perception that political plays are boring dull and unfathomable...that politics is about politicians and that political plays will have an campaigning message and it puts people off.I think a key question for theatre makers is how do we create popular and personal work that is also political and motivates people to want to go and see it? How can a convention bound play capture a political climate/zeitgeist.. and present the facts in such a way that the audience feel as if it resonates with them ..as if it is about them. Life is so complex that it seems to defy invention but i think that NTW has a public responsibility to create a platform to debate our cultural realities..our opinions and stories, compelling the audience to stir their consciousness.I also think that in a climate of lack of trust in newspaper/media reporting the theatre can create work that attempts to bring a community together to reach the heart of a matter..it doesnt have to stick to the facts of the matter to do that, but it has the freedom to explore an issue ..find a theatrical language for it..the way shakespeare did with his historical tradegies or Churchill, Pinter, Miller with many of their plays.

Comment by meredydd barker on December 8, 2011 at 4:00

After New Labour won in '97 Roy Hattersley wrote that Blair had, "taken the politics out of politics": New Labour had been made out of Labour. Blair denied this. He told Hattersley that he hadn't taken the politics out of politics, but that he was one of the first people to notice it had gone. Why? Because everyone thought they were middle class. "No more boom and bust," was the mantra that gave us all the same aspirations. People, it is a level playing field, the stabilisers are on, and we are all wearing the same brand of shinpads. Work hard and the mountain will be coming to a place near you very soon. This is not America, but it sure as hell feels like it. It wasn't only the Wall Street brokers who were taking coke on a school night. We all were, and if you weren't spending the money on coke you were spending the money on something you didn't need. But we could afford it. We all had the same hangover but with different spray jobs.

 

Political parties need a class base, always have done, which is why New Labour died; and we now have more politics than we know what to do with. The credit crunch took, but it also gave us back the haves and have nots. Well, they've always been there so lets say it gave back one hell of a gap between the two. Of course the ugliest aspect of all of this has been the unedifying sight of people who thought, 'at last, we have!' sliding down the snake to whence they came. Dreams have been destroyed, with evil insouciance.

 

This is where I think political theatre comes in. It illustrates the nature of a problem, play by play, focus by focus, and it does so without preaching to the converted. It makes hard observations and offers them to people who might not want to hear such things, probably because of their culpability. OCCUPY isn't political theatre; and St Pauls isn't either, unless studied repetition is your thing. But boy oh boy is it political theatre now the two have met. The Reverend Giles Fraser asking the police to leave the cathedral steps saying he was happy for people to "exercise their right to protest peacefully" outside the cathedral. That was political theatre. The fact that there are spoken word and music performances at OCCUPY is great but hardly indicative of coherence. Theatre marshalls points of view and presents them cogently, amongst other things. That isn't the same as keeping each other amused. There's way too much of that already.

 

Anyway-

 

"He who thinks politics not his business has no business." Pericles

Comment by Kevin Johnson on December 8, 2011 at 2:57

As most political parties now court the middle ground (though not necessarily middle as in liberal) and are almost identical, political theatre for me now seems to be concerned with the struggle of the individual against the state or corporate interests, Deep Cut being an example of this. I see privacy and people's rights as being the main battle ground of the future, as the Left is 'uncool' and the Right discredited. 

 

 

Comment by Leo Kay on December 8, 2011 at 2:24

It seems that a major aspect of political life is the concideration of how the group is governed by the ruling party; what structures and freedoms are put into place; what is spent and saved and in what areas: who is a friend of the group and who a foe. With this in mind it seems  that politics is in every area of theatre. Sown into the fabric of a company practice, the hierarchy, democracy, autocracy or anarchy prevelant within the creative process. Present in the decision of who the company give voice to, of where they place the work and of who and how the work is presented. Theatre is political. It is a stand and a statement. it may be that someones work seems disengaged from any one political standpoint or unfocused in its intent. but that, in itself, may demonstrate  the  human political currents running under the governmental politics of our times. The 'Occupy' political movement is full of art and expression. Spoken word and music are performed daily. The politics discussed covers the gamete of greed, autocracy, anarchy, love and acceptance.many aspects of theatre are present in this manifestation: , rebellion, drama, adversity, an opposition, characters, roles, celebration etc...

Within my company practice I have been making  work(both with professional artists and in community settings) that is intimate, for a small number of audience, interactive and in a site responsive/nomadic context. A major reason for making work of this kind has been because I have found that I am less and less effected by presentational performance which does not accept and engage with audience as present, sentient beings capable of integration in the work. I attempt to make work that allows for transformation. This is a political act and the work, due to small audience numbers, unconventional performance context and  intimate audience address , irrespective of its content, acts as a political statement toward the need for community in a culture where isolation is prevalent and against the preoccupation with exposure, and financial 'success'. Of course I want the work to gain exposure and be successful but not  at the expense of my creative impulses. to me theatre is politics. It shines a light on what the creative vision maker behind the work believes we should be looking at.

Comment by Jen Thornton on December 8, 2011 at 0:56

National Theatre of Scotland tweeted to let us know that they'll be discussing this very topic online tomorrow at 3pm with novelist and playwright Alan Bissett. Should be an interesting one to stop by for, and hopefully feed into this debate too. 

Jen

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page