After performing both Theatre In Education pieces, we needed time to reflect on the positive and negative aspects and also the effectiveness of each piece. There were both positive and negative aspects to both of the piece and these could affect the effectiveness of the pieces as well. We had reflective sessions at the end of both of the piece with the audiences and we also got a chance to talk to our teacher about our performances.
Our SToRMS piece was the first to be performed and one of the main positive feedback that we got was that the reflective listening groups at the end were really beneficial to particular audience members who actually commented that they were struggling with some of the topics included in the piece and they hoped that someone would be able to listen to them and help them after this. We were able to talk through the 7 deadly sins of communication with my group being particularly intrigued about what each one meant and at times when examples were given, the group was able to identify when they had experience someone use that in their lives. This opened up the situation for discussion as we could talk through what happened in that situation and ask how talking to them in that tone made them feel and how reflective listening could have been used in that situation. When we also went out for the interactive sections with the audience, they seemed very open to talking to us about what they would do in those situations. This was how we wanted it to be so that the audience didn't feel like we were going to judge them on their opinions and we just wanted to talk through their thought process throughout the piece and their interpretation of the piece. The comedic timing of the piece was also commented on as the audience responded as we expected to the jokes that were made which allowed interaction between the cast and the audience much easier as the atmosphere was already set from the comedy aspects before hand.
One of the main negative aspects of the SToRMS performance was refocusing the audience which was needed in order for them to understand both the story line and for the audience to completely understand the messages that we were portraying. Even though the facilitators had microphones, at times the audience overpowered them and lines were lost due to the talking of the audience. This meant that particular explanations of the activities were lost in the sea of voices and so the activity did not work as we had expected due to the audience not being able to hear the explanation of what they were being asked to do. As expected there were also certain groups in the audience who weren't interested in the piece and the messages that we were trying to convey and this lead to them not wanting to interact with cast members and relate their own lives to the piece. This made it harder to ask some of the questions and we had to use techniques like asking other questions about the scene and what happened which allowed us to initiate conversations about the scene. At times this was successful and other not which altered the effectiveness a lot.
In terms of effectiveness, I feel that the SToRMS piece was overall quite effective as in a discussion with the client, we said that in an audience of aorund 50/60 people, if we could help 2 or 3 people then that would be enough as this could be exactly what they needed. I know that we helped at least 1 person as they told me about how this was what they needed and so I believe that we achieved what we set out to do and therefore the piece was effective. I do however believe that there were members of the audience who didn't think about the piece once they had left the performance space so it was not 100% effective.
In terms of the Primary School "Survival Guide" we had a much younger target audience and therefore it appeared to be much easier to interact with as they were very interested in what we had to say. Especially in the interactive sections, we had a lot of students wanting to answer our questions and were eager to make their opinions heard. They were very willing to participate in the small activities that we gave them which made it much easier to discuss and talk through their opinions in relation to the subject chapter we were on. During the Quiz scene, in which we were asking the audience in small group for the best response to the scenario we had set up, the audience's competitive streak was clear and we had many discussion about what the best response would get the best outcome. During the discussion groups at the end of the piece, the audience were given the opportunity to ask any questions that they had and this also allowed us to ask them for feedback on the piece and the response was that they felt more relaxed about moving up to secondary school. One of the teachers at our school has a daughter that watched the piece and her and her class were talking about it for a week after we had performed it which clearly show the effectiveness of the piece if the children were talking about the piece and secondary school even after we had left. The only negative aspects of the performance was the pace during the start of the piece which was too fast, this could possibly change the effectiveness of the piece due to the audience not being able to hear the start of the first chapter as the narrator talked slightly too fast and so the audience might not have been able to connect to the situation that had been set up for them as they couldn't hear the explanation.
Overall the performance was successful and the audience clearly took away the main messages that we wanted them to understand which was that moving up to secondary school isn't as scary as they thought. I think that it was completely effective for the audience as they were talking about it even after the performance. We even got verbal communication that they were more excited about moving up to secondary school which means that the Primary School piece was more effective than the SToRMS piece.
No comments:
Post a Comment