The Theatre of the Oppressed describes a range of theatrical forms that the Brazilian theatre practitioner Augusto Boal first elaborated in the 1960s, initially in Brazil and later in Europe. Boal was influenced by the work of the educator and theorist Paulo Freire. Boal's techniques use theatre as means of knowledge and transformation of reality in the social and relational field. In the Theatre of the Oppressed, the audience becomes active, such that as "spect-actors" they explore, show, analyze and transform the reality in which they are living.
Contents |
The Theatre of the Oppressed, a term coined by Augusto Boal, is a series of theatrical analyses and critiques developed in the 1950s. Boal is an avid supporter of utilizing interactive techniques, especially in the context of theatre. Many of his ideas are considered as "a new media perspective", despite the relatively early birth of these ideas. Since then, these ideas have been developed more, giving them meaning in a modern-day context. The creation of the Theatre of the Oppressed is largely based on the idea of dialogue and interaction between audience and performer.[1] Moreover, these ideas have served as a framework for the development and evolution of stronger ideas.[2]
Simultaneous dramaturgy is a technique used to define a type of actor-audience interaction. It is the technique where amidst the middle of a theatrical work, the actors on stage will stop the play and ask the audience for solutions to their situation. The audience will voice their opinion toward a solution.[2]
This approach bridges the gap and increases interaction between actor and audience. It promotes consistent dialogue, and breaks barriers that might otherwise divide the two. The audience now becomes empowered to direct the course of the play. More importantly, a sense of empowerment is bestowed upon the audience: an incredible factor in political activism, hence the name: "Theatre of the Oppressed".[2]
One of Boal's examples include a woman involved in a controversial situation. The woman, being illiterate, was asked by her husband to hold onto a set of important documents. Despite her inability to read, she neglected the importance of the documents and stored them away. One day, the woman and her husband broke out in a fight, and consequently asked a neighbor to interpret the papers for her. It turns out that the documents were love letters that her husband's mistress wrote. However, at this point, it is clear that the woman seeks vengeance in some way—but the play is stopped and the actors ask the audience how the story should play out.
From there the audience can give suggestions or instructions to actors, who will improvise the solution. (Summary of pg. 132-133 of Theatre of the Oppressed)[3]
Boal claims this form of theatre to be one of the most stimulating because of its ease of enactment and its remarkable capacity of portraying thought in a concrete form due to the absence of language idiom. Each word has a denotation common for all as well as a connotation that is unique for each individual. Each will have his own interpretation of "revolution", and to demonstrate such idea provides a clearer understanding of their intention in definition when shown rather than told. (Wardrip-Fruin, 344). For instance, one can "embrace" another in many ways (in a tight, harassing manner or a loose soft manner), however the word has the same definition of clasping another person in the arms.[2]
While practicing in South America earlier in his career, Boal would apply 'simultaneous dramaturgy'. In this process, the actors or audience members could stop a performance, often a short scene in which a character was being oppressed in some way (for example, a typically chauvinist man mistreating a woman or a factory owner mistreating an employee). The audience could propose any solution, so long as they conveyed it on stage, working, acting, and directing not from the comfort of their seat. This was an attempt to undo the traditional audience/actor partition and bring audience members into the performance, to have an input into the dramatic action they were watching. Through this process, the participant is also able to realize and experience the challenges of achieving the improvements he/she suggested (Wardrip-Fruin, 344).[2]
Forum theatre was born from 'simultaneous dramaturgy' when, according to Boal this concept of the 'spect-actor' became a dominant force within Boal's later Forum theatre work. The audience were now encouraged to not only imagine change but to actually practise that change, reflect collectively on the suggestion, and thereby become empowered to generate social action.
Thus, Boal's current manifestation of Forum theatre is as follows: the actors (either professional actors or non professionals drawn from oppressed communities) perform a play with a scripted core, in which an oppression relevant to the audience is played out. After reaching the scripted conclusion, in which the oppressed character(s) fail to overturn their oppression, the actors begin the production again, although often in a condensed form. At any point during this second performance, any spect-actor may call out "stop!" and take the place of the actor portraying the oppressed individual (this actor stays on stage but to the side, giving suggestions to the spect-actor who has replaced him/her).
If and when the oppression has been overthrown by the spect-actors, the production changes again: the spect-actors now have the opportunity to replace the oppressors, and find new ways of challenging the oppressed character. In this way a more realistic depiction of the oppression can be made by the audience, who are often victims of the oppression. The whole process is designed to be dialectic, coming to a conclusion through the consideration of opposing arguments, rather than didactic, in which the moral argument is one-sided and pushed from the actors with no chance of reply or counter-argument.
Boal clarifies that this practice is not intended to show the correct path, but rather to discover all possible paths which may be further examined. The theatre itself is not revolutionary, instead a rehearsal of revolution. The spectators learn much more from the enactment even if done in a fictional manner, since it stimulates the practice of the art in reality. When encountered in reality with a similar situation they've rehearsed in theatre, forum theatre evokes a desire in people to be proactive since they feel much more prepared and confident in resolving the conflict. The practice of this form creates an uneasy sense of incompleteness that seeks fulfillment through real action. (Wardrip-Fruin, 346) [2]
A system of techniques devised to give the audience a way to transform daily news articles or any non-dramatic pieces to theatrical scene. The strategies are as follows (Wardrip-Fruin, 346):[2]
Invisible theatre is a previously rehearsed play that is performed in a public space without informing the public that it is a play. It addresses a precise theme concerning social injustice, such as sexism, racism or ageism. The performance is intended to provoke debate and to clarify the problem with the people who experience it.
An example of Invisible Theater given by Boal involved "actors" posing as customers in a restaurant. One actor would start by drawing attention to himself by ordering food and then stating later on afterward that he did not have enough to pay for it. A conflict arises and other actors intervene to assist the first actor.
Photo romance is a romantic narrative illustrated with sequential photographs in the style of a comic strip, usually published in magazines and such. The technique involves introducing to the participants the general plot without revealing the source of the photo romance. Then, the participants are asked to act out the story, which is then compared to the actual story as described in the source. The differences are discussed thereafter.
A particular story interpreted and acted out may be a predictable, pathetic one, however at the same time this result served as a magnificent example of ideological insight. Boal argues that if they first act out the story themselves then afterwords read the original version, the participants will no longer assume a passive, expectant attitude, but instead a critical, comparative one. They as well be prepared to detect the poison infiltrating the pages of those photo-stories, or the comics and other forms of cultural and ideological domination. This technique is also useful to analyze television programs, a dominant source of poison directed against the people. (Wardrip-Fruin, 349)[2]
Boal explains that the technique of breaking repression involves asking the participant to remember a particular moment when he or she felt especially repressed, accepted it, and submitted to act in a manner contrary to his or her own desires. It is necessary, he explains, that the choice is a particular incident rather than a general sense of oppression. The participant describes that incident, which is then reconstructed and re-enacted with other participants of his choosing. This performance is repeated, except that this time the repressed is asked to fight to impose his or her will while the others involved are invited to maintain the repression.
The conflict that results helps to measure the possibility one has to resist in situations where one fails to do so, as well as to measure the true strength of the enemy. Having rehearsed a resistance to oppression prepares the individual to resist effectively in similar situations that may be encountered in the future.(Wardrip-Fruin,349)[2]
Boal states that the process to be realized in doing this type of theater is the one that ascends from the phenomenon toward the law; from the phenomena presented in the plot toward the social laws that govern those phenomena.(Wardrip-Fruin,349)[2]
Myth theatre is simply a question of discovering the obvious behind the myth: to logically tell a story, revealing its evident truths. For example, in a legend of the lagoon of Cheken, the property of the lagoon was explained by the "loss" of the eldest daughter, the landlord's most precious possession, when in actuality a transaction took place. The daughter was explained to have submitted herself for the sake of her civilians and the love of her father when in reality she was sold by the father to obtain the lake for profit (Wardrip-Fruin, 351).[2]
A story is told by one of the participants and immediately the actors improvise it. Afterward each character is broken down into their social roles and the participants are asked to choose a physical object to symbolize each role. For instance for one community the head of the symbol for the head of the family may be a wallet, since that individual is the one who controls the finances (power). Having analyzed the characters, a fresh attempt to tell the story is made, however this time removing some of the symbols from each character, and consequently some social roles as well. For example, the story would be perceived differently if the robber had the police uniform and the hostage possessed a revolver. Through this method, the participants will realize that human actions are not the exclusive and primitive result of human psychology: the individual speaks of their class as well. (Wardrip-Fruin, 351)[2]
This technique attempts to reveal the ideological super-structure of a society in the form of its rituals. "Rituals" in this sense describes the patterns of human relationships and the masks of behaviour that those patterns impose on the participants according to the roles that they play in society. For example: a man goes to a priest to confess his sins; despite the individual identities of the man and priest (i.e. the priest and the parishioner are landlords, the priest is a landlord and the parishioner is a peasant, and etc. ) the pattern of behavior will remain the same as other examples of this interaction. This will cause different scenarios to play out even though the confession is the same. Boal argues that this is an extraordinarily rich technique that has many variants: for example, the same ritual may be explored by its participants exchanging masks or it may be enacted by people from different social classes.[2]
When Boal was a Vereador (city councilman) in Rio de Janeiro, he created a new form of theatre called "legislative theatre" to give his voters the opportunity to voice their opinions. The objective is to open up a dialogue between citizens and institutional entities so that there is a flow of power between both groups. Boal calls this type of legislative process a "transitive democracy," which lies in between direct democracy (practiced in ancient Greece) and delegate democracy.[4] It is similar to forum theatre; however, the subject of the production is based on a proposed law to be passed. Spect-actors may take the stage and express their opinions, thereby helping with the creation of new laws. Some 13 laws were created through legislative theatre during Boal's time in government. The technique has since been used overseas in countries including Canada and the United Kingdom.
Rainbow of Desire is a technique and also a family of techniques explained by Boal in his book of the same name. Rainbow techniques stem from Image theatre and tend to focus on forms of internalized oppression played out by a protagonist in relation to an antagonist. Rainbow of Desire is often considered a form of drama therapy.
Much of Augusto Boal’s theatrical process requires a neutral party to be at the centre of proceedings. This individual is usually called the Facilitator, although in Boal’s literature this role is referred to as the Joker, in reference to the neutrality of the Joker card in a deck of playing cards. In most cases, but not all, this would be a drama workshop leader. This person takes responsibility for the logistics of the process and ensures a fair proceeding, but must never comment upon or intervene in the content of the performance, as that is the province of the Spect-actors.
This is a term created by Augusto Boal to describe those engaged in Forum theatre. It refers to the dual role of those involved in the process as both spectator and actor, as they both observe and create dramatic meaning and action in any performance.
Equally, the term 'spect-actor' can be attributed to the participants in invisible theatre (who are unaware that they are part of a theatrical production, but nevertheless contribute to the discussion) and image theatre (who, upon viewing the image created, may alter it to reflect their own ideas).
Boal emphasizes that as much as we can, to prevent the isolation of the audience. It is quite hilarious. The term "spectator" brands the participant to be less than human hence is necessary to humanize them, to restore them their capacity of action in all its fullness. They must also be a subject, an actor on equal plane with those accepted as actors, who in turn must also be spectators. This will eliminate any notions of the ruling class and the theatre solely portraying their ideals while the audience being the passive victims of those images. This way the spectators no longer delegates power to the characters either to think or act in their place. They free themselves; they think and act for themselves. Boal supports the idea that theatre is not revolutionary in itself but is rehearsal of revolution. (Wardrip-Fruin, 352)[2]
Inspired by Augusto Boal, this Organisation links other Theatres of the Oppressed groups to one another. The idea is that others will help groups organize themselves and create new centers for Theatres of the Oppressed. There are links to other organisations involved with this projects so anyone can contact anyone else involved.[5] This online Organisation allows others to share information about the Theatre of the Oppressed.