It's nearly December!!!

A little something to brighten up the end of your day :D 

And if you get chance, watch more of ImprovEverywhere's videos! They're a really good example of a company that produces work in public spaces (linking with the post I did earlier :D). I love watching their videos. Even if you're not into all this drama malarky, they're really fun to watch without analysis :D

Space: where everyone can hear you scream...

What do we define as a space for a performance? What types of spaces are there and what is considered appropriate? How easy is it to transform one type of space into another?

If a performance is any action we do in life (I will write a blog all about performance at a later date...WARNING: that will be a long one! ;D), that means that the spaces all around us are part of a performing space, whether it's in a bathroom or a theatre, space must be any location where action takes place. 

In a performance called Entitled by the company Quaratine, we saw onstage the creation and disassembly of a performance. This took place in a theatre; the performance space. When the director was asked about the meaning behind this creation and destruction, he explained that the performance was about the space in which a performance happens, whether its the audience space, performers space or a collaboration of both. He also stated that one of the chairs in the production was the original chair from the first rehearsal session they had! The chair originally inhabited the rehearsal space, but then crossed over to the performance space where the object suddenly became part of the peformance and not a tatty old chair that was outdated.

We know it is possible to create a performance in any sort of space due to the creation and increasing popularity of Flash Mobs, but how do we know we are watching a performance when any space can become a place for performance? 

Performances produced in a theatre are framed by the space so we know we are watching a performance. However, creating a performance in a space where day to day life happens without much throught leads us to ask questions when we see a possible production. Is what we are watching real? Do I intervene in what is happening? etc. 


How do we define a space for performance? If you have any ideas let me know. Sorry this is pretty vague but this is still a subject that is still being questioned and I am confused as to how to describe it! Leave comments below of your ideas!

Bloggers vs. 'the law'

A lot of people think that Bloggers are just people voicing their opinion and don't actually make a difference to issues that are happening. Well one boy from Wales (yay! Wales!) took on a Texan Medical Clinic and WON after it claimed success in unproven medical treatments.

The full story is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/29/schoolboy-blogger-us-clinic

What I think is amazing about this story is that even young people that blog can make a difference. This clinic were charging thousands of dollars for unproven medical treatments for terminal cancer patients. Dr. Burzynski and his clinic claimed that they had a cure for cancer, aids and malaria. Obviously, someone is going to find out that they are exploiting ill people and stick up for them, so why threaten a schoolboy just because you think you are better than them? 

The Texan medical clinic obviously felt threatened by Rhys Morgan because the things he was saying were true, however, I think it is disgusting that the man representing the clinic felt it necessary to take a picture of the boy's house on Google Earth, and send him it in an email. This was an attempt to intimidate the boy into giving up on his argument against the clinic and the threats against him. I suggest you take time and read rhys' blog about the threats from the man representing the Texan medical clinic as it is invaluable information for bloggers all over the world!

Link here: http://rhysmorgan.co/2011/11/threats-from-the-burzynski-clinic/

Mr Marc Stephens claimed to represent Dr. Burzynski and his clinic but never actually gave Rhys a copy of what the clinic found offensive and untrue. He didn't even tell him who he worked for, and Morgan couldn't find any records of a lawyer in the US under that name. Clearly a lack of professionalism here. And the fact that Mr Stephens undermined the intelligence of Rhys Morgan was clearly a mistake. 

If anyone tries to undermine a blogger, remember, we are much more intelligent than you might think!

Sorry this wasn't a normal type of blog but I just thought this story was a fantastic example of why bloggers take time in what they are doing. If it wasn't for Rhys Morgans actions, several other bloggers would have faced 'legal action' by Marc Stephens.

Racism Shame

Today, my dear @glazingblogger (www.doubleglazingblogger.blogspot.com) told me to watch a video on youtube of a disgusting 30-something year old woman who sat on a London tram giving a racist slur for two minutes. You think this is bad enough? The thing that disgusted me even more than this poisonous woman ranting about "her Britain" was the fact that the tram was filled with small children AND SHE HAD A TODDLER ON HER KNEE! 

Now, I don't know about you, but the thing we definitely do not need is the worlds children picking up on these disgusting behaviours and thinking that racism is acceptable. Unfortunately, that child is most likely going to grow up with the same behaviours as it's psychotic mother. 

What this country needs is an army of young people against this sort of behaviour! Gone are the days where people could speak about migrant workers as being below them. This is an era of political correctness. Yes, there are cases where political correctness has gone mad, but racism is hurtful, and in rare occasions, fatal. 

Who is to say that white people are above all other races? This is a thing of the past and equality is the way forward. We, as human beings, are all the same on the inside, so why do we judge on the colour of our skin?

We should be teaching our children that racism is wrong. No one should be judge on the colour of their skin because, when you really think about it, it's ridiculous!

I could go on and on about skin colour and homelands but, to be completely honest, you've heard it all before. What I think we could do as a nation is help those in need. If you see any one being the victim of a racial crime, ring the police. If it is safe to do so, stick up for the person being victimised! If this is happening in schools and your child has been the cause of the racial bullying, EDUCATE YOUR CHILD. Make sure that this is stamped out! 

If you have any opinions on this, please leave a comment! If you think against this, again comment.

The importance of knowing your script!

Now I know a lot of drama students (and professional actors) hate performing Shakespearean texts because of the flowery, poetic language that is sometimes difficult to understand, but for the few of us that adore Shakespeare (like myself!), the language is just something to get our teeth stuck into. 

I have just come back from a mini rehearsal with my duologue partner and I could not rave about the importance of knowing your text more than what I'm about to! We are doing Act 3 Scene 2 of Romeo and Juliet (where the Nurse tells Juliet of Romeo's banishment and Tybalt's death) and we didn't know what the hell Shakespeare was on about when we read through it a couple of times. Then we thought, right, let's go through it, line by line, and try and decode Shakespeare's language. 

You would not believe how much you do actually understand of Shakespeare's texts! If you go through each line - make sure you are not reading the lines as they appear, but as sentences (so forget about the line break and just take notice of commas, full stops etc.) - you will actually be able to get a jist of what he's saying. For example, "What devil art thou that dost torment me thus?" simply means, "Why are you tormenting me and not telling me the truth?" 

Yes, it takes up a lot of time, but understanding what Shakespeare is saying helps you discover what the characters thoughts and feelings, helping you understand how you should play the scene. 

The next thing you should think about is where there are shifts in thought/emotions/goals. Where are the cues that tell you when to change emotions and physical memories? Go through the lines again and mark where these are! All the time you should be reading this over and over, making sure you make sense of what is being said and what your emotive memory should be picking up on so you can successfully portray the emotions needed for the piece! 

Even when you've done this for one scene, or only your scenes in the play, you MUST go through the rest of the play and create character profiles. Character profiles are a collaboration of every single detail about your character. Go through the play and write down all the things that have been said about your character, all the things that your character has said about themselves, and all the things that your character says about other people. 

Once this is done, collect all the given circumstances. These are all the details that are given to you in the text about the scenes, the places, the staging, the characters etc. Everything that is written is a detail about something. Character profiles help with this, but still, go through the text grabbing every single detail about the play, whether it's in the dialogue or the stage directions (obviously there are limited stage directions in Shakespeare but this works for any play too). Shakespeare gives a lot of information about the play in the dialogue so pick through EVERYTHING.

I know it's a lot of hard work but STOP BEING LAZY! If you want to successfully play Shakespearean text you have to put the work in! Work out what is being said, interpret the emotions involved (there may be several ways of going around this too so try them all!) and produce your own interpretation of the text. 

If you have any more tips and tricks on playing Shakespeare, please share them in the comments section or email me at the information at the top of the page! Also, let me know of your experiences with Shakespeare or anything else you find interesting in the world of theatre, film and TV.

:D

P.S. If you find on YouTube clips of the BBC's version of Romeo and Juliet, don't watch it, it's not as good as you might think! (I thought it was absolute rubbish because Juliet is a wimp!)

Drama Snobs

I don't know about you but I get really annoyed by those overly confident types that are instantly classed as the "Drama Snob". No, this is not a hate speech about these kinds of actors, but more of a critique of their style of acting.

Like all stereotypes, there is a general list of common behaviours of this kind of person, including: an overconfident personality, the ability to throw themselves in any sort of acting situation, a smiley attitude, ability to take criticism, a good posture and a generalised British accent to name but a few. 

The thing that annoys me most about this sort of person is their acting style. Don't get me wrong, I am so jealous of how much confidence these people have! To be able to be confident in yourself and throw yourself into any situation is fantastic! I wish I could do it! But I'm sorry, to me the way these people act is not realistic enough. In my opinion, theatre and film should be as realistic as possible (unless you're acting in a genre that doesn't require a lot of realistic acting, i.e. comedy or presenting), but this sort of person has only one or two acting styles that crop up every single time they act. Sometimes, you get the odd person that is just naturally talented and can mould to anything, but this is once every now and again! 

I think this type of actor needs to break out of their habits of being "generally good" at acting. These are the types of people that would benefit hugely from Stanislavskian theory and methodology. If you have the potential for being an amazing actor, why just stick with what you've had since GCSE/A Level Drama? Please boost yourself! Make yourself more realistic because that's what's annoying, the fact that these people are really good, but not realistic enough!

I think it is more important to be realistic in your acting than to be confident. There's nothing worse than watching a performance, whether its TV or film, and cringing at how unrealistic and amaturist the acting is. Again, this is not a hate speech, I'm just stating my opinion. I'll say it again, I am jealous of these people, I just think their acting style could do with a little tweaking! 

If you agree or disagree please leave a comment. I know this will offend a few people but don't take it to heart, I just think some people can do loads better. Let me know what you think!

:D

What the hell is dramaturgy!?!?

Dramaturgy! That one word that sends shivers up the spines of Drama Students. What the hell is it?

I will try and explain as simply as possible...

Dramaturgy is the composition or structure of a play and the process of making theatre. It covers all the elements of the text in hand including: the context of the play, the history of it's adaptations/translations etc.,

Dramaturgy is not a fixed process, it is a development of a play from text to stage. There are many things to think about when considering the dramaturgy of the play: the stage space, the spectator, the live performance text vs. the original text, etc. The list is endless; from scenography to performance style, all this is part of the dramaturgy. 

To create a successful performance analysis, you would have to consider the dramaturgy otherwise you would be creating a review of a performance rather than an analysis. You can analyse the dramaturgy of a performance in terms of the play, which includes the text, context, scenography, acting style, etc. Then you can analyse the dramaturgy of the performance in terms of the spectator, which includes how the audience interprets the play etc. And finally, you can analyse the dramaturgy of the performance in terms of the framing of the play, which includes the space in which the play is produced, the theatre, etc.

Basically, dramaturgy is all the elements of a performance that you can possibly think of and how they contribute to the final performance.

Baby-faced

It is no secret that in the entertainment industry that there are thirty-something year old actors and actresses taking up roles for characters aged sixteen to twenty. But how beneficial is it for an actor/actress to look younger than they are?

We as a society try to look as young as possible to try and hold onto our youth, but eventually, biology gets the better of us, yet there are that lucky few that stay looking young well into their thirties. 

Production companies obviously prefer actors who look younger than they are; minors can only work for a certain amount of hours per day, education must be supplied for them and they must have someone to look after them on set. Getting an actor who looks young, but is legally an adult, save the production company a lot of time and money.

It is also a major convenience if you employed an actor that as they grew up, stayed relatively young so you could drag out the storyline and make a year span a couple of years in a series.

However, does being baby-faced give you more opportunities to be an actor? I don't think so. Yes, production companies prefer it if you look younger than you are so they can use you for younger characters, but you still have to fit the bill. Instead of giving you an advantage of getting more acting jobs, you're just put into a separate category, i.e. adults that look like teens, adults, old people, children. 

So, it is helpful if you look younger than you are (for production companies) but you still have to burden of being asked for ID everytime you go to a wrap party! :)

I'm sure there are people who have a different opinion, so please leave a comment and tell me what you think!

Here are a few trivia about actors that are older than they look! :D

• Luke Perry was 24 when he started playing 16-year-old Dylan McKay (Beverly Hills, 90210)
• Michael J. Fox was 24-29 when playing 17-year-old Marty McFly (Back to the Future)
• Cory Monteith is currently 29, playing 18 year old Finn Hudson (Glee)

:D

Game Theory

I recently read a blog from Double Glazing Blogger about "Why Advertising Does Not Work", and if it is plausible that two companies that are advertising for the same product/service cancel each other out when it comes to advertising.

I have studied advertising and the techniques it uses to gain customer attention in the past and I know there are flaws in every theory or technique you can use in an advertisement. 

When advertising for a small business, it is important to understand your target audience, clarity of what you are trying to sell and where you want your ads placing. Pretty simple stuff, yes, but is it worth understanding the rules of Game Theory so you don't fall into the trap of another business 'stealing' your customers.

The theory goes; if two companies were advertising at the same time, spending roughly the same amount of money, any advantage gained from that advertising will cancel each other's out. If that company had never advertised in the first place, the market would remain unchanged - no worse off, and that company would have saved all that extra cash, and their business would be in roughly the same place anyway. - Double Glazing Blogger, 2011

 
Having a lot of advertising is obviously a good thing because you're gaining lots of exposure to get the company name out there, but when you start having to think about the amount of money this is costing you, is it worth it?

It is possible that you can have too much advertising, especially when there are more than one company that provides a similar service/product? People get annoyed seeing the same adverts over and over again, so while having lots of exposure is a good thing, too much can have a negative effect. 

Companies should look at different ways of gaining exposure, such as a website, word of mouth, an online presence etc. Whilst this is still advertising, most of it is either cheap or free! 

Advertising is good for new customers, but I find hearing good reviews of a company from someone you know is much better and feels more reliable.

This is more relevant for small businesses that are trying to gain exposure rather than huge companies with franchises etc. Obviously there are more variables to consider why advertising does or doesn't work, but this is something to consider.

Let me know what you think! I will talk about other advertising techniques at a later date!

:D

Family Theatre

I don't know about you but have you noticed the lack of children's theatre at seaside resorts in the UK? I know when I was younger, there were lots of small sideshows for family entertainment, like Punch and Judy and Magic Shows. 

I think of everywhere I have been over the summer I have seen two shows, one at Land's End where there was a magic act for children and a guy doing football tricks in Leeds City Centre. I know this is not what you would class as 'serious' theatre but every performance that you see is important in some way, especially for children of a young age. 

Young children respond well to bright colours and simple, educational story lines. It helps stimulate the imagination of these young minds and develops their creativity. They like to laugh and join in with magic shows and similar talent acts; but where are all these disappearing to? 

As well as the decline of children's street theatre, I've noticed an increase of children's cinema, which is all very well and good because as a society we need to develop but we all know that watching TV all day is not good for you so starting this from a young age can't be good can it? Yes, it helps the learning development of young children and helps parents control a busy household by putting on children's programmes so they have something to do but really we should be promoting healthier options, like going out to the theatre or seaside and finding sideshows to watch.

I might just be naive and there are still lots of acts like this around the UK, but I do know that there aren't as much as there used to be when I was small. It's not as if I have been ignorant and haven't noticed these around because I have two cousins which are quite young and I like to find things for them to experience. 

Should we produce more street theatre for children and families? Is media taking over theatre? Let me know what you think. Sorry this is a short post.

:D

Download 2012

So, two out of three headline acts have been announced for Download 2012, and to be honest, I could not be more excited!

First to be confirmed on Radio 1's Zane Lowe was Metallica, by Lars Ulrich. The band will perform The Black Album in its entirety and three songs never performed before: The Struggle Within, My Friend Of Misery and Don't Tread On Me. They last performed at Download Festival in 2006, and before that at Monsters of Rock in 1985. 

Now, I don't know about you but I am over the moon! I am going to witness one of the bands I have grown up with since birth play live at my favorite rock festival! The distinct gravelly voice of James Hetfield, the talents of Lars Ulrich, classic rock songs performed for thousands! 

"For me, coming back there is very special," - Lars Ulrich

Second to be confirmed is the one and only, Black Sabbath! WITH OZZY OSBOURNE! The band have played Ozzfest with Ozzy at Download for several years, but this was never an offical. Their setlist has not yet been confirmed but no doubt they will be playing classic songs like Paranoid, War Pigs and Iron Man. 

I have always wanted to see Black Sabbath play, and I've always wanted to see Ozzy play, so having these guys back together is absolutely f***ing fantastic!

As well as the reunion of Black Sabbath and Ozzy Osbourne, the group are recording their first album together in 32 years since Ozzy was fired from the band in 1979. Their are currently no rumours of what this will be named but the album should hopefully be released in 2012.

Pause for Thought

My workshop today informed me that we must take time to pause after each thought. So when we started this I thought, well, yes, it's common sense to pause after each thought. We were given this extract from Electra - Sophocles:

ELECTRA: Sometimes she would let me stay while she undressed. Sometimes she would sit here while I brushed her hair. My mother. She would let me open jars and bottles, sniff and touch, she would let me uncover close things from drawers, treasures, and tell me where they came from. 

Tell me stories of a life before. Sometimes she would hold out her hands for me and I would rub them with oil, taking the rings off, one by one, feeling the deep lines on her knuckles, shifting her skin, gently, over veins and bone. I wanted to climb back inside her, always, and settle down behind her heart. 

As we started reading through the dialogue, our tutor started shouting out more things to think about. 

• What can we gather from the words we have just spoken?
• How do I feel after saying this phrase?
• What is my relationship with the person I have just spoken about?
• How would I react to this memory?

Now when I started getting into this, I completely conjured up a situation that I hadn't ever been in, but still I was feeling emotions towards this situation. After every thought, I revelled in what I had just said, thinking out every possibility. It was quite nice to be forced into thinking about the text in hand, finding out every way you could interpret it. 

Once we had thought about our own little story, we performed them to the whole class. What was interesting about this was that no two stories were the same! Because of the gift of imagination, we were able to think of so many possibilities for this extract that we didn't repeat ourselves. This is why I believe it is important to use your imagination when interpreting a text. 

Normally, when reading a play you look into the given circumstances, which tell you the facts about the characters and their histories, but we were given a lot of freedom in this extract, and we were not expected to know the back story of Electra. If you are ever privileged enough to be able to do this please try what I have just done! 

1. Separate the thoughts in the dialogue
2. Really think about the possibilities of each thought in terms of emotion and physical movement
3. How would you react to these thoughts?
4. Revel in a moment of thought after you say the phrase
5. Stay in these moments throughout the dialogue
6. Repeat this over and over until you have your own story, whether made up or coming from your own experiences.

You may find that you have shifts in thought throughout your dialogue. THIS IS GOOD! Real emotional memories contain shifts in thought and this is the key to keeping the audience engaged and touched by what you are saying. 

All these techniques revolve around Stanislavksy's methods, using absorption, concentration and focus; engaging your imagination and separating your thoughts. Use your own emotional memory and use the words to engage with your own emotions, rather than manufacturing them. Be honest to the text and keep present in the moment rather than thinking ahead. Whilst using your emotional thoughts, find the impulse that makes you want to say the words you're about to say. 

I hope you find this useful! I did which is why I wanted to share this with you all! If you have any comments or questions about this, please comment below! Also if you have any other methods or exercises which you would like to share, again, comment below! If you don't understand any of the words or phrases I will be adding a Glossary to my site in due course which I hope you find helpful too! 

:D

Are Child Actors Children for Life?

The stunning and extremely talented Dakota Fanning was recently in a Marc Jacobs ad campaign for the perfume Oh Lola! which received four complaints from British soil and believe it or not, the campaign has been banned!

Seems a bit drastic, and yes I believe it is! When you actually see the full picture (not just the cropped one (above) from The Guardian that makes her look even more provocative, in my opinion) she doesn't look that bad. Yes, the perfume bottle is rested on top of her upper thighs and yes, she is wearing a short, girly looking dress, but to me, it looks perfectly fine; and I studied Media Studies which delves deeply into the interpretation and analysis of ad campaigns!

The thing that annoys me the most (and probably Dakota too) is that she is 17 years old, and turns 18 in February! Now I know she is still classed as a child but at this age, girls all over the UK and USA start experimenting with how they look and start to feel a bit sexy. Yes that sounds a bit bad, but it's true. Especially when you look at the 16 year old school girls, hitching up their skirts and unbuttoning their shirts a bit too low. 

You could argue that the reason girls do this nowadays is the sexualisation of media. More and more people (whether actress or model) dress with minimal clothing, accentuating their 'assets'. But it will still happen. Everything in life seems censored so much, and really, the only place that doesn't get censored is the theatre! Maybe, this is because theatre has been censored so much in the past that people gave up on the regulations because they were so stupid, I don't know, but that's what it feels like with Media.

Child actors like Dakota Fanning, Miley Cyrus and Taylor Momsen have all been in the media over provocative clothing and looking sexy. I say lighten up people! They are young ladies feeling like they should look beautiful and sexy, and if you've got it, flaunt it (appropriately). Are they always going to be the ten year old girls we saw on television and in the movies looking all cute and innocent, no! They want to grow up in the same way as every girl in the world! Being who they want to be, experimenting with their style, having a bit of a rebel to modern society; it's all part of growing up! They'll tone it down when they realise they've grown up!

Here is the quote from the ASA:

The ASA said that the way the perfume bottle rested in Fanning's lap was "sexually provocative" and considered that the actress actually looked to be under the age of 16.

"We considered that the length of her dress, her leg and position of the perfume bottle drew attention to her sexuality," the ASA said.

"Because of that, along with her appearance, we considered the ad could be seen to sexualise a child. We therefore concluded that the ad was irresponsible and was likely to cause serious offence."

- (Mark Sweney, guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 9 November 2011)

I think we need to relax. The picture doesn't look that bad and I think the only reason why we think it looks bad is because we have seen Dakota grow up. She has been a child star from a very early age and we don't realise how old she is now! The girl will be 18 years old in February, will the ban be lifted then? 

I want to hear your ideas on this one because it's a toughy. I want to say yes, this girl should be allowed to pose in anyway she wants to because she is old enough to make her own decisions, but then I want to be mature and say no, she's still underage and she shouldn't be interpreted like this. The picture should not have been banned, that's just ridiculous, but whether or not we want to see girls of this age looking like this is another matter. Please leave feedback!

:D

Model Looks

One of the things that has always frustrated me in life is the need to look beautiful. What I mean by this is the obsession we have as a society to look trim, sexy and drop-dead gorgeous, like the girls in fashion magazines. I think the only time I see models that look healthy rather than skeletal is when you look in catalogues for women's clothing sizes 16-22, and the models are still on the small side then. 

In British theatre and film, however, this doesn't seem to be a problem. Notice I said British. Time and time again you see healthy looking actors and actresses perform on stage and film looking as they do, not much trimming down and looking rather confident with themselves, yet across the water, this seems to be forgotten about. I feel there is more of a pressure on young actors and actresses to look a certain way, rather than looking healthy. Take the programme F.R.I.E.N.D.S for example; even though the characters in that show are relatable and lovable, all the actors are still stick thin! If that show was produced in the UK, however, I could almost guarantee there being a slightly chubby character who ends up having a problem with the way they look, but then blossoming out of this feeling and loving who they are (OK that's probably a very shortened version of what would happen, but you catch my drift).

I love seeing curvy, healthy girls on television and thinking "that could be me!" because there doesn't seem to be a lot of pressure in that area, but then if I think about the possibility of being on American television I instantly feel a weight of pressure to look good and look skinny. I've always had a bit of a problem with the way I look (just like so many other women in this world), but seeing curvy actresses on screen actually inspires me more to become an actress and makes me feel good, rather than the stick-thin actresses who are supposed to be there to aspire towards. 

I wish I could get this message across the water to tell people that you don't need plastic surgery to look good! So many models, actors and actresses have completely RUINED their iconic looks and beauty for vanity and the pressure to constantly look beautiful. 

What doesn't help is the new craze of 'reality' television with bimbos and air-headed 'studs' apparently looking "reem" (whatever the **** that means) and saying they're "real" when they obviously are a creation of silicone and liposuction. In my opinion, we need to stop this type of programming getting through to the public, wipe off all that foundation and fake-tan and have a good look at ourselves in the mirror and LOVE what we see. 

Performance is life. You can't get away from it. Why constantly try to be something you're not if your life is one big stage? You are the character of your own little play. Yes, you can mould yourself to be whoever you want to be, but when you start inching away what is part of you, and start feeling the pressure of the need to be skinny and "beautiful", you're just becoming a puppet of social convention. 

As you can see I feel very strongly about this issue, but I want to hear your ideas too. What do you find beautiful? Is there a need to be skinny on stage and film, or can we deal with being curvaceous and lovely? Leave me comments, I would love to hear your thoughts on this!

:D

Did you know they've removed the word gullible from the dictionary...?

Derren Brown is someone that annoys me very much. I used to like him; he's entertaining, provides lighthearted jokes and spectacular illusions that you can't quite understand. But that's all they are, illusions, so why do thousands of people get sucked into his acts and believe that he is controlling people and objects with his mind? I'm not one to abandon beliefs of the paranormal because I know some of it is very very hard to explain, but when something is so blatantly staged, why do people believe it?

In terms of the theatre, the act he puts on stage is of a very high standard! You can't see any wires or markers where things are supposed to land etc. and all of his stunts are fluent and believable. Heck, I used to believe them at first, because he is a very clever man. He understands the human mind and how to manipulate it into making people think that illusions are real, but once you see past the smoke and mirrors, it's hard to believe him anymore.

A typical Derren Brown performance entails of audience participation, normally in a theatre or a large space of some sort, and a goal, of which he always achieves. This is fleshed out with videos of him 'manipulating' a 'member of the public' into doing something they either don't want to do, or have 'no idea' of ever doing (a very good example of an actor reading a script). I agree, this is very good entertainment! Believing that someone can control someone else into doing whatever they want is mind blowing, but if this was true wouldn't many more people be able to do this?

I'm starting to lean more into my own opinion now, so lets look at how good of an entertainer Derren is. 

His stage presence is magnificent. Having a following of people that hang onto your every word is a rare thing to have, and he has managed to achieve it with his professional act. I'm not exactly sure how he goes about doing his stunts, and I wouldn't want to ruin it for you anyway, but I do know that they are only stunts. The way he uses video in his live shows almost confirms that he has no 'magical' powers, only the powers of film and television special effects. Most films he makes will have been shot time and time again to get the different camera angles needed to construct an interesting piece of footage, and it is so easy to find a fairly good actor that can pull off a script because of the amount of unknown actors out there. 

He also has a good knowledge of explosive effects (or at least has the contacts to be able to create explosive effects). For example, his recent show involved him playing 'live' Russian Roulette onstage and on live television with a supposedly live round. Just thinking about this stunt flags up so many opportunities he has into creating this stunt safely whilst still making people believe it is happening. Firstly you can buy blank rounds that look like live bullets so even when an unsuspecting audience member is asked to check that the bullet is real, it looks real! But then again, how is an average British person going to know what a live round looks like? Then, when he finally shoots the 'live' round at a sandbag, the sandbag ends up having a bullet hole pierced into it. How does this happen? Film/theatre effects! Little explosives packed into a sandbag to simulate a bullet cutting into them.

Common sense would tell you that Derren Brown is just an illusionist, but yet people are still gullible enough to believe him. Yes, he is entertaining and No, my goal is not to dissuade people against him, but the amount of evidence and common sense there is against him being the real deal is massive. People are so gullible that Jersey police have had to confirm that in his latest performance "There was no live ammunition involved and at no time was anyone at risk" because of complaints that people were leaving with the police (Lenny Harper, Article by Steven Morris, The Guardian, Wednesday 8 October 2003). If you seriously thought that an entertainer was going to threaten his life when he has many more ideas on how to make money out of his talent, then I'm afraid to tell you that you are very gullible. 

I'm sorry if I have offended anyone and I do believe that Derren Brown is a very good entertainer, but that's all I see him as, a very clever entertainer. If you disagree with me please tell me why in the comments because I do want to hear your ideas! If you want to try and convert me into thinking he is the real deal, go ahead! Tell me what you think about him and the use of special effects in theatre and film.

:D

Reality: can it be recreated effectively?

Photograph: Thomas Hoepker/Magnum, 11th September 2001

On reading The meaning of 9/11's most controversial photo by Jonathan Jones (guardian.co.uk, Friday 2 September 2011), I realised how many different ways body language can be read in just a small snapshot of reality. First impressions of the photograph make you think that the group of young adults are just enjoying the sun, casually chatting away and not giving a care in the world as the smouldering ruins of the World Trade Centre lingers in the background; this is what caused such controversy for photographer Thomas Hoepker. My first thoughts on this photo were naïve. Because we are drip-fed stereotypes over the years, my initial thoughts were that these Americans are arrogant and callous, not taking any notice to the horrible scene that is behind them. Then I thought well maybe that's a bit harsh...

Nowadays, with the ever-growing number of photoshopped pictures and photographs, it is hard to find a raw, original copy of a snapshot, which is why my next thought was maybe this photograph is a fake. Was the snapshot of the 'relaxed' group of adults taken before the incident? Was the smouldering skyline added into the picture after to create drama and controversy? Apparently not. Reading through the article by Jones, it states that the people in the picture were "in a profound state of shock and disbelief" (Walter Sipser, 2006). Now, this statement alone puts a whole new meaning to the photograph. It shows us that the apparent casualness of the picture is actually shock. How can we misinterpret that? Is the body language of these two emotions so similar it’s hard to differentiate between the two? Or is it in fact a trick of the eye; seeing a picturesque foreground rudely interrupted by a major international disaster?

"Well, you can't photograph a feeling." - Jonathan Jones, 2011

Now, if I put this into the context of my field of study, we can see a huge problem with displaying true reality on stage, and the re-staging of true events. If we are misinterpreting real life photographs in their original form, how is it even possible to effectively recreate this piece without conforming to naturalism or falling into the trap of over-acting the emotions needed to copy this scene?

If we were to think about re-staging this scene, and the events before and after this snapshot, we would have to consider the underlying emotions: anxiety, shock, disbelief, fear, etc. But how do we convey these emotions to an audience? There are lots of little gestures and behavioural codes to suggest we are shocked, like covering your mouth with your hand and your eyes wide, but as you can see in this photograph no one is doing this! This is because the codes we have learned to identify are drilled into us from day one. We see the staging of a pub brawl on Eastenders or a death on Holby City, but all these programmes are just littered with the conventions of portraying emotions, but in reality, when you are in a true state of shock and disbelief, for example, you go numb and have no idea what to do with yourself.

Would it be sensible to try and mimic real life? If it is so hard to interpret the real emotions behind the people in this photograph, would it be just as hard to transpose it into a live performance and interpret the emotions of the people then?  

Now here is the thing I’m battling in my head… Could we create an effective piece of theatre that mimics the behaviour of the people in this photo as we see them? I’m not sure it would. Obviously, we would understand the scene’s atmosphere straight away if we picked out the essential emotions and emphasized them into a performance, but this would be edging towards naturalism and not a copy of real life. If we copied this scene by every single detail, it might leave audiences feeling confused by the situation, not sure whether the people are shocked, confused or indifferent about the devastation that is happening behind them. We expect, in a theatre frame, to be challenged or entertained in a performance, not to experience daily life, theatre is an escape from that, but still many producers/directors are interested in making theatre as real as it is physically possible.

On the other hand, we encounter similar situations of shock and horror in everyday life (obviously not to the scale of 9/11 but we do), so maybe we would be able to understand this scene, but when you’re in the theatre frame, you interpret things a lot differently to a scene in a site specific performance. Site specific performances can be spontaneous and immersive, therefore you wouldn’t know whether you were watching a performance unless you bought tickets or recognized the conventions of a performance. We could move away from the conventions of a performance (or at least make them subtle) and recreate the scene in question and see what the audiences’ reactions would be. Then, and only then, would it be possible to make a performance look as real as physically possible – avoiding causing an international disaster for the sake of a drama piece – and see if people can tell the difference between real life and performance.

I feel like I’m confusing you now but you understand how complicated it is to try and copy real life situations and put them into a performance. I would love to get a group together and test all this out! (I may do so and update you with my findings!)

Basically, it would be a miracle for a scene like this to be performed and confused for a real life situation. You could take away the scene of the burning skyline, replace it with the new reports from that day and make people think you have just heard the news and are acting accordingly to the behaviour codes of the photograph, but still, could it be good enough to confuse with a true scene?

I want to hear your ideas on this! Can you create an effective piece of theatre in this way? Or is it just physically impossible? Give me your feedback! (Even if it’s several pages long I want to hear it!)

:D