Actor 1 - The Subject: Shares a Problem
Actor 2 - The Problem: personified
Actor 3 - Investigative Journalist
Stage 1 - SHARING: In groups of three, Actor 1 shares a problem with the others. Actor 2 understands all the situations in which the problem affects Actor 1 - and those times when s/he has defeated the problem. Actor 3 only listens to this sharing not asking any questions at this stage.
My Comments: I see this last as very important. For the actor playing the Problem to really be able to get into character, s/he should not know what sorts of questions to expect from the Journalist(s). However, in retrospect, I do feel that Actor 3 [and 4 and 5] should have a list of questions ready - generic ones about successes and failures; other questions will occur when you are in the impro.
Stage 2 - IMPRO: The Investigative Journalist(s) asks questions to understand the Problem - how it
operates, all its Success stories and its Failure stories.
Actor 1, the Subject, observes the interaction.
My Comments: The way we positioned the chairs, the Problem could not see the Subject at all. The Subject could see only the back of the Problem.
At one point of time, following an impulse, I put those of you in the audience in role as Investigative Journalists. It had all of you involved directly with questioning the Problem. Basically, I felt that the experience would become more enriched if all of you got involved directly. What did you think of this variation?
I think some of you fell back into the general hotseating technique we often use. You asked questions like, "How can you do that to him/her?" and "You can't do that!" You even took on the problem head on with threats - which was completely adorable!
It would be good if we could all contemplate on what Chaitanya, as Laziness, said about choices, when asked how the Subject could defeat him. He said, "He can overcome me by doing those things which he enjoys doing. To a large extent, I am able to affect him only because he chooses to allow me to dominate him."
Stage 3 - FEEDBACK: Actor 1, the Subject, shares with everyone the accuracies and inaccuracies in personifying the problem.
My Comments: I have to appreciate, once again, the manner in which all of you approached the exercise. First of all, it takes courage to share a problem which is big enough to dominate your life - if not all the time, but enough to make a difference. Second, my observation is that others in the group respected that it could be a problem for someone - we have had Anger, Exhaustion and Laziness thus far - and I appreciate how all of you were able to see these as life-affecting. Finally, it is difficult to become an Emotion or a Condition - or rather to bring it to life - so to all those who played the Problems, I have to say, "Hats off!"
Please write about your experience - a reflection on what you thought, felt, etc. - in ANY part of the exercise [i.e. since you played different roles, I leave you to decide which one you wish to write about].
Actor 2 - The Problem: personified
Actor 3 - Investigative Journalist
Stage 1 - SHARING: In groups of three, Actor 1 shares a problem with the others. Actor 2 understands all the situations in which the problem affects Actor 1 - and those times when s/he has defeated the problem. Actor 3 only listens to this sharing not asking any questions at this stage.
My Comments: I see this last as very important. For the actor playing the Problem to really be able to get into character, s/he should not know what sorts of questions to expect from the Journalist(s). However, in retrospect, I do feel that Actor 3 [and 4 and 5] should have a list of questions ready - generic ones about successes and failures; other questions will occur when you are in the impro.
Stage 2 - IMPRO: The Investigative Journalist(s) asks questions to understand the Problem - how it
Actor 1, the Subject, observes the interaction.
My Comments: The way we positioned the chairs, the Problem could not see the Subject at all. The Subject could see only the back of the Problem.
At one point of time, following an impulse, I put those of you in the audience in role as Investigative Journalists. It had all of you involved directly with questioning the Problem. Basically, I felt that the experience would become more enriched if all of you got involved directly. What did you think of this variation?
I think some of you fell back into the general hotseating technique we often use. You asked questions like, "How can you do that to him/her?" and "You can't do that!" You even took on the problem head on with threats - which was completely adorable!
It would be good if we could all contemplate on what Chaitanya, as Laziness, said about choices, when asked how the Subject could defeat him. He said, "He can overcome me by doing those things which he enjoys doing. To a large extent, I am able to affect him only because he chooses to allow me to dominate him."
Stage 3 - FEEDBACK: Actor 1, the Subject, shares with everyone the accuracies and inaccuracies in personifying the problem.
My Comments: I have to appreciate, once again, the manner in which all of you approached the exercise. First of all, it takes courage to share a problem which is big enough to dominate your life - if not all the time, but enough to make a difference. Second, my observation is that others in the group respected that it could be a problem for someone - we have had Anger, Exhaustion and Laziness thus far - and I appreciate how all of you were able to see these as life-affecting. Finally, it is difficult to become an Emotion or a Condition - or rather to bring it to life - so to all those who played the Problems, I have to say, "Hats off!"
Please write about your experience - a reflection on what you thought, felt, etc. - in ANY part of the exercise [i.e. since you played different roles, I leave you to decide which one you wish to write about].
No comments:
Post a Comment