For our short play, we presented it in a style using a biblical theme since how it ironically fits in with the message we gave out to our audience- “safe sex”. The diverse range Brechtian styles consist of, one of the techniques we used in our group was: verfredungeffect that means to make strange, taking an everyday moment and freezing or twisting it is for example. We applied this technique in our work by amplifying our voices, speaking with long pauses and body gesture to symbolize who we are or indicate status. The use of our abstract costumes as well
We also juxtaposed music; the scene when God first enters the stage a rock n roll track plays. This evokes the idea of juxtaposing since rock n roll certainly does not represent the character of God unlike a more calming or soothing (church) track would suit it better so this was the technique of music. Our design layout of the stage was fairly simple but the way we spaced the characters around the set were to symbolize the power we each hold in our character or to frame a picture of what the scene is suppose to look like in reality.
The use of projection, technology again was simple using a few bright lights may be simple but it conveys so much more to the audience like a dominant part rather than just bright lights put up. It shows position, place, status, and strength and gives true meaning in each character, etc. In one part of our play, as the snake slithers on the set Adam and Eve freeze using a technique of gestus to give an essence of the scene / a symbolic moment. The simplicity being exploited yet abstract was something Brecht applied in his work, which is what we tried to employ in our play.
I think we could have employed these techniques much better to our audience however in some scenes of our play we did manage to use them well: when God enters to give the monologue or in the begging when the narrator speaks with stage directions was very effective and conveyed a sense of Brechtian style. The way we engaged our audience, giving a clear message -“moral of the story” in the end of the play was good to show understanding of what the whole theme was about but could be improved as we felt was not very effective on our audience by the reaction we got at the end.
Even though we had put an amount of commitment and effort into our work, we could’ve communicated, contributed and collaborated much better to make this piece of theater better, stronger. In future ways to improve: plan and prepare in advance, analyze other practitioners similar to Brecht work/style and learn how they employ or engage their work to their audience, test technical’s before performing so nothing goes wrong, missing ques-very important which we definitely could improve next time.
I used synthesis in our content reasonably well: in the beginning/opening of the play, I believed that I had used different, strong, bold gestures to symbolize my dominant role using Brechtian techniques to make the scene more interesting and engage the audience. I had conveyed my speech with enthusiasm in a simplistic form to present my character, God, in the way I wanted it to be. My first line “I am God” seemed to be very effective as I clearly directed it out to the audience which broke the forth wall, a very rare technique Brecht applied in his work.
I was very pleased with the work my group and I had come up with. A familiar story thateveryone knows and we had communicated it in a comical way using a theme of “safe sex” was brilliantly conveyed however it can always be improved. A group I really liked was Nicola’s and Tanisha’s group because they had great use of montage and scene cross cutting-when one scene took place in front and the opposite scene-taking place behind was really effective. I loved the group about “the gay” as they presented each role with the opposite sex, cleverly acted to engage their audience.