Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
-
So in the end I did choose to review it. http://www.whatdidshethink.com/2018/04/personal-theatre-review.html
I also remembered the two shows that came to mind watching Personal
History History History at the Substation in 2017 https://www.weekendnotes.com/history-history-history-substation/
and
Endings at Arts House http://tamarasaulwick.com/endings/(I accidently said Tamara Searle at the gathering, but meant Tamara Saulwick which is why nobody knew what I was referring to – welcome to my world of cognitive disability, doh!)
-
I am reminded of the Thoreau quote “The question is not what you look at, but what you see” and with this show I feel so clearly reminded that every audience member will come out with a different experience.
I wish those of you who felt an emptiness could have seen what I saw because I was not at all disappointed. I know bits were missing but I feel they would have been bonuses but do not in any way leave me feeling unsated for the evening.
I saw a piece of theatre which was sweet, funny, honest, brave, sad, scary and painful. It had emotional dynamic although did perhaps not plumb the extreme depths towards emotional exhaustion which seems to have become a required default.
I saw a show about hearing, not sound. A show about the receiving not the object being received. I saw a show which could be heard with the eyes and the body, not just the ears. I saw an experiential – almost picaresque – telling of life of isolation within a loving construct. I saw a play which had pathos and narrative within a bathotic structure which was still ultimately satisfying for me.
My experience was one of lots of laughter, wonder, curiosity and learning. I saw Jody the humorist, the mime, the daughter, the sister, the child, the adult, the student, and the teacher.
Was it perfect? Obviously not. I somehow feel, though, that I had a much more enjoyable and satisfying night than the rest of the group. And so I wish you could have seen what I saw.
-
-
I think, in a way, we were too big a group to avoid having the shyer people feel it was hard. I remember at the Malthouse it was discussed that we would break into smaller groups and then move about between them to share ideas and therefore everyone would have more ‘space’ to talk. I think that is what Arts House was setting up for us, much like they do for their social participation experiments. We certainly had enough people to break into two smaller groups and then shift between or merge at some point after first impressions were shared.
I agree the room felt formal but it would be difficult to do in a pub I think.
-
-
-