Seite 127 [127]
CHAPTER THREE: BRINGING TOGETHER THE ÁRTISTIC AND THE EDUCATIONAL PRAXIS
to do what Davis states should be the aim of drama. He writes earlier in his
book that drama needs to offer "the possibility of glimpsing how society
has corrupted us”.*% This can even become a conscious learning outcome
of the lesson if the participants look back at the process. But the central aim
of the lesson is for the participants to live through the situation created by
the class. However, Davis raises the question about his own lesson “whether
or not the participants were being over-manipulated into the final event”.
Because the concluding situation makes it clear that those who chose
to prosecute had jumped to conclusions. There might be a slight danger
of participants feeling that they were naive or foolish to get caught up in
the structure created for them in the drama lesson. There is no reference to
any such sentiments in the responses of the participants quoted by Davis, and
I believe he would reflect on it if there was any such feedback among the other
reflections, but there is a chance that some participants could feel tricked into
believing something deliberately. This sense could arise out of two layers of
relationship to fiction expected from participants. Belief and ownership need
to be built for participants to be able to engage with the story from within.
Participants need to suspend disbelief. At the same time “the central influence
on those in role is the steady way we are ‘institutionalised’ or rather, through
work routines, we begin to carry out the rules and ways of the institution
where we are working so we may lose sight of what we are doing” explains
Davis. There are two ongoing processes, one demands from participants to
have faith in the fiction and come to own it so they can take part in the drama,
and the other shows how participants can lose their judgement if they get
carried away in their faith in the fiction. A central question for drama lessons
aiming to deal with questions related to ideology is how they handle this
unavoidable contradiction.
The concluding situation also highlights differences between the rehearsing
or performing a drama and engaging in a drama lesson. Actors rehearsing
a Bond play would very consciously be looking for ways of how their roles could
remain true to their Centre but express it in an extreme way in the fictional
situation. They would be helped with different tools from the director to do
this — an understanding of the Centre of the drama and their role, and would
also be trained in using space, images, their voice etc., to make the moments
more extreme and create gaps in meaning for the audience. I would argue
that rehearsing these moments and possibilities in them offers the richest
learning about the content of the play for the artistic team. However, while
the participants of a drama lesson would stick to their roles, they would be
working in the opposite direction to resolve the extreme situation rather than
466 Tbid., 43.
467 Tbid., 165.
468 Tbid., 120.
+ 126 +