No White Picket Fence. Robin C. Whittaker
their presence, and learned why the project was so important to them. The cast and crew expressed significant gratitude for this time of sharing and learning. The experience of this foundational rehearsal was deeply felt by the creative team and set a highly respectful tone and cohesive spirit for the remainder of the production experience.
In December, Robin and Chris co-designed the set for the production, and St. Thomas graduate Zachary Greer began designing a soundscape. When rehearsals were renewed in January, a supportive and disciplined environment was quickly established, nurtured significantly by Robin as the play’s director, as well as by student stage manager Amy Baldwin. Robin and Sue worked closely during rehearsals, and the creative team welcomed and accepted Sue as researcher/co-creator in their midst (a role that most team members were not accustomed to during a production).
The actors’ preparation for No White Picket Fence involved concerted efforts to maintain the essence and spirit of the women’s voices. Each actor listened to excerpts from participants’ audiotaped interviews and learned about the foster care system. Far from imitating the women, however, Robin asked each actor to create a third entity, a character fully inspired by the text and by the pseudonym each participant had chosen for her interview. This approach was meant to keep the performers psychologically safe. Actors did not feel like they were being asked to “imitate” the women, nor did they feel as though ownership of their respective characters lay anywhere but with them.
Robin incorporated other Brechtian “distancing” effects, too: actors shed their characters to support other stories by becoming the “Interviewer” or by manipulating toys and other props during another actor’s monologue; live video filmed by an actor literally provided an alternative perspective on a scene; scene titles projected on a bedsheet hung from a laundry line refocused the audience’s gaze; and our Black Box Theatre’s thrust configuration allowed audience members some choice as to where they would view the show, and ensured that everyone in the room could be seen by the rest of the audience, visibly implicating them in the action. By employing these distancing strategies, the creative team afforded the audience multiple options for engaging with the performance, while reminding everyone that there are multiple means to understand the youth in care system.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
As Theatre St. Thomas sent out the usual press releases and social-media blitzes, and Robin conducted media interviews, Sue’s promotional focus was on outreach to stakeholders who are in positions to support much-needed change in the systems impacting many youth. These efforts resulted in audiences significantly made up of social workers, educators, activists, politicians, and staff of non-profit organizations and government ministries whose mandate includes the support of youth. Along with other audience members, they engaged in robust discussions during the twenty-minute talkback sessions that followed each performance.
At several points in the play, experiences of violence and abuse are described (although we do not linger in these accounts, and none are physically acted out). Accordingly, a comfortable quiet space was prepared for the use of audience members during or after the show; the audience was made aware at the show’s outset that if they wished to have a break during the play (or a quiet space after its conclusion), the space was available to them. Trained volunteers from the Fredericton Sexual Assault Centre were present throughout and following each production to offer support if requested.
Of note, eight of the ten interviewed participants (accompanied by loved ones) chose to see the show; some travelled significant distances to do so. Two also chose to speak during the talkback sessions. Most often, the participants lingered after the show in order to meet the actor whose character represented their experiences. The actors described these meetings, and the participants’ feedback and words of thanks, as powerful and affirming for them.
Since the run of No White Picket Fence in February 2017, the team has continued to receive strong responses from audiences. Sue and Robin have been particularly moved by enthusiastic and affirming messages from individuals who have themselves experienced the troubled care system in their youth, as well as from those who are actively working to improve it.
For the creative team, the ten research participants are the true heroes of this story. Their accounts are raw, characterized by times of turmoil and suffering in their original family homes, and later during impermanent arrangements in foster care and group homes. And yet, these women’s stories also highlight their persistent efforts to move toward living well on their own terms. Above all else, theirs are stories of resistance, resilience, and the strength of the human spirit.
In creating No White Picket Fence, we have all sought to move toward a better world for youth in/from care by bringing their stories – in their own words – into public view.
A NOTE ON THE VERBATIM DIALOGUE
The play’s dialogue is taken verbatim from interview transcripts. All of the participants’ “word stumbles” (e.g., “ums” and incomplete sentences) were preserved in the premiere’s production script, although some have been corrected in this published version for readability.
Square brackets indicate places where words from the original interviews have been removed, either to more clearly bridge thoughts or to protect the participants’ anonymity.
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.