The notion of the journey has fascinated me in my research. Journeys involve movement from place to place, seeing both known and new things. A new perspective will be gainedat the end of the journey, even if the same journey has been walked before; something new often occurswhen a journey is taken again but may not always be noticed. Through my exploration of history and its portrayal I am interested in making history – including looking at the „same‟
well-known history in a new light – as a journey worth taking.
As we „journey‟ we have to consider various aspects of the process. In literal journeys items of travel are required to make the journey easier and more comfortable. The image of shoes stuck with me. After completing the ECR Big Walk in 2017 I noticed how important the right shoes are. I would not have completed the race in the time I did without wearing comfortable shoes.
I would like to extend this idea of proper fitting shoes as necessity for a journey. If the shoes do not fit, our journey is stunted. Yet too often the shoes we have been given to walk the „journey of history‟ are ill-fitting and clearly not designed for us. They are created for specific people and the rest, the majority, are expect to make do with the myth of the one-size-fits-all they have been given. History has often been exclusive and has written out the voices of the disempowered.
I want to use the image of an „exclusive‟ shoe in my museum theatre piece. At this stage I can see a pair of large, old men‟s shoes placed at the door step of the house with the instruction “to gain entry, you must fit perfectly into the shoes”. Too bad for people with small feet or feet that are too big, this history is inaccessible. And then the shoes will be removed and all can enter. I hope to elaborate more on this.
26 May 2017 – To act or not to act?
What is my practical piece going to look like? In my planning so far I want to use two actors that play multiple characters and take people on a journey through the rooms of the house to explore both the history of the exhibitions as well as the area. This inspiration is partially taken from the format of The Accursed Thing (Jackson & Kidd, 2007) which also uses two actors that move through multiple rooms of the Manchester museum.
I am yet undecided about who the actors are – in terms of race and gender. At the moment I am considering two different races, e.g. one black and one white to create an opportunity for
159
dialogue between the different races that settled in the Westville area. However, race is not prescriptive as they will likely play a historical character that is not of their race, e.g. if two German setters are in conversation then at least one actor will have to pretend to be white. I want to play with this device of slippage as it prevents the narrative from being straight forward and it forces the audience to re-evaluate possible past perceptions. However, I need to be careful of creating confusion. The moving in and out of different characters needs to be clear and should not detract from the history that is represented.
I have a similar idea about gender roles. I would like to have one woman and one man as actor- guidesas a way to open up discussion on issues like the woman‟s „role‟ in the house. The actor- guides also will likely move between playing male and female characters; the establishment of one male and one female figure creates and interesting balance with which to work.
The other decision I have to make is to what role I want to play within the museum piece. I definitely want to be involved to some extent as this is my version of events and I want to make this subject position known from the outset. Therefore, my involvement can range from facilitator who gives a brief introduction and then removes myself from the action until the conclusion, or I can cast myself as one of the actors and include my process of making the piece as part of the action as actor-within-the-performance, as well as facilitation.
Both ideas around my involvement are plausible and both have potential problems. If I remain detached during the performance I am leaving much of the historical interpretation (though scripted by me) to the student actors who have not directly researched the history of the institution. This is not to say that theycannot provide insight into the working of the museum and encourage discussion around the script and the histories present, but the reality is that they are volunteers who are likely not interested in the process or the outcome to the same extent as I am. I also have to consider how to include their subject positions into the piece. This angle will however create an opportunity for me to have more of an external eye to the workings, rehearsal and performance than if I am involved as an actor.
If I include myself as an actor I will have to be careful to maintain balance between my own interpretations, the museum‟s presentation of the history, my fellow actor‟s subject position as well as the audience‟s potential perception. This can be negotiated and is part of the process of being a practitioner. I would need to request assistance from my supervisor to give an alternate perspective to my own development of the piece to help me from becoming overly immersed in the piece. I have to keep in mind that my objective is to explore and present multiple angles to historical narratives and not just one – which could easily become focused on my own
160
interpretation. This is not to say my interpretation will be not be important as I am interested in writing sections that express my own viewpoints, my fellow actor‟s subject position as well as the museum‟s intention within the piece as a means to illustrate the subjectivity of history and its construction. Therefore, being involved as an actor may be an interesting dimension to include in the piece. I will continue to deliberate.