The last part of modelling week was performing our project in a one mintue thirty seconds time slot on Friday afternoon. It turned out to be a pretty cool session, though there was annoying amount of people who didn't turn up but we bought some cider and beer which probably helped a lot with performance nerves.
My performance was intially going to be some kind of scripted debated, however after a discussion with Rosario in which she recommended I watch the movie Thank You for Smoking, in which there is a scene where the main character, a tobacco lobbyist, explains debating to his son, how he's not about persuading his opponent but rather the audience. I took this scene, as I felt it really dealt with the core of my project, and re-wrote it so that it was more specific to my ideas with written in directions for one of the characters to do, which would also be read out, highlighting this concept of how managed politicians are. Stacey and Ed agreed to perform it for me, and I asked Stacey to be "Person Two", who the directions in italic apply to, and I read these out as she did them.
****
Person 1: ...so what happens when you're wrong?
Person 2: I'm never wrong. And neither are you. [make a little sweeping gesture with your hand. They are wrong really.]
Person 1: But we can't always both be right...
Person 2: Well, if you believe in being right enough, then you’re never wrong.
Person 1: But what if you are wrong and I’m right?
Person 2 : Okay, let’s take an example. Say my name is Tilen [point to yourself with both hands] and your name is Ester [point to them with both hands]. I say to you; I like meat, I eat meat all the time and you say...
Person 1: No, vegetarian is better. It’s wrong to eat meat.
Person 2: Exactly, but how can you win that argument?... You can’t, so I ask you: so you think vegetables are the be all and end all?
Person 1: Yes, I wouldn’t eat meat if you paid me.
Person 2: Right, so it’s all vegetables for you?
Person 1: Yes, vegetables are all I need.
Person 2: Ah, but [turn to the audience, remember you are their friend, you want what’s best for them] I [use both hands to indicate yourself] need more than vegetables, and for that matter I need more than meat [emphasise your point by spreading your hands, open and palms facing out, including the audience as an extension of yourself] I believe that we need freedom and choice when it comes to food, and in all areas of our life, and that, that right there, is the definition of liberty. [turn back to face your opponent, smiling]
Person 1: But we’re not talking about any of that. And we’re not American either.
Person 2: Ah, but you see, that’s what I was talking about. [share a look with the audience, this guy is a little slow, but they understand what you’re talking about because they’re intelligent]
Person 1: but you still didn't prove that being an omnivore was a better choice than being a vegetarian.
Person 2: I didn’t have to. The important part is that I proved you wrong and in doing so, proved that I’m right.
Person 1: I’m not convinced though. I’m not going to start eating meat or...
Person 2: It's not you that I’m after, my friend. I'm after them. [sweep a hand towards the audience] If I can convince just one vegetarian to go back to meat then I have won. And of course, I always win because I am always right.
****
This is something I'd like to play with, the idea of creating debates that entirely structured and managed so the person talking is merely a puppet, which seems to be what a lot of politicians are or become over time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment