Reflection

One of the most prominent underpinnings of our first year theatre class has been the question of the role of theatre as a social and artistic vehicle for communication—and through the various workshops in which we’ve partaken, the productions we’ve seen, and the roles we’ve played and directed, we’ve been exposed each time to perhaps a slightly different flavor of the theatre’s communal significance. From the very beginning, we’ve seen the important—and almost indefinable—role that the theatre, and the contributions of theatre students, plays on campus, and most were drawn in almost immediately, at first without a sense of direction or a point of reference; in the best of ways, we hurled ourselves into the first pieces of theatre we could digest: the mini IPs.

Little did we know that our collaborations with second years, as well as those with other students in theatre, and those not, those with extensive theatrical experience, and those with none, would forge the connections that would ultimately form later, more ambitious productions taken on by the theatre department as a whole. In reflecting on my experience directing a miniature IP this spring, I feel as if I have some sense of the incredible emotional connection that a director forms with his or her actors, as well as with the essence of the piece presented—it is through coordination of logistics and creativity that the emotional expression inherent to any piece of theatre is drawn; the IPs act as a prime example, early in the creative year at Pearson, of this spirit of emotional expression.

When the first casting call for IPs is made in the first weeks of life on campus, it’s fair to say that most second year directors are panicking, some publicly and some privately, and first years a trying cope with the stresses of a new environment, routine, diet, etcetera. In a word, the mentalities of first years and second years are collectively divergent, to say the least. But the initial casting is quickly followed by preliminary rehearsals, and soon enough, the first informative theatrical experience is underway at Pearson. From these beginnings—perhaps awkward initially, and reluctant to take form—spring an expression and communication of emotion, in my opinion, rarely seen from the creative hands of individuals aged and experienced as the second years are. It is this first collaboration that evokes some of the most genuine and impacting theatre seen during the course of the year—to my mind comes memories of Einat’s, Spencer’s, Ashley and Chezev’s, and Mischa’s IPs—those productions so evocative that it was difficult for the hours proceeding their ends to consider them critically, as anything but infallible entities, emotionally and spiritually.

It is also from this first experience that the notion of collaboration is conceived, one of, if not the most important components of Pearson’s theatrical culture. However, as the timeline transitions out of the IP season, I’d say that as a unit, the theatre students are relatively disjointed; the second year students mutually share close connections, however their relationships with first year students are mostly limited to their directorial experiences with certain individuals. Conversely, the first year class has not yet had the opportunity to work as a collaborative unit, and many first years woul likely consider their second year peers to be operating in another realm, creatively and socially. It is the First Year Production, however, that brings about a spirit of unity, one that is unique and specific to the Theatrical community at Pearson—one founded on a hard-working drive as well as a creative underpinning that informs as much as it cements the nature of the course in a culture of expression rather than regurgitation of facts and barely-cultivated knowledge; this is what sets theatre apart from other classes and groups at Pearson, for it is much more than simply an educational experience. It is a creative, communal, expressive, and even spiritual one; within the context of the IB, Theatre, a Group Six subject, is unlike those subjects that fall in Groups One through Five, and at Pearson, theatre is more a community, and less ‘another class’.

During the First Year Production, connections are made between the first year actors featured within each vignette, but they’re also forged within the first year class as a whole—and this production acts as a spring board and preliminary opportunity for this to occur. With second years, first years begin a fruitful collaborate, rather than simply a relationship of superior and subordinate—and the production culminates in the forging of a newfound strength within the community, the first of many benchmarks along the year’s timeline, over the course of which relationships are fostered and preserved, as are the well-being and the creative vivacity of the theatrical community at large.

For me, however, it was not until the Second Year production of The Laramie Project that I personally felt a creative direction within the community—the IP’s were an experimental, emotional process; the First Year production was a community-building experience, but The Laramie Project offered something more to the community outside of the theatre. Certainly, the incredible collaborative effort that saw the Laramie Project through to its completion was representative of a fully formed spirit within the department and the community; logistically, the first year class was a force in organizing and executing the production technically and creatively. In terms of the second year class’ drive and focus, its commitment to the perfection of the atypical narrative, the docudrama style, as well as the distinctive naturalism required of actors in order to portray the people of Laramie, Wyoming as believable, sympathetic, and compassionate, was integral and central to the production’s success. And it was through the inherent compassion required in all aspects of the production that an incredible message of acceptance and justice was relayed—members of the Pearson community unaffiliated with the theatrical one were deeply and powerfully moved by the production. The message of the piece itself—the existence of which is itself debatable, as the goal of the production was, perhaps, to deliver the story of Matthew Shepard in as unbiased and objective a manner as possible—was one that uplifted the community, and perhaps taught ideals of tolerance regarding a marginalized group of people completely foreign or nonexistent in certain parts of the world. At Pearson, a piece of theatre has the potential to teach in ways perhaps impossible in less diverse communities, and ones not populated be people so open and receptive to divergent messages and ideals.

Ultimately, the theatrical timeline at Pearson is representative of so much more than ‘IB requirements’ necessary for completion of the course—each embodies a unique facet of a preliminary theatrical education in the unifying and communicative power of the theatre itself. While certain knowledge is essential—knowledge of theatrical styles, craft, and abilities—it’s, in my opinion, more easily obtained than the knowledge inherent to theatre in practice. This knowledge—the knowledge of expression, community, and the teaching power of the theatre—is something that can only be truly understood experientially. And, it is through the many diverse experiences of the students within the theatre department that an understanding of these ideals begins to form over the course of two years—two years of togetherness, learning, experimentation, and creativity that ultimately inform a craft cultivated by a specific, privileged subset of the Pearson College student population.