Invisible theatre is meant to keep the audience in the metaphorical dark. To fool people. On page 15, Boal says “This is not realism, this is reality,” in this whole section where he’s talking about having to explain to the police that it was Invisible Theatre, but at all costs they were trying to hide that reality from the spect-actors.
Invisible Theatre is an opportunity to deceive people, where the outcome is positive. A random act of kindness or generosity of stories in an informal environment. I don’t think that anyone was harmed. In fact, the spect-actors involved in these pieces probably went home with a good story, a moral lesson and a sense of excitement at having gone through them. I too get those good feelings from performance.
What’s the difference between ‘running a con on’ and ‘telling a story to’ and unsuspecting stranger? In one, you are trying to get money (unlike theatre?). So there is this question of intent. Is this why actors are untrustworthy?
I definitely have to agree with you on this one. While I do think that Invisible Theatre is an intriguing concept that could potentially produce a sort of forum for community discussion and perhaps even some form of social change, it just seems too dangerous to be safely put into action. If no one but the actual actors know they're in the middle of a play, then there is no limit to what might happen. And, yeah, that might be helpful, or it could do a lot of harm.
ReplyDeleteFor example, in the example where the actors decided to move their little tea party into the center of a road, in my mind I remember wondering, "What if a driver is digging for something in their car and plows right through them all?" That's an extreme example, but a lot of what happens in theatre is extreme. What if a discussion got so heated, a riot started which damaged property and innocent bystanders?
People are crazy, Invisible Theatre doesn't sound like something I'd like to be involved with either as an actor or spect-actor.