We later used the photographs for thought tracking – a method used to show characters thoughts (as they may be different to what and how they speak) during a play. We then used the photographs to evaluate our success. My main success was my use of gestures, (such as photograph 5, when I (playing Ryan) hold my arms out, as if I am begging Ryan to accept my ideas and forgive me). The group’s success was how we clearly presented each scene/photograph. Maybe we could have improved by being more dramatic (increasing facial expressions and actions) or making better use of props.
Next we had a debate, set in Mark’s present, our future of 2029. We created realistic role plays using our knowledge of genetics and characters from the video. I was the presenter of the “talk show” and had to be biased towards the opposition of Genetic Engineering. I needed to ask questions, agreeing with the opposers, and disagreeing with the proposers. I presented points such as the fact that, with Genetic Engineering, Annie would not have been born. I made sure that I performed confidently and used loud hand gestures, to echo my confidence. I also projected my voice well, as a real presenter would need to do. I feel that I presented each of my questions and points well. I think that our group debate worked extremely well.
As a result of the debate and my viewing of the video, my views on Genetic Engineering are that it should be used for good, not convenience. Extreme Genetic Disorders should be removed, however, people should not be given talents. I believe this because we will end up with a very ‘perfect’ and alike nation. Also, if these abilities to give immunity against disease fall into the wrong hands, it can be used as a weapon.
We that looked at stimulus materials. Please see copies for my notes. Although the texts are from different cultures and eras , they have things in common – they all show humans ambition to better themselves and to investigate into the unknown. Although Frankenstein is fiction, it deals with issues of real life in both the “Graveyard Ghouls Article” and “Modern Frankensteins” – what was illegal then is now rapidly becoming legal today.
We brainstormed current medical and scientific issues such as cosmetic surgery and organ transplants. Our group of 4 people decided to work on organ transplants. Our play was based on an argument of who deserved the lung transplant more – a prolific smoker, who’s lung was in an extremely bad state, or a lung cancer sufferer, who had never smoked before, but was in a more stable state that the smoker. Morally the non smoker should be given the transplant first, however medically, the smoker needs it. We decided to first discuss, as a group, the plot, a script to follow and characters. I was given the role of the non smoker. We then rehearsed several times, improving our performance each time. I felt that our group performed quite well and voiced our opinions through the play. I felt I also acted well, using a range of emotions such as anger. We performed our pieces, which we set in a doctor’s surgery, in which the two patients meet and have a disagreement about the issue of transplants and waiting lists, we did this as it showed a realistic situation in which two people meet, and discuss. This helped us put across our arguments, both for and against, each person. After the performance we were then hot seated to show how closely we had identified with our characters. We were each asked why we should be given the first transplants. I described that I should be treated first as I had don nothing wrong to aggravate my condition. Overall, I think that I had performed quite well in my part but could have done better by using more body language and gestures, to illustrate my feelings more.
We discussed all the performances which covered subjects such as cosmetic surgery and transplants. We agreed that most scientific developments create controversy of some sort. We also agreed that, like Frankenstein’s monster, people do not like to be outsiders or feel “different”.
We have now completed the response phase. We have looked at a selection of scientific/medical issues and have looked at a range of texts, the earliest dating from 1818 and one which looks into the projected future of 2029. We are now ready to develop our ideas further during the development phase.
We have already used the following explorative strategies: still image; hot seating; role play; thought tracking and marking the moment.
Development Phase
Using our ideas from the response phase, it was not time to develop some of our views into a short performance to share with the rest of the class. We looked again at scientific experiments associated with the period of the Frankenstein story and through to the present day; we all agreed that experiments on animals were a common link between the past, the present and probably the future. We decided to develop our main piece of work around the subject of animal testing (or vivisection).
We discussed our own personal views about testing. I believe that testing on animals is necessary – to some extent. Animal medical testing has saved billions of human lives , however, I believe that testing cosmetics and experiments such as forcing animals to inhale cigarette smoke to see how long it takes to kill it is barbaric and unjust. Enough animals are killed for medical reasons, more should not be killed for our “beauty”.
We all had different views, some people believed that animal testing should be banned completely, I disagree as if animal testing was not allowed, drugs for a variety of conditions would not be discovered. Another belief is that all animal testing should be allowed, I again disagree with this as I think testing cosmetics on animals is unnecessary. This suggests that there are at least two sides to every argument.
We decided to develop a piece of improvisation which was different to our previous work because it will not be realistic. We have decided to do this to grab the audience’s attention and to represent an alternative point of view for this subject.
We made the following decisions during our planning:
- We decided that animals would talk, not the humans/scientists. This will create a role reversal, in which the audience are shown the animal’s thoughts and feelings. The main aim for this was to turn the audience’s sympathy towards the animals, to understand that animals have feelings and emotions as well as humans.
- Animals voices, words and movements – we decided to vent each animal’s emotions through these, e.g. a scared animal would be on edge, very alert and would speak very quietly, voice breaking occasionally. To demonstrate the lack of space that the animals are given, we decided to bunch up the characters, with one pacing backwards and forwards in a small space to demonstrate boredom.
- Scientists’ movement, body language, speech – we decided to limit the scientist’s movement. It was freer than that of the animals but each scientist followed a set path. This was to create an inhuman atmosphere (role reversal – humans – almost as animals). To add to this atmosphere we decided to limit the speech of humans to animal-like grunts. This would create the same mystery for the audience as to what each scientist was saying as it does when we hear animals communicate. To add an extra threat to the animals we choreographed the scientists to follow a set track of movement, in which part way through this movement, one would stop and band loudly on a table (used as props for a cage, animals hide underneath this.). This is threatening to the animals as they cannot see what is happening.
- Each scientist wore a white mask (see cover sheet) and a white apron (later changed to a blood-soaked apron) to create a plain, inhuman, clean, laboratory like effect. The white mask was used to strip each human of any emotion that they possessed (making humans seem robot like and the animal’s human like).
- Use of space and levels – to separate the animals from the humans we made a cage from two tables joined together. A row of chairs were set up behind these in which the scientists would walk along. The animals were not allowed to move above the height of the tables. This means that although the animals were positioned forward of the scientists, the scientists were always in control. They were behind and on a much higher level to the animals meaning that the animals could only hear, not see, the scientists.
- Use of lighting – throughout most of the play a dim, blue light was used, to create a feeling of mystery and fear. After the brief blackout, a dark, red light was used, symbolising terror and bloodshed.
- Climax, anti climax – Throughout most of the play we used a dim blue light, however, as the play approached its climax and scientists came to take an animal away we used a blackout. Silence also accompanied this blackout for five seconds, a scream was then heard. A dark, red light was then used to show the remaining animals left, cowering on the floor, terrified. Each scientist, during the blackout has changed from their white, clean apron, into their bloodstained apron. They are shown standing in a crowd, laughing evilly. The lights were then switched off again to end the show.
- Characters – each animal was given its own human like character, again to make the audience feel closer and more understanding towards the animal.
We finally created our pieces of work. The following is evidence of our final ideas.
Task 3 – Evaluative Phase
We began the evaluation phase by looking back again at the drama texts: “The Gift” (1998,2012,and 2029); “Frankenstein”(book 1818; film 1931); modern newspaper article about grave robbers/body snatchers of 1824. “Modern Frankensteins” information sheet; modern newspaper articles about IVF, cloning, scientific progress.
All tests involve ideas relating to scientific experiments for improving or changing humans/life in some way:
- The Gift – Genetic Engineering, alters which cells are used for fertilisation, therefore selects a child for you.
- Frankenstein – One man’s dream of making the perfect human being – tall, strong, dominant.
- Grave robbers/Body Snatchers – real life ‘Frankensteins’ – people attempting to create a perfect being.
- IVF – If a woman cannot become pregnant, she is given this treatment in which the woman is stimulated to produce many eggs. They are then taken out of her body and mixed with a man’s sperm, this fertilises the egg. The fertilised egg is now put back into the female’s body in which they become pregnant and give birth. IVF treatment can result in multiple births.
- Cloning – It is believed that many diseases can be cured if cells are cloned, so far no human has been cloned.
I think that the book of Frankenstein was created as a horror and was written to shock adult audiences of its time. After all, body snatching and these kinds of experiments were completely unheard of.
I believe that each of the modern texts (Modern Frankensteins, IVF, and Cloning) are all designed to inform and defend modern science to sceptics all over the world.
“The Gift” was a play targeted at school children to educate them about genetics. The texts dealing with body snatching/grave robbing are “Frankenstein” and the article about Burk and Hare. In those days, experimenting using body parts, was illegal as it was considered unnatural and against the will of God. The more modern texts show that we have come a long way since the 1800s, this is demonstrated in plays such as “The Gift”. People can have the option as to whether or not they want to design their baby to suit the needs of a genetic disorder/ disease etc. that their other child may have.
Today’s society is also very image conscious and demands perfection. Cosmetic surgery such as breast enhancement/facelifts is now more affordable and so is available to the general public. Medical developments have increased today’s life expectancy dramatically, therefore creating a healthier nation.
I have already commented upon my work and that of others but a summary follows:
Still Pictures
- My contributions and successes – I felt I contributed a vast amount to the main setup of each picture. During planning and rehearsals I felt I took charge of the group but also listened to other people’s ideas and comments. I felt that I performed well, using a good sense of body language, facial expressions and gestures.
- Contributions and successes of other pupils – I thought that our group worked extremely well during each phase of this task. Each group member put ideas forward for planning and rehearsals and performed each photograph as planned.
Debate
- My contributions and successes – I felt I contributed well to this task, as I forwarded many ideas towards our planning and rehearsal time. I also felt I performed well, as I was also arguing against my beliefs (that genetic engineering should be banned). I did this so I could argue in representation of my character, not of me.
- Contribution, success of others – Again I believe that our group performed well for this task. For planning we discussed our views and arguments for and against the proposal, however we did not rehearse a lot as we could not be sure what issues would be brought up (as we had decided to involve the audience). We instead created a guideline for each of us to follow. We performed well.
Improvisation, Hot seating
- Me – I was quite disappointed with my improvisation piece as I was very unsure of my role (absent group member meant role changes) however I felt I worked hard to learn my role and was convincing during my hot seating.
- Group – I felt that our group worked poorly during our preparation time – also hindered by absentees – however we did well during hot seating.
Task 2
We have already identified vivisection as a common link between all the texts and the historical periods involved. This was why we chose to use vivisection as a focus for our main piece of work. I felt that I contributed well to the main piece of work we were given. I put a lot of effort into putting ideas forward for both the plot and the setup of the performance. My group also worked incredibly well together and produced a great end result.
As a final way of evaluating our work, we decided to use one short piece of improvisation to project our ideas into the future. We decided to look much further forward than “The Gift” and imagine where the use of Science may lead. We brainstormed our ideas. We came up with a lot of ideas including :
- Medicine being so advanced that no death occurs, therefore humans are born with a fatal gene which has been genetically engineered to activate whenever the Earth becomes overcrowded.
- Due to cosmetic surgery, everyone looks the same.
- People have same knowledge due to memory chips.
- People live underwater as the land has been overcrowded.
We decided to use a light hearted approach to show what might happen in the future if science is allowed to take over from nature.
We built up our rehearsals in sections. First we planned the opening scene – two people transported through time via travel agent – and then began the first part of the rehearsal. After this we discussed how to improve it, we then rehearsed again. We then planned the middle – a conversation between the travellers and future people – and used the same method of rehearsing. We again did this for the ending – one future characters fatal gene being activated.
We decided to raise issues such as the fatal gene because we feel that it is a very realistic option of future society. We ended the play with a death – the activation of the fatal gene is just a part of everyday life for the future people, however the travellers are shocked.
Our play aimed to show the audience that although science can be used to our advantage, we can take it too far and end up ruining life as we know it. We were successful because it made people think more clearly about modern science. I felt I learned a lot during the workshop. My views about Science vs. Nature are that science is good and can be used to our advantage, to a certain extent. However, if we are not careful we are going to destroy our individuality and the world around us.
As a result of the drama texts, I have learned that sometimes the use of medical science and animal testing is essential in order to save human lives.
I feel that the experiences I gained were valuable.
I learned how the use of light and sound can affect the mood, tension and overall view that the audience has of a play.
I also learned that exaggeration of body language and expression is the key to dramatic performance, as it instantly lets the audience see your mood and character.
Overall, I feel that I have learned a great deal from this workshop. Not only about modern science, but also how to co-operate in a group situation and how to compromise with ideas. I have learned that you need to be prepared to listen to and accept the views of others. I have also broadened my range of acting skills
