We performed our final piece Thursday for a duration of around two and half to three hours. Dressed in funeral attire we transported the shoes from the drop off zone to the back of the grandstand. Then we proceeded to lie amongst them whilst reciting texts we had memorised. After a period of time we rose up and then took the shoes back to the drop off zone but this time pairing them off and lining them up neatly. This allowed our group to show the grandstand’s use as a mosque as well as it’s possible use as a mortuary.

Some of the shoes we managed to collect for our piece.

Our poster advertising our piece.

The chalk outlines where we lay once all the shoes were in the space.

The end part of our piece. The shoes have been paired and lined up and the remaining shoes have been put in a pile.

For our final rehearsal before our performance, we brought in all the shoes we had collected (so far). Whilst looking at our piece, it was brought to our attention that the grandstand is used as a mosque now and so people would remove their shoes outside the building before entering. In using this idea we decided to place the shoes outside the front of the grandstand and walk them around to the back during our piece.

Outside the front of the grandstand there is a designated drop off area which we felt would be a great starting place for the shoes (as shown in the picture above), as it is like the shoes have been ‘dropped off’ and as the shoes represent the bodies of the mortuary it gives a metaphorical insight into what the grandstand might have been like as a mortuary. Having done our final rehearsal it became clear more shoes are needed to have our desired effect.

During one of our final rehearsals at the grandstand, we decided to focus on one aspect of our performance and removed the other parts to make our piece less complex. In doing this we have decided to create a piece on mortuaries. The performance will involve our group lying  amongst shoes and talking about mortuaries using texts we have found. I shall be speaking the following text:

“Emergencies that cause the deaths of large numbers of people can result from major accidents, natural disasters or acts of hostility. While what has happened cannot be undone, other people may be protected from similar events by careful investigation of the causes, the collection of evidence and the prosecution of any criminal acts. Within the wider investigation, responding to the deaths will focus on the respectful treatment and accurate identification of the physical remains, and where possible their return to the next of kin. A large number of deaths or complexity of circumstances, such as fragmentation of bodies, may require the deployment of an emergency mortuary. This can enable large volumes of specialist forensic tasks to be conducted, but will place new demands on the emergency services and local authority, including the need to consider body storage, specialist equipment, staffing, mortuary deployment and on-site maintenance, and mortuary integration with the local physical infrastructure and management arrangements. This will require a coordinated multi-agency approach. The decisions taken and the ways in which information is communicated may have a lifelong impact on the friends and families of those who have died. Plans should therefore be considered carefully from their perspective” (Elliot, 2011, p.430). 

The text explains emergency mortuaries and how they are planned. This is a relevant text for the grandstand as that is exactly what might have happened at the site. The mortuary plan was created for the grandstand and it is still not certain whether it was used. Our piece explores the site and what it could have been.

Work Cited

Elliot, A. 2011, ‘Abstract’, ‘Mortuary provision in emergencies causing mass fatalities’, Journal of Business Continuity and Emergency Planning, 5, 1, Business source Complete, EBSCOhost, p.430-439, [accessed] 17 April 2014.

‘If the dramaturg attempts to sketch a “map”, perhaps this will always be in pragmatic and tentative relation to the territory of the performance event (Turner, 2010, p.150).

The quote above, by Cathy Turner, best describes the way in which our performances at the grandstand are relevant to the site. We as performers are creating a “map” or what could be seen as a “timeline” of the grandstand’s history by showing glimpses into it’s past in our pieces. For example we have settled on portraying the morgue, that could have been at the grandstand, in our performance and this is done in a serious manner but our ideas are based on the facts we know about the site and are not true portrayals. They are our interpretations of the knowledge we have of the grandstand, however we are bringing the history of the site to life.

Turner also goes on to say what elements she feels creates a performance, ‘Thus there is a dynamic, contextual and indeed, political dimension to dramaturgical practice’ (Turner, 2010, p.150). Turner believes that performances are dynamic, contextual and political. Is this true? This is what I am going to establish witht this blog. I am asking myself, do we need all 3 of these elements to make a performance?

The one element I completely agree on is context; I believe it is mandatory within a piece. If you have no context, then you have no point and without a point you really don’t have a performance. Drama pieces originate from ideas and that is your focus. In our case, we are performing at the grandstand so our piece is in context with the historical past of our site. If our piece was performed somewhere else, it will still work as a piece but it would be out of context and would therefore be less effective for the audience to watch.

Does a performance need to be political? If your piece has a strong stance on an issue it will create a bigger reaction from the audience and will make them feel something. Is it crucial? If you want to cause the audience to have strong emotions to your piece then, yes, of course you would take a political approach but many performances can be done without a political message. However many plays have issues that have a  moral standpoint and so it is very hard to be a part of a performance which does not feature a type of politics.

Dynamic performances tend to be the most interesting of pieces, as they push the boundaries and keep the audience’s attention. All performance pieces need to be different to stand out; every version of a play you will ever see will have a different dynamic. Although a performance doesn’t have to be dynamic to be performed, it is the best way for a piece to be successful. As audiences are constantly changing, drama pieces should also be adapting to match those watching it.

Having considered Turner’s ideas, as to what makes a drama piece, I would agree that it is essential to have a dynamic, contextual piece. As for political, it depends on everyone’s definition of political issues. I believe there should be an issue that is explored in a drama piece to make it truly successful but whether it is always political is dependent on an audience’s interpretation.

Work Cited

Turner, C. (2010) ‘Mis-Guidance and Spatial Planning: Dramaturgies of Public Space’, Contemporary Theatre Review, Vol. 20(2), Routledge, P.149-161

How do you build site-related objects in the grandstand out of chairs and tables? This was the dilemma our group was faced with. Whilst trying out ideas for our site-specific performance we thought about constructing a horse out of the objects we had available. So how did it go? The evidence is below…

You can see a sort of outline of a horse, however it was pointed out to our group by our tutor that what we had created could be a tank. So running with the idea of the tank we tweaked our creation slightly to create more of a tank shape. By merely moving the chairs on the table to a more central position and turning the top chair around so as the legs represent that of guns.

Going along with our theme, of the grandstand’s use in the World Wars, we created a tunnel out of chairs and a trench out of tables. These can be seen below…

(Picture above shows the tunnel we created out of chairs)

Exploring the site allowed our group to use our imagination to re-invent the site. We felt that using the objects within the building really shows how the grandstand has changed. Our group idea is still a work in progress but there is a lot of potential to create something powerful that makes the audience think.