So far I have identified the key techniques in Forum Theatre and I have shown how they can be used to transform communication in a theatre setting first, by breaking down the barriers between the spectator and the actor and second, by facilitating the input from the spectator, we can see a transformation at the end of the Forum piece.
54 José Martí (1985) Poesía completa. Edición critica (emphasis added) 55 Boal (1992) (Games) above n.48, p.244.
142 Additionally, by using Boal’s techniques we see the transition from passive spectator to active, engaged and involved spect-actor. Whether or not the barriers discussed so far are actual or perceived is a matter of subjective opinion or interpretation, but the fact remains that through Boal’s methods we see a coming together of the two and as a result the meaning of participation changes from something that someone else may do, to something that everyone can do if they wish to. By looking now at some of the limitations and subsequent development of his work I aim to give as broad a perspective as possible of it, before proposing to integrate it into the criminal trial. I begin with the limitations that Boal saw of and in his own work before looking to some of the
constraints observed by others of his work. I have already highlighted that Theatre of the Oppressed encompasses all of Boal’s work, however, given that my thesis is
concerned predominantly with his Forum method, I have contained the discussion at this point to focus on that aspect alone.
First, Boal recognised that Forum will not be appropriate in every single situation. He cites a variety of examples where it would not be appropriate, each one Forumed in an actual workshop situation: where a man is trapped in a gas chamber moments from his death and the executioner opens a cyanide capsule; when a young girl is raped by four men when standing alone in a deserted subway station; or when a woman is beaten by her husband. In such situations Boal is clear that there is practically nothing that can be done to bring a different ending. “The girl can run and call the station-master. The woman can scream. The man can call for help. Then what?”56 Essentially, what
differentiates these stories from Forum scenes is that these are about physical
aggression and so the solutions in the Forum scene primarily lie in physical responses. Thus, such situations are not fitted to Forum Theatre because they “do not present
oppression against which one can struggle but aggression which one cannot evade.”57
This is a very important point to clarify given that in section 4.5 below the reader will
56 Boal (1992) (Games) above n.48, p.225. 57 Boal (1992) (Games) above n.48, p.225.
143 see that I have chosen a murder as the subject of my fictitious trial which, by any standards involves physical aggression. In this respect, it would be understandable to challenge my choice of crime, indeed, to challenge my entire argument for using Forum and the Joker in the trial process. However, my point is not to ask the jury to
participate in changing what has already happened (or not) in the crime charged. I am not suggesting that the jury deliver the ‘magic’ answers, but rather I am asking them to participate in real time in the trial and where they have difficulty in understanding, that they are empowered through Boal’s theories to participate with the point of enhancing their own understanding of the language that, hitherto they may have found difficult.
The next thing to consider is whether it is necessary to come to a solution when in a Forum scene, something that Boal was undecided about. Essentially the solution is not the primary objective, but rather, as Boal was keen to highlight, it is better to have a good debate than to come to a good solution. Thus through the dialogue came the debate and the critical analysis of the peoples’ situation by the people. In turn came real understanding and real solutions for action and progress which were rooted in those peoples’ ideas rather than rooted in what was being told or dictated to them.58 I
acknowledge, of course, that the trial must come to a solution, however I would argue that through integrating these methods we can develop a system whereby jurors are given the opportunity to clarify their understanding before coming to their conclusion.
One of the most important problems encountered when using Boal work is that in the Forum pieces there is usually only one protagonist and therefore the scope for
intervention is necessarily limited. This is something which is discussed and thereafter developed by David Diamond. Whilst Diamond is renowned for his Forum Theatre productions, with the influence of Boal very plain to see, he is nonetheless critical of some aspects of Boal’s work, viewing the world from a social systems theory lens as
58 Boal (1998) (Legislative) above n.16, especially p.19 where he refers to the idea of ‘transitive’ or
144 developed by Niklas Luhmann.59 In this regard therefore systems theory “recognises
that the binary poles of oppressor and oppressed are actually part of the same large organism living in some kind of dysfunction.”60 What Diamond is saying, then, is that people are not prisoners of the structures in which they live. “Nature teaches us that structure is created in patterns of behaviour – not the other way round. Working politically to alter the structures in which we live without changing the behaviour that creates those structures is futile.”61 Diamond in his Theatre for Living sees the
communities that he works with as living organisms, and so when they create the plays they do so not just to challenge and change the structure (as Boal’s work does
predominantly) but to change the behaviour which creates the structure. In this respect Diamond challenges Boal at a fundamental level. He stresses the need for multiple interventions thus allowing for a greater scope for the spect-actor. This is very different from Boal’s Theatre of the Oppressed, where Boal stressed that the “spect- actor” should be a person who has had the same, or similar, experience as the
character, either by identity or by analogy. As a result then, in Diamond’s Theatre for Living, he literally “broadens out the invitation of who can replace who in a Forum Theatre event.”62 Probably the most obvious example of this broadening out is seen in
Theatre for Living’s 2004 production Practising Democracy which was created and performed by people living in chronic poverty. The entire play was structured to have no obvious oppressors or oppressed, thus the interventions could be with anyone, by anyone and about anything. What this does therefore is it breaks the boundaries of Boal’s work quite significantly, taking it to a new level in which all of those involved could be challenged, perhaps to levels that they had not expected.
If we consider the broadening aspect of Diamond’s work as a further way in which to engage jurors in the courtroom I suggest that we could, ideally, develop communication
59 Luhmann, N. (2012), Introduction to Systems Theory, (translated by Peter Gilgen), Polity Press,
London
60 Diamond Living above n.42, p.38. 61 Diamond Living above n.42, p.38. 62 Diamond Living above n.42, p.39.
145 around a hybrid of the work of both Boal and Diamond as a starting point. I have
continually suggested that lines for communication must be enabled to facilitate clarity of understanding by jurors whilst a trial is in progress, therefore, by using Diamond’s extended Forum style we may be able to encompass more individuals into the
communication of the trial thus allowing for multiple points for intervention which could lead to enhanced understanding. I have already indicated that I do not suggest extending the interventions to include questioning the accused because, in my opinion, that would undermine the ethos of Boal’s work. Indeed, if we accept at the most basic of level that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty, together with the idea that justice is achieved through a trial process, then essentially the accused is in a position of oppression as he stands trial. Thus, if we were to open the floor to investigations and / or questions from the jury this could be regarded as further oppressing the accused, something which undermines the work of both Boal and Diamond and is something that I am keen to avoid.
Boal’s Joker asks that a problem be investigated through performance rather than as a truth to be demonstrated in performance and the integration of his Joker as facilitator enables that investigation. I suggest that we integrate the Joker in this way to develop scope for juror participation and I argue that the beauty of the Joker in this context is two-fold. First he opens avenues for interaction, both physical and oral for all of the trial participants. Second, not only can those trial participants test their own
understanding of the proceedings or clarify their interpretation of the evidence and legal terminology as and when they need to, but at the same time the on-lookers, for example, the researchers or analysts can see and hear where these things are
understood and where the understanding strays from the legally expected and accepted norms. Whilst part of the role of the jury should perhaps be to challenge these norms and their application, there still remains the issue of when their attention in the trial, or their understanding of it, becomes so detached as to render serious concern over the formulation of their verdict. I should however point out that I do not see that there is
146 one right way or one right decision that the jury should be expected to achieve, but I do believe that the process through which the jury formulate their verdict should come from a positive point where they are able to participate rather than a negative or neutral point whereby either they are not, or they perceive the situation to be just that. Ultimately therefore, the integration of Boal’s Joker could be a key to breaking new ground both in the way that we carry out future research as well as a device for use by juries in live trials. For example, not only could integrating a Joker be the key to understanding better how the criminal trial works more generally, it could also enable the jury to understand the trial in a more organic and critically reflective way. Finally, the Joker could turn out to be the link to understanding, with a little more clarity, what works, and what does not in respect of advancing research in this area. Therefore, in an ideal situation, his part, and so the subsequent participation between the other trial players, may aid in the creation of a fresh new perspective in his part of the justice system which has been the subject of debate for several decades.
I have already demonstrated in chapter two that participation by the jury has long been regarded by many as crucial for a variety of reasons which includes that they bring a sense of legitimacy to the trial that it would not otherwise have.63 I have suggested
that this might be due to a variety of reasons which includes their ability to reflect community standards or their superior fact-finding ability. Whilst these arguments are valid in themselves they none-the-less hinge on the assumption that the jury are participants – in real time - in the trial process, something that I do not believe to be the case. Indeed, I have argued from the start of this project that whilst the jury are undeniably present in the trial process their presence does not equate to their
participation within the current trial format. Thus, to make my position very clear I shall now unpack the concept of participation before drawing a picture of what I
forecast it could look like and why I suggest that, with the inclusion of Boal’s Theatre of
147 the Oppressed, my ideas could amount to true and meaningful participation for the jury as the trial progresses.