Sitrep 4: Feb. 16, 2025

In our class discussion on Wednesday about the efficacy of shock, Craig asked how we might communicate the impact that a production such as Blasted had on its original audience when examining the play in a contemporary classroom. To paraphrase, how does one historicize ‘that-which-was-shocking’ in a contemporary theatre course? It’s an excellent pedagogical question because, when anthologized or mentioned in something like an Introduction to Theatre textbook, the event of any play is generally reduced to a very broad summary, instead of the experiential occasion it is meant to be. Even when read on a page, the reader is left with so many gaps. If we have a historical record of the play in production, then an analysis of the assorted reviews, any extant interviews with the players involved in the production, and other traditional kinds of scholarship can at least begin to paint a picture for the engaged student. The original reviewers of the play especially, even when they ‘get it wrong,’ make their living by being at least somewhat calibrated to the public’s taste and often offer a relatively accurate picture of how the public might be reacting at the time. At the very least, they are a firsthand account and can begin the historicizing process.

But these are just the source materials. What a pedagogue does with them is at the real heart of the question. It is always one thing to simply tell a student that something was shocking, convention-breaking, unsettling, and important to the historical evolution of theatre. It is a different matter altogether to get them to experientially comprehend this. At least part of the answer relates to an instructor’s particular ethics of care for their students when bringing shock into the classroom. The instructor must know to what degree they want students to have this kind of experiential knowledge, why that is important, how the relative maturity-level of the student impacts exploration of the course material, and how they will care for the students who might feel especially disoriented by the experience, and how they might temper the student who revels in the titillating nature of the experience but forgoes appropriate mental reflection. Without having some awareness of these factors, the instructor might inadvertently create an unsafe or chaotic instructional space where students are simply left to their own devices, much in the same way that actors are often not given the tools to de-role after a heightened emotional experience. Perhaps another factor in the equation is getting the class on the same page historically. In Dr. Fletcher’s Script Analysis course, I found his broad strokes explanation of historical world views through looking at maps of different time periods an incredibly helpful framework for students. A tool like this might help locate the play in its context. I’m not sure I know the answers to the other parts of the equation, but Craig’s question sticks with me because, for the student, experiential learning is generally more impactful than rote forms of knowledge. How to create those experiences for the student must be a question for any pedagogue who cares about the quality of student learning. As the semester continues, I want to think about the other plays in this course through the lens of Craig’s question and look at the methods of presentation that my peers employ for further inspiration.