"ABU SHAKER’S AFFAIRS ‘97"

Warning!
"Abu Shaker’s Affairs" does not exist as a complete and separate entity. Only as a suggestion, a starting point, a provocation.....

In a country such as ours - full of social, political, religious and economic diversity and conflict - it becomes essential for people to look for new ways to bring about social change. Theatre is evolving in this regard as an important tool for thought and creativity and as a means of free expression.

For us, "Abu Shaker’s Affairs" was an experiment in every sense: it was our point of embarkation into a new realm of theatre ( after Augusto Boal’s Theatre of the Oppressed) - where there are only suggestions and possibilities. Where the actors’ roles are fluid and the audience takes a philosophical and physical role in shaping the outcomes.

However, it is clear that some sort of framework has to be constructed, else the exercise would simply become a mad free-for-all. The point - to learn how to identify and seek solutions to explicit social problems - would be lost. So, we chose some of the hot-topics of the day, and to designed a realistic - although exaggerated - family setting. The family we created is Abu Shaker, his son Shaker, daughter Sadora and a cousin Faleh. The three topics were as follows:

The trade in "out-of-date" food. Women’s position in Society. Freedom of speech within the family

In constructing the framework we felt it was vital that each character have a clearly defined will. That will, like a personality, could not change- Abu Shaker, as the oppressor, could not magically transform into a nice guy. Therefore the audience/ players had to try to change the situation, through the dynamics, and the interaction, between the people on stage. Only in this way could it be used as a meaningful and relevant exercise.

In the performance, the roles of the four family members are initially played by the actors, later three of these roles can be assumed, directed or suggested by the audience. Of critical importance however, is that the role of, Abu Shaker, can not be controlled directly by the audience......

One object of this style is to give the audience the opportunity to express themselves, (which they do through their suggestions for the three other characters), but at the same time, with Abu Shaker, we are giving them a "solid wall" to come up against....... he stands as a character in his story and, on another level, as a manifestation, an example of the oppressor. For more information go to the Hot Zone.

We didn’t wear costumes as signifiers or symbols. We simply wore clothes that would be typical of the character portrayed. Yet we used some accessories, that the audience also put on when assuming the character: Faleh’s jacket, Sadora’s shawl, Shaker’s glasses ..........
We felt it necessary to make the set as realistic and natural as possible so as to not become a barrier to interaction between those on stage and off. We used props to make it as realistic as possible, and we also found that people from the audience brought things too. Once somebody wanted to bring a knife - to kill Abu Shaker! A violent reminder of how seriously these problems are taken and how frustrated people feel.
On stage, as in real life, we cannot directly affect our oppressor. Abu Shaker, the centrifugal focus of the situation, could not be "puppeted". The audience could only challenge him from without.