The aim of this thought piece is to unravel the authenticity that I witnessed during the enactment of the play ‘The Gaza Monologues’ produced by ‘Floating Space’ on the 6th of February 2011. In doing so, I shall attempt to highlight the ways in which authenticity is created through the use of space, the informality of the opening scene and the subversion incorporated in the title of the play. The concept of authenticity shall also be discussed in relation to the intent of the play and the collaborations the theatre group has with its stakeholders. I shall also draw upon aspects that Peter Brook conceptualizes in ‘The Empty Space’ in unearthing the characteristics of authenticity and honesty throughout the course of this essay.
‘To (capture the audiences’ attention and compel its belief) we must prove that there will be no trickery, nothing hidden. We must open our empty hands and show that really there is nothing up our sleeves. Only then can we begin’ Brook (1996).
This line partly captures the authenticity, which involves fidelity (Gaut et al, 2001) to the subject matter and the context of the subject matter that I look for when watching a theatrical performance. ‘The Gaza Monologues’ was one such performance that stayed true to the above ‘idea’ of not involving ‘trickery’ as it chose a space that was fidel to the context of the play. This was because the space alone was able to create the sensation of despair, which was one of the dominant themes of the performance. I agree with Brook’s statement that ‘a beautiful place may never bring the explosion of life, while a haphazard hall maybe a tremendous meeting place’ once I watched this production at the relatively large backroom of Park Street Mews. The fact that the walls of this venue were not artificially hidden by wall paint, which is used to symbolize a sense of sophistication and elegance, complimented the atmosphere of doom and misery to a great extent. I felt that the unpainted walls created a sense of fidelity to the actual situation in Palestine because it was able to symbolize destruction, as demolition of buildings are generally indicated through a pile of broken bricks. Therefore, the unpainted, bricked walls of the venue played a momentous role in capturing a consequence of war throughout the venue.
Also, I personally felt that the audience was made to witness the monologues of children affected by war in a surrounding that the children were familiar with. This was due to the ‘unpainted walls’ as mentioned previously, and due to the lack of fixed seats, as at traditional theatres. The fact that this venue had mats and plastic chairs provided an authentic air because it helped create the illusion that the production group, in their attempt to highlight the true conditions of the children, placed mats and chairs for the audience to witness their plight from a space that the victimized children were able to identify with. Indeed, credit must be given to the playwrights for their choice of venue as it implied the context and setting even before the play began. Brooks’ claim that ‘the most vital theatrical experiences occur outside the legitimate places constructed for the purpose’ stands true with my experience of ‘The Gaza Monologues’ at the backroom of Park Street Mews.
Interestingly, the content of the play is also very authentic as the narratives of the children in the play are a documentation of the individual experiences, hopes and fears of the youth in Palestine (Rerun of The Gaza Monologues, 2011). This authenticity within the content of the performance is also portrayed in the representation of it through the absence of a ‘stage’. The fact that the children enacted the narratives of the victims in Palestine on the floor of the backroom as opposed to a ‘stage’ is more effective and authentic, as it eliminated the illusion associated with the stage. I personally feel that the inclusion of a ‘stage’ at a theatrical performance takes away the aspect of authenticity as it keeps me aware that this performance is a construct. Consequently, the lack of a ‘stage’ at the ‘The Gaza Monologues’ worked successfully as it symbolized the veracity of the narratives.
Moreover, the fact that the actors sat very close to the audience on the mat after their enactment of a narrative was also very significant. I personally feel that his close presence with the actors helped the audience understand their feelings because they appeared as children who were victimized as opposed to actors on stage performing a role that was given to them. It is also significant when Eraj Gunawardena, the child who speaks for Reem from Al- Saftawi Street, throws cards at the audiences who are seated on the map and occupy the first few rows for two reasons. Firstly, it highlights his feelings of hopelessness and depression as a result of his loss of childhood due to the war. Secondly, it creates an attachment to the plights of the children as the audience gets the feeling of despair effectively when there is symbolic ‘physical evidence’. Hence these instances clearly make the audience feel that they are witnessing a real event as opposed to a performance.
The discussion of the above characteristics witnessed at the production of ‘The Gaza Monologues’ conforms to Peter Brook’s conception of ‘The Rough Theater’. He mentions that Rough Theatre is ‘the theatre that’s not in a theatre, the theatre on carts, on wagons, on trestles, audiences standing…theatre in backrooms, upstairs rooms, barns…’. These aspects are certainly witnessed in ‘The Gaza Monologues’ along with its ‘close (ness) to the people’ in terms of the subject, which is similar to the consequences of war felt by the children of Sri Lanka, and certainly, by the characteristics mentioned above such as the use of space.
Initially, when I heard the title of the play, I assumed that this play would be a performance depicting important national leaders in official attire at a boardroom. Consequently, I was surprised by what I witnessed due to the clear subversion from my expectations of the play. However, I must admit that this subversion did impart a sense of authenticity to the play because it highlights the importance that we, as the audience and the international community, should place on the marginalized victims of war. The fact that the playwrights chose to voice out the conditions that the Palestine civilians face from children, who symbolize their condition through their torn and tattered clothing, clearly highlights the need to understand problems from those who do not belong to hegemonic power structures as well. Significantly, the choice of using children to inform the audience about the hardships is also effective as it would be easier for the audience to identify with those who have been directly affected by the war, as opposed to leaders who are not directly affected due to their inclusion within an elite circle.
Additionally, the depiction of a setting that symbolized death and decay as opposed to a board room with elegant furnishing and well equipped sound systems was also very successful. The inclusion of barbed wire within the setting was very symbolic of the Palestine context as it effectively highlighted the restrictions and limitations the civilians were forced to abide as a result of the war. A plush boardroom would never have been able to capture these emotional, physical and psychological traumas that the victims of war experience. Brook mentions that it is effective to have a setting that does not consist of too many props. According to him the reason for this efficacy is that a minimalistic setting has the potential to draw the attention of the audience to the character on stage as opposed to the fancy background. Therefore, the minimalistic setting in the performance of ‘The Gaza Monologues’ also paves way in drawing attention to the narratives due to its symbolic background that lacks artificial and expensive props.
I admire and have tremendous regard for the playwrights of this play as they not only chose to stage a performance based on a contemporary social issue, but they also stayed true to their intent of creating awareness of this phenomenon by involving themselves in real life initiatives that promote this issue on a global forum. The fact that ‘Floating Space contributed to ‘The Gaza Mono-Logues’ performance in New York at the General Assembly of the United Nations for its annual meeting on ‘The Question of Palestine’ (Rerun of The Gaza Monologues, 2011) clearly indicates the interest and initiative shown by the playwrights in social activism. Subsequently, the fact that ‘Floating Space believes that the process of children in Colombo working on the text and production – and the subsequent performance with the international cast – was an expression of solidarity with children in similar situations as experienced by children in Sri Lanka (Rerun of The Gaza Monologues, 2011) clearly highlights the playwrights intentions of providing a space and opportunity to the children in Sri Lanka in sympathizing and acknowledging the condition of other children affected by war around the world.
Therefore, I would like to conclude by stating that ‘The Gaza Monologues’ is a performance that needs to be applauded greatly due to its use as a tool for social activism. The fact that the playwrights, as mentioned above, managed to highlight the veracity of the narratives and the social conditions of the victims through the use of space, speeches and the subversion of the title clearly highlights the innovative nature of the playwrights. The innovative nature of this play is also brought out through the lack of a ‘stage’, which in my view symbolically enhanced the performance through its erasure of the illusion associated with a ‘stage’. Henceforth, ‘The Gaza Monologues’ is a play that would be remembered for its authenticity and innovative nature.
Azybazy 
Thank you for this article, and thank you for Floating space who initiated this project and for keeping the performances alive.
thank you Iman