Evaluation of another group’s performance

In drama we have been studying TIE, or theatre in Education. We practised pieces for which we chose certain subjects, like drugs or bullying, and performed it in front of a target year eight audience. I am evaluating a piece shown on Tuesday 7th December in the Drama studio in front of two classes and one year eight target audience class. The piece was about bullying and social acceptance, with informational themes and values.
The main character was called Heather, and along with being bullied, she desperately wanted to be part of the “popular” gang. The ring leader of the popular bullies was called Sam. Throughout most of the play, she made fun of Heather and upset her a lot, and the gang copied her, but somewhere along the line, Sam’s friends got a sudden spark of guilt, and turned on Sam to become friends with Heather, who, so drawn with her craving for popularity had attempted to steel an expensive bag, and started trying to become Sam. But all ended well, as Sam apologised to Heather after being dumped by her best friend Katy, and everyone became friends.
They conveyed their characters very well to the audience; their voices were loud and clear, their costume, movement and gestures reflected their characterisation, and the things they said and did fitted their character, like when the bimbo, Sam, was upset, she ran away crying, but not just normally, she had an extra high pitched voice, and held her bag high and ran very femininely. Their facial expressions suited the concept in which they were used, and so were very effective and persuasive to the audience.

They sustained their characters well throughout most of the piece, but at the beginning it seemed some of them were shy and timid, though they did break through into confidence early on. Their characterisation was very successful, especially in the comedy elements, like for example when Hannah played the policeman using the handcuffs and the language that it stereo typical to policemen, sustaining the role with humour. Their characters were believable, firstly because they were very familiar characters, and secondly because they played them very well. On a scale of one to ten, I would say their characterisation was believable at about seven.
They used a lot of effective body language, like hand and face gestures and posture that reflected their character well. Their voice also was effective to the piece. Heather, for example, used a squeaky voice to portray a geek. Their costume was used well, with the angel and devil, and was effective because you knew immediately what they were. The characters also used props, like the clipboard the angel was holding and reading, which gave a sense of organisation. The bag was also useful in the stealing scene, because you knew at once what she was stealing, and when you don’t have to work out things like that, you can concentrate on the piece itself.
The group used a few explorative elements and drama mediums. They used for example, freeze frames these were valuable and effective because you could tell what they were when the happened, and could see things like thought tracing and conscience alley behind the scenes. The conscience alley itself could have been more effective, as it didn’t build up much tension and was sort of cheesy. It was too short, and the only reason you knew what it was, is because of the devil and angel costumes.
The staging and space was set out very well, although was sometimes too far upstage. Mostly however the whole space was used. There was some blocking (even when the blocked person was talking), mostly between the angel and devil. Staging furniture was also used to create a stand for a shop and chairs in a classroom. This was used and worked well because you could visualise the rest of the setting coming into place with just a few features. They didn’t use a set, although this could have been effective if used and set out properly.
The performance itself was successful. It used some information like child line phone numbers and advice. They also used humour, which is useful as it gets the attention of younger and older viewers. Without humour, the piece would have been boring and most of the audience wouldn’t have liked it. I think they did achieve what they set out to do, as they entertained while informing, and formed a good piece of TIE drama, although it would have been better with more information.
The atmosphere created was alright. There wasn’t much tension, or a climax of any kind, but uses of silence and music worked well. Voice projection and accent was also used effectively. The overall strength of the piece in my opinion was the characterisation; the development of voice and costume. The overall weakness was probably the blocking; it did ruin some scenes and therefore affect the entire performance. I think the audience definitely enjoyed the piece, whether or not they saw the meaning of it is another question. But any negative response is mostly due to the lack of understanding the project and goal; TIE.
In conclusion, I think this piece was very good, and I give it 7/10 for effort, 7/10 for characterisation, 7/10 for staging and 4/10 for use of drama mediums. Basically, I give it 28/40, which is a c grade.