A Forum Theatre scene ends with a protagonist unable to successfully solve the problem so as to stimulate dialogue amongst the ‘spect-actors’ in the form of possible interventions.

I have trained in the Forum Theatre dramaturgy under Julian Boal, the son of Augusto Boal and applied the same with communities in India and abroad. Vandana is also a practitioner of Theatre of the Oppressed (TO) and has practised TO games with communities in India. When I met Vandana (virtually in May 2020), I realized we shared a mutual curiosity to digitize a methodology that had shaped our personal practices. When I met Shubham, Vajid and Devika, I realized that we had a team big and passionate enough to begin our experimentation!

Augusto Boal in his body of research defines ‘aesthetic distance’ as “the gap that exists whenever there is a separation between the space of the actor and that of the spect-actor, or when there is dissociation between the two” (Boal, 1990). In a live Forum Theatre the aesthetic distance between actor and spect-actor is reduced because the spect-actors are witnessing their own social realities unfurl in front of them. He/she can then spontaneously intervene and embody the protagonists’ dilemma within seconds, thus transforming a shared physical space into a literal space where a theatrical action is occurring.

When digitizing this methodology as Forum actors we realized that 1) we were not in the same physical space as each other 2) we would not be sharing the same physical space as our spect-actors. How then can the aesthetic distance between the actor and spect-actor be reduced - considering they are both existing in different physical spaces? In other words, how can the spect-actors’ embodiment of a protagonist take place digitally, spontaneously and empathetically? Can a digital Forum yield effective interventions that stimulate constructive dialogue?

These questions led to us to consciously diverging from a live Forum Theatre methodology in the following ways:

The pandemic forced us to conduct not only our work but also our rehearsals on the Zoom video-conferencing platform. As actors creating a Forum play we knew that our script had to be true to our current reality and so Zoom became the location of our shared stories and dilemmas. We were also afraid that if our performance was set in a physical space (example - a house, or a school classroom) but we were acting out those same proximities on Zoom, our spect-actors would struggle to suspend their disbelief. This would increase their aesthetic distance to the struggles of the protagonist and the possibility of realistic interventions would be reduced.

In Forum Theatre dramaturgy, the term ‘oppression’ is used to define a systematic abuse of power and of individual power (Cohen-Cruz, Jan, & Mady Schutzman, 2002). The more time we spent together on Zoom, we realized how online modalities of communication - be it private chats, images and screenshots - actually reinforce systematic oppressions like cyber harassment. Only by depicting a Forum performance online could we demonstrate how harassers take advantage of the power and freedom of the these tools to target minority groups.

The question we were then left with now was - should we perform a live Forum online or pre-record a Forum online? If we conducted a live Forum online we could invite spect-actors to watch our play on Zoom and have them replace the protagonist in that moment thus eliciting spontaneous interventions. With a pre-recorded Forum we can control external disruptions (shaky internet connections of the actors, constant muting or unmuting of spect-actors) and also create a video documentation of our interventions. In which format would the spect-actors feel closest to the struggle of our protagonist?

We decided to pre-record only because we realized that screen recording can be a very inventive way to reduce aesthetic distance between the actor and the spect-actor. By having the protagonist of our Forum play record her screen, all her real-time virtual interactions - including her Zoom meetings, private chats and the clicks of her mouse - could be captured. These actions would not have been as effective if ‘performed’ live (unless we had major technological support). Moreover, these on-screen-movements represented the protagonist’ point-of-view, highlighting her internal and external struggle. It is essential for a Forum play to emphasize a protagonist’ desire for change and a pre-recorded virtual space provided us with tools to showcase that visually.

In a live Forum, initially the scene is performed once. For the spect-actors to intervene, the actors then perform the scene a second time. When seeing the exact same performance twice, the spect-actor is stimulated to change the vision of the world as it is into a world as it could be (Boal, 1992). But what if the spect-actors miss out on important pieces of dialogue or gestures even during the rerun? While the script remains the same, can two physical performances ever be exactly the same? In Unmuted, since Forum scenes were pre-recorded videos, our spect-actors could watch the exact scene multiple times. They could fast-forward, rewind or pause by simply pressing a button. This digital power could have ensured that the spect-actor didn’t miss out any of the dialogues. What was the implication of this?

Maybe having the flexibility to watch the same scene multiple times at their own convenience allowed the spect-actor to hone into our protagonists’ conflict. Some of the detailed questions towards our characters and their actions including “Karan, why are you asking Ruhi why she isn’t on your screen? It sounds inappropriate” “Ruhi, why are you playing with your hair?” “Ruhi, what made you type ‘yes’ and then ‘no’ when Saquib asked if you were okay?” makes us believe that this format might have aided investment and clarity in the story. We still don’t quite know if and how this focused attention translated to a systematic intervention.

Since our Forum performance would be depicted via screen-recordings, it would need to be disseminated and viewed virtually. We were still worried that the presence of a screen might increase the aesthetic distance between the actor and spect-actor : What if the spect-actor viewed the scene from a location that was very noisy or full of distractions? What if the spect-actor viewed the video on a small screen, like a phone, versus their laptop? Would they be able to focus and relate to the protagonist’s problem? Usually before a Forum demonstration, the joker conducts a few warm up games that engage the spect-actors with questions around the themes of the performance. Since we would be communicating with our spect-actors virtually, what if they are not in the right headspace to witness a scene about harassment and as a result don’t feel compelled to suggest interventions? Or moreover, what if they get overwhelmed by the entire virtual process that they take out their frustrations by suggesting interventions that might antagonize the protagonist?

In anticipation of these challenges we made sure that the spect-actors who viewed our recordings first, identified with the problem of online harassment. In November 2020, through social media we shared a sign-up form inviting individuals who identified as women or organizations who work with women in the workplace, gender sensitization and education, violence against women, cybercrime, harassment or their intersections to be our participatory audience. Within two weeks we had over a 100 sign ups from across industries pan-India including Mental Health, Education, Performing Arts & Film, Corporate Consulting and the Non-Profit/Development Sector.

The sign-up form clearly articulated the purpose and process of our digital Forum performance. We mentioned that we would require the spect-actors to watch 4 Forum scenes and suggest interventions through 3 anonymous online surveys. Their responses from the survey would be used to help us script the succeeding scenes. We also communicated the importance of watching the Forum scenes in a quiet place, on a laptop, and answering the survey right after watching the video. The survey was 6 multiple choice questions, in order to elicit spontaneous responses, followed by options for the spect-actors to expand on any of their answers. As spect-actors signed up to participate, they were made aware of their commitment.

All the communication with our spect-actors (through Google Forms, bi-weekly emails, MonkeySurvey links or YouTube videos) were disseminated in both English and Hindi. That our spect-actors identified with the dilemma of online harassment, were committed to the goals of our process and could comprehend the content of our dilemma, reduced the aesthetic distance that we had earlier anticipated. The rich and varied digital interventions we received consistently over the 4 videos was a testament to the high level of engagement through this experimentation.

In a live Forum, after the actors perform the scene once, the joker comes on stage and explains to the spect-actors that they now have a chance to process some of their feelings about what they just saw. Through interventions, the joker invites them to break into the action of the play and enact alternatives at moments when they saw the characters being oppressed or treated badly (Cohen-Cruz, Jan, & Mady Schutzman, 2002). Since our Forum was digital, we were aware that we would lose out on the momentary and embodied responses of the spect-actors. How best could we then capture their energies about the scene?

After watching the pre-recorded Forum video, instead of asking our spect-actors to rewind back to the scene and suggest an intervention on how they could have transformed a past moment, we asked them tell us what they would do next. Had we asked them the former question, there would be no way of spontaneously replaying that intervention back to the spect-actor. Also, we were worried that since there was no scope for the spect-actor to physically replace the protagonist online, their interventions may come from an intellectualized mindset, and thus inadvertently antagonize rather than support the protagonist. Having witnessed a protagonist encounter oppression on a screen, they might not viscerally be able to feel the physical, mental and contextual turmoil that our protagonist is encountering in that moment. We knew that our survey was anyway increasing the aesthetic distance between the story and emotional response of our spect-actors by having them click or type out an intervention.

Rather than encouraging the spect-actors to reflect on fleeting events of the past, we were curious to have them look for solutions at a systematic level - what can happen next? Within the current systems, what options does the protagonist have? We consciously chose to end every scene with the possibility that the fate of the protagonist could still change. Our hope was to encourage our spect-actors to think about the chains of oppression rather than just look at harassment as existing between two people at a particular moment. How can characters who are acting oppressively in one scene be potential allies in another scene (and vice versa)? The spect-actor responses to these forward thinking questions helped us script the succeeding scene. We tried to be as true to the democratic workings of an actual Forum by improvising all the interventions that came our way, but recording and sending the majority intervention as the final next scene.

In a live Forum, the joker mediates the debate amongst the spect-actors by probing them to change the outcome of the story they have witnessed. They ask questions like, “Do you see a problem in this scene?” “If yes, who is creating the problem?” “Do you feel it will occur again?” In a physical Forum, audiences raise their hands, nod their hands or verbalize their response to these questions. In Unmuted, SurveyMonkey acted as our digital joker. Our spect-actors either clicked on one of the multiple choices or typed their responses in a comment box. In a live Forum, a joker is able to sense the energy in the audience after asking these questions. A simple head nod, or twitch of a shoulder or the widening of the eyes can give away so much about whether the audience member was stimulated by what they saw. The joker can accordingly change their line of questioning and probe that audience member to come up and replace the protagonist, thus transforming them into a spect-actor. By having these questions be articulated digitally, we knew that we were losing out on the natural impulse of the joker to read the audience, and to invoke their unconscious responses. How would we adapt to this challenge?

In SurveyMonkey we tried to stick to a similar line of initial questioning as a physical joker. When we sent our email with the Forum videos and survey links, we told our spect-actors that they had only 3 days to watch the video and complete the survey right after.

However, after completing Scene 2 as a team we concluded that an online survey cannot compensate for the physical presence of a joker. In fact, some of the survey results demonstrated responses that came from an ‘advisory’ space - a problem we thought we could avoid with our line of questioning but were not always successful:

On reading such comments, Vandana who played the role of ‘Ruhi’ reflects:

“These comments stood out to me because they made me feel as if the spect-actor hadn’t understood the complexity of the situation. It also made me curious to understand what people consider ‘ideal’ behaviour. Does the informality of a workspace justify Ruhi’s harassment? There were also a few questions for Ruhi asking her why she is playing with her hair or talking so informally to Saquib. In the second survey, 5 suggestions asked Ruhi to work on her emotions, her tone and that her aggression can work against her. I felt that these comments put a lot of burden on Ruhi to ‘behave properly’ even while struggling through the harassment.”

If we had received these responses live - a physical joker would have probed these spect-actors further. How can someone change an entire way of working from ‘informal’ to ‘formal’? Can they demonstrate it by replacing Ruhi? How do they talk calmly to Karan as Ruhi in this scene? Does that resolve the problem? These physical enactments could have opened up a larger dialogue around where our conception of ‘decency’ and ‘formal and informal work spaces’ comes from. Having a virtual joker made this much-needed dialogue very difficult.

This also made us wonder whether an online survey helped reveal people’s biases. Since spect-actors are typing answers behind a screen, do they feel more free to judge Ruhi and say ‘politically incorrect’ statements? Does this virtual distance between the spect-actor and the story create a lack of emotional resonance with the protagonist? Does this in turn bring out these biases against her? How do we then process these biases as interventions in the following scenes without judging them?

Not having one single joker meant we all had to wear the hat of a joker. Being a joker requires finding the balance between being unbiased and at the same time not letting the public's voice overshadow the Forum (Howe, K., Boal, J. & Soeiroin, J., 2019). Finding the balance was hard for us. If we needed to problematize an intervention we first needed to give it a chance without judgement; however we were each carrying our own biases around harassment - as our characters and as actors. A joker has an “ideological point of view” which grounds their questioning (Howe, K., Boal, J. & Soeiroin, J., 2019). Navigating a collective ideology and at the same time being open and accepting to spect-actors' interventions was a challenge. It helped to have Devika who was outside of the story present in the room as she called us out when we were feeling triggered by the interventions, reminding us of this balance that was required.

Digitizing Forum thus expanded the notion of Boal’s ‘aesthetic distance’ into a virtual distance between the actors and the spect-actors. It also made us question aesthetic distance in terms of our boundaries between actor vs. character and actor vs. joker. How can we make these boundaries even clearer when digitizing Forum?