The second take –DL re-cues the scene after the meta interlude–while giggly at first, seems even angrier than usual post-interruptus. CW!
The audience is sitting up straight, looking deeply engaged, “riveted,” to borrow a verb from sequined JW’s blood red chaps. Yes, the courtesan scene is a riveting one, and yet no one claps.
A “sure” and a “kind of…”
Answers are being coaxed. Then young man in The Monarchy t-shirt has a lot to say.
And then the woman in the blue shirt boldly wants to get in trouble; audience comments are directed towards DL, not towards the group–and somehow I get lost in the details of what is already an intense series of tetes-aux-tetes…Then someone besides DL answers someone besides DL. Then rape as power chimed in by M. A lull–the more DL explains, and the more I get the feeling he wants a certain answer, or wants to turn the conversation a certain way, the more crickets there are. The effect of being asked, as opposed to being allowed to evolve, or devolve, despite the fact that we have not been given any rules? He’s doing all the things we learn to do as good teachers–rephrasing, mirroring, asking small follow up questions, but how in 32 minutes can you coax a room of strangers to talk about some fairly complicated concepts? At length? When they might be beginning to suspect that the forum for discussing these concepts is deconstructed and no one has quite enlightened them on how sharply so, to what extent?
And yet, wee bit, by wee bit, DL does it, he does, he wheedles participation. Like blowing on tinder. But it is painstakingly slow.
The bevy of schoolgirls have not spoken. What will get them to talk? What will break the barrier here between the let-Some-People-talk/ let-Us-si-back?
It’s slow; I’m wondering whether, feeling this, DL decides to offer them a new bone of evidence, in hopes of galvanizing them into saying something, staking some ownership? Or is it just that at 34 minutes this scene must play?