I am amused by the thought that perhaps, an exercise in distancing myself from this production might prove useful now as I begin to write about my experience of the performance.

I would like to preface this production critique by thanking Kate Chisholm for casting me, and thus giving me the incredibly challenging opportunity to perform as a Brechtian actor playing Brecht.

One of the most satisfying experiences I had during the run of the show was watching the other actors perform, night after night.

Many of these performers were experimenting with Brechtian acting techniques for the first time. It is wonderful to see how each actor, in his or her own way, had developed a deeper aesthetic and physical understanding of these techniques.

For example, certain blocking and other staging directions which had in the beginning seemed strange, or awkward (or, as one of the younger actors said in rehearsal, "Weird!") to some of the actors, were, by the time the show opened, performed with much confidence.

Many of the actors clearly demonstrated a kinesthetic awareness in performance that transcended beyond their relationships with each other to one which included the entire audience.

The actors' use of gesture, and their physical body attitudes became stronger and bold as the show ran. As the actor playing Brecht, I spent much of the performance sitting in a director's chair, observing the actors on stage - and the audience, too.

It was one of my greatest pleasures, every night, to observe how the powerful gestural work of the actors affected the audience.

Whether it was a single actor holding a frozen pose with "truth" and conviction in her gaze, or several actors in a tableau clearly demonstrating the critical narrative of the scene, these highly energized moments of physical theatre never failed to draw a nod of the head here, a slight lean forward of the body there, or some other perceptible response from the audience.

I would like to include in this critique some thoughts about my own performance work in this production.

Without trying to over-deconstruct or over-problematize the situation, I would like to respond briefly to the intercultural and postcolonial performative implications of the casting of a non-Western subject in the role of Brecht. In addition, I would like to propose that there is a multipicity of narratives for the image of a Southeast-Asian performer in the persona of Brecht, and in two other Occidental personae: Dr. Joseph Goebbels and former senator Joseph McCarthy.

Of course, I also played Brecht playing a monkey - but I won't go there. :)

As the actor playing Brecht, I comment on the performance on stage, using text (verbal and gestural) to address the audience directly. A process of deconstruction of the structural domination of colonialism occurs when the audience is confronted with a visual representation of the colonized - the Southeast-Asian subject - as the didactic, European (German, no less!) master narrator of the theatrical performance.

This process of looking at a performance from a postcolonial perspective is therefore not only deconstructive, but also a political and critical act.

Although it was not a conscious critical intent to create a multiplicity of narratives for the image of a non-Western actor playing Brecht, Dr. Goebbels and Senator McCarthy, nevertheless an interesting and complex alienation effect is achieved through this casting choice.

These are just some initial thoughts - I would love to hear some responses from folks.

The following are links to topics of personal interest: