Author: Jordan Benjamin Holland

In the months leading up to the premiere of Safe Bet, the performance was “always in-process, changing, growing, and moving through time.” ((Bial, Henry et al (2004) The Performance Studies Reader, ed. Henry Bial, New York: Routledge.)) Part of this was also true of the performance itself.

At the beginning of the premiere of Safe Bet I was greeting members of the audience as they arrived and gathering them onto the stone steps where they would begin their journey through the performance. Once the audience were all gathered at the start, they were ignored by me, which is currently how the Lincoln Grandstand is treated. It is simply rented out for it’s space, but is ignored when nobody is using it. This was to bring the audience into the present time which the Lincoln Grandstand is in.

The audience were then led into the weighing room of the Lincoln Grandstand. Upon their entry I was one of two people who gave the audience betting slips. This was to regress the audience from the present time into the past, when the Lincoln Grandstand was used for horse racing. Once the audience were all seated, they were further regressed into the past as I addressed the audience from the perspective of an Army officer in 1914. The members of the audience were now taking on the role of Army recruits during the First World War. This style of interactive performance was received well by the audience, they laughed and participated with no hesitation.

I then gave the members of the audience in my group the bags of dirt, asked them to follow me to begin their first trench exercise and led them outside to the ‘trench’. The audience did not follow me closely, but rather remained at a small distance. This could be due to the status of my character in relation to theirs, or it could be due to a feeling of uncertainty within the audience. If I was to perform Safe Bet again, I would have the audience follow closely behind me, as this distance became apparent once I was at the bunker and was waiting for all of the audience members in my group to arrive. Because I had to perform this to 3 groups, the waiting added on time to my performance which in turn, delayed me from moving swiftly from one group to the next.

Once the audience were at the bunker, I asked them to get into the ‘trench’ and I began to inform them of how the trench was used. They were then given a surprise order to take cover. The audience did take cover, however some members of the audience did this quicker than others. This could be because of the surprise of the order, or it could be because the order was shouted and it startled some members of the audience. If I was to perform Safe Bet again, I would remind the audience that they would have to perform an exercise so they had this knowledge present in their minds.

At the end of the trench performance, each group was asked to empty their bag of dirt into the ‘trench’ and say their full name and place of birth. They were then told about how the Lincoln Grandstand was used to train soldiers to build trenches. At this point the audience were now amalgamated with the history of the site. The audience received this without apprehension and were led back inside where they waited to be taken to the next performance in the rotation. The waiting of the audience was to bring them back into the time frame they were in at the beginning of the performance.

My next role in the performance was the recitation of the poem. This was done to the sound of The Last Post played live with a tenor horn. The poem was recited with my back to the audience, while facing a small room full of chairs and an incredibly bright, white light. This was to give the impression that I was giving a memorial service but that the poem wasn’t meant for the audience because they were still alive, but rather, the poem was meant for all those who had died, portrayed by the empty chairs I was facing. The light symbolized Heaven and God,  because those who have had a family member or friend die hope that they have gone to Heaven. The use of the light, the live music and the ignoring of the audience created a powerful and emotionally charged exchange between the audience and myself. This performance was about death and the reality that not everyone who goes to war comes back, which completely contrasted with the enjoyment the audience had experienced when they took part in the trench performance. The ignoring of the audience also pulled away any role the audience had, and placed them back into the position of spectator. The audience were then led away from me, and this concluded my role in the performance of Safe Bet.

I feel that the time frame given to develop and produce the show was used effectively and was evident in the final product, with everything the audience experienced being anticipated and planned for, and not simply something that happened by chance. If there weren’t the time restrictions that we had, I would have wanted the poem to be performed 1 to 1 as although there was a strong connection between the audience and myself during the recitation of the poem, it would have been even greater if the audience experienced it individually.

With the recitation of the poem, I originally felt that performing the poem 1 to 1 would create the greatest possible experience for the spectator and myself to share together. I researched the concept of 1 to 1 performance and came across the following – “Solo performance can draw together narratives… can play a generative role in interpretation and the creation of new ways of perceiving; animating through fiction…. Solo performance can include truth and fiction, lying and borrowing: the fragmentary, the digressive, the ambiguous… It can include traveller’s tales, poetry, forensic data, quotations, genealogies, lies, jokes, improvised asides, physical re-enactments and autobiographical details.” ((Pearson, M (2011) Why Solo Performance? Online: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/landscape/impactfellowship/peforminggeographieswarplands/toolkit.aspx date accessed: 12/03/2013)) This quote opened up the options of what I could potentially include in my performance, and also presented the new idea that performing 1 to 1 can create “new ways of perceiving…” ((ibid))

When I next visited the site with the class I did a run through of the poem, and I discovered that while performing the poem 1 to 1 did create an incredibly strong connection between myself and the audience member, it was not practical to perform the poem 1 to 1 within the context of our group performance. This was because if we had a large audience visit the performance, not only would they have to wait in turn to hear the poem, but then after that they would have to wait before they could move on to spectate the next part of the group performance. Although this would have tied in with the original theme of waiting which my first blog post was about, due to the confines of the time frame we had booked the site to hire for the performance, performing 1 to 1 would not be possible. I decided it was best, with regards to the time constraints, if the audience as a whole heard the poem together. I also added in the use of music during the poem, in aid of enhancing the emotional connection which the 1 to 1 performance created. This was done by collaborating with another member of the group who could play the tenor horn. They played The Last Post, to which the poem repeatedly references.

During this visit to the site I also discovered that there was another member of the group who wanted to show the Military history of the site through their performance and we began to work together on a short piece which would not only introduce the performance, but would also introduce the audience to the rich Military history of the site. We decided that one of us would present the World War One history and the other would present the World War Two history of the Lincoln Grandstand. As I had a lot of research regarding the Military history of World War One I decided that I would take care of the First World War performance.

We decided that we would begin by bringing the audience into the weighing room of the Lincoln Grandstand, addressing the audience together and introducing them to the performance. We would then split the audience into 3 groups. One group would go with the World War Two history, one group with the World War One history, and the last group would go with the T.A.N.K group. After the audience had experienced one of these 3 performances, they would be rotated to experience another. No audience group would see the same performance twice.

I decided that this would be the perfect time to bring the golf bunker into the performance. The bunker would be used as a trench. I gathered 50 small bags together, went outside to the bunker and filled them with dirt from the bunker. The performance would consist of me performing solo, giving each audience member a bag of dirt and I would then take the audience outside and lead them to the bunker. The audience would play the role of soldiers and I would be training them in the use of the trench. I would tell the audience to get in the trench, be told about the use of the trench and then be tested in some duck and cover drills. The bags of dirt would then be poured back into the bunker one at a time by the audience members as they said their name and place of birth. This would be the introduction of the concept of becoming one with those who had gone before them. By helping to ‘build’ the trench, the audience would join the soldiers who came before them and would also become amalgamated in the First World War history of the Lincoln Grandstand.

My research into the site has led me closer and closer to the site’s role in World War I. First, with the discovery of the Common being used to test Military aircraft and secondly with the account of the aircraft which destroyed the Red Baron. In a group feedback meeting, it was mentioned that the Common was also used to teach soldiers how to dig trenches in preparation for their deployment overseas during World War I. I also learned in this meeting that there was, at one time, a proposal to turn the site into a mortuary in case Lincoln was ever bombed heavily during the war.

After the meeting I went down to the Lincoln Grandstand to survey the landscape. While I was down there I noticed that at the back of the Lincoln Grandstand, on the golf course, there was a bunker which looked somewhat like a trench. This bunker did not appear as part of the main golf course, which led me to believe it was there for golf players to practice hitting the ball out of the bunker. This theme of practicing connected with my new knowledge of the Common being used for soldiers to practice digging trenches. I made a note of this bunker and concluded my visit that day to the Lincoln Grandstand.

As I discover all of these gateways into the Military History of the Lincoln Grandstand, I cannot help but be inspired by a poem called No Man’s Land by Eric Bogle. The poem, in my opinion, reflects the truth of war through the remembrance of one soldier who died during the First World War. This act of remembrance connects with my initial thought of people wanting to be remembered, even by those who never met them. I have decided that I will recite this poem during my performance at the Lincoln Grandstand to demonstrate the idea of wanting to be remembered.

After discovering that the Common was used to test Military Aircraft, I decided to use the remainder of my time at the Lincolnshire Archives to further investigate the presence of the Military at the Lincolnshire Grandstand and in doing so, I discovered the following document at the Lincolnshire Archives.

 

The above photographs are of a document which refers to the death of the Red Baron.

There was nothing written or printed on the document which suggested when it was written, nor who by, other than the words written on the front of the document which read:

THE END OF THE RED BARON

BARON VON RICHTHOFEN

Presented to the Workers in the Aircraft Works

AS A SOUVENIR OF THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE “CAMEL” B7270

BY

Clayton & Shuttleworth Ltd. Lincoln.

As stated in my previous post ‘Researching The Site – Part I’ Clayton & Shuttleworth built aircraft which were tested on the Common opposite the Lincoln Grandstand.

The following is a picture of the “Camel” which the front of the document refers to.

 

The text in the document goes into small detail about an encounter between British pilots, the Red Baron and the aerial combat which followed. It also claims that a Sopwith “Camel” was responsible for the death of the Red Baron.

The account found in the document could become integrated into my performance because the aircraft allegedly responsible for destroying the Red Baron may have been one of the aircraft which Clayton & Shuttleworth tested at the Common. However, the Lincolnshire Archives had no more documentation regarding this claim, so I have no evidence other than the account found within the document in question, so for the moment this idea will be put on hold.

In order for me to expand my knowledge of the Lincoln Grandstand I visited the Lincolnshire Archives. During my time there I discovered one of the roles the Lincoln Grandstand was used for – the Common opposite the Lincoln Grandstand was used to test Military aircraft during The First World War.

The above photograph is a book found at the Lincolnshire Archives.

“Besides Ruston aircraft, the Common was also used to test Robey-built Sopwith Gunbus machines and, later, Bristol F2Bs built by Marshall of Gainsborough and Handley Page aircraft built by Clayton and Shuttleworth.” ((Walls, John (1974) Ruston Aircraft Production A Souvenir of Ruston’s 1,000th Aeroplane Lincoln: AERO LITHO COMPANY (Lincoln) LTD.))

This quote, taken from the book pictured above it, clearly presents evidence that the Common was used to test Military Aircraft. This link between the Lincoln Grandstand and the Military connects with one of the concepts I am pursuing for my performance and that is the concept of becoming one with those who came before you. I now have a potential theme for my performance – the Military.