miércoles, 29 de febrero de 2012

MICROTEATRO POR DINERO

UNA NUEVA FORMA DE HACER TEATRO: OBRAS DE 15 MINUTOS, PARA MENOS DE 15 PERSONAS ENTRE TAPAS

La entrada de Microteatro por Dinero
Perdido entre las calles de Fuencarral y Madrid, hay una calle estrecha y oscura llena de bares que te hace sentir que Madrid ya no es Zara, ni el Burger King. En esta lúgubre calle se ve un Madrid lleno de vida y con mucho que enseñar.  Estamos en la calle Loreto Prado y Enrique Chicote, llamada así en honor a dos actores del teatro madrileño del siglo XX. El nombre de la calle ya nos puede dar una pista de lo que nos vamos a encontrar. En el número 9  se combina el teatro y el ocio a un precio muy asequible, en el número 9 esta un bar que se llama: Microteatro Por Dinero.
Henio Mejías, encargado del local
Sólo es jueves y en el pequeño bar apenas cabe una risa más. A pesar de que el local es un pasillo sin fin tiene un encanto especial. Antes de entrar hay unos carteles en la puerta que te hacen dudar si estás en un bar, en un cine o en un teatro. Una rústica cartelera  te anuncia que a pesar de poder beber y comer como hacen los que están dentro y se refleja por el cristal, también puedes ver algunas obras que se exponen en distintas salas.  Siguiendo el estrecho pachillo, esquivando a la gente riendo y comiendo como en un bar normal, al llegar al final, como si de un cine se tratase, hay un taquillero al que comprarle la entrada que de la obra que más te apetezca ver. En este bar entre pizzas artesanas y nachos con guacamole se ha creado un nuevo concepto de teatro nunca visto hasta ahora. En el sótano del local hay pequeñas salas en las que se ofrecen microobras de entre diez y quince minutos por el precio de cuatro euros. Cada día se representan seis sesiones de cinco obras distintas en estas salas, en las que apenas caben quince personas. Todos los meses la temática y las obras representadas cambian, este mes el tema es “los celos” Como Henio Mejías, encargado del local explica,  Se están recibiendo alrededor de 130 textos al mes. La selección se hace en función al texto, es lo que prima, y luego ya se ve quién está participando para la obra. Hay a famosos que se les ha dicho que no, hay a desconocidos que se les ha dicho que no, lo que prima es el texto. Si a la hora de interpretarlo los actores no son los adecuados es un riesgo, pero queremos buenos guiones.” Tal y como confirma Carlos Sánchez el creador del guión de la obra Los Girasoles no tienen paraguas: “Es difícil adaptarse a quince minutos si es una historia buena, este es el riesgo y el encanto del Microteatro”.
El Microteatro funciona de miércoles a domingo. Los lunes y los martes las pequeñas salas de Microteatro, que apenas cuentan ocho metros cuadrados, se convierten en una sala de teatro convencional. Se quitan todos los paneles y un nuevo espectáculo aparece en escena. Esta vez con obras de una hora y quince minutos en las que los actores y los espectadores, esta vez sí, están en espacios totalmente diferenciados. Además, los sábados y domingos el teatro se acerca al pequeño público, desde las 11.30 hasta las 12.30 se ofrecen cuatro obras infantiles por tres euros, con una duración de quince minutos cada una, para niños que albergan edades muy dispares, desde recién nacidos hasta los doce o trece años.
Actrices: Ingrid, Lorena y Andrea.
Después de esperar entre cañas un acomodador pulsa el timbre de la mesa anunciando con voz chillona que la obra de la salita número 4 va a comenzar. El acomodador, ajetreado, conduce a los espectadores de la microobra por una escalera que conduce al piso inferior donde están las pequeñas salas que apenas tendrán el tamaño de una habitación. Una vez el público se mete en los pequeños cubículos comienza la obra. Compartiendo el mismo espacio actores y espectadores se empieza a mezclar ficción y realidad, el público siendo parte de la obra, de la realidad representada, se convierte en participe e intruso de algo muy íntimo. Como bien explica Andrea Gara, actriz de la obra Celosías (sala 4): “Los espectadores están muy cerca, es un aprendizaje brutal.” como después ratifica Lorena Mateo, también actriz de la obra Celosías: “El público puede ser un 40% de la obra, influye muchísimo. En un espacio tan reducido el público y los actores son uno, son ambos parte de la obra”.
Henio Mejía, el encargado y taquillero del local, un moreno que debe rondar la treintena, nos recibe con una amplia sonrisa mientras nos explica una de las clave en las que se basa el  éxito del bar Microteatro por Dinero: “Tener que pagar sólo cuatro euros para ver una obra, atrae a la gente joven que muy probablemente de otra forma no se lo podría permitir. En este teatro podemos ver toda clase de gente desde directores y profesionales interesados en esta novedosa forma de hacer teatro, hasta gente de pie de calle con ganas de ver un tipo de teatro distinto.” Entre los cinco minutos de descanso entre obra y obra la actriz Ingrid Reino de la obra Celosías tuvo tiempo de comentar: “Trabajar en Microteatro te abre puertas ya que te da a conocer. Nuestros espectadores pueden ser gente simplemente con ganas de ver teatro, pero también hay mucha gente que viene a verte relacionada con este medio. Lo bueno del Microteatro es que ofrece nuevas posibilidades a gente que a lo mejor no tiene tanto nombre, o no es tan reconocida a nivel profesional. Aquí se mezclan actores muy conocidos que llevan muchos años y gente que es menos conocida.”

El concepto de Microteatro comenzó no hace mucho, ni muy lejos de aquí. En el año 2009 se presentó un proyecto teatral en antiguo prostíbulo en la calle Ballesta nº4, a menos de un minuto caminando del actual Microteatro por Dinero. En las 13 habitaciones del burdel se crearon obras teatrales de menos de diez minutos para un público de menos de seis personas. Todas las obras compartían algo en común: todas hablaban de la prostitución. Tal y como afirma el encargado del local Henio Mejías: “Fue tal el éxito que la cola para ver las obras llegaba desde la calle Ballesta hasta Gran Vía. Miguel Alcantud, actual director de la seria de Águila Roja, y otros artistas y actores que llevaron a cabo este primer proyecto decidieron abrir un local dedicado al Microteatro de forma permanente, en el lugar en el que nos encontramos ahora mismo. Compraron este local que era una antigua carnicería y lo llamaron Microteatro por dinero  en referencia a sus orígenes relacionados con la prostitución”.

jueves, 23 de febrero de 2012

Embedded media in Iraq: More access, less information.


After having seen so many images and information about the Iraq War, after seeing so many journalists informing while they wore the North American military uniform our task as audience it is asking ourselves how those events have been reported. Could the general public have a real idea of what was really happening with the information reported during those War conflicts?
Our daily news about War have been influenced by the Western media approach painting and creating an American dominant picture of the Iraq War during all the conflict. Even it has been some media exceptions where journalists treated the information using more sources in a more critical approach, generally War news were covered by journalists which were protected by the American Army becoming what nowadays it is known as: Embedded journalism.
Rarely, embedding occurred as a consequence of the journalist´s demand. During the Gulf War, American correspondents complained because they didn’t have a good access to the battlefield. The Pentagon realized that having journalists as witnesses of the war with the limited and close perspective of the American Army was good for the War public opinion. In the next War, in Iraq March 2003, the journalists had access to most of the battlefield action but they were also part of the command of an implicated part of the conflict. As the Irish journalist Patrick Cockburn explains: “The very fact of being with an occupying Army means that the journalist is confined to a small and atypical segment of the political-military battlefield”, the journalist and columnist Scott Hills also ratifies: “Embedding comes at a price. We are observing these wars from just one perspective, not seeing them whole.” Embedded journalism fosters one-sided position, accurate journalism is forgotten and journalists, as Edward Herman sort out: “normalize the unthinkable” during War times.
Thankfully, apart from the embedded journalism majority, we also have a minority of journalists willing to risk their life in order to present to the public audience the other side of the facts. As we could see in some specific cases as the vivid documentary of the Journalist Ghait Abdul-Ahad called “Baghdad, city of walls”, describing the Iraqi Civil War, another story of the War can be told. However at the same time, on the other hand, we have the other face of the coin, a kind of journalism who is based only in one side of the arguments, as we could see in the War report “Embbeded in Iraq” written by Gavin Hewitt, a BBC correspondent in Iraq.
As the journalist from the Washington Post David Ignatius explains while he was an embedded journalist in Iraq he learnt two things: “First, it is too dangerous, in most cases, to cover modern warfare without protection from an Army. Second, although my visits were brief, I was able to see things that the embedded journalists could not.” Sometimes to cover the action they don’t have more alternatives than to embed. As we saw in Embedded in Iraq´s report, with quotes such as “The commander, General Buford Blount, wanted TV coverage so he agreed that a few networks could bring their own vehicle to carry equipment.” in embedded Journalism  exists the risk of that the close relation created between the Army and the Journalist become as close that finally they became part of the same cause and the same “fight”, making difficult to distinguish between the journalist and the Army tasks.
Another danger of embedding is that “it puts journalists in the wrong place at the wrong time” as Patrick Cockburn explains. The embedded journalist only covers and sees one part of the conflict which normally is not representative of the battlefield as a whole. While in the documentary of Ghait Abdul-Ahad called  Baghdad, city of walls, it is accounted for and contextualized the Iraqi perspective in the War: “He know the names of his son killers but he doesn´t know how to bring them to justice”, speaking about the death of an Iraqi son, the embedded journalist Gavin Hewitt in Embedded in Iraq cannot explain or justify the Iraqi perspective during the War: “This was liberation day, bright shining but strangely incomplete. There was celebration but also silence; the silent stare of half the population.” Making reference to the day in which Saddam´s statue fell and the war declared over.
There is also another risk in embedded Journalism: it leads reporters to see the Iraqi and Afghan conflicts primarily in military terms” not focusing on humanitarian and complex aspects which could make easier the understanding of the War. “There were brief fire-fights and a few Iraqis emerged with hands held high. None of them wore uniform” said Gavin Hewitt the BBC reporter. While in the report Embedded in Iraq the journalist describes the War giving the impression that the conflicts in Iraq can be resolved by force, in the documentary of Ghait Abdul-Ahad the War is described with the previous contextualization and explanations: “Everyone who has lost his life in Iraq is called a martyr. We use the term to show respect to the death not because this martyrs are bombers, most often they are ordinary Iraqis.”
Embedded Journalism oversimplified reality: Good Vs. Evil. As Amira Hass, an Israeli journalist stresses: "What journalism is really about is to monitor power and centers of power." Reporting about War without the Government support is extremely dangerous but, at the same time, embedding distorts the accurate information that communication media should provide. Media coverage shapes the audience perception of a country, having a big influence on the cost and duration of the involvement of a country in a conflict. The fact of being protected by an Army finally means that the journalist is biased by a small and segment of the political and military battlefield.  Journalist should remember again the importance of accurate information, even putting under risk their lives if necessary, with the clear purpose of acting as the repressors of cruelties, as independent journalists serving the public interest and restricting the Government´s control.

lunes, 20 de febrero de 2012

Vietnam, the uncensored War that changed the public support

Vietnam War  provided us with a before and an after, it was the first and unique war in which journalists had a non-biased access to the battlefield. As Carl von Clausewitz already said in 1820: “War is the continuation of politics but using other mediums”(Murcia Gómez V& Moreno Martinez O.2008, pp 38-58) Vietnam War showed to the world that communication media were also mighty mediums for doing War.
Since the Vietnam War, thanks to the auto-critical and watchdog information role played by the media denouncing the behavior of their own War and their own soldiers, the Government and the Army became more aware of the media influence thanks to the fact of that general people were able to follow the evolution of this conflict without censorship restrictions. As Michal Beschloss explained in his book Taking Charge “When United States began the War with Vietnam they didn’treally know what they were doing (Beschloss M. Taking Charge 1997). The War model followed by the British during the Malvinas conflict give us a good example of the role played by most of the States in relation to the access of media to the battle after the Vietnam War. During the Malvinas War, London selected the reporters they wanted in accordance to their criteria, apart from that, the only information that the journalist had access to was given by the Army. As a consequence, English communication media were under the supervision of the British Army and the only information available about the Malvinas´ situation was disclosed by reporters who did not know the reality of the conflict. Once this media-government role was brought into action, this model was applied in most of the successive Wars after Vietnam conflict as happened with the Gulf War or the Iraq War. Nowadays the British conduct during the Malvinas War is exercised in all the NATO countries in accordance to the report written in 1986 saying how to behave with communication media when conflicts happen.
The fear to the opposition of the public opinion is still part of the reality. During the Vietnam conflict the Hollywood cinema followed an anti-war and critical approach to the War giving specific information about atrocities committed by Americans as we saw in movies such as “Apocalypse Now” from Francis Ford Coppola (Ramonet I. Hollywood y la Guerra de Vietnam,2000). The apprehension to the reincarnation of those lethal critics have made the censorship about the Vietnam War is still part of the reality. In a James Bond movie, thirty years after the Vietnam War, the screenwriters had to delete a sentence talking about the Vietnam War which said: “and maybe this time we will win”(Robb D. Operación Hollywood. 2006).
Vietnam War was the first TV war in history. However, the information distributed was not life content as it is supposed, due to the news was sent by plane to United States and then retransmitted with a difference of forty-eight hours. Despite this, Television made possible that a bigger quantity of people knew what was happening in the world. It was the first time in which literate and illiterate, rich and poor, urban and village people started to have a progressive and bigger access to information. Massive bombings and the war cruelty retransmitted by the media finished changing the image that still many European countries had about USA.
When the Vietnam War started, even the Government didn’t exercise a direct control over the media, most of the journalists decided to write news basing their information on the reports of the MACV (Military, Assistance, Command, Vietnam). As Gans explains: “At the beginning, until the Tet Offensive, the coverage was given by American Official Sources” (Wolf M. 2004. Page 246). The Army, the Air Force and the Pentagon were the only Vietnam War speakers. The State had the monopoly of information about the War, something which was reflected in the distort information given by the media during the conflict. Data about the number of death people during the War were erroneous as the Defense Department admitted, the margin of error was equal to the 30%, however not research or rectifications were made around this topic.
Most of the population and communication media in 1965 were in favor of the intervention of Vietnam (Crónicas de la Guerra de Vietnam, 1988). However, while the War continued the journalists attitude started to change. Since 1968 commenced the beginning of the end of the Vietnam War. From the Tet offensive, the Vietnam War started to be seen in a radical different way by communication media. Journalists started to report the war showing all the cruelty that characterized the war. The first report on the Communist attack to the U.S embassy in Saigon included realistic images and sounds of the gunfire in what until that moment was American territory. This information showing the cruelty of the War already started to change the perspective of the public´s perspective. The general public started to doubt if a quick victory of USA over North Vietnam was possible. Images showing the abuse of power of the American Army changed the general perception of the War, as happened with the execution of a Vietcong suspect killed by a Police without a previous judgment assuring his “guiltiness”. The War was being seen in all the American living-rooms this time with angry and violence.
Communication media finally refused to silence the USA abuse, mass executions, the use of chemical weapons, the destruction of the environment with the use of defoliants and the annihilation of peaceful communities. Since the Tet Offensive in 1968 the North American press and TV carried to the general public the most complete, direct, stark and vivid information of war offered in the history. Following the CBS, the New York Times or the Newsweek was an essential task for foreign correspondents in order to inform about the crucial information about the conflict. As the journalist Victor de la Serna explains the news given by the main American media were then “reinterpreted, explained and sent to the rest of Europe” (Serva V. Narrar la Gran Derrota) The Vietnam War was a defeat, but above all it was a public relations defeat for the South of Vietnam and specially for United States.
The image of USA, a huge and powerful country, killing the soldiers of a small and weak country had terrible and devastating consequences. In 1968 the American President on those times, Lyndon Johnson, after the bad results in the public opinion poll and the prolongation of the Vietnam conflict decided not to go to the Presidential Elections. Establishing an analogy, in Vietnam occurred the same than in the Crimea War with the British foreign correspondent Howard Russell of the Times. Russell reported about the cruelty and abuses that he saw in the battlefield, and as a consequence the public opinion changed radically. After the Crimea War, Russell continued being a “war correspondent” however he didn’t have anymore a real access to the battlefield when War conflicts happened (Sierra F. Communication and Insurgency. 1997. Page 32). During the Vietnam War, as during the reports of Russell in Crimea, the reporting about unusual and critical facts of great importance altered the public opinion, however as history demonstrates this facts were only unusual, inspiring and isolated events during War reporting. After the Vietnam War, Governments realized the importance of media in order to have the support of the public opinion. However we should not forget that the people, the general people, should have the right to know what it is really happening. The Vietnam War serves as an example of the media importance when claiming unfair situations; the Vietnam War is an example of Journalist´s duties and responsibilities during war conflicts.
REFERENCES:
-Ignacio Ramonet. 1997. “La Guerra en los medios” Revista: Papeles http://www.edualter.org/material/globalizacion/medios.htm    
Victor de la Serna, narrar la gran derrota  http://www.elmundo.es/internacional/vietnam/victor.html
-Historia de las Relaciones Internacionales durante el siglo XX. La Guerra de Vietnam http://www.historiasiglo20.org/GLOS/vietnam.htm
-Alejandro Arévalo Salinas. 2004. “El Desempeño de los Medios de Comunicación en los Conflictos Bélicos” http://es.scribd.com/doc/7281782/El-Desempeno-de-Los-Medios-de-Comunicacion-en-Los-Conflictos-Belicos
-Luzdivina. 2011“Los Medios de Comunicación y La guerra de Vietnam”http://filocom.blogspot.es/1303916400/
-Gastón Flores. “Los medios de comunicación de masas en tiempos de guerra” publicado en “La trama de la Comunicaciónhttp://rephip.unr.edu.ar/bitstream/handle/2133/750/Los%20medios%20de%20comunicaci%C3%B3n%20de%20masas%20en%20tiempos%20de%20guerra_A1a.pdf?sequence=1
-Murcia Gómez V & Moreno Martínez O. 2008. “La postura de la representación y del discurso. O un trastocamiento de la metáfora usual de la nación”. Versión impresa: “Signo y Pensamiento”(http://www.scielo.unal.edu.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0120-48232008000200003&lng=es&nrm=iso
-Beschloss  Michael. “Taking Charge: The Johnson White House Tapes, 1963-1964”.
-Ignacio Ramonet. “Golosina visual”. Chapter: “Hollywood y la Guerra de Vietnam”). 2000
-David Robb. “Operación Hollywood”. Barcelona, 2006.
-Mauro Wolf. “La investigación de la comunicación de masas, críticas y perspectivas”. Chapter 3.4 pp246. 2004.
-Sierra Francisco. “Communication and Insurgency”. 1997. pp32.


miércoles, 8 de febrero de 2012

War Reporting: From Newsreels to Real-time War

The role of the journalist, the purpose of the information disclosed and the immediacy of news have not always been the same: During the II World War the most common information approach was the propagandistic newsreel format. Then with the Vietnam War the critical role of the media and the power of TV to inform and act as a Government watchdog was revealed. After that, with the Gulf War live news became a possibility with 24 hours of live content without previous journalist edition. And now, thanks to new Internet devices a new stage on war reporting has also arisen, the idea of immediacy, real-time information and citizen journalism has become a reality. Revising the role of communication media in specific Wars we will be able to understand the current nature and transformation of communication media:
      THE II WORLD WAR:
Newsreels were tools of the Government; they framed the reality in a polarized way. As Roader explains[1] those kind of audiovisual “news” were looking for the engagement of the society using a one-side, subjective and partial tone. Before the arrival of television newsreels were the only source of visual news reporting. The lack of competence made easier their manipulation goal. As we can see in the newsreel December 7th Pearl Harbor newsreels during this time followed clear political purposes: “The heroes we lost”.
THE VIETNAM WAR:
Media started off in mouthpiece mode and became much more critical as the war dragged on. After 1968, media were critical of American military action in the region. In consequence, audiences began to turn against the war.[2]
Media free access to the battlefield made possible for firrst time showing images of cruelty practices of the American Army against Vietnam people. Shocking images, and videos changed the American public opinion and politics, looking for a negotiated solution. The power of media in general, and specifically the power of television, as the Government´s watchdog became evident during the Vietnam War.
      THE GULF WAR
The Gulf War created another stage in the history of War reporting. During the Vietnam War American people trusted on TV images, however those images were edited and recorded. Nevertheless in The Gulf War, which is known as the first Information War, information was broadcasted 24/7 (24 hours per day, every day) all around the world.[3] CNN live recordings changed the way in which conflicts and wars were covered. The traditional gatekeeper role of journalists and the editorial control over content disappeared. It was the first big story where cable news on TV transmitted content the same day and the same moment it was happening.
      THE ARAB SPRING
A study made by the Dubai School of Government called Civil Movements: The Impact of Facebook and Twitter” (2011) demonstrated that Government´s censorship in many Arab countries (as Egypt blackout in January and February, or Libya´s one in April) was not a main obstacle for the citizen participation and mobilization.During 2011 in Tunisia the 86,77% of the activities on Facebook were done in order to: Organize actions and manage activists, spread information to the world about the movement and raise awareness inside the country. However only the 13,22% of Tunisians used Facebook for entertainment and social uses.
The Arab Spring was the evidence showing the revolution created in the world of communication. Citizen journalism became a reality not anymore a utopia. Social mobilization was not done by powerful elites, but by normal citizens claiming their rights.

[1] Roeder, George H., Jr. The Censored War: American Visual Experience During World War Two. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993. Print.
[2] Ch7 on the Media, by Debbie Lisle. (2009)
[3] Ch7 on the Media, by Debbie Lisle. (2009)

miércoles, 1 de febrero de 2012

Iceland: The hope of a crisis recovery made in a different way

Iceland crisis lived a big crush as other European countries. However, the way they are dealing with the crisis and the consequences that those measures are having are totally different. Even the controversy created around the different ways in which Iceland was going through with the crisis, the unemployment level has improved and now only 6.1 per cent of Icelanders are unemployed. Nevertheless, not all are good news, the economic level is not still as good as was before the crisis, and the unemployment rate is thought that is not going to decrease more for the next year. Even Iceland has a lot to do to solve their financial crisis; they are beginning to recover themselves, and what it is more important, they are beginning to recover themselves without harming the less powerful ones.

In 2008, the three major commercial banks in Iceland collapsed due to they couldn’t refinance their short-term debt. After that, the Iceland currency, the krona, had a significant devaluation, which supposed that any good dependent from foreign countries were extremely expensive for the average Island people. Food, fuel and consumer goods started to be particularly expensive while at the same time unemployment rates and wages were getting worse.
At the beginning of 2009 Iceland people started to take the control of the crisis situation. After many protests, the government left the power being replaced by the Left-Green Movement and the Social Democratic Alliance. Unlike all European countries, Icelandic people decided in referendums, several times, that they were not going to pay the bank´s debt. This measure was severely criticized by most liberal policies, however now with their recovery it is beginning to be seen as an option.
Iceland, with the approval of the IMF, was intelligent enough to develop a more social method (as social as the circumstances allow) trying to solve the crisis problem. One important measure took by the Iceland Government was the decision of not refunding, with public sector money, to the private banks if they were in bad situations. This point already differed from the rest of countries in crisis Europe which assumed paying to the private banks when they were close to the bankruptcy. But not only that, even they decided to increase the citizen taxes and to decrease the public costs, the decrease in the expenditure on Education, Health and Pensions were not as big as in other countries affected by the crisis.
As Paul M. Thomsen, the sub-director of the IMF, explained: “Iceland is growing and creating employments again, Iceland people are demonstrating their resistance and force as a join unity”