 So, what we're going to do today. So, this play, Tariaki Zito, this is the second time we've done it, and the first time we did it was in New York in 2012 as part of solography, but before this, they worked together with the director Emily Mendelssohn, or the play to my Deborah Sweeney, Cookie for those of you who watch this, you may remember, and the thing is that Tariaki Zito is not a play in isolation, so the work they did, we all built up to the performance they had today, so I felt it was important for me to first mention this, so that at least we don't think it was this production only that happened, so there's been a history of collaboration with people from different cultures as a result. Well, the play was written by Professor Eric M, and directed by Emily Mendelssohn, produced by Artsport Productions in New Orleans, and the scenic design was done by Jeff Becker, and the performance, and then there's the Tony Vangala, Laura Fenton, Sherry Marina, Monica, so there's been a number of performances you can't see here, they're just representing a larger cast that went into this production, so can you say something? Okay, the collaboration was such an intense process, it was nice to be able to tell a story. Telling a story about the genocide was great, but doing the play as Maria Zito was one of the stories that led us to question ourselves as in what sort of play would the genocide occur in that period, and that is in that period, but as now, because Maria Zito is a play that we always reproduce most times, not just not only to remember the genocide as it happened, but all the genocides around the world, and to ask ourselves what contribution we have there, and to actually remind ourselves that this genocide or choices we make actually happen up to today, this is something that just didn't happen in the past, but even up to now, we do make choices, but the whole point is what choices we make as individuals, when we see such things or atrocities happen as individuals. Okay, interestingly my first question was going to be related to that, so as an actress in the production, what memories does this play conjure up, because you just talked about the fact that there were all these genocides that happened, and the one at least that's closest to us is about the genocide, so what memories does this conjure up for you? As Zito got, the genocide happened as about like seven years old, seven, eight years old, the one memory I have from back then is I was told never to eat fish during that period, and then I get to understand what was happening, but I was told by my father the fish from the lake actually has like watches and human hands, and that was really creepy, so from what I remember back then is we never had fish for a long period of time, until I think of recent, in my memory that's what I remember the most, and that's the memory I really do have from the genocide. Thank you. Aston, what memories will you put in this production? Okay, this is actually possible, but I wasn't sure, only he doesn't exist anymore, so it's reasonable to be able to understand if you're behind it or not. So, I remember going to the school tap after I grabbed and opening the tap to wash my hands and hair came out of the tap. I've never said this to anyone, because they don't understand how water that we hear, all people claim to be recycled or to be treated or something. I don't know if this water comes from a lake, I want it to sound very, very naive right now, but hair actually came out of the tap. And the fish story, that one, I have this story where I run another store eating fish, and I can only relate the story to what happened in one live, because I was too young to understand what it was about. Okay, you have these memories, right? Did you use these memories to inform the way you were approaching the work, or was it something? Okay, did you use these memories as your approach to the work? Isn't that you asked that, and I should put it this way, doing the text the first day, I was actually investing my second year, and we had a reading, a reading performance of it, but then I saw emotionally attached to it, worried for those memories, and it was hard to actually tell the story, with your own emotions, because then you're judging, and you're choosing for the audience what story to look at. But then having met the director, Emma DeMenda also, she has, she's one very brilliant director that actually, in the process of actually producing this play, she has exercises and style, look at the style, of actually teaching you to be a vessel, a vessel in which you do not subject to emotional attachment, you learn to part from it, and be able to tell the story, because her style is to use us as vessels, not to judge the characters in the play, and not to choose for the audience what direction of the play they should look at, but rather to tell the story without any attachments, and I could say, yeah, I somehow put my stories, my emotions, emotional stories aside, and actually as an actress, learn to do the play, and allow myself to be wanted. When I first did this play, I sang a naan, and for me playing the naan helped me understand more what this play is about. Playing Maria, I couldn't understand, I couldn't relate to the character that played, I played a naan, a refugee, and in Tarahama, so I played different characters, playing Maria, I don't think my emotions are attached to this character, because I, much as well as what I judge, I judge her, and I don't understand why she did this thing, so playing Maria, for me, is even more difficult for me to understand the play, than when I played it, but when I played the naan, and Tarahama, and refugee, so my emotions were more, were more up, like up in the air, instead of hitting the screen. I don't understand what this play was about, or better, but it felt like I was more emotional, because I was telling the story of the people that were accused of this kind of action. Okay, there's something you mentioned about the working person, Emily Mendelssohn, and maybe I need to understand, like, how different, like, what are the differences between the way you work in Uganda, and the way you work, and the way the people you are with worked, like, what are the differences? Okay, I heard so from the, I've been acting that long, I'm a graduate of drama, I put some, most of the theater in Uganda, let me say like, roughly 80, 70% is more realistic acting for the productions of Dani, it's more of how they put it. I'll just give an example, if you get, if you put up the most of the productions you have, I'd just say like, I just think they're like, slum whiskey, it's not the direction that I've studied in my trauma classes, and that is the approach that we mostly use in Uganda, for most of the productions, while compared to Emily's direction, it's more abstract. For example, if I use the image of light, at some point you'd hear the waltz, and all you could see was a bit of fire, and then there's the mill being poured. I think her style is more of not, I would just still say, not choosing to tell you what you have to pick out, but to let you let with the choices she has chosen. It's more a bit of abstract. I mean, anything you've ever done would not have that much abstract theater. I could say. These people take the theater of everything. They almost lay their soul down for this thing which doesn't pay, but in United States, something doesn't pay after a while when you let it go. But these people write the brands in the night and wake up, it's day 15, and it's there. Like, for us at 18, we're like, where's the money? Like, this amaze me completely and totally amaze me, like how these people do not stop. Someone is attending a class by Skype. Like, she does rehearsals with you and goes back to attend a dance class by Skype. I can't, we don't do that here. I wish we did it like that. I wish we do this thing like, if I don't do this, I will die. But we take it like, where is the next one? Like, when will I get paid like that? Where is my money? And you don't need much soul into this thing. I feel like that's what I saw on this. Directors don't feed you. In Uganda, the director tells you, stand like this here. Sit like this, so if you move this hand, and put it here, like they give you the choice. Like, you ask, for example, what should I do? What do you think you should do? That is surprising to me. Like, if you give me the choice to choose how to stand, and then that becomes a challenge. Like, I don't know how to stand. Tell me how to stand. So I feel like that is so different and I wish maybe we do this stuff with those things. I believe I will probably be able to produce something that's more challenging to watch, a place for someone to watch and think, and ask a question and not just go like, I understood the question. But maybe have questions they have afterwards. Just on that back. I've already did a piece in 2012. We had this trip, it's a very hard piece, the language, the subject matter. But from that first time we worked on it, I remember saying, I think I wish it would be half-time, more discipline, like the actors who worked with, back in New York and even New Orleans, that would not have back at home. When we are called for rehearsals, for instance, many times, and there is a call to rehearsals, and it's a director called Granton. I think it's genuinely, like, almost all the productions have been in, you find, the cast is late, they do not communicate. Like, generally the heart of the love of what you're doing is not there. It's basically like she's saying all about money, but if you can really understand. And back then in New York we had Dayna, a fellow cast member who asked me, I learned something from her, watching her do her part, it was really interesting. This is someone who will fill her script, even after we've done the machine, and they're all scripted. During the night, she sits down breaking down her script layer after layer. You're not the director that should be giving us, and you're not the workman. Like every new day there is something new you discover within your script and underneath your mind. And that I appreciate it so much. I keep telling myself, man, this feels like an excerpt, like every night. I have to go through my script, it feels like the most fun excerpt on the next day. But the beauty about it is that every 10 years of production, I don't know, we had six productions in New Orleans, but not one single one of them was the same. Today we have a production, so the same as the next one. There's already something new you discover in the new run, in the next run. And that is just a beauty, just you can't seem to discover anything. But back yet on the cram, the problem is we cram, we don't let ourselves create, we don't let ourselves dig deep up. That's the whole big differentiation group. I don't know, horror from that. Okay, so, over to you, lovely audience. Yes, I think, I'm being stupid. Can I give you guys a chance to ask a few questions to these lovely ladies? And then I'll move around this lovely mic. I'm glad that you went through that experience. And now that you went through that experience, what were the influences behind the story? Because for the experience here, the story was deep. What was the influence that helped you to bring out the story when you are here? Because now what happens, what I'm thinking here is, what is underneath genocide? Because you ask somebody about genocide, it's really about, and people really don't know the whole mind. So, how did you manage to explore that? Okay, shall we take another one before I go back up? Yes. I'm happy this was screened in 2014, 20th anniversary of the run-in genocide. And so I'll have two of the missions. One about the anniversary, but second about the run-in government and society in general is very conscious and critical about the way the story is told. And I think this is a true depiction based on their part. But what has been the response from their government and their society in general about the way this was portrayed? Okay, I'll come back to the morning first. I'll take the morning first. Okay. Okay, so go on. How did you manage to tell the story? What was the influence? I would say from the genocide, before we did the play, we got chance to research about the play and the genocide. Based on the history that I have read, yes, the genocide was basically carried out by the Putus against the Tuxes. And basically it was a colonial era. Of course, hardly, different from colonialism, you know, there was the divided rule being brought by the Putus who had measured their roses. If your nose was bigger than the Putus. If your nose was big, then you were put to it. Then if your nose was small, you were to see. If you had more cows, then you were to see. And if you had a few cows, then you were to be hit by the Tuxes. So those were, do you know what Keshia is good about by the colonialists? Yeah. How did that influence the story of the massacre in New York? In the play, we do not generally tell the story as it is, because we have moments like the readings and the refugees that tell exactly what happened. Yes, but the way we approach the play from Emily's direction, the way we approach the play is not only to start that one genocide in Rwanda, but to attach almost all the genocide. I'm just saying in Rwanda, in Uganda, we've had our own genocide. For example, we say, we used the bombings that we had in 2010. Yes, in New Orleans, they've had their own through the hurricane, hurricane country, definitely, it's not just the genocide, but it's these mass killings that have happened. Of course, now, worry for those kids who ever tell the stories. So the stories were just from the Rwanda genocide. That is like the black and white thing out there, but if you're not from the genocide era in Rwanda, what actually happened? What things have happened around you that you actually borrow from? Or when we tell this story, that it helps you remember some of those genocide that in the future, probably, you can make a wiser choice because that is definitely not the end of genocide. That's when genocide is occurring even after there's a speak. Hope I've answered you, yeah. There was a question about consciousness of the Rwanda government. Very briefly, I cannot speak for the Rwanda government. I can speak for every can that had about this story, had about the genocide and flew to Belgium and sat in on the trial of these two men. And his play is written off that trial. So from there, he goes to Rwanda and lives in Sobo. So that's why he did most of his research for this. So I don't know if this play has been shown in Rwanda because these 37 pages are actually coming from the 300 pages of French that he had to translate into English. So I can't speak for the reaction of what the Rwanda government has said about this play. I will take one more because we, just one more, just one more. Maybe it's been sort of answered. So does that mean that many of the script was really interesting here? That a lot of what's in the script is actually an accurate account of why it was sent by Maria Tizzi. I think the man really did exist. The only possible that his fiction is to reason because she's like representing Eric and in this world of genocide. But all these characters exist, who can bear that? I guess that was my comment about that. And I thought that I came, expected to see a story about Maria Tizzi, then right in the center. This is why maybe in the suitcase and it seemed to throw off the weight of the story. It's like, is this now a story again that's more focused on, you know, I hope I don't sound like this. But focus on this white person. I'm not focused on trying to understand why Maria Tizzi continued what she did. And I can't really understand much more about why this lady came to witness the whole thing. If you think about that, I said it's not you but that's not a visual talk or anything. I know what, why she's there but it seems to be just reading the thing. The weight of it seemed to be an animada to me. Okay, this is the last question I'm taking. So we can continue a conversation if we'll never end. Well, yeah, if you're not a fast person to bring up this story, sure. In New Orleans, all the black people ask the question. Exactly. And it turned into the black people asking why is the white woman and the black people asking why she's having a black woman story. But I don't know why Eric chose to write it like that but I also have my own question like, why is the play Maria Tizzi talk but talk through someone else's eyes? I would have preferred to hear what Maria had to say. Because some of the few things like she says, we saw the refugees, we did this, my brother's not in Tehran. That's what she had in court. But what about what she did in Seoul? Did she have a chance to explain whether she was doing it under Mother Superior or she was doing it because God visited her and told her to clean out? I don't really understand. But your question is about it. Actually, I do think at the end of the day, terrorist side is Eric M. Yes, so we could not just go by him because he's given us his interpretation of what he saw. That is how he saw the genocide. That was what he saw and he left a bit confused just like Teresa did. So it was this point of view. I didn't tell them necessarily like a white story of choosing a white person but maybe from that person had gone and said it and probably written it, but it would be then. But that was his point of view, that's what he saw. I think that's right. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, time constrains us. However, there is another production.