Evaluation:

Verfremdungseffekt
Our performance consisted of many techniques that resulted in the “defamiliarization of the text” technique.
For example, name placards were often used so that viewers would not have to concentrate on the actors portrayal of a character, but could then focus on the message they are getting acros. The names used on these cards were very simple, i.e. A, B, C, D or Single mother 1 etc. This ensured that the audience made no pre-interpretations of the character, and so the only significance of the actors was to tell a story. Another technique we used was comedy. This was used to alienate the audience members from the characters. Comedy had been used in such a delicate/vulgar subject, so that even though the audience found it funny because of the exaggeration of such “evil” characters, towards the end, when characters (wearing placards) began to become serious, all was cut off so that we did not delve into gaining the audience’s emotional attachment-which meant that the extreme and sudden contrast went from being emotionally detached to questioning themselves, both of which Brecht focuses on.
Questioning in epic theatre:
Brecht wants audience members to go to a performance, and walking out conversing with other members questioning anything and everything that was brought up in the performance. However, this can be fairly challenging considering that one must keep the performance as alienated as possible, whilst getting the audience to question anything, which can be fairly hard without getting the audience members emotionally attached to any of the characters. However, in our piece, this was achieved by not only using the contrast of comedy and personal invasion, but it was also achieved with the use of guilt tripping. Throughout the play when the “table scenes” were commencing, serious conversations were taking place, but all members of that scene were stereotypical, conveying a message as simply as possible, without the involvement of individual objectives as such. However, during the last scene after comic sketches of cruel dictators, a monologue took place, which didn’t use personal experiences so that the audience could relate, and in turn, understand the message of the piece, but used contrast within this country and other countries in order to get people to understand, without the use of individual reflection. When doing so, this specific character spoke to the audience, only to gain their attention, and used every day conflicts, but vague. No detail was provided nor were there consequences that one must face as a result of individual reaction to the situation, so the events stayed fairly vague. Once this was done, contrast of things that scarcely anyone had experienced (daily events that occur in external and under-privilledged countries) were elaborated upon, relating to life and death experiences that some people face on a daily basis. This made the audience feel incredibly guilty for being ungrateful so the simplest of things in life.
Climatic Catharsis:
Brecht also focuses on this in order to achieve the audience questioning social and political subjects. We used this in our piece by creating an overwhelming sense of both laughter, but using black comedy, which eventually was picked up during the end once the guilt tripping began. This happened because everyone was forced to laugh at the sketches, because they were intended to make fun of cruel people. However, during the end, we were made to feel bad, and this overpowering sense of guilt was the followed by realisation and renewal in our interpretations of both life, and what we do with it, which is what lead to the questioning of everything-something that is so important, yet is locked away, untill something so unsuspecting (In our case, comical theatre) unlocks it, without forcing it, but is provoked. 
Other groups:Another group had used this technique, but used placards to illustrate emotions, and using a chorus to shout out stage directions, such as “EXCLAMATION MARK.” This was effective because this group was outside, and the audience were physically distanced from the stage. Often, 2 people would be involved in a scene, and a chrorus would support them with both actions and phrases. However, because they were all constantly shouting, this exclamation point emphasised and differentiated when there was an even stronger emotion, which again, helped the audience in the most basic of techniques to help and defamiliarize them.
General:
This made the audience question important things in life with the relation of people who suffer daily, and how easy we have it compared to them. Even though we do lead a difficult lifestyle, it is all due to materialistic things, which our piece conveyed using guilt. This guilt arouse without the use of emotional connection, which came about after the comedy, actor alienation and guilt trip. I think it went really well because of this. We made comical sketches of famous dictators, which again, alienated the audience because we are taught so much about how evil they were, that when they are being made fun of, it is an odd thing to watch, and so the audience do not know how to react. I also think it went really well because the use of third person narration was used, which helped the audience members realise what is going on. Often, this narration would come in mid-scene, to ensure that no one became attached and make sure they were clear on what was going on, so they could focus on the message rather than the story/actors.
I think this piece went really well, not only because we managed to use Brechtian terms effeiciently within our pieces, but we used it in very important and delicate subject, which was invading other people's privacy, for the sake of Brechtian theatre.