1.
The last leg, in most cases, is considered the toughest part of any process and ours was no exception; we encountered a number of strengths and weaknesses in the transition of the final stages into the performances.
Not long before the dates of the performance, we began to see a more structured frame in the shape of the performance and it then became the drive to pull the smaller fractal sections together into one seamless show. Although it was a very mechanical process and had a different feel to the sessions, it was extremely necessary. After working on the separate pieces for a large part of the process, it was necessary to rework the ritual and community pieces to reiterate the sense of ensemble amongst the company and with the intent of refining the piece. It was a tiring and frustrating time for most and there was a sense of negativity in the hope of the product coming together. The strength of the cast and the lecturers ensured that this negativity was quickly and effectively overcome, and allowed the sessions to be very productive which reinstated the sense of hope and direction.
There was also the risk of losing our emotional charge as refining the work became very repetitive in nature hindering our commitment to an organically rich, emotive and well-paced piece. However as a company I think we all overcame this in a very cooperative manner and we were all able to remember the intentions and motives behind each movement. In some cases this meant slightly altering certain elements in a way that it kept the emotion alive. I think the fact that we overcame the fatigue and frustration from the repetitive mechanical runs and that we re-connected with the work and re-vitalised the emotion behind it showed a great strength in the company, both as an ensemble and as a collective of individuals.
There was a set-back of entering the world of ‘Fractal’ as the set was not able to be completed by the time the cast was ready to enter the space. Despite the fact that it was a saddening delay we were patient and understanding as we were aware that the scenographers were working very hard along with the technical crew in such a small time scale. Despite this set back hindering our intentions to work on the physical aspects of ‘Fractal’ in the aesthetic space, the time was used constructively to work on our characters through self-reflection and a letter-writing exercise. This, I would argue, was more beneficial to us than what had been previously been planned for the rehearsal time as “the actor [performer] must be aware of all the influences that have formed his character” (Alberts 1997; p.26) and there was a general feeling that our characters still needed a sense of completion. So by the time we entered ‘Fractal’s’ world “with the rest of the company, [we could] bring them alive in the theatre space.” (Alberts 1997; p.22)
The last leg, in most cases, is considered the toughest part of any process and ours was no exception; we encountered a number of strengths and weaknesses in the transition of the final stages into the performances.
Not long before the dates of the performance, we began to see a more structured frame in the shape of the performance and it then became the drive to pull the smaller fractal sections together into one seamless show. Although it was a very mechanical process and had a different feel to the sessions, it was extremely necessary. After working on the separate pieces for a large part of the process, it was necessary to rework the ritual and community pieces to reiterate the sense of ensemble amongst the company and with the intent of refining the piece. It was a tiring and frustrating time for most and there was a sense of negativity in the hope of the product coming together. The strength of the cast and the lecturers ensured that this negativity was quickly and effectively overcome, and allowed the sessions to be very productive which reinstated the sense of hope and direction.
There was also the risk of losing our emotional charge as refining the work became very repetitive in nature hindering our commitment to an organically rich, emotive and well-paced piece. However as a company I think we all overcame this in a very cooperative manner and we were all able to remember the intentions and motives behind each movement. In some cases this meant slightly altering certain elements in a way that it kept the emotion alive. I think the fact that we overcame the fatigue and frustration from the repetitive mechanical runs and that we re-connected with the work and re-vitalised the emotion behind it showed a great strength in the company, both as an ensemble and as a collective of individuals.
There was a set-back of entering the world of ‘Fractal’ as the set was not able to be completed by the time the cast was ready to enter the space. Despite the fact that it was a saddening delay we were patient and understanding as we were aware that the scenographers were working very hard along with the technical crew in such a small time scale. Despite this set back hindering our intentions to work on the physical aspects of ‘Fractal’ in the aesthetic space, the time was used constructively to work on our characters through self-reflection and a letter-writing exercise. This, I would argue, was more beneficial to us than what had been previously been planned for the rehearsal time as “the actor [performer] must be aware of all the influences that have formed his character” (Alberts 1997; p.26) and there was a general feeling that our characters still needed a sense of completion. So by the time we entered ‘Fractal’s’ world “with the rest of the company, [we could] bring them alive in the theatre space.” (Alberts 1997; p.22)
2.
“[The] drive to keep discovering makes a production a matter of process every time it is performed rather than a commodity put out on display” (Shevtsova; 2004; p.48.)
Shevtsova reiterates here what we were told to expect as during the three shows the process was still ongoing and the development of characters and motives were still being explored despite us being in the ‘product’ phase of the journey. Probably the biggest influence in its development was having the world of ‘Fractal’ brought alive. By this I mean the scenographic entity. Having the set around us to live in and being in our character’s costumes really aided us in the conclusion of moulding our characters. By the time of the first show there was a better sense of clarity in most characters, including my own, of which the improvisation and warm-up exercise to get into our characters that we did had a great input. Through the performances this development furthered as “it is alive, it is not staged, it continues to develop.” (Weimer in Shevtsova 2004; p.49)
One such development in my character was that I really gained an understanding in the reasons for laying out the cups and the truth behind my connection with Frankie; after having done research a day before the run-through on ‘ferrymen’ of the afterlife, I came across the term ‘psychopomp,’ a word derived from Greek meaning ‘soul conductor.’ A psychopomp “waits with and comforts the soul of a person who is dying and guides them across at the moment of death.” I found the discovery of this term and the finding of a picture through Google Image Search (see left) really conclusive in my character’s long and exciting journey through development. Thus I explored the motive behind placing the glasses down as not only a means of bringing the community together (as I imagine my task was when I was ‘living’ in the community) but as a way of searching for the lost soul (Frankie) within the community that I may not have seen whilst ‘living.’ It gave me a greater clarity and connection with my task of glass-laying and also in my relationship with Frankie; it gave me the reason and emotion that I felt was missing from my observing character. This clarity was furthered in my reading of ‘The Book Thief’ as I could relate to the narrator (death) in his job of “handing souls to the conveyor belt of eternity.” (Zusak 2007; p.30)
I wanted to stop. To crouch down.
I wanted to say.
‘I’m sorry, child.’
But that is not allowed
I did not crouch down. I did not speak.
Instead, I watched her a while
…
I would watch the places where we intersected, and marvel at what the girl saw...
(Zusak 2007; pp.23-4)
Myself and Frankie had a long wait through the process before we could begin to work on our section, for a larger reason of needing the Scenographic elements for us to work around. So for us, our performance in the shows was essentially new to us; each time I led her to the pond, it felt a new and explorative process but never imposed. “The emotion comes out in the work in a much more pure and interesting form than when they try to impose emotion.” (Battien in Milling 2005; p.168) Where the physical journey of taking her to the pond was ultimately the same, the emotion behind it and the little gestures (like stroking her hair, her hand touching mine, and reaching into the water for her cup) differed between each show as they were organically reborn each time, keeping it fresh and alive for us as performers and for the audience.
In addition to having made quite significant progress in my connection with Frankie, in the final two performances my relationship with Emily really came together following an unexpected moment in the second performance. This moment, or as Callery names as “accidental discoveries,” (Callery 2002; p.164) occurred during the company reprise where Emily and I carried the block upstage; when we altered the block before lifting it our hands accidentally touched, something that had not happened previously and it created a surge of emotion and a real connection was created between us; “one instant takes me unthinkingly to the next… [and it] keeps unfolding without a plan… like the successive figures in a kaleidoscope.” (Lispector in Fernandes 2001; p.35.) To our surprise everything afterwards was executed in perfect synchronisation without us having an input and for me, our back-story sparked into my mind like a forgotten memory which provided me with the basis of my emotional drive towards Emily, a feeling of desperation to contact my old friend in the ‘living.’ As is the nature of this work, we could not re-create the moment in the third show which led me to feel that the penultimate show was the most emotive for me; we mimicked the moment in the final performance and still found this aided the development of our relationship and the exploration of our back-stories which I felt was very much unexplored prior to this accidental discovery. What new material we discovered we continued and concluded into the final show.
“[The] drive to keep discovering makes a production a matter of process every time it is performed rather than a commodity put out on display” (Shevtsova; 2004; p.48.)
Shevtsova reiterates here what we were told to expect as during the three shows the process was still ongoing and the development of characters and motives were still being explored despite us being in the ‘product’ phase of the journey. Probably the biggest influence in its development was having the world of ‘Fractal’ brought alive. By this I mean the scenographic entity. Having the set around us to live in and being in our character’s costumes really aided us in the conclusion of moulding our characters. By the time of the first show there was a better sense of clarity in most characters, including my own, of which the improvisation and warm-up exercise to get into our characters that we did had a great input. Through the performances this development furthered as “it is alive, it is not staged, it continues to develop.” (Weimer in Shevtsova 2004; p.49)
One such development in my character was that I really gained an understanding in the reasons for laying out the cups and the truth behind my connection with Frankie; after having done research a day before the run-through on ‘ferrymen’ of the afterlife, I came across the term ‘psychopomp,’ a word derived from Greek meaning ‘soul conductor.’ A psychopomp “waits with and comforts the soul of a person who is dying and guides them across at the moment of death.” I found the discovery of this term and the finding of a picture through Google Image Search (see left) really conclusive in my character’s long and exciting journey through development. Thus I explored the motive behind placing the glasses down as not only a means of bringing the community together (as I imagine my task was when I was ‘living’ in the community) but as a way of searching for the lost soul (Frankie) within the community that I may not have seen whilst ‘living.’ It gave me a greater clarity and connection with my task of glass-laying and also in my relationship with Frankie; it gave me the reason and emotion that I felt was missing from my observing character. This clarity was furthered in my reading of ‘The Book Thief’ as I could relate to the narrator (death) in his job of “handing souls to the conveyor belt of eternity.” (Zusak 2007; p.30)I wanted to stop. To crouch down.
I wanted to say.
‘I’m sorry, child.’
But that is not allowed
I did not crouch down. I did not speak.
Instead, I watched her a while
…
I would watch the places where we intersected, and marvel at what the girl saw...
(Zusak 2007; pp.23-4)
Myself and Frankie had a long wait through the process before we could begin to work on our section, for a larger reason of needing the Scenographic elements for us to work around. So for us, our performance in the shows was essentially new to us; each time I led her to the pond, it felt a new and explorative process but never imposed. “The emotion comes out in the work in a much more pure and interesting form than when they try to impose emotion.” (Battien in Milling 2005; p.168) Where the physical journey of taking her to the pond was ultimately the same, the emotion behind it and the little gestures (like stroking her hair, her hand touching mine, and reaching into the water for her cup) differed between each show as they were organically reborn each time, keeping it fresh and alive for us as performers and for the audience.
In addition to having made quite significant progress in my connection with Frankie, in the final two performances my relationship with Emily really came together following an unexpected moment in the second performance. This moment, or as Callery names as “accidental discoveries,” (Callery 2002; p.164) occurred during the company reprise where Emily and I carried the block upstage; when we altered the block before lifting it our hands accidentally touched, something that had not happened previously and it created a surge of emotion and a real connection was created between us; “one instant takes me unthinkingly to the next… [and it] keeps unfolding without a plan… like the successive figures in a kaleidoscope.” (Lispector in Fernandes 2001; p.35.) To our surprise everything afterwards was executed in perfect synchronisation without us having an input and for me, our back-story sparked into my mind like a forgotten memory which provided me with the basis of my emotional drive towards Emily, a feeling of desperation to contact my old friend in the ‘living.’ As is the nature of this work, we could not re-create the moment in the third show which led me to feel that the penultimate show was the most emotive for me; we mimicked the moment in the final performance and still found this aided the development of our relationship and the exploration of our back-stories which I felt was very much unexplored prior to this accidental discovery. What new material we discovered we continued and concluded into the final show.
3.
Having created a personal journal of session notes and character and process developments alongside of the blog, I have found this extremely useful in charting my own developments and techniques learnt in the introduction of this new genre. Having referred to the blog several times over the process, I have found it a really useful tool to clearly chart my development, particularly through the short exercise of listing 5 words that summed up where our characters were at which I had decided to continue with in my personal journal. Not only that, but it was beneficial to be able to chart the development(s) of the other company members, and reading their responses to the questions that had been specifically shaped for leading our thoughts on particular issues. The blog has been a way of communicating ideas, sharing thoughts and has been in most cases inspirational to my own work and ideas. Also it has been a place where issues and inevitable episodes of negativity could be raised and expressed. By talking about such issues online meant that they could be overcome without bringing negativity to the physical workshops or having the issues lingering over our sessions.
The blog not only been successful in a reflective way but in a creative and constructive way also; it had a direct effect on my character development as it was through the blog that my comments shifted the pathway my character would take. This commenced on the 13th February when I claimed “this week's efforts of excluding Frankie from the group destroyed my characters love with the cup and questioned his desire of being in the group.” And through the blog I can trace how this developed from my removal from the community in the attempt of freeing Frankie, to becoming the character that could fulfil this aim.
Sources
Alberts, D (1997) The expressive body Focal Press
Fernandes, C. (2001) Pina Bausch and the Wuppertal Dance Theater, Peter Lang Publishing Inc.: New York
Milling, J (2005) Devising performance: A critical history Palgrave Macmillan
Smith, C. (2008) Gradual Progression – 13th February 2008 [online] Blogger.com, [visited 11th May 2008]
Zusak, M. (2007) The Book Thief, Black Swan edition, Doubleday (a division of Transworld Publishers): London
Images
‘Salvation’ - Http://processandperformance200708.blogspot.com
‘Angle and Woman’ - http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r101/ArchAMichael/Angel-Woman-11.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment