opening and closing the veil

Well, it's over.

It's very strange to plow through a whole production week and open and close in such a few days.

I was pleased with my own focus and work during our tech and dress rehearsals. I set some goals for myself with line accuracy and exploration of specific moments that I felt very good about during dress rehearsal.

I also had a kind of revelation about my castmates-- that it is unprofessional of me to be so frustrated by my peers and have such strong opinions about their performances. It's easier to let it go now that we're not in class, that's for sure. And the direction during this process has been unbalanced. But I haven't liked all the "professional" performances I've seen onstage. Why should I love all my castmate's performances? I don't have to. However, their acting choices don't make ME any more professional as a result. I need to let it go.

It was easier to work with some people when I adopted that perspective. It'll be my goal to own that going into next year with my cohort too.

I felt like I was able to really practice the little Alexander training we've started to have-- exploring how to maintain Madeleine's physical tension with the fewest number of muscles. I loved the challenge of keeping my shoulders slightly raised but finding, oh, I can relax my elbows! And it wouldn't change much, but made me so much more comfortable! I'm really excited to work with Pauline next year.

I realized that Simon rarely gave me any compliments throughout the process, particularly not compared to the number of compliments he gave to other members of the cast (objectively speaking, as I don't need compliments in order to do good work). I really only noticed because we would have notes during tech where some of us would receive a dozen notes, and others would receive no notes and many compliments despite having dropped lines or made changes to their performances. Which is fine. Just interesting.

It was really hard to open to such a small audience. We have this odd thing of knowing that as a workshop we're not going to get large audiences and our work is for the purpose of the work, not the audience. But an audience does feel like a small "pay off" from our training in being able to showcase what we've worked so hard on. Our largest audience was at the matinee, which was very nice. But it was hard. We deserved larger audiences. We also missed our course director through the process and performances. It's so hard with our tutors being stretched so thin, but it's hard not to compare ourselves to the MFA 2s, who had visits from Alex a few times through their rehearsals and multiple performances. It makes sense, being their final performance, though that was the case in their other productions this year too. We missed having some of the support through the process, particularly since rehearsals were so strange and frustrating. But-- I'm looking forward to seeing how all of this (hopefully) changes next year by having our performances open to the public.

Our closing performance was absolutely the best one we had-- potentially of the entire process. It was the only time the Hostage Scene landed in that way. We had a much better pace for the whole performance. Some performances didn't seem so indulgent. I don't know what changed-- maybe not having Simon there, maybe having Alex there, I'm not sure. I'm glad it was the one Alex was able to see. Though I thought his comment after the show was telling-- "This wasn't the play I read." No, it wasn't. It wasn't the play I read either, or most of the cast. I'm not sure it was the play that was in the text. Hopefully our workbooks will be revealing for him to read as to why that may have been the case.

Overall I'm proud of the work I did. I know I did good work. I'm not sure what to anticipate for my marks from Simon-- I think he can't not give me pretty strong marks, though I think he'll give some of my castmates higher marks for even things like they were able/willing to stay late after class to discuss how to explore certain research they've done. I explored plenty of research in my process (where I could, since I only had a certain amount of freedom, admittedly) and I'm proud of my work. So I'm not very concerned about the marks, just curious.

I think I've grown a lot as an actor this year. I'm looking forward to the break so I can give my mind a rest, but I have really enjoyed the momentum of the year and hope I can keep a lot of my training going on my own over the summer.

On to the next!

understudies

Here's the thing.

I was supposed to see Richard Madden in Romeo and Juliet tonight.

Apparently.

I mean, forget about the fact that it also starred Derek Jacobi, Lily James and a host of other brilliantly talented actors, co-directed by Kenneth Branagh and Rob Ashford, performed at a historic and lovely theater during Shakespeare's 400th death-iversary year.

I was supposed to see RICHARD MADDEN.

Of Game of Thrones fame. THE Robb Stark.

But when I bought my programme (yes, American tourists, they're not free), there was a slip of paper included saying that he was indisposed and the role of Romeo would be played by-- GASP-- an understudy??!?!??!?!?!!

Then the usher had the audacity to remind me? Before I had to see that other guy walk onstage and perform one of the most iconic roles ever (apparently with very little notice given how late the house opened and that the show was held about ten minutes too), she REMINDED me? So I could be prepared for disappointment, right? So I could scoff to my friends and/or date sitting with me about how "he'd better be just as attractive. He'd BETTER BE." That's it.

You guys-- this happened tonight. Minus the part about me taking it personally. This happened.

The entire theatre staff spent the half-hour before showtime acting apologetic. I almost expected a preshow announcement, though I suppose with the audible whining that would have occurred as a result, I'm really glad that's not a thing. And the comments from the audience....

THE COMMENTS.

And I mean, I get it. I'm not like some big fan, but I was interested to see his performance (in part because he's kind of been slammed by critics...) and I like his acting well enough from the little I've seen. It's a surprise. It's kind of a disappointment. I get it. I've seen a handful of understudies for West End shows and I guess it's a kind of bummer if they're understudying a Name. But the things I overheard tonight made me just really bummed out by popular media-consumers who, from the looks of it, don't regularly attend theatre.

I heard a number of comments wondering if "the understudy" (who's name is Tom Hanson, according to the programme many were actively holding in their hands, thank you) would match Mr Madden's level of attractiveness. "OH NO REALLY?? Guh. Well is the understudy as hot as him??" Which like-- OK. But that's insulting to everybody and it makes you shallow, popular media-consumer. OK? Especially when you paid £35-£90 for your ticket.

And at the interval, despite Mr Hanson's performance generally being received positively during the show, I literally heard a woman say, "Well he's great! If not just a little..." And then she waved her hand in front of her face and then her gut, then shrugged and chuckled with her friends.

Because Romeo was supposed to be Robb Stark, not Robb Stark's stand-in. Because the audience bought tickets to see one show and felt like they were getting another-- and in some sense I guess that's true. But I was so disgusted and disappointed by these people, particularly thinking of the feelings Mr Hanson likely has about himself as Mr Madden's understudy.

No single person in the entire world knows just how precisely he is not Richard Madden, more than Richard Madden's understudy.

Understudying is always hard and thankless. You have to do the work of the actor whose role it is, but without the weeks of study and rehearsal, usually while studying and rehearsing your own role in the show. You have to have nerves of steel, to jump into a performance at the last moment if necessary and carry on without a hitch. You have to go back to your other, smaller role, knowing you're brilliant and capable, and watch someone carry on with work you're totally brilliant and capable of doing (with less study, rehearsal or preparation). But being the understudy to a celebrity I imagine comes with a kind of weight and pressure that is very specific because at the end of the day, your brilliance and flexibility and preparation doesn't matter: "the understudy" is simply not Richard Madden and will always be, in a way, blamed for that.

On top of it, the audience seemed to be prepared to consume the play as they would a weekend of binging Game of Thrones. I was sitting between two women about my age, each holding drinks and a handful of snacks, who crinkled and crunched their way through the play like they were watching a movie or sitting on their couch at home. One of them literally at an entire can of crisps with her mouth open. A guy nearby kept leaning over and talking to his friend/date so that a dull murmur was almost constant. People kept getting up to go to the toilet and coming back in the middle of scenes.

I was desperate for the safety curtain to come down at interval with a the condescending Netflix screen-- Are you still watching Romeo and Juliet? The screen that forces you to acknowledge that you've been sitting in front of your television for a number of hours and reminds you that have fallen down the rabbit hole of mindless media consumption.

Congratulations to The Understudy for a really brilliant performance. I rather love to see an understudy, not only because it highlights the intricacy of the seamlessly moving parts in a stage production, but also because understudies bring an electricity to the performance that is quite specific. It's satisfying to be able to cheer for the "underdog," especially when they deserve it. And it's sometimes also satisfying when The Understudy delivers a performance that exceeds the critical reviews that The Name has generally received.

But I mean-- he's no Robb Stark.

notes for the veil

The following are photos of the pages at the end of my copy of The Veil, where I have recorded notes and thoughts throughout the rehearsal process before tech week. My own thoughts are marked with a --> in the photos and transcribed below.





15 June - personal thoughts transcription:

• Review pgs. 53-61, 117-122
• I just... can't understand why/how I'M getting notes on "going up on lines" but others aren't. Especially when I KNOW how generally precise I was today. Which is why I called out Zak when I got corrected for something that wasn't my fault. And also there's so much fucking around on lines everywhere else!! Additional thoughts: This was the first rehearsal where I felt really confident about my lines and knew precisely the ones I still needed to work on. The above sets of pages are entire scenes that I felt I should review but don't overall reflect the confidence I actually had in myself following the delivery of each scene. I was corrected for "missing" a few lines in my first scene which was due to Zak skipping a whole section-- so of course I missed them. Why it was my mistake, particularly when I handled the jump quite well, is simply beyond me. There were multiple scenes throughout where I know others of my castmates were not hitting their lines precisely, yet it seemed to be me (or Jared) who were the focus of the supposed problem. I'm very disheartened by this.
• How are S & R [September and Robert] called "excellent" and "brilliant" when they make everyone else's jobs SO HARD. Additional thoughts: If inconsistent, erratic performances of scenes, wherein emotion has been indulged and encouraged since the first read-through, is considered "excellent" or "brilliant", then I guess Simon and I have different understandings of these words. Particularly when the rest of us are creatively compromised or, as I like to say, taken hostage (see below). To me, excellent and brilliant work should be more universally appreciated, particularly by my scene partners without whom my excellence or brilliance is nothing!!
• What did I do differently that he questioned my (correctly delivered, as usual) lines a number of times? Additional thoughts: Simon comment on at least three lines of mine today with initial questioning that I had even said them correctly because something about them was different enough that he heard them as if for the first time-- which would be really good, I think, except that the initial impression is that I had said my lines incorrectly. I've tried to objectively consider what I did quite so differently today and I think a difference is that I was allowing myself to be much more present and influenced by actor-Emily's personal feelings as character-Madeline. So of course my delivery was fresh and new. But I always have aimed to be fresh and new. I know I have been, throughout the process. Objectively. I also know, objectively, some of my peers have delivered some of their lines exactly the same way since our first read-through. So what is it about my delivery today that was so starkly different that the assumption was made I was wrong? Maybe this is a case of FU that we discussed in workbook session a few weeks ago...
• "This scene is so different from how it's written!" - Zak, with some amazement & disappointment -- NO FUCKING WAY. Additional thoughts: The penultimate scene of this play is nothing like the way I expected it to be upon first and second and fifth and sixth reads through. The stage directions indicate that Madeleine is supposed to sooth Fingal before kissing him on the mouth to calm him down, after which the have a new understanding for the final scene. Zero times has Zak's delivery of his marathon speech inclined me to sooth him, much less kiss him. He stands and delivers a sobbing sermon about Fingal's "true feelings" (which they actually aren't, by virtue of the fact that two weeks later he's happily engaged to marry Clare, as outlined throughout the text over and over-- the speech to Madeleine is ranting, emotional word vomit induced by alcohol and impending financial ruin, but I digress...) that takes forever, doesn't take into account the six other characters in the room, doesn't acknowledge the number of times Madeleine has interrupted him in the scene up until that point-- just a wallowing, babyish, SOBBING expulsion of emotion that forces actor-Emily to feel exposed, embarrassed, frustrated, annoyed, and mad-- which of course comes across in character-Madeleine's response. Instead of kissing and soothing, I awkwardly pat his back and force myself to allow him to sob into my leg/skirt until Jared and Madison can motivate themselves to carry onward in the scene. This is not a slam on them. Nor on Zak, actually. I had a series of conversations with Simon about the direction of the speech and the scene, and I was quite honest about how I definitely could not honestly motivate Madeleine to offer much more than a pat on the back (to say nothing of a soothing kiss!!) based on what is being given to me. But despite my honest reactions, which are director-approved and which are increasingly honest, Zak is surprised and amazed and somewhat somehow disappointed that the scene is "so different" from the way it is written. NO SHIT, SHERLOCK. He ignores every response I give him. He ignores my scoffing, he ignores my discomfort, he ignores the deflation of the rest of the cast as we all settle in for his confessional sermon. I shouldn't be surprised by this, and I guess I'm not. Just continually on the hunt as to what I can continue to do better and more honestly to play the scene as it was intended. 

16 June - personal thoughts transcription:

• I am so furious about the end of 1.3 I could cry. WHY DOES ROBERT IGNORE ME AS I AM SCREAMING AT HIM. And then stands ON TOP OF ME during my exchange with Fingal? This play is officially about Audelle. It is no longer an ensemble piece. Additional thoughts: He literally ignores me. He ignores everyone. He does what he does and will not listen to anyone, including a hysterical, demanding LADY with a TITLE in the ESTATE where he is a GUEST-- who is, on a more personal level, his peer and castmate, who is actively and obviously frustrated. And sad. I'm just sad. The scene is supposed to culminate with the revelation that the already-ruined estate is now further ruined and blood is on Madeleine's hands. Instead it culminates with Robert rejoicing in his sensate-ness and participating in a conversation that is not his by simply being directly in Zak's "bubble" when Zak is supposed to be having a conversation with me. It has been suggested by others of my cohort that this play has become about Audelle instead of about the Lambrokes or about the ensemble-- today, I 1000000% agree. And I feel so so so sad that there feels like I can't do anything to tell the actual story.
• WTF, sight lines. We cannot see each other. How will the audience see anyone? 
• Robert LAUGHS through 1.4, proving that he is NOT LISTENING TO ANYONE, including himself. Additional thoughts: Robert's actor habit is that he laughs when he either doesn't know what else to do or, more frequently, when he doesn't know what he's saying. It has made me hyper-conscious of objectively observing my own actor habits. My most specific actor habit is tension, which I check at every opportunity. I'm amazed (AMAZED) how I can relax so much of my body without compromising a physical position. So at least I'm learning from others. 
• Review pg. 117-end
• Robert confesses he wasn't pay attention during notes-- "Was there something for me?" - No. IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU. Additional thoughts: It's about the piece, it's about the ensemble, it's about the cohort. I need to continually remember this as well. 
• Why does Madi get pulled back for her tears, but R, S, & Z [Robert, September & Zak] DON'T?! Additional thoughts: Literally the first time Madison was able to produce real, honest, beautiful tears during her amazingly beautiful song, she was told they needed to come at a different time. Meanwhile, other members of our cast have been sobbing uncontrollably throughout the play, particularly in the penultimate scene, without abandon or restraint, since the first read-through. It has made me so aware of my own and my character's emotions. I am proud of the fact that I rarely get the two confused. Actor-Emily is inclined to be dreadfully more emotional than character-Madeleine. I'm calling that a win for myself and something I want to continue to refine.
• We have been encouraged to "keep playing" but most of us get corrected when we do. Hard to understand. Additional thoughts: Meaning, five of us are regularly corrected whenever we try to do something new, or are forced to react differently based on given circumstances. I'm trying to see this as a lesson in producing a cohesive, consistent character based on direction or forced circumstances that are not necessarily scripted or something previously rehearsed by me. I think ultimately it makes me a better, more flexible, more aware, more adult actor. I hope so, anyway.
• Mentioned I'd like to run the end of 1.3 because I end up behind Robert for most of it - which Simon doesn't mind because this play is about Audelle. Dammit. Additional thoughts: I wish I could say I was alone in this kind of situation. But regularly, most of the cast is "hostage" to the inclinations of a few characters-- in this case, Audelle-- who have somehow become The Point of this play. I don't know when I missed the conversation or the revelation regarding The Point of this play, but from my reading and dissection of the text, the play isn't about any one single person. There are only eight people in the show. Every single character is important, every single character has a journey, every single character contributes to the overall Point, which is about what it means to be human, to love, to grieve, to interpret and digest death. I'm choosing to see this as an opportunity to stretch myself and ground Madeleine in truth, given the text and the apparent circumstances. I hope I will always be an actor, going forward, who honors the journey of every actor and character with whom I work. 

my rehearsal process

I think it's important to record some of my process for rehearsing. While I may not keep a journal in a traditional sense for my characters, these photos are typical of how I record things in my script. I find having my thoughts written in so closely to the text makes it easy to reference-- and change.

    

research thoughts - contextual studies

Last term, Steph told us specifically that we shouldn't do our presentations about people-- to not do a biographical presentation. Zak did a (shoddy) presentation about the life of Ben Jonson. I can only imagine he didn't fail, because today he did a (better but still wildly under-researched) presentation on the life of Noel Coward.

I just...

I do not understand.

I'm at a loss.

I get that I'm passionate about research and contextual studies, but with this assessment and the other (gasp) unmarked presentations for other classes, multiple classmates have admitted that they do the bare minimum to fulfill the assignment in the least amount of time-- especially the ones that aren't scored. It has come around a few times that things I've presented on later have questions asked about, as if it's never been covered-- so people aren't even listening to each other. So then what's the point? It's such a waste of time for us all.

It would be awesome if people could give a damn.

And not waste my time, since there are not enough hours in the day. I'd rather do my own reading/research.

And facilitate my learning!!!

animal assessment reflections

Well. That's done.

Lou had initially not wanted me to take this second half of the assessment, having missed class leading up to today. Which is fair enough, except that we aren't marked on process. Being essentially an improv exercise, it seems to me (assuming I've done work on my own to embody an orangutan as a human) practice with peers is potentially helpful (of course) but won't necessarily improve my ultimate assessed performance. I was glad Alex agreed with me on that. And I also feel strongly that my animal work assessment is not my whole priority of this programme, compared to other assessments. I always want to do well, and I don't take for granted any of the assessment assignments. They are chosen specifically for our benefit, and so it's important to me. But since this term has been about perspective, I know that not every single assessment can possibly be THE MOST important. My research and acting class and voice are subjects that interest me more and which I am more likely to be areas of employment in the future, etc. etc. etc.

All that said-- I think it went pretty well. I was with Zak and Madison in a movie theatre. It was fine. I was orangutany, I interacted with the others as well as I could. It was fine.

That said-- this module remains problematic. While our scenario was fine, it doesn't provide opportunity to interact naturally, since the whole point of the location is to quietly watch a movie in a dark room. Propriety dictates the quietness, and while that could be an interesting conflict, it would require some acutely developed improv skills (or natural talent) between all scene partners and perhaps more than 3-5 minutes of scene development. The other problem is that we all came in separately and the given instructions don't let us necessarily attend the movie, in this case, as friends with the other people/animals in the scene. Makes it hard to interact with people/animals that our animals wouldn't naturally interact with. It's not a naturally active setting for a scene.

Meanwhile, Rachael and Jared were put in a bar on a blind date. The setting forces (or at least encourages) interaction between two animals/people who would otherwise avoid each other, in an active location. I thought they both did very well. But it's a more natural, maybe easy, setting to succeed.

But it goes back to the idea that this module is not a particularly strong one to be assessed. I think animal work is interesting and important enough to be studied, but the components of the assessment are imbalanced and not well applied. The animals-as-humans seems to be better applied to actual characters in actual scenes. I know for myself I would be better able to embody an orangutan in a character without juggling the improv aspect, and it would be an incredibly useful study in approaching characters and process. As it stands, it's about transformation... but problematically so. Additionally, in the same way the animal assignments are imbalanced by the physical work required for each actor, the scenarios then don't provide everyone a balanced opportunity to interact.

That said-- it's fine. And it's over. On to singing, voice, acting scenes and The Veil.

THE VEIL - week 9

I'm going to lose my mind.

I go back and forth between really enjoying the material and exploring this character, and being entirely limited/appalled by certain members of this cast. I have rarely been a part of a more imbalanced process. Some of our cast with similar concerns would say it is poor, demonstrative directing that's putting the wrong people on a tight lead (or rather, letting the wrong people have free reign to do whatever the hell they basically want). I can see that. I don't entirely disagree. But ultimately I have found Simon to be a fine enough director-- at least in my own process.

What I find appalling-- APPALLING-- is the sheer and utter disregard of some of my castmates for the process or acting choices of their castmates. AKA us. Who have since last term been frankly expected to be able to "go with it" when these specific people do whatever they want with such freedom that they not only do whatever they want, but also blatantly IGNORING the choices of their scene partners.

This morning I decided to try to take it on myself to react differently (and more and more honestly) to Zak's speech at me in Act II. I went with what I was being given, which I always aim to do but balanced with keeping "Emily's" reactions separate from "Madeleine's." His Fingal in this rehearsal was making my Madeleine feel disgusted, embarrassed, angry, incensed, frustrated, pitiful, ridiculous-- so I played all of those reactions as I had them (keeping in mind the limitations of the circumstances of my character, the fact that Madeleine has no lines for those pages of the script, and the fact I have been directed to stand still). HIS PERFORMANCE DID NOT CHANGE. It was the same sobbing, SLOW nonsense he's done since the first read through. Aubrey has one major chunk of lines that gets steamrolled and laughed at because her scene partners do not respect or consider her singular moment. And when they receive direction, it is so difficult for them to digest what is being given that we can't continue to layer developments or corrections. It makes me crazy. Such a horrific lack of awareness. It's unfair and maddening.

Yet what do we do? For myself, I've had talks with Simon about why I'm making certain choices and that I feel completely limited (aka held hostage) by my scene partners. It is not my job to give them notes or direction, especially since we are preparing to be professional actors. Yet we are in an academic setting, so it seems we should be able to do SOMETHING to encourage our classmates to take anyone into consideration beyond themselves. We should all be able to have access to the same opportunities to grow and explore in the rehearsal process.

The first day of orientation during induction week, Alex told us about our programme being an opportunity to facilitate each others' learning. It is a point we have returned to OVER and OVER, ALL YEAR. I would say Group A does that for me. I feel safe in my scenes with Jared and Aubrey in The Veil. Jared and Rachael are largely why I had a chance to find success in She Ventures... and term 2 acting class. The rest of the play and my acting class scene this term make me anxious and frustrated and mad. I've been generally backed into a corner this term and throughout the year. And it's more than I can take. I am thrilled to go away for the summer in a few weeks and then to return to our research term in the fall. Maybe by term 2 next year, and potentially with some other classmates to join us, I might be ready to work with some of them by January.

I have said before-- a group can only work at the level of it's weakest link. It's not fair that the rest of us have been so acutely at their mercy.

It makes me that much more determined to be a good, safe seen partner. I never want to make others feel the way I do. I want to be wholly prepared to make my castmates look good. My own preparation and process is worthless if it doesn't help my castmates. My creative decisions are selfish and unprofessional if they prevent others from doing their best work. It is my job to be ready to bring freshness to my rehearsals and performances-- to listen to what is being said to, about and around me onstage and react. APPROPRIATELY. I must be sensitive to and aware of other characters in the text and onstage. It's just not about how I influence others for my aims, it's how I can work with others for their aims too. It's give and take. I feel good about how much I give and have given. I will work harder to give even more for the rest of this process and in performances, and try to be satisfied with my efforts.

It would just be great to receive the same courtesy from my classmates.