Having and recovering from laryngitis has been an interesting challenge this term, particularly because I have been so encouraged by my progress in my voice work during my time at BSA. I have felt like I have some kind of breakthrough every week in one class or another-- until it came to a crashing halt in being ill, but more frustratingly in recovering from the worst of it. It's been weeks, yet I feel like I'm still not back 100%. The good news is I'm quite well enough to have started making some progress again (though not in singing, the way I'd like to be able to)-- but I'm annoyed at my body for not being able to work faster!
With singing, as of this week, I'm realizing and accepting that I'm especially good at golden age and art musicals. I have wanted to be good at contemporary MT and belting-- and I am, for character roles especially-- but it's not my strength. And that's very ok. I need to find a way to sing contemporary pieces and shows in a way that suits my voice but without needing to do things that compare me to anyone else. Golden age and art MT interests me more anyway. So why not emphasize that for myself-- and find a way to sing that style in any genre.
We're working through our scenes for acting class today-- stopping and starting with Alex asking questions and giving direction. Rachael and Robert have been working for about 45 minutes, but they'e only made it through about a page of the scene. What I'm observing is a feeling I've had all year, which I've been able to push aside to focus on my own work, but it is quite obvious that a weakness in our cohort is the ability to analyze a text. On a whole, most seem to be unable to find the answers to questions from the text, or identify antitheses or vocal/acting direction evident from the structure of the language. It's making Rachael and Robert pretty uncomfortable that they aren't having an easy time of it, especially Robert. All year we've been told to rely on the text, let the text work for us, etc. etc. etc. But it has been obvious that most of our class does not know how. Even the fact that some are incredibly cavalier about becoming line-perfect in memorizing is an indication of it. But unsurprisingly, as Alex has forced them to work on this scene in this way, they are doing some EXCELLENT work!!
Wednesday, 18 May 2016
Tuesday, 17 May 2016
THE FLICK - National Theatre
I saw Annie Baker's The Flick over the weekend and haven't been able to stop thinking about it. At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, I've never seen anything like it. It was a true masterclass.
As I am wont to do, I read a number of reviews and articles about The Flick. I'm not surprised by how kind of polarizing the play was in New York over two runs. Despite it being an American play, it feels like a natural aesthetic for the National Theatre. But I also wanted to know more about the cast-- specifically the two Americans (of only four actors in the play) who originated the roles of Sam and Rose (kind of coincidental that I'm studying Variations on a Theme this term!). Matthew Maher played Sam and was just... well again, I've just never seen anything like his performance. It was clear he had a repaired cleft palate and in the play spoke with a speech impediment indicative of that procedure. But Drew and I were both unsure was to whether his impediment was at all exaggerated for the role because he spoke all at once with such clarity-- yet the whistles and lisps were predictably unpredictable the way a cleft palate impediment would be, so I just couldn't tell. Come to find out, in his actor training he has apparently worked with speech therapists and consciously decided not to improve his impediment too much. He says his scar and his speech are the reason he precisely the reason why he is having the career he has. I would also argue that he's an objectively fine actor as well, who is so in tune with his voice and his body that he uses every aspect of his voice absolutely to his advantage. I could not believe the creative emphasis he would place on seemingly simple and innocuous lines, placing the emphasis or pitch or effort to physically say a word just so. It's the kind of thing I have a hard time describing but will certainly remember the experience of hearing.
But the play wasn't just an acting masterclass-- it was a true study on living in the moment and not "playing" a pause.
There were so many pauses. "Pause" isn't even the right word for it. So much air for the play to breathe-- but not too much. It was 3 hours 15 minutes with interval and actually relatively little dialogue, and the audience spent a majority of the play watching the characters sweep popcorn and clean a movie theater. But the pauses were never forced-- never "played". They were so truthful and lived by the actors. I was never anxious for the (minimal) action to continue. And entire scene took place with an empty stage as we waited for the characters to reach the projector room on the set, where we watched their torsos (and only occasionally their faces) in silence behind sound-proof glass as they loaded the movie projector and started a film playing. It was stunning. The character Avery had a simply beautiful monologue in the form of a phone conversation and the time he took to let his therapist "reply" on the other end was so engaging and lovely. It truly felt like he was listening to something and I didn't even need to hear the other side of the conversation. His cut-off replies as he hesitated to speak or didn't want to interrupt, as one does when they're actually on a phone call, were so accurate. It didn't seem like acting at all.
I'm just so inspired going back to rehearsals for The Veil having experienced The Flick because I feel like I'm much better able to judge the same kind of living silence that Simon has been sometimes directing us to do. I hesitate to suggest my entire cohort need to see it to understand what we need to work toward. I frankly don't know that we'd all be able to live (not play) such pauses in our play without indulgence or too much action. The whole point is to avoid "playing" a silence. I'm not sure I can do it either! But I do feel so much more equipped to be sensitive to and unfearful of a silence as an actor having experienced The Flick, and prepared to make bigger risks in rehearsal.
And meanwhile marvel how lucky I am to have been able to see that play at all!
http://www.londontheatre.co.uk/londontheatre/news/ltg16/matthewmahertheflick16.htm
As I am wont to do, I read a number of reviews and articles about The Flick. I'm not surprised by how kind of polarizing the play was in New York over two runs. Despite it being an American play, it feels like a natural aesthetic for the National Theatre. But I also wanted to know more about the cast-- specifically the two Americans (of only four actors in the play) who originated the roles of Sam and Rose (kind of coincidental that I'm studying Variations on a Theme this term!). Matthew Maher played Sam and was just... well again, I've just never seen anything like his performance. It was clear he had a repaired cleft palate and in the play spoke with a speech impediment indicative of that procedure. But Drew and I were both unsure was to whether his impediment was at all exaggerated for the role because he spoke all at once with such clarity-- yet the whistles and lisps were predictably unpredictable the way a cleft palate impediment would be, so I just couldn't tell. Come to find out, in his actor training he has apparently worked with speech therapists and consciously decided not to improve his impediment too much. He says his scar and his speech are the reason he precisely the reason why he is having the career he has. I would also argue that he's an objectively fine actor as well, who is so in tune with his voice and his body that he uses every aspect of his voice absolutely to his advantage. I could not believe the creative emphasis he would place on seemingly simple and innocuous lines, placing the emphasis or pitch or effort to physically say a word just so. It's the kind of thing I have a hard time describing but will certainly remember the experience of hearing.
But the play wasn't just an acting masterclass-- it was a true study on living in the moment and not "playing" a pause.
There were so many pauses. "Pause" isn't even the right word for it. So much air for the play to breathe-- but not too much. It was 3 hours 15 minutes with interval and actually relatively little dialogue, and the audience spent a majority of the play watching the characters sweep popcorn and clean a movie theater. But the pauses were never forced-- never "played". They were so truthful and lived by the actors. I was never anxious for the (minimal) action to continue. And entire scene took place with an empty stage as we waited for the characters to reach the projector room on the set, where we watched their torsos (and only occasionally their faces) in silence behind sound-proof glass as they loaded the movie projector and started a film playing. It was stunning. The character Avery had a simply beautiful monologue in the form of a phone conversation and the time he took to let his therapist "reply" on the other end was so engaging and lovely. It truly felt like he was listening to something and I didn't even need to hear the other side of the conversation. His cut-off replies as he hesitated to speak or didn't want to interrupt, as one does when they're actually on a phone call, were so accurate. It didn't seem like acting at all.
I'm just so inspired going back to rehearsals for The Veil having experienced The Flick because I feel like I'm much better able to judge the same kind of living silence that Simon has been sometimes directing us to do. I hesitate to suggest my entire cohort need to see it to understand what we need to work toward. I frankly don't know that we'd all be able to live (not play) such pauses in our play without indulgence or too much action. The whole point is to avoid "playing" a silence. I'm not sure I can do it either! But I do feel so much more equipped to be sensitive to and unfearful of a silence as an actor having experienced The Flick, and prepared to make bigger risks in rehearsal.
And meanwhile marvel how lucky I am to have been able to see that play at all!
http://www.londontheatre.co.uk/londontheatre/news/ltg16/matthewmahertheflick16.htm
neutrality
We started work on neutral mask with Keith today on our first day of Term 3. I've done very little mask work at all-- nothing with neutral masks. This is an area where I have no experience whatsoever but I'm excited to learn.
He made a suggestion during the conversation about how important it is not only to achieve neutrality as an actor, but also not to rush past neutrality in the rehearsal process. This struck me not only because it has frankly never occurred to me to walk into a new rehearsal process in a neutral state-- without preconceived notions of what a character is "about" or who they are. It was like a revelation. It makes me so excited to get started working on The Veil this week. I've familiarized myself with the script quite well but I suppose I have the benefit of having not done too much work yet at this point, which I think will set me up very well to start this process keeping neutrality in mind as we begin. Remaining neutral erases Emily the actor from the equation and allows the character to come through naturally. I'm looking forward to it so much.
I had another realization (which kind of goes along with my thoughts regarding my feedback for Term 2) thinking back to Term 1 and my experience in the rehearsal process for As You Like It (which seems like YEARS ago, at this point!). My entire goal for Jaques became: to be "neutral," which of course stemmed largely from the fact that he is male and I am female. So in that I think my goal was a good one and I still feel good about the work I did to achieve that.
However, I realized that it also became a goal that I just became resigned to. It was not my best work, during the entire process. I was certainly self-conscious throughout the term, which prevented me from real success, or at least a few more layers of exploration and discovery. It's true that David and I did not speak the same language when it came to laying a foundation for a solid director-actor working relationship, which made me overly nervous and unsure of myself. I realize now that there was a point where "neutral" became my goal because at least it wouldn't be "wrong"-- it would just be "neutral."
I now see this as such a missed opportunity to actively seek neutrality, and also how much more credit I could have given myself at the time for my goal, particularly during Term 1. Neutrality was the right way to go. It was the right goal. But my performance was impacted because I didn't occur to me that neutrality is a powerful choice I could have made, that would have strengthened my performance and provided me the ability to layer more active choices on top of "neutral".
It has completely changed my perspective in going into rehearsals for The Veil, and it really excites me. Despite being more comfortable with my role for this term than I was Term 1, it will certainly be a challenge for me in different ways and I don't want to limit myself up front by coming in with preconceived notions that may be difficult to shift in the process. I don't want to limit myself by expecting too much of myself upfront.
I feel so free to work on this project. What a spectacular feeling.
He made a suggestion during the conversation about how important it is not only to achieve neutrality as an actor, but also not to rush past neutrality in the rehearsal process. This struck me not only because it has frankly never occurred to me to walk into a new rehearsal process in a neutral state-- without preconceived notions of what a character is "about" or who they are. It was like a revelation. It makes me so excited to get started working on The Veil this week. I've familiarized myself with the script quite well but I suppose I have the benefit of having not done too much work yet at this point, which I think will set me up very well to start this process keeping neutrality in mind as we begin. Remaining neutral erases Emily the actor from the equation and allows the character to come through naturally. I'm looking forward to it so much.
I had another realization (which kind of goes along with my thoughts regarding my feedback for Term 2) thinking back to Term 1 and my experience in the rehearsal process for As You Like It (which seems like YEARS ago, at this point!). My entire goal for Jaques became: to be "neutral," which of course stemmed largely from the fact that he is male and I am female. So in that I think my goal was a good one and I still feel good about the work I did to achieve that.
However, I realized that it also became a goal that I just became resigned to. It was not my best work, during the entire process. I was certainly self-conscious throughout the term, which prevented me from real success, or at least a few more layers of exploration and discovery. It's true that David and I did not speak the same language when it came to laying a foundation for a solid director-actor working relationship, which made me overly nervous and unsure of myself. I realize now that there was a point where "neutral" became my goal because at least it wouldn't be "wrong"-- it would just be "neutral."
I now see this as such a missed opportunity to actively seek neutrality, and also how much more credit I could have given myself at the time for my goal, particularly during Term 1. Neutrality was the right way to go. It was the right goal. But my performance was impacted because I didn't occur to me that neutrality is a powerful choice I could have made, that would have strengthened my performance and provided me the ability to layer more active choices on top of "neutral".
It has completely changed my perspective in going into rehearsals for The Veil, and it really excites me. Despite being more comfortable with my role for this term than I was Term 1, it will certainly be a challenge for me in different ways and I don't want to limit myself up front by coming in with preconceived notions that may be difficult to shift in the process. I don't want to limit myself by expecting too much of myself upfront.
I feel so free to work on this project. What a spectacular feeling.
Monday, 9 May 2016
research discussion - workbook
Research proposal & presentation:
- Aim to discuss research question - title/heading
- Why does it interest me? How did I arrive at this question?
- Ways it can conduct research - research strategies
- Possible problems that may arise - how might I tackle it?
- What I hope to find
- Concisely written
- What I intend to do - perform, viva, written, etc.
- Keep in mind how this fills academic requirements/demands
- Locate what research is already out there
- how does my research fit into bigger picture?
- Opportunity to present your thinking in a persuasive way
Monday, 25 April 2016
research project conversation with MFA 2s
- Allow yourself to shift research question within process
- Viva is opportunity to discuss what would have been written in the paper - but then shouldn't I just write it?
- be sure to highlight things at center of the work in "presentation"
- Locate work that has already been done - how does this research fit within context of the field/question?
- What will be more useful in the long run - not just within the scope of the project
- forward what interests you!
- Don't take an easy route - push yourself!
- Get consent from people to use - interviews/workshops/etc.
- Appendices may be as time consuming as body of research itself!
- give yourself more time than you think you need
- Keep record of research - dates, etc. - ideas as they come
- As you're rehearsing, every thing you do is research
- broaden your idea of "what is research" - contextualize it
- Keep in mind: your process is your process
- How much is it about the mark vs. process?
- Support each other - find/create a support system for self
- Conclusion can involve where I would take it from here
- especially if question is specific within a larger area
- Utilize supervisor, especially for written parts
rehearsal process/etiquette - workbook session
- Be on time
- Be present - give attention to the work/focused - support ensemble
- Take advantage of learning from each other
- Openness & respect for director, actors, SMs, etc.
- Negotiate relationships actively and politely
- Self-awareness to know the difference between notes and criticism
- Listening, collaboration, recognizing another's creative process
- Take ego out of the process!!! - approach disagreement maturely
- Enable supportive environment - facilitate other actors' work!
- Do the work - prepare for rehearsal - prepare to offer
- Memorize, research, study the play/scene
- BE A PROFESSIONAL
- What will facilitate the good of the group?
- All other actors have something to offer that I don't have
"If you don't know how to listen, you cannot have a conversation" - Alex Taylor
Wednesday, 20 April 2016
Madeleine Lambroke - workshop
Madeleine Lambroke - 1822
In her 40s
1 daughter - 17 years old
Widowed - arranged marriage at 19 to Edward, died 8-10 years ago
Poor - compared to "glory years" of the estate 20 years ago
Generous - gives alms, food, takes in orphans/staff as she can
Polite & well-mannered - honest
Private - for propriety, keeps opinions to herself unless provoked
Mother - nurturer
Does not hold grudges
Can see & respect/love people despite difference of opinion
Protective - of self, family, their legacy
Smart - logical
Lacks affection - won't seek it out
Relationship to Hannah
Loves her - doesn't know how to be close to her
Protects her
Spent 8-9 years of her life shutting her away per Edward
Feels guilty Hannah found Edward
Took more/better care of Edward than Hannah
Jealous of her future life and status
Argumentative relationship
Goes to find Hannah herself after a fight
Following some exercises exploring self/relationships:
In her 40s
1 daughter - 17 years old
Widowed - arranged marriage at 19 to Edward, died 8-10 years ago
Poor - compared to "glory years" of the estate 20 years ago
Generous - gives alms, food, takes in orphans/staff as she can
Polite & well-mannered - honest
Private - for propriety, keeps opinions to herself unless provoked
Mother - nurturer
Does not hold grudges
Can see & respect/love people despite difference of opinion
Protective - of self, family, their legacy
Smart - logical
Lacks affection - won't seek it out
Relationship to Hannah
Loves her - doesn't know how to be close to her
Protects her
Spent 8-9 years of her life shutting her away per Edward
Feels guilty Hannah found Edward
Took more/better care of Edward than Hannah
Jealous of her future life and status
Argumentative relationship
Goes to find Hannah herself after a fight
Following some exercises exploring self/relationships:
- Has a hard time beginning conversations with Hannah-- unless being critical. Doesn't like to discuss hard things. WRACKED WITH GUILT.
- Has a hard time talking to Grandie-- loves her very much, respects her, finds it easier for others to "baby" her.
- Does not see herself as a good mother-- due to being not overly emotional as a mother. Isn't sure what a "mother" really is. Didn't ever think about wanting children, just know it was part of her future as an heiress wife. Takes care of people but doesn't know if that's being a "mother."
- Would like to leave Ireland ASAP. Will think of Ireland often (constantly) but won't miss it. Has few "happy" memories-- has always been too thoughtful and weighed down by duty/structure.
- Cares for community-- would hire more staff if she could afford it, gives what she can.
- Doesn't say more than she needs to, EVER-- usually less than she needs to (to Hannah and Grandie). Has a hard time answering questions about herself, speaks specifically, easy to engage/question people she's not close to.
- DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GHOSTS-- knows she experienced something but WILL NOT discuss it or entertain the possibility that it was a ghost.
Is it better or not to share intellectual thoughts about characters through process? To dissect or not as we go? To what extent? Dependent on relationships within the world of the play?
Factual things about Madeleine can be determined by what she doesn't say, and by how she says what she does say. It IS in the text.
Questions
Is Edward my cousin? - Yes, probably from one of the "four wives," since Grandie is my grandmother but both our married names are Lambroke.
What is Madeleine's religion? Is she religious?
Why isn't Madeleine haunted by the room? Or is she?
RP forces me to slow down-- think through lines and what I'm saying, why and how to say it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)