Tuesday June 24 is now all of Act 1 (So witches etc needed now afterall)
Thursday 26 June is now Act 1 Sc4-7
Sunday 29 June - all are called with 2 to 2-20 only Malcolm, Macduff and Ross. 2:20 on a run through the whole play.
22 June 2008
Okay I take it back
After all my high sounding commentary in the posts 2 and 3 days ago I spent today's rehearsal simply blocking. There was nothing much else going on.
Rehearsal Sunday 29 June
I'm calling everyone for rehearsal at 2 pm. The rehearsal is at the theatre.
21 June 2008
Acting and direction
In the last post I mentioned Meisner, Stanislavsky and method. I'm not wanting to seem to be trendy or throwing around names of acting schools without understanding them so just a little here on what I meant. I know only a little about Strasberg, Meisner, Stansilavsky, Adler and some of the 20th century approaches to acting. And, for example, I'm not keen on apparently repititious meaningless exchanges as a way of learning to react (Meisner is well known for these exercises). At the level of theatre I work at we haven't time for weeks of exploration.
What is clear to me today is that if you are aware of modern theatre you can't help but be influenced by these schools and theories. The alternative is what I grew up with - the first few rehearsals are blocking (Stand here, move there, sit down, stand) followed by rehearsals which are tweaks of the first (sit in the middle of the line, put the gun there, say it with more passion).
What I want to see is something approaching genuine characters with motivations you can understand who move around for convincing reasons.
So I do use the blocking direction I grew up with but I have rudimentary and superficial but useful interpretations of these schools which inform my directorial style. I am drawn to what I understand from Meisner as the idea of trying to get actors in the now (what the repetition exercises are supposed to create). So that there performances are genuine in that they build from the energy and actors around them, and may differ from night to night but are motivations and reactions to others motivations. I think Meisner called this Affective Memory.
In Stanislavskly I like the idea of using imagination to understand where your character is and go with that. I mean for example neither of my actors playing Macbeth or Lady M have murdered or conspired to murder anyone as far as I am aware, so they need to imagine what it is like and go with that. Strasberg on the other hand (again as I understand it) wanted actors to draw on their own souls and psyches and reproduce their reactions to earlier events in their lives, or their psyches (I believe this is called emotion memory).
What I would say is each approach is useful for different actors. In other words where I can't get something out of an actor I may change approach. Some actors need to go back to when their pet rabbit died when they were 8 and use that to power their performance about losing a parent, another actor in the same role might simply imagine having lost his father to an assassin while a third may instead just get in the now and take on the enormity of what is being said.
I'm no expert. But I do like having a range of tools. As I eluded to earlier - our other issue is not having the luxury of spending 8 hours a day, every day, on this and not having necessarily the best material to work with. So when all else fails clever work-arounds (cheats) are really useful, that is if the actor can't stand without waving his hands around - get him to lean on things in every scene.
What is clear to me today is that if you are aware of modern theatre you can't help but be influenced by these schools and theories. The alternative is what I grew up with - the first few rehearsals are blocking (Stand here, move there, sit down, stand) followed by rehearsals which are tweaks of the first (sit in the middle of the line, put the gun there, say it with more passion).
What I want to see is something approaching genuine characters with motivations you can understand who move around for convincing reasons.
So I do use the blocking direction I grew up with but I have rudimentary and superficial but useful interpretations of these schools which inform my directorial style. I am drawn to what I understand from Meisner as the idea of trying to get actors in the now (what the repetition exercises are supposed to create). So that there performances are genuine in that they build from the energy and actors around them, and may differ from night to night but are motivations and reactions to others motivations. I think Meisner called this Affective Memory.
In Stanislavskly I like the idea of using imagination to understand where your character is and go with that. I mean for example neither of my actors playing Macbeth or Lady M have murdered or conspired to murder anyone as far as I am aware, so they need to imagine what it is like and go with that. Strasberg on the other hand (again as I understand it) wanted actors to draw on their own souls and psyches and reproduce their reactions to earlier events in their lives, or their psyches (I believe this is called emotion memory).
What I would say is each approach is useful for different actors. In other words where I can't get something out of an actor I may change approach. Some actors need to go back to when their pet rabbit died when they were 8 and use that to power their performance about losing a parent, another actor in the same role might simply imagine having lost his father to an assassin while a third may instead just get in the now and take on the enormity of what is being said.
I'm no expert. But I do like having a range of tools. As I eluded to earlier - our other issue is not having the luxury of spending 8 hours a day, every day, on this and not having necessarily the best material to work with. So when all else fails clever work-arounds (cheats) are really useful, that is if the actor can't stand without waving his hands around - get him to lean on things in every scene.
20 June 2008
Progress
One of the goals I set for myself for this production is to make the relationship between the Macbeths and their murder of Duncan plausible. This has been the underlying problem with nearly every production I have seen and most of the movies.
Last night working with the two actors I have for these roles I believe we made huge progress in cracking this dilemma. Both are fantastic actors who can convey subtlety as well as a broad range of emotions and motivations. I was momentarily scared as we worked on Act 1 Scene 5. Lady M was terrifying as these lines came to life:
"Thy letters have transported me beyond This ignorant present, and I feel now The future in the instant."
After we had finished I realised how much I owe to a newsgroup called Act Pro that I used to be a member of and to people, conversations and experiences which have developed my rudimentary understanding of Meisner, Stanislavsky and method. We had both Ms in the moment and alive to the motivation in the script and alive to the intentions of who they were and where they were going. Add to that drawing on their own personal experiences to make the moment alive with genuine emotion and we really were creating.
This is shaping up as the best production I have done. False hope / vaulting ambition? I too as a director am caught in the desire to create something based in authenticity - not just for the actors and the audience but also for me.
Last night working with the two actors I have for these roles I believe we made huge progress in cracking this dilemma. Both are fantastic actors who can convey subtlety as well as a broad range of emotions and motivations. I was momentarily scared as we worked on Act 1 Scene 5. Lady M was terrifying as these lines came to life:
"Thy letters have transported me beyond This ignorant present, and I feel now The future in the instant."
After we had finished I realised how much I owe to a newsgroup called Act Pro that I used to be a member of and to people, conversations and experiences which have developed my rudimentary understanding of Meisner, Stanislavsky and method. We had both Ms in the moment and alive to the motivation in the script and alive to the intentions of who they were and where they were going. Add to that drawing on their own personal experiences to make the moment alive with genuine emotion and we really were creating.
This is shaping up as the best production I have done. False hope / vaulting ambition? I too as a director am caught in the desire to create something based in authenticity - not just for the actors and the audience but also for me.
18 June 2008
Three different witches
The unfortunate exit from the cast of our witches (due to employment reasons) has focussed attention on the need for them to have individual personalities in some way. In other productions (to sound like a broken record) they are usually virtually indistinguishable. In the productions where there is an attempt to make them distinct there is often an older leader and a younger initiate. I'll work with Chanel, the AD, to see what we can do to give the 3 of them personalities.
15 June 2008
Macduff
One of the many things on my list to try and improve in this production over others I have seen is to make Macduff stand out. Normally he is invisible until he is tested and he leads the attack on the castle and kills Macbeth at the end. Banquo is always easy to spot, but the Malcolm, Macduff, Ross, Angus, Menteith, Lennox distinction is harder to make.
The Court Theatre here in Christchurch did a production set in Japan a few years ago, a tribute to Kurosaka I believe. In that production Macduff was given a ludicrous hat. Even then he didn't stand out that well.
In this production we're opting for Macduff as someone who is sees through the thrall and sees Macbeth for what he is. Maybe his goodness means he isn't (as easily) enchanted. That means he stands apart from all the others, perhaps is more modern in his dress, and at the beginning of the play looks askance at Macbeth. If he is also socially awkward it might explain why he isn't trusted by Malcolm and seems to have missed the victory banquet.
This standing aside positioning and scrutiny of Macbeth combined with a touch of a puritanical view of the world worked today in rehearsals, and the actor playing Macduff seems to be able to use this to make the character of Macduff strong and distinct.
We may still give him some distinct costuming - but no dumb hats.
The Court Theatre here in Christchurch did a production set in Japan a few years ago, a tribute to Kurosaka I believe. In that production Macduff was given a ludicrous hat. Even then he didn't stand out that well.
In this production we're opting for Macduff as someone who is sees through the thrall and sees Macbeth for what he is. Maybe his goodness means he isn't (as easily) enchanted. That means he stands apart from all the others, perhaps is more modern in his dress, and at the beginning of the play looks askance at Macbeth. If he is also socially awkward it might explain why he isn't trusted by Malcolm and seems to have missed the victory banquet.
This standing aside positioning and scrutiny of Macbeth combined with a touch of a puritanical view of the world worked today in rehearsals, and the actor playing Macduff seems to be able to use this to make the character of Macduff strong and distinct.
We may still give him some distinct costuming - but no dumb hats.
12 June 2008
School resource completed
Chanel and Andre have completed a curriculum school resource which is fantastic and the next step is to get it posted to schools!
It's more comprehensive and interesting than I had ever imagined!
It's more comprehensive and interesting than I had ever imagined!
10 June 2008
03 June 2008
First rehearsal
It's good when you sit with your cast for the first time and think 'this is going to be fantastic'.
I'm now trying to tune into the way in which people work best. I like to ask actors lots of questions about their characters, their motivations and their feelings at any given time, but this is not best for everyone.
The gold in this play is character motivations, and the decision to go with emphasising the supernatural elements gives a lot of scope for characters to talk about what they see versus what is going on, or what they fear. Not everything is as it seems. Most of the characters are led a merry dance by the main protagonists and characters relationship amd reaction to the evil that pervades the play is a great place to start.
I'm now trying to tune into the way in which people work best. I like to ask actors lots of questions about their characters, their motivations and their feelings at any given time, but this is not best for everyone.
The gold in this play is character motivations, and the decision to go with emphasising the supernatural elements gives a lot of scope for characters to talk about what they see versus what is going on, or what they fear. Not everything is as it seems. Most of the characters are led a merry dance by the main protagonists and characters relationship amd reaction to the evil that pervades the play is a great place to start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
