So after our five days off over Christmas our young theatre company set ourselves back on the task of developing the material we had constructed. In the past three days we have distilled our research and exploration and presented it in a showing. In the first two days we discuss and experiment how we wish to present.
What is the quality that will invite the audience to observe, interact, participate as a collaborating stranger?
What does this look like in the body and breath of a performer?
What is the border between relaxed and arrogant?
How do you know when you cross it?
How precise can we be about the qualities we wish to craft into our pieces?
Willem worked with us on the seven (I think) energy states from the book Improvisation in Rehearsal by John Abbott. It basically separates the physical commitment to the target of an actor or storyteller into quantitive sections. From catatonic to hysterical. We figured out what we reckon was the best for each section of our work. Relaxed is quite attractive to play, it helps of I'm a bit nervous about a piece or need the audience to buy in quickly. However, it is a bit too seductive and I can get stuck in it if I don't stay conscious to what the story needs. I also find it tricky to switch into 'character' from a relaxed storyteller quality. So with these kinds of questions, as well as base purpose questions we approached our scenes.
What am I trying to show about the character / story?
Does my treatment of the text aid this?
Am I just being zany?
What is the tactic I am playing on the audience with this treatment of the text?
In two and a half days we crafted a showing. Our character scenes interspersed with youtube, verbatim mash-ups and sound-scapes from Thomas solid-as-a-rock Press.
The showing itself was last night and was a super fun time.
We greeted the audience at the door with cushions and invited them to sit in the middle of the room. Willem gave a quick welcome and we set off. The audience was much larger than we thought it would be, but we had made the decision that the working could be as transparent as we needed it to be, so we could openly ask them to move, or let them know a better view was somewhere else. This quality extended into the scenes as well. With Andrew and Jaci admitting at the open of their piece that they were having trouble presenting the story of Nina and Konstantin in The Seagull. They showed a few failed attempts as well as when they thought they were closer to the treatment. This honesty, I think, led to a easy transition into a three scenes performed by two audience members with headphones, repeating lines from Andrew and Jaci.
Successes include:
The welcome. In true Toi styles, we surely can bring an audience into a space and get them ready to view a piece in a particular way.
Nina and Konstantin. Completely selfless sharing of character between Andrew, Jaci and two audience members.
Ben seamlessly folding verbatim interview material he had harvested at the beginning of his chapter into his monologue as Astrov.
The later two became the focus of our project from here on, and I am psyked. These both capitilise on our strength as leaders in a room and community builders as well as challenging us to work harder in the moment of performance.
This post has fermented a little. Hope it makes it to you fresh enough.
Love you Newtown, I can't picture your face anymore, that's a bit weird don't you think?
Tom.
I leave you with a happy new years present of photo essay of the performances not mentioned.
No comments:
Post a Comment