Friday, 3 November 2006 (1)

Reflections on Rehearsal and Performance

by Sam Berger

OK, OK, OK - so I promised more regular blog entries and I failed. I admit it. I am guilty. However, I thought I'd write something now - three days into the run and hopefully can give a feel of my rehearsal process, and my thoughts on the performance so far.

REHEARSAL PROCESS

After the read-through, the first thing I do is break the script down into units. Units are basically points in the script where there is a change of subject, an entry from a new character, a new thought, an action - pretty much anything where there is a noticeable change. And when I say noticeable, I don't mean to an audience, I mean to a group of actors and their director, sitting around a table scrutinizing the script for such changes. What is the point of such a process? There's a few. Firstly, it breaks the script into rehearsable chunks - it gives me a point to go from, to take a scene back to. Secondly, it gives the actors an emotional punctuation - they can determine their character's emotional journey in a scene by referring to the units. This doesn't mean that at each unit-break they change, for instance, from happy to sad, but it means they become aware of a flow, a passage of their character's journey. The third reason is simply that it creates an easy means to learn lines. That by having definite breaks in the script that go beyond 'now I speak, now I don't'; it means that the learning of lines has meaning - that, for instance, unit four embodies this objective, by unit five my focus changes to this action.

Speaking of which, let's talk about rehearsal terminology. For me, the three phrases I try to abide by are: objective, action, intention. The order these terms appear has meaning. Firstly, I try to determine what the character wants - their objective. Generally, an objective is what they want from another character, or how they want to change another character. Objectives can be both scene based or unit based. For the actor to want something, as opposed to being told to do something is important. By giving the actor an aim means they creatively think about achieving their goal, instead of simply playing angry, sad, jealous, whatever. The director's role is to stimulate his actors, not to order them. But I digress.

Action is simply the things the actors do - opening a door, reading a book, scratching their arse, etc. Action is important because for an actor to commit to the action, as opposed to 'acting' the moment dilates their performance, their presence. It is difficult to explain without seeing it, but imagine seeing someone pretending to eat a toffee and seeing someone actually eating a toffee and you might get an idea of what I'm talking about. Better yet, watch Forrest Gump and watch the scene where Gary Sinise (wheelchair-bound) is talking to Tom Hanks and he's trying to find some booze. His objective is to find booze, his action is to search for booze - what isn't important (to him) are his lines. His lines communicate the dialogue, his action communicates the character. At that point in the script it is the character that is important, and his actions communicate that way above his words.

Intention is simply a more specific objective. Character A's objective is to seduce character B. His action is to read a love poem, his intention is to show his sensitivity. But, his objective is to seduce. His intention is based in his action, and driven by his objective. I don't give a lot of intention notes, they're usually implied.

Now, hopefully that makes some sense. It does, at least, to me. So in rehearsal, I've tried to use these three rehearsal cornerstones, plus using units as points to start and stop. From talking to my actors I have learnt that a lot of directors like to rehearse scenes as a whole. I disagree. I like to find moments within each scene - start, stop, start, stop again. It's probably based in Meisnerian theory - repetition to stimulate natural impulse. That's what I'd like to think.

PERFORMANCE

A few short thoughts on performance.

Until you show a play to an audience, you don't know the play. It's a bit of a cliché, but it's true. Without the audience reaction, the warmth of their bodies and their engagement with the play, one doesn't really know what you've got. Every night, the audience reacts differently and the actors need to adjust to that. The last three nights verify this. They laugh in different places, they like different scenes; rhythm is lost and found every night - some scenes work, some don't. It's to be expected, and it is what makes theatre.

I'm not going to say this night was good, this night was bad - what I love about the cast is that they continually explore the script and the possibilities of moments in the play. The minute an actor gets comfortable and knows what he/she is going to do, that's the moment the play gets sloppy, and an audience's interest is lost. The unknowability, the potential of the moment, the 'I'm-going-to-fuck-this-up' is what gives the scene truth, interest, drama.

OK - that's enough. I feel I've waxed a tad lyrical. But it's always good to let the people know what's going on. I also hope this insight into my deranged ramblings is enough to cover the total lack of blog entries I should of posted during the rehearsal process. I'll try to post a couple more before it's all over.

And now, you poor soul, a quote from the man, Stanislavski. Late Stanislavski, after he rejected all that emotional memory stuff. He says for an actor be truthful, the following prerequisites need to be observed:

"The influence of mental states on physical behaviour.
The influence of physical states on mental behaviour.
The influence of our surroundings on behaviour.
The influence of external stimuli on behaviour."

Anyhow - see you at the show.