from word to action

Monday. Week Home Study. Working as the Director

As a mental/physical warm-up we practise the Dumb Show from Hamlet as individuals. Enter a King. Enter as another King. And another. And another still etc. This is the text:

Enter a King and a Queen very lovingly, the Queen embracing him, and he her. She kneels, and makes show of protestation unto him. He takes her up, and declines his head upon her neck. He lies him down upon a bank of flowers. She, seeing him asleep, leaves him. Anon come in another man ; takes off his crown, kisses it, pours poison in the sleeper's ears, and leaves him. The Queen returns, finds the King dead, makes passionate action. The poisoner, with some three or four, come in again, seem to condole with her. The dead body is carried away. The poisoner woos the Queen with gifts. She seems harsh awhile, but in the end accepts love.

We split into three groups. Each must perform it with all the information, without rushing it - in 90 Seconds. Then in 30 seconds. And 15... Teamwork. Group work. Collaboration. And of course. The action is a signifier. And it also has a signified: Queen. Poisoner. Death. Rejection. Acceptance etc.

STEVE MAKES A LITTLE SPEECH ABOUT SIMPLICITY. ABOUT WORKING ON THE BASICS. NOT TO HAVE GRAND IDEAS AT THE BEGINNING. IT'S TEMPTING BUT TRY TO RESIST THEM FIRST FOR THE BREAD AND BUTTER ONES. ABOUT CARPENTRY. MAKE A PLAY LIKE THAT PIANO AND YOU WILL HAVE DONE WELL.

We take up our Home Scripts. In four groups of four we try to come to a common understanding of what it means.

We come together, all sixteen. We talk about props. What would be the first we would get (to rehearse)? We decide upon the book. And the tea. Perhaps a cloth or a cushion for the seat. Then maybe the fire. The guns the soldiers carry.... And for the hut perhaps a simple curtain that can be opened.

We talk of the social class of Mohammad. Of the objective of the first soldier. And of the second. We discuss the relationship of Mohammad to Amila his wife. We think about what is the truth about his reading skills. About those of his wife. About the meaning of each phrase. About 'what is going on', moment to moment.

We talk about who may be the stronger of the two. About the reason she might read. Whether the son, Iusuf reads. How much social convention controls their lives. Which of the two soldiers they fear the most. Whether the second soldier can read. Or whether he's pretending he can't. About what the book really says. About whether there's any of it Mohammad can't read. About what he knows and what he lies about. What a Modern Man is. And a Modern Woman.

This is the script:

Home

Scene 1

The plains of a cold and mountainous region.

A man sits on the ground outside his mud-baked house. He has a radio, a book and a moped. A soldier enters from the north.

Good morning!

Good morning.

How are you, Muhammad?

I am well, thank you.

Good. May I stop with you a moment?

Of course. Visitor, will you join me in tea?

Thank you.

Amila, bring us tea! We have a guest!

From inside. Yes, my husband.

Kindly sit, foreigner.

Thank you but I prefer to stand.

And do put down your weapon.

Thank you, I prefer to hold it.

And you, visitor, are you well?

Thank you, I am well

Entering. Here is tea, my husband

Thank you, wife. Guest, please drink.

Thank you. This is delicious madam. I see you both have a book. This is good. Do you both read?

I have started.

And your wife?

Better than me.

But I see she still covers her head.

Yes, visitor. It is our custom.

Why does she do this, friend? This is the modern age. She must become someone. She must read on. She must take part.

I will see to it, honoured guest.

Tell her the stranger wants her to know how important it is.

I will, my guest.

Thank you. What delicious tea. I must go now. But don’t forget what I said.

I won’t, your excellency.

Good. Farewell.

May, God go with you, your excellency.

Thank you. And, Madame, thank you for such delicious tea.

She nods. He goes.

Wife. Take the cups back. And hurry. I see a stranger coming from the South. Cover yourself. Go inside. Do not come out unless I say.

Yes, husband.

She disappears.

Countryman! How are you?

I am well, thank you traveller. Kindly sit down and take tea with me.

Thank you, I will. But I prefer to stand.

Put down your weapon, though.

Thank you, I prefer to hold it. These are dangerous times.

Iusuf!

Father?

Ask your mother to give you tea to bring!

Yes Father!

Your son?

Yes.

How old?

Ten.

A good age. Nearly a man. Who was that stranger I saw leaving?

A soldier. From the north.

Did he give you that book?

The book? Yes, he did.

May I see it?

You are my guest.

Thank you

Iusuf comes out with the tea. Here is the tea, father

Thank you Iusuf. Set it down here. Now you may go.

He goes.

A good boy. This book, countryman. Did you open it?

Oh no, stranger.

But you saw the cover?

Only as it lay there.

You didn’t touch it?

No, stranger. It hasn’t moved.

Good. What does it say?

What?

What does it say? Here. On the outside part. You can read?

A little, stranger.

So what does it say?

I think it says. I think it says The Modern World

The Modern World

Yes

The Modern World. Now open it.

Open it?

Yes. Turn the pages.

Turn the pages?

Yes. Wait. Stop there. And what does it say under this picture of this man without a beard?

I think it says A Modern Man.

A Modern Man. Are you sure?

I think so.

A Modern Man. Turn some more pages.

If you wish, countryman.

Stop. That picture, there, why is this woman not covering her hair?

I don’t know visitor.

What do these words say?

I’m not sure, visitor.

Try.

I think it says A Woman In Her Own Home.

A Woman in her Own Home?

Yes, visitor.

Not A Modern Woman?

No, visitor.

Are you sure?

Yes, visitor.

This could still be a dangerous book, countryman.

You think, visitor?

Yes. You should be careful. I am a moderate man, friend, but reading can be dangerous.

I shall never do it again, visitor. Would you please be so good as to take it away from my house, visitor, or allow me to put it in the fire.

As you wish, friend. It is your book.

I will put it in the fire.

As you wish. And your wife?

What about my wife visitor?

Can your wife read?

No, visitor. She cannot read, visitor. Not a word.

That is good. Your wife is good. And does she cover herself, countryman? Does she stay in the house?

Of course, countryman. She is inside now.

Those things too are good. But now I must hurry. Thank you for your tea, brother.

Don’t mention it, countryman.

Your book, though. It doesn’t want to burn.

You are right, guest.

You must put some oil on it.

I will, guest, thank you. Iusuf!

Father?

Fetch the oil!

I will father!

You are not going the way you came, guest?

No. I am going north now.

Behind the soldier?

Behind the soldier. I have work to do. God willing I will succeed.

Farewell, then, my brother. God speed.

Farewell.

He goes.

Here is the oil. Father! Look! The new book!

Iusif.

The coloured one! It’s fallen in the fire! I will get it out!

Leave it, Iusif.

Father!

Go inside!

Father!

Go inside!

Entering. What is this racket, family?

Wife, the stranger is still on the path.

What is this racket?

Go inside.

Mamma, look what father’s done!

Husband, take the book out of the fire.

The stranger is still on the path.

Take it out at once!

Wife, I will not. If the stranger comes back and the book is not burnt there will be trouble.

Husband, pull it out. He has gone now!

Wife, he may come back, still.

There! It is saved.

Wife, you will be the death of us all.

Husband, you’re a fool.

Scene 2
The same. Later. Two men sitting together. One a soldier. There is no radio and no moped.

Peace.

Peace.

Yes. Thank you for this cup of water.

My honour, visitor.

Thank you for this place on the earth.

Nothing. I wish I could offer you food.

Nothing. Much has happened, countryman, since I last passed your door.

Yes.

The lord to the east, they say, has been given money for seed.

I had not heard that. I heard that the lord to the west has the ear of the foreign general.

I had not heard that. What else with you?

My son is dead.

Your son. He was a fine boy, I remember. And your wife?

She has lost her reason.

I never met her, friend.

No. She stays indoors.

Friend, fear not. I will not sit long.



Scene 3

Another place. A desk. A man.

Friends. We make progress. This has not been an easy time. For any of us. But we, the strong, will not forsake the forsaken. Be patient. Together we now tread the right path.

We Break.

When we return we do two exercises that Steve sometimes does with students. And sometimes with professional actors too.

1. The actors are to keep their focus on the other actor until s/he has finished speaking. Only then are they to look at the book for their next line. They are to read it but not speak until they are looking at the other actor again. Steve demonstrates with Sam. Students then split into pairs and try to get the hang of it themselves.

2. Whisperers. Each actor has a 'prompter' who reads her/his lines and then says them into her/his ear. Each actor has to keep their focus on the other actor at all time.

Peter, Rebecca, Joy, Tom, Georgina and Gary take it in turns. It's hard but gradually, with simplicity and relaxation, comes success. Particularly, Gary and Georgina with Peter and Rebecca's prompting get very clear.

We do a little experiment. We see if now, without the prompters, they lose what they have got with prompting. On the whole not. The prompters made them slow down. Allowed the audience to 'hear' the text - and its rhythms. This time there is less confidence to slow but not a lot less. Much has been retained.

They would not have far to go to get to the stage of getting 'off the book' with some confidence.

As a last thing we 'decide' that we want Gary to be less harsh as the second soldier. And we look into the way of doing it with our list of action verbs. The first time it doesn't work so well so Steve feeds him some of the action verbs some of us have suggested:

MOTHERS; ENCOURAGES; PLACATES; SUPPORTS ETC

Gary does a good job trying to play these instead of exposes, checks, blocks etc...

FINAL LITTLE BLAH BLAH from Steve. That Aston and Savona talk of three basic layers of Theatre History Cake. The Classic. The Bourgeois. And the Modern. That, generally, the Classic is often communal, often open air, sometimes religious, typically Greek, Roman and Medieval. That the Bourgeois becomes more and more indoor. More and more to do with class society and paying to see the show; typically Shakespeare moving through the Restoration Drama and into and through the 19th C. Finally the Modern which challenges the Bourgeois. Brecht, Meyerhold, Artaud etc.

That students should be aware of these broad categories but not be too seduced by them. For example: Beckett. He would seem to be 'modern'. Yet would Brecht call him so? Isn't Beckett showing you a world that is unchanging? In Waiting for Godot, our heroes wait, Godot doesn't come and the best that can be said is that they survive.

Yes? And? Is that all, might say Brecht? And what about Socialist Art as in the Social Realism of Soviet Art, say? Something that claims to be 'modern' but actually conforms in many ways to Victorian Realist painting?

And what about Soap Operas? What do they change? Don't they in fact succeed at that moment when you say: I know someone like that. That's just like the woman in our Chip Shop! Whereas Brecht would want you to dis-recognise the events on stage or screen and say: I can't believe that. That's not how it should be...

So, just this: BE AWARE OF THESE CATEGORIES TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THE BROAD SWEEP BUT EXAMINE EVERYTHING FOR THE EXCEPTIONS. AND CONTRADICTIONS.

Wednesday Group. Actioning and Objectives.

Once again work on the physical actions. Coats, Cardigans and Shoes. We identify Actions and Sub-actions and the physical work is done well, including the contact improvisation.

The idea of TACTICS and OBSTACLES has to be prompted a wee bit but the understanding seems no less clear than the Monday group.

We take the Hello/Hello exchanges again as a model for some work on OBJECTIVES and Steve makes it that bit harder by asking the pairs to find their own objectives for the text - a text that contains a million possibilities anyway. However, there is still much good work.

We look at the importance of STAKE in practice. For example, in Arlene and Sam's example we up the stake because Arlene's objective of 'trying to get to know' Sam's protagonist isn't engaged enough. When her objective is to make love to Sam, she becomes physically more focused on him in the process. And the scene is much more watchable.

We talk about how the audience in interested in the scene lasting as long as possible. Not as short as possible. We want to see the theme introduced - and played for all possible variations.

Likewise, Gemma's work with David is much stronger when we make her objective 'to repulse' David's protagonist (as a scene objective to an overall objective or 'super-objective' of seducing him). The trouble was her original playing showed too many of her cards too early. We could tell she fancied him, so it appeared too easy for him. It was too much of a push-over. We wanted to see more of her resistance.

However, we don't do the Duck Pond. Surely, next time. And perhaps we read Max as a reminder to get us started...

Students take home copies of Home to prepare for next time with copies of Max's Letters to George (Nick Hern Books 1990). Steve spends some time talking about Max's method but we do not read the text together.

Website for Max Stafford-Clark's company Out of Joint

Third Session. Monday Group. Stan.

Contact Improvisation to get us a little freer – hopefully. Then another look at ‘Count’, building on the work with last Wednesday’s group. We also have Joy from that group with us to feedback her comments.

Ashley and Peter volunteer to play the two speaking roles. We read the script twice – Ashley as the Stranger first time round and Peter the second. We decide to go with the second casting when we put it on its feet.

Once again we put the bodies in a row, though this time we spend a few minutes casting the children’s bodies with the smaller (female) group members. As before we cover the faces of ‘the dead’. And we have a foot wrapped in clothing.

On the first occasion Ashley as the elder is directed to lift shrouds as he and Peter walk down the line.

We watch.

Reactions to the performances are mainly positive. Students are beginning to see that there is ‘more to it’ than they would have imagined by just reading the text. That it is the ‘actions’ that give it life. And meaning.

The question is: what is the ‘meaning’? Or meanings?

We now change the actions slightly. Peter, as the Stranger, lifts the shrouds. On another occasion he guides the Elder by taking his arm to lead him gently from one body to the next.

We even have the text read from the side while Peter and Joy do the actions so that the actions can be seen more clearly.

We decide the Stranger’s more sympathetic than many had first imagined him. Sam in fact now admits that whereas before he couldn’t imagine ‘the character’ as sympathetic, he’s now going to have to eat his words.

This is good. In these early classes it’s important to establish for everyone that nothing is set in concrete. An ‘unsympathetic character’ can be made sympathetic. And vice versa.

Very often by the choice of a few actions. And just to reaffirm the point, we ask Tom to come up and be a cold Stranger. He’s coached to have less eye contact with the Elder as the Elder identifies the bodies. He’s coached to turn his body away from him and to move on to the next body while the Elder is still with the last one.

Tom also adds some details of his own in the way he writes the ‘Report’.
At about this moment Steve makes the little speech about Semiotics. Signs and how to read them (see the Monday Class last week). And about intentions.

Without a break we go straight into physical actions; putting on a coat, jumper or cardigan.

We have some nice examples. We do the breaking down of actions into sub-actions. We watch one or two of these. Toni counts under her breath. John out loud. These are in their tens and twenties.

We then do Obstacles. A volunteer is requested and Rebecca raises her hand. Once she’s been blindfolded, her cardigan is turned inside out and the sleeves are knotted. Then she’s asked to fulfil her objective. She does; not without some difficulty, at one point putting her cardigan on but realising that the belt is inside and that she’s actually got it inside out. She corrects the mistake and finally achieves her goal.

We talk about Tactics. The example of the Mountaineer.

Break

After the break we read through Max Stafford-Clark’s Letters to George (P. 66 – 71). Max is the Artistic Director of Out of Joint Theatre Company, based just round the corner from here.

Here's a link to their website

The students are also provided with a list of actioning verbs. We think briefly about some of the actioning verbs both The Elder and the Stranger might use with one another in ‘Count’.

Actioning verbs might also be thought of as A TACTIC.

Finally, to look at tactics we look at The Duck pond impro. Helen and Alf step up to play the father and the daughter.

It works well. Dan then comes in to play the pacifying brother.

Steve coaches from time to time from the touchline if he feels that one or other of the players is not fulfilling their objective fully.

Finally to say that none of these things is foolproof. But they are intended as an aid for the actor. Just as the system of Semiotics is an attempt to provide some grammar and vocabulary with which to look at the whole question of performance.

Space II

Second Group. Second Session. Wednesday 19th Oct.

Urgh. Greater Love Hath No Man. On Wednesday night, after three hours of detailed recall, while attempting to upload some images on this post, I hit the wrong button - and lose the whole lot. A second attempt at writing this, then:

As before we do the Installation exercise. But in a different room. A different group of people. And it’s another day. Nothing is ever the same.

This time, students christcross the room looking at doors that are barred with yellow police tape stuck on with luminous gaffer. Students notice the five doors that the room possesses. Targets on Blackboards. The lighting. Everything fresh and surprising.

We then repair to the entrance end facing the barred double doors with the police tape and just look at it in silence for a minute or two.

Students see strange things. A human face. A dog’s face. An emergency lighting box with two red buttons which become a robot high up on the wall watching us.

In pairs now we have to a. think of a place to put the chair and b. think of the play that that might be the first image of. Streetcar Named Desire is one I remember.

The first student to be chaired is Mameyaa. Very close to the ‘audience’ but looking down. The second is Arlene in mid-distance reading a newspaper with her legs stretched out.

Steve’s first question is: ‘Do we see the space when the actor is near the audience or further back?’ We move Arlene around more and more. Central, back, side-on near the wall looking at us, and away from us….

Finally we get a very disturbing and interesting image by putting her with her back to us about mid-distance, looking at a spot on the back wall.



Once again, as with Monday’s Group we look at two bodies in the black box space. First off, Sam and Danai. Two men; David Bowers and Francisco. Two women, Eva and Jade. On each occasion, we’re trying to work out who looks the stronger. Who seems in control. Who’s moving first. What does any of this do to the space. And the story. What do we ‘read’? What does it ‘mean’?

Steve does a bit of a monologue at this point. About this ‘reading’ and about semiotics. A word he’s only mentioned semi-ironically with the Monday Group. (Memo: Do the monologue, first off, or something like, with the Monday Group next Monday!) He’d been talking to Anna Garafelaki just before the class and doing a bit of research the evening before - and after a bit of mispronunciation we agree that the Greek word for a ‘sign’ or a ‘signal’ is Sema (pronounced: seema). And the ‘-iotic’ bit refer to an observer, or even a person who is passionate about, signs.

Steve then suggests that we are already familiar with stage signs. He does the one for ‘listening’ by cupping his hands over his ear. With a slightly different physicality it can ‘mean’ “I’m deaf; can’t hear you”. With another it may be: ‘Your voice is weak; speak up’. There’s a similar one for ‘looking’ by putting the same hand over the eyes, like a sailor might do in a crow’s nest just before he calls ‘Land Ahoy’.

So. There is a sign. And there is what it means (and how we read it). And Steve suggests this is a starting paradigm or model for us. And that theatre is also a sequence or tapestry or series of signs and that in a scientific spirit people came along - not dissimilar to Stanislavsky, Marx, Freud and Darwin in their fields - who wanted try and describe in some way what was really ‘going on’ in theatrical performance.

Break.


After which we do the table work on ‘Count’, asking lots of questions and not arriving at too fixed answers, and come to a good understanding. But we advance a bit more than the Monday Group and actually venture as far as putting the scene on its feet. Twice.

On the first occasion, we choose a version in which the team has decided that the elder and the stranger are looking at photographs. This is indoors. Perhaps in a Government office or a police office. Fine. However, the first efforts don’t make use of the space to tell the story as much as they could. The director’s hand is needed!

Steve gives a few suggestions about use of space. Or of body language. Perhaps The Foreigner could start with his photos, standing almost in the audience, as far away from The Elder as possible. That even when he says: ‘Who is this, Elder?’ and shows the picture, he doesn’t move towards the Elder straight away. In other words this Foreigner controls the space. And controls the Elder.

The second team does an outdoor version. This time with bodies. And we have as many bodies as the script requires. Nadia as the Elder and David as the Foreigner. They are asked not so much to ‘act’ the lines as to say them clearly.

The first time they attempt it, the ‘bodies’ are scattered higgledy-piggledy
on the floor in the space, David comes on first leading Nadia and pointing to each body in turn they go round. We make some suggestions.

For example, that each ‘body’ is covered so that the faces are hidden. Also that the bodies are put out in a line. Also that when the play starts that Nadia is already in the space with the bodies and that David is not to come on for perhaps twenty seconds….

All these ‘choices’ have effects. Nadia being alone with the ‘bodies’ allows us to focus on her and them before anything happens. We see her. We wonder what she is thinking as she just stands there; what her relationship is to them before we have to think of the Elder’s relationship to the Foreigner.

Covering the bodies has the effect of slowing the whole process down. There are now further actions. In our case, Nadia bending down as she has to identify each one and looking underneath the ‘shroud’. She does it well and we see her ‘respect’ for each of the people that she’s having to look at. I believe we pay more attention to who she’s identifying.

There may also be a sense of her ‘controlling’ her own space more. Investing it with more dignity.

We even provide a ‘foot’ for her to try to identify.

The work is good and there will be a lot to take forward to next week when both groups are to looking at the way that Stanislavsky might fit into this tapestry.

Count

A foreigner counting and a man.

And who is this, elder?

This is my brother, stranger.

And this?

His wife.

And this one?

My own child.

And this one here?

The mother of my brother’s wife.

And this one?

Her husband.

And this?

My brother’s child.

And this one?

A neighbour’s child.

And this?

I don’t know who this is.

And whose is this?

This? I don’t know whose this is.

A child’s, obviously. About ten.

Yes.

Only for my records, you understand? See. I am writing: “child’s. Ten years old. Sex unknown. Foot”.

Yes.

Here, three thousand.

Three thousand.

It is fair. You understand?

For the passerby, nothing?

Nothing.

And for this, nothing?

For the foot? Nothing.

Nothing?

Space. Week Two. Monday Group.

Twenty. Today is 'Space'. What a coincidence! We're in space. In a space. And we make a space. A sort of theatre. Or a cinema. As we come in and line up our chairs facing the radiator. Steve sits among us and takes the register. Were we expecting him to sit in front of us? (Assumptions about the space?). Who knows?

We are then asked to sit in a circle on the floor and have an exercise described: We're in MG82. We've come to see The Installation that an artist has created. We've heard it's interesting and we want to see for ourselves. But we are to add nothing visually or aurally. There are no Van Goghs. No Van Meers on our walls. There are other people in the room but our purpose is not to react with them but to see the Installation; nothing is to be imagined. No hallucinations. All we have to do is walk round and experience it....

Five minutes pass. We return to the circle and comment in turn. We notice things. Things we hadn't noticed before. A tiny little beer bottle gets a lot of our attention. The radiator also figures large. Holes in the ceiling. Hard hats. Scuffs on the wall. Black paint on black paint that's not the same shade of black. Green wires hanging down from the light. A blue stump appearing from the floor by the door.... everyone has a sight to relate.

But, then, a secret reavealed: these things weren't put here by an artist at all. Much of it is haphazard. Coincidental. Accidental. We talk about this. Feedback. Lots of comments. About how objects can tell stories. How mundane things can grow in size if you pay attention to them. About stories coming from objects. Not necessarily the same one. The radiator becomes a focus of much discussion. Some like it. Some do not.

Sitting back at the 'cinema' end, we pair up and look at the radiator end in silence for a minute. Then, we have to turn our backs on it and describe what we were getting from looking at that space.

We share that with the rest of the group. Then we go back in our pairs and a 'director' and an 'actor' have to decide where to put the actor in that space to make some impact.

Lots of solutions. Front and back. Square on and on a slant. Backs to the audience. Facing. Corner. Centre. By the radiator. Away from the radiator. Hugging a radiator.

We discuss this as a whole group. We get some of our actors to come back on. For alterations. We're focussing on what 'story' is being told by a sitting actor in a space with a radiator and a tiny little bottle (which is now too small to see).


We fine tune. For example: for some people, Isabel is 'better', maybe stronger, when she's sitting in front of the radiator with her back right up close to it than when she's sitting either to the left or to the right of it. Alexa we try sitting front-facing near the front of our stage. Then side on with her arm on the back. Then side on with her left leg over the side of the chair. Then side-on, but turned, right up against the left wall. And then the same but right against the right wall with her back to it. We try to decide whether this would tell a different story.

Then we do two bodies in space. No words. Each of our two 'actors' has to start on the wall facing one another. They can advance into the space. They can retreat. They can circle.

We watch. What story are we seeing? How are they moving? Who moves first? How do they move? Who appears stronger? Who more dangerous? Who more vulnerable? Have they met before? Who trusts the other more? Is there a relationship there? What is it?

Some watchers see trees. Lots of them. Some see a policewoman. Some see a mother. Some see a daughter. All see an embrace.

We have our break but we take our copies of 'Count' with us to remind ourselves of the home work we did to prepare it. When we come back and sit on chairs in fours to compare notes.

Good results. We're doing 'archaelogy' on the text. It's not easy. It's quite a spare text. Stripped down. There aren't even any words to denote which character is speaking. But things seem to be getting clearer.


There are two characters. One is an older man. Probably an old man. we think. A traditional man. The other - the 'stranger' is a younger man. Maybe a man from a more 'modern' society. Some people think he is the one with the power. That he is talking down to the older man. That he's patronising him. Many people feel that this is not in a city. In Africa, maybe. Or South America.

Some people think that there's some kind of bargaining going on. Some think that the older man is maybe selling bodies and body-parts. Some think there is some kind of war-connection. Some think that maybe the 'bodies' have been brought about by the war.

There's debate about what they're looking at. Whether it's photographs. Or, as quite a few feel, real bodies right there in front of the two protagonists. Whether it's soon after the event outdoors in the village. Or later in a police station when the elder has had more chance to control his anger and grief.

Steve says that he believes the writer intended to set the play in Afghanistan and that the people referred to are people killed in a 'collateral damage' incident. How the Americans often pay money when such things happen.

We go back to our groups of four to discuss how, now, we would begin to stage these few words of dialogue. Time passes.

We gather as a whole group again and share our results. Each group has taken a different focus. Some on what they see as key lines such as the word 'stranger'. Others are already picturing the use of body bags laid out on the floor in front of the two protagonists. Or bloody sheets.

Steve soon regrets saying that 'the stranger' is an American - and confesses this to the group - because he feels most of the groups are now objectifying that character rather than seeing it from the character's point of view. The character is being pigeon-holed as 'cool', 'detached' etc. Maybe even cruel... Not the way that most people see themselves.


Steve asks that each person puts themselves in the place of the 'American'. What would you do if you were in that situation? What would anyone do? So as to make the situation of the bereaved old man better? Would anything be gained by doing these things badly? Or uncaringly? Or cruelly? A couple of students improvise the scene. Comments are taken. But rather than the commentator trying to explain what he means by way of commentary, he's asked to SHOW us. And we watch his version. Much easier to comment on what we see rather than battle his IDEAS.

Tony's popped in an it's time to finish.

This ending will all dovetail nicely with next week's work when we'll be looking at Stanislavsky. Particularly his method of trying to unite all the elements, text and performance. Many students have now got the Aston and Savona book. One or two have had a bit of a dip.

Steve

Second Session

Whew. Less Students. Fifteen. But the Northern Line has been shut down so we may be more next week.And we're in a newly rerfurbished Room 65. But we follow the same format as on Monday and the work is similarly varied, focused and good. There is nice work in a shoe shop with smelly feet. A nice meeting in a corridor between two people who want to get to know one another. But once again, good analysis. Good correction. Good group and pair work. Good.

First Session

Whew. What a lot of students. 24. Some of them still not there and some who are not on the mark sheet. Are we really going to be 30 each time we meet? Only time will tell. Tony comes to say hello and we give out the paperwork and the parish pump notices.
We sit on chairs in a circle and Steve gives a little speech about Clarification. That he is a practitioner and that he will generally be working from the Practical towards the Theoretical to help make sense of the Theoretical, but always with an eye to the fact that the Practical is priceless.

We begin to get the idea that we are going to be working a lot in various groupings: sixes, fours, twos and whole groups. In pairs the students interview each other. In groups of six they have to tell their partner's 'life story' as if it were their life story, boys becoming girls and vice versa, if necessary. No acting. No girliness or boyi-ness. Just tell it.

One 'story' is chosen by each group of six to be told to the whole group. Four stories are told.

We sit crosslegged on the floor with our eyes closed in a circle. We hold hands and send a squeeze round the circle. When we've got the hang of that we send two squeezes round the circle - in opposite directions. It works - and it also occasions some ticklishness and amusement.

Steve points to certain truths. Namely: there is an action. That an action is offered by one and accepted by another. That the other then assumes the mantle of responsibiltiy for the next action. Which is given. And accepted. And so on. Steve points out that if any one of the 24 had refused to accept the action or refused to offer it in turn, 24 players would have been unable to play. ACTION. REACTION. OFFERING. ACCEPTING.

We stand. We send a clap round the circle. We abide by certain truths. You can't send the clap until it reaches you. Follow the clap with all your senses. Be Ready. Anticipate but don't plan.

We introduce the idea that the clap can be sent back the way it came. People have to be on their toes. But this leads to local battles being fought out. In a circle of 24 people it means the players on the other side become mere spectators. Steve points this out. PLAYFULNESS AND RESPONSIBILITY. The students take responsibility for those on the other side. Everybody can have fun.... We also do this in two circles of twelve. Speed.

Split into groups of 4. One 'secretary' whose job it is to write down the ideas. How many different performances, scenarios can you get from one piece of text. And the text is (Drum-roll):

Hello.

The students set to work. Some get 15, some get 18, some get 22. In less than ten minutes.

We share in a whole group. Each group is asked for one of its ideas. One or two issues arise. For example: changing the text. One idea involves the word Hi!. Another may involve saying it in a different language. Bonjour. Or Hallo (in German). Steve gently suggests that if we are working with text that we have to work with the text we have got, not with the text that we'd like it to be. Might be challenging - but also might be more rewarding in the end if we set ourselves these perametres.

Bit by bit we come to some uses of Hello that seem to involve situations. Latch, in particularly, onto some in which you call Hello to see if anyone is there. Someone coming into a building and expecting someone to call back. Or not.

We further divide this into: You come home from work and you call to see if your partner is home already. Or, a thief calling into a house to see if there is anyone at home - before he steals something. Or, someone in a haunted house thinking they've heard a noise and calling out.

We then put this on it's feet. We use the real door and we imagine a situation in which someone comes in to see their Nan. They call out hello. But they get no reply. Nick ? tries it. Does a good job. Steve asks for improvements. The main aim, Steve suggests is to CONCRETISE. To imagine nothing. To plan and locate everything as much as we can. To be rigourous. To let nothing go. To question the logic of everything. Nick has another couple of goes. He does it 'better'. Of course he does it 'better'; he's thought about it more. We've thought about it more. We've all refined our thinking. We don't make him pretend. We give him a corner to look round. Once he's looked round that corner he knows for sure that 'Nan' isn't in the house. Everything else in the 'house' is real. The 25 pairs of shoes on the floor. The whiteboard. The noise of the air conditioning. All except - for the moment - the 24 people sitting at the far end of the room watching.

Another student has a go. He's given a slightly different story. His Nan is NEVER out of her front room. am invalid, maybe. He visits her every day etc. We watch the results. Having 'seen' that Nan isn't there he walks away four or five paces - but then stops, does a double-take and walks back. Looks, then walks away again. Stops. Looks puzzled - then goes quite quickly to the door opens it, stands outside in the 'street' and looks up and down the street - closes the door quite briskly and then goes off. Very interesting. Lots of detail. Lots to talk about.

Tom has a go. He walks in eating a bag of crisps. He takes off his shoes. He walks into the space. He looks at the wall high up on both sides and then at the wall behind the audience and suddenly realises something is amiss. He calls out Hello to someone offstage and runs towards where he's called.

We don't understand the story. We ask him to explain. He says that he's coming into a dance studio (that's why he took off his shoes). That there are pictures on the wall. And that one of them has been stolen. We're still not convinced. We ask whether he's been in this studio before. We ask him how he knew a picture had been stolen. We asked him whether the pictures were valuable. We asked him why there would be valuable pictures hanging in a Dance Studio.

His 'story' didn't add up. We now try to help him with it. We try to get his story right. Like a criminal would. He did it again. With the new 'story'. It was much much better. Not a question of good acting or not. Just truer.

We stop to reflect on what we're doing here. What is apparent is:

A. From one word of text we have huge possibilities.
B. That from that one word of text, stories can arise. Stories that start, continue and end.
C. That as well as the text there can be actions surrounding the text. That the text might, in terms of time and space be a tiny element of that story.

We do the same, in pairs with the dialogue text:

A: Hello
B: Hello

The Students are beginning to get the hang of things really well now and we get some really good results.

After the break, we do the text:

A: Hello
B: Hello
A: What are you doing here?
B: It's none of your business
A: Yes it is.
B: No, it isn't
A: Yes it is.
B: No, it isn't.
A: Oh, that's all right then.

Excellent results. Every single group once made aware of the need for some action to occur between the last two lines find one - and once again the resulting pieces are imaginative but truthful, detailed and watchable.

For Home Work they are each given a copy of the one-page play 'Count'. They are to study it. Make notes on it and then, before the next class compare notes with a fellow student and bring the results to the next class.