Monday, October 17, 2005
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
