Authors and Audiences

At the end of the third week at Central my focus switches to audiences (with a little thought towards authors). We had of course spent the week with Hannah working practically with the agitation of one performer and audience, dividing our time between discussion and practical exploration. This work came to a close on Thursday, with showings of the final pieces and also some laboratory work on the moment within Jamie, Sara and mine's piece with the blue gloves.

Hannah and Gemma set up the scene near to its original staging and asked for multiple audience members to play the '10' within the square of light. They also requested that one by one members of the remaining audience play with the idea of putting on the gloves and focussed our attention towards the potential of a simple gesture / action. There was some confusion with the exercise but it was a useful resource to develop the image.

I found that out of the three examples we saw, none of them simply played with the idea of putting the gloves on. Rather, there was a lot of playing with the potential of the gloves as an abstract object. This is not a comment on the merit or artistic worth of the individuals playing but rather an observation on how action in performance must be (according to I) rooted in the real, the real potential for play rather than the performer's impulse to extend or layer meaning.



The most successful moments were when the gloves were simply being put on and not in the extended action before this. There are of course multiple ways to put on and wear gloves but I feel that if this action can be rooted in the now, the potential will be unlocked. I was asked to revisit the image at the end of the session and somehow some of the interest for me had been lost. I found myself performing putting on the gloves even despite the direction to JUST put on the gloves. This is something I would like to explore further, the relationship between play / performed action and what is 'real'.

***************
The Author
Tim Crouch
Royal Court, Upstairs (Saturday 24th October 2009)

Tim Crouch's latest play at the Court was an interesting context within which to place the work of the past week with Hannah. I had heard much of the play from both Hannah and Duncan from our discussions in Wrighting / Writing and to see it made for an interesting time at the theatre.

As I entered the theatre, I was faced with two blocks of seating, raked and facing each other with enough but not a lot of space between (certainly not a 'stage' space at least). There was much conversation and the audience would at first remain pretty focussed on their partners / friends or merely read the newspaper whilst awaiting the play to start. What a fantastic opportunity to watch others though, how great to be forced to stare straight ahead at any number of faces that may or may not be looking back.

I was then aware of a conversation behind me all of a sudden, at first nothing too odd but something in the delivery, the speech of the man behind, there was a performance occuring and so I began to listen. Soon the hush of the audience signalled the start of the play and the man behind us (Adrian) addressed us - however we were to learn he was one of us, one of the collective audience, here to watch the show, in this special and exciting theatre. He went on to speak with certain members of the assembled, a woman named Bern was told she was gorgeous and another, Juan, also told he was gorgeous got the full attention of the rest of 'us'.

Then a woman gathered her bags, left and was helped by an usher as she clearly did not want to partake (I later learnt this was scripted, which although ensured it made a point, felt rather too theatrical). From here on in we were treated to 4 separate voices, that of the author himself, two actors in his previous play and our by now good friend Adrian who saw the play. Between them they moved through describing their lives, their process and this play that in many ways was haunting them all.

To go on and describe the play itself would not be too interesting but speaking in the bar afterwards I had the chance to really appraise what I thought the play was trying to achieve, what the author's intentions were and to what effect. I noticed that for the first 10 minutes I was actually on edge, uncomfortable, 'would I be spoken to' / 'what if my voice cracks or I whisper a response'...numerous thoughts and fears about having to be active and yet despite my awareness of theatre, my previous performance and willing agreement to be here I could not stop my hands from being slightly clammy and having a slight pang of nerves. This was exceptional, what a great reaction to have, how wonderful for theatre to have such an effect.

However, this passed and the longer I sat in my seat, the more I noticed the theatreness of the thing I was watching. The monologues felt more and more scripted and the ask of the audience became less and less bold. There was a game being played but I did not feel the real invitation to break the rules which perhaps is what the author wanted. Reading the script it is apparent that there is lots of room in the text for audience involvement but to my memory a lot of this is not evident in performance (perhaps speaking with Tim about his intentions and how the performance has evolved over its run would be useful).

So what then is the play 'about'? At first I thought it was perhaps an experiment in activating audiences, commanding their involvement in order to sustain the performance. However, I never lost faith that the performers were moving away from a text, the theatrical was very apparent and although the technique of the author performing the author was innovative, (and did blur the boundaries between truth and fiction) even this effect for me had waned by the end of the performance. Perhaps then it was about the author reconciling a guilt for writing and then inflicting this upon others, certainly the 'characters' had been moved to violence, anger and perhaps even worse, distanced from the real world they were representing. This was in the piece yes, but once you lost the sense that they were really here, talking about a real play (which they were not) even this effect was lessened.

I am still trying to formulate what it was about wholly but I think the experiment was one of great interest to me. I would have liked to have seen the script as it is printed tested further (or perhaps it was and it wasn't working?) especially interesting is the invitation in the text at the end from Adrian to talk about what just happened - this did not come, instead he simply left. Without giving away the drama of Tim's final speech it would have been nice to get reactions from the audience, thoughts and impressions.

The ask for me as an audience member was powerful at the beginning but as soon as I knew the rules of the performance I could relax, the writing did draw me in but there was still something too theatrical in the experiment for it to really take hold and remove the stage from between the audience blocks, instead the stage was carved up and dropped seemingly randomly amongst us.

What I take away and am constantly thinking of now is how nice it was to have the pressure removed from a single point of focus. It felt totally acceptable to simply sit and listen to Adrian, sat directly behind me, whilst Tim and Esther got more of my attention and especially with Esther direct eye contact.

An interesting afternoon of theatrical experiment but perhaps not close enough to activating an audience as sitting here now with a coffee on a Monday morning I have lots of questions and am not sure whether 'the author' was as exposed as he appeared within the play of the same name.

A Dinner Conversation

One Performer and Audience

Continuing our group work with Hannah Ringham saw the presentation of 7 unique yet equally fascinating and sophisticated performance events. Starting with the brief to make a piece of work of 3-5mins in groups of 3, which used a single performer, minimal text and was in the here and now of the Webber Douglas studio felt restrictive and yet today has proven just how much play can be found.

Jamie, Sara and I spent an afternoon in discussion yesterday, working through an idea to split and comment upon passive and active behaviours. Conceptually our performance event focussed upon the audience and its authorship of narrative but centrally the work sought to expose an audience to a humiliating event / act of torture or invasion in order to test boundaries.

The work itself as presented seemed to succeed in communicating a tension, where both audience groups (Active and Passive respectively) were unable or unwilling to intervene when the performer asked Arezou to "Suck my finger". In a group discussion, certain observations were made:

• Narrative - Examination / torture / prison / treated like animals / power play (structures)
• The theatricality of the event perhaps fluctuated and removed some tension
• The passive audience were rewarded but forced to observe the act of degredation.
• There was an unease in the air and the waiting 9 were concerned as to what was their fate.
• John felt part of the narrative and forgot the active role he had signed up for.
  

It became clear that the work did communicate its intentional narrative and also kept its concept / idea true to our own impulses as discussed yesterday. It was also noted that with a "strange" audience not crafted from peers there could have been a further direction to push the work. It seems that we will be advancing or at least evolving the performance tomorrow and Friday which is already an intriguing opportunity.

As a site specific practitioner I have spent considerable time questioning the role of the audience and have worked on numerous methodologies to move an audience through a work. However, what was fascinating today was the obvious difference between works that were only subtly responding to the same brief. Watching or participating in 6 works that were all unique was exciting and as a director I can already see certain methods that are strong and those that offer potential.

I look forward to seeing the remaining 5 and working with Hannah for the rest of the week to really push these ideas of one performer and audience.

1 Performer And Their Audience

This afternoon saw us begin to work with Hannah Ringham who is hosting a week long workshop on the relationship between performer (singular) and audience. The session was especially interesting with its mix of discussion and practical exploration and Hannah has introduced us all to her ideas of concept/idea and narrative confidently.

Hannah's work with the Shunt collective of artists, performance makers and practitioners is of special interest to me as I have always enjoyed the events hosted in the vaults. Especially interesting will be the work we complete on the 'real world' or the real situation (to paraphrase Tim Crouch) in the studio and how this real world determines the performer and audience relationship.

I am finding the combination of Duncan's morning sessions (Wrighting/Writing) and Hannah's afternoons especially useful as I work on a new draft of a site based project I facilitated in March this year. There is perhaps an opportunity to explore Hannah's thesis as a performer this week which I do not mind and am perhaps able under the direction of Jamie and Sara (should we decide to pursue that route) to develop directorial practice somewhat removed from actually directing.

There was a discussion towards the end of the day about documentation and the taking of photographs, which I do not find to be a problem personally. However, it is perhaps necessary to voice these concerns and make sure we are reaching towards the common dialogue so necessary (vital in fact) for effective collaboration.

I also had an interesting discussion with Steve about Caryl Churchill and it is interesting to hear her work challenged, which has made me realise that this course is so incredibly exciting. Being able to pick up on ideas and attitudes that are contrary or in opposition to my own will only confirm and strengthen my ability to form opinions on work.

Talking Theatre

I sat in on a conversation with Richard Eyre held at the V&A on Friday evening. Eyre was discussing his current book, Talking Theatre: Interviews with Theatre People and began to give a sense of his belief in British theatre of the past 50 or so years. The discussion, yes, was in aid of promoting a book that very specifically handles a specific type of theatre making, largely theatre building based, text orientated, Western theatre performance with conventional structures in place and emphasis on traditional writer, director, performer relationships. However, several ideas emerged that distilled what has been an interesting start to a year of development at Central.

Eyre discussed "Theatreness" and listed six components that work together to keep theatre unique, (these are: time, space, light, speech, movement and storytelling (perhaps adding sound to this list in light of the past week's work would be useful). I understood there to be a great amount of passion for the uniqueness of theatre and especially in Eyre's belief that in a culture of multiple screens, pulling us in further to a more specific position the theatre can thrive as it instantly opens up and out human experience.

Such a belief is of course purposefully optimistic but does I believe hold firm as reasoning for the current theatrical landscape and its engagement with new audiences whilst sustaining those that already exist. The "Theatreness" of theatre is its largest asset and one that we have all begun a process of exploration of at Central. However, I did find the discussion a useful comparison to a lot of talk throughout this week on the roles we are all playing within the group and essentially how we can manage development as individual artist/practitioners whilst existing in a collaborative ensemble supporting each other.

At this stage and upon reflection I am willing to presume, or to predict or even hope that as time progresses such feelings will themselves change and most likely questions now all have answers but these will come somewhat organically. The potential is huge within this group to make exciting, provocative work (as has already been demonstrated with small showings of scenes inspired by Maeterlinck's L'Intruse). This potential is what continues to excite me and so long as I can craft a pathway that challenges and develops my previous experience, all the while facilitating my contribution to the ensemble I am hopeful that the work created will itself be fascinating.

To summarise some of the emerging questions at this stage and to save my over description of ideas, thoughts and musings that are under developed I will merely list the jotted questions I have written in a notebook, whilst waiting for Eyre to start his talk.

• What is my personal perspective, my socio-political and cultural loci? What are my experiences and where are these impacting the work I hope to action?
• What is a director and how useful is this as a term - does it problematize working in ensembles and is what we understand as a director a role that works in theatre now, should he(she) be evolving to accommodate collaborative practice?
• How can the directors (on the course) integrate and operate so that there is a pushing of own work / development of practice and opportunity to "direct" or collaborate without alienating themselves or leading groups that may be resistant to "mono"leadership?
• What work am I unable to make, where are my boundaries and what could I never direct?
• What are my strengths, what are my weaknesses?

Obstructions (a response to Lars Von Trier)

50 Words in Response to Lars Von Trier's Film The Five Obstructions

To work under duress or perceived duress by having obstructions dictate creativity is exciting. I hope to achieve such work as this where collaborative methods aid my rethinking, reconstructing and reshaping the observer and observed. To expose oneself is to create, to frame such exposure through rules let's creativity flourish.

The Quality of Silence

Spending two days working on both what is silence and how it is created has resulted in a renewed interest in the quality and potential of sound in performance. Just opening up what could be overlooked as a simple task, has resulted in varied perspectives and multiple viewpoints coming out of those in the workshop. Today's work evolved from a practical exploration of Maeterlinck's L'Intruse (The Intruder), with a collective attempt to stage the necessary and numerous silences, into a discussion about the qualities of hearing and the complications of performing silence.

Ross Brown, leading the workshop carefully developed the points made to widen the scope of today's session and has left me now with many ideas on my own approach to the text and previous engagement with sound in my work.

I have worked previously with an electroacoustic composer and developed work with scores that accompany the text (The Yellow Wallpaper, Manchester Museum, 2008), bringing life to the performance in a dynamic way. This sound was very much a living element, mixed live from pre recorded elements, voice recordings and following a theme or tone established through workshops and rehearsals. Similarly, I worked with the same composer to develop a final score to a scene staged in an abandoned gymnasium (A Question of Everything, Site Specific, 2009). This second piece was composed and arranged and then provided for playback (and can be heard here http://www.robdrummer.com/www.robdrummer.com/Sounds.html). The two were very different and yet inspired and interacted with both performances in as much a way as the live bodies in space or dramaturgical ideas provided through workshop and rehearsal.

I have also used numerous work by Steve Reich and Philip Glass in rehearsal and consider them large influences on my sonic creativity. Both composers create work that seems to fit with my understanding of the making of sound and more than anything perhaps are pleasing to my ear. This sense of hearing came up a lot today and seemed to develop as the argument moved towards the place of sound or its role as determined by those who manipulate it. Here is where I wish to pick up, the manipulation of sound, for is it not, in performance, a manipulation of a "thing" we are immersed in at every waking (and sleeping) moment?

The sound designer or composer must effectively translate the world of the performance event and work either to embed sound in this world or use it as character that inhabits it. This dichotomy is fascinating and reflects the evolution of theatre sound. I think I am a believer in sound that is characterful, sound that does not just underscore but works at the very least, alongside live action. To immerse the audience or spectator in a world that plays to all senses is an exciting challenge and as we discovered today there are numerous personal choices and beliefs as to how this should be achieved. Working with sound that is mixed live facilitates a performance that on more levels is fluid, organic and breathing with each evolution, with each new audience.

I believe that the oppositions amongst the workshop group today were broadly falling into two categories in relation to silence - one advocated the exclusion of created sound and presented silence as heard by both audience and characters within the performance but taken from the REAL ENVIRONMENT and not manipulated or designed. Maghsood offered an interesting interpretation of Maeterlinck's text that developed perhaps the outmoded symbolism in favour for a contemporary performance that utilised torchlight and the absence of sound to represent the inner world of The Grandfather and went on to suggest that creating silence with ticking clocks was not perhaps necessary nor useful for a "modern" audience all to aware of a cliche. Conversely, Jamie and others discussed the potential for extending the soundscape and defining more clearly the opening moments of the extract to differentiate between the created silence (the clock) and further moments (a chime) to signify the beginning of the scene for an audience. Ideas were offered where the sound was introduced earlier or later and developed to include environmental/elemental sounds in order to promote the design of the silence further.

How much should sound be used and to what effect is, it seems more than a stylistic decision and can fundamentally impact upon an audience's reading of the performance text. Simply testing the two different ways of creating silence at the beginning of the extract proved to ignite debate amongst the group. I do believe that our first attempt, with an audience entering to pre established action and sound (silence as crafted through a ticking clock) was effective and could prove fruitful in those moments when the silences are performed, as the audience will be reminded of their own role at the play's opening.

I look forward to hearing the many presentations of Shakespeare not in the English language at tomorrow's workshop.