Today was my first opportunity to observe a full Factory session and I spent time observing three different groups each made up of a writer and two actors. Looking around I could see a mix of writers – some had worked with the Factory before this project, some had not and some were actors turned writers taking advantage of the Factory format.

The first group were receiving a text that was new to the sessions and the actors were cast on the basis of speak first, speak second with no additional information. After a first read through the writer immediately reversed the casting and the actors read through again. Patterns and similarities began to emerge in the playing of both parts as well as the inevitable contrast of an immediate recasting. The next exercise was the most revealing so far. The writer asked the actors to put their scripts down and play the scene – not as a memory test but to see what “stuck”. The sense, order, dynamics, key moments and phrases were all retained and the scene bore a remarkable similarity to the one just played. I was surprised to see how much of the scene remained and yet the exercise created a distillation of the action. No conversation about the characters’ background or motivation had taken place but through these three exercises huge amounts had been revealed. As the rehearsal developed I noted that the writer was driving the rehearsal and drawing her own observations without need for discussion. The actors were focused on her instructions, serving the text or the exercise.

The actors in the second group had been playing it as a duologue but discussions about the direction, rhythm and argument of the piece lead to experiment with the piece as monologue. This enabled the writer to explore how the text adapted to being played as a conversation between two people, a monologue delivered from one protagonist to another, a monologue contained within voices of internal conflict and a monologue delivered out to the audience. Observing this process I noticed how these shifts helped highlight the rhythm and movement of the scene and the key turning points in the tone and argument of the scene.

The third group took a hands on approach with the writer instructing the actors to improvise a scene ending using songs. The writer had brought a scene that she knew she wanted to end with a duet but wanted the outcome of the scene to be able to differ from performance to performance. The writer drew on the rehearsal reading and improvisation to make rewrites during the session. The shape of the scene and its direction were explored in sharp relief by playing with its destination.

What each process shared was a focus that allowed the writer to use the actors to really zone in on what they wanted. There was very little extraneous chat but a great deal being revealed through practical exploration. I could see actors finding the text through performance and writers drawing on their practical discoveries to make decisions. The conditions were positive and all the participants appeared to be on the same side so there was no conflict arising over meaning of the plays or the intent of the dramatist. The writers worked in quite different ways but each had power over what direction the rehearsal took. I’m very keen to see what impact the sessions might have on rewriting and look forward to finding out what choices writers have made about developing their work as a consequence of their work with actors.

Neil Grutchfield
Literary Manager
Hampstead Theatre