"I'd like to have an argument, please." - Monty Python

We started with what Alex announced was Section 15, pg 17-21, Gandhi's entrance.

We were asked, despite the fact that this is section 15, to play with no previous circumstances and continue with the idea that we know nothing.

Alex pointed out that the opening exchange

Gandhi: ****.
Mark: Listen, I'm sorry about this.

is already an argument. Over participation possibly. Over responsibility. Everything is either arugmentative or competitive. We decided today to explore the idea that 'You play chess until you box.'


We looked at what happens if Gandhi literally means 'can you **** please' with his repeated '****, ****, ****, ****, ****, ****.' Let's not take anything for granted.

We explored not 'acting' the two way mirrors, raising our voice to speak through them or acting being unable to see for example. In the moment of our speech to the mirror we must believe in our chance for success, we must believe there is someone there that will answer us and help us if we request/please/threaten/cajole or whatever in the right way. We may the next minute think they aren't there, but when we ask we think they are. Otherwise why would we bother ask?

We got to sam 'bum rape' a lot. Which was nice.

Script Changes

PG 18 Half way down, change Mark's "Why would they?" to "Why would they want to watch this?"
PG 19 About five lines from the bottom change Mark's "Listen, I'm sorry. I've said I'm sorry." to "I'm sorry. Ok? I'm sorry."

Next section, pg 16-17, where the Sergeant and the PC bring in Gandhi

AH - "The battle with playing the policeman is not to be policeman-y, or Sweeny-ish."

We continued looking at how each line is developing the argument from the previous line. As Monty Python taught us 'an arugment isn't just contradiction' and yet, at some level, if you are arguing with someone aren't you always providing a contradictory position?! Homework was set - go through the scripts and make a note of where each argument starts and ends, also what it is about. This is not to pre-decide. In performance you may feel like you are arguing over a far bigger point than the one you had previously considered, or that your scene partner is making an argument run past the point at which you thought it ended. This is all good. But as an independent exercise go through the script and find the argument, make a note of what it is about, and where you feel it ends.

AH 'Try as much as you can to take the pan off the boil at the end of each argument.'

Jethro questioned the three targets we have to play with - the other people in the scene; the audience/police outside; and, possibly, our own personal God. I'm intrigued by this concept, the implications of which we may begin to explore later in the process. But for now I think we are making sure we are engaging with the other two targets as fully as possible.

Script Change

PG 17 Just under half way down, change Mark's 'You haven't got a charge' to 'You haven't got a charge, Serg.'

PG 23-25, where Gandhi hear's the drill and Mark discoveres his 'real' identity.

A great first run at the opening section of this scene or, as I now like saying, "That was tighter than a boiled frog's snatch."

What are the arguments here? They are perhaps over who knows most? Who has the answers?

Jethro asked about the 'I don't knows' here. How are they part of an argument if you are in fact conceeding you have no information. Yet Colin pointed out that even when you say 'I don't know' you are always doing something to the other person, or trying to get them to do something and this action itself is part of the argument.

AH 'Make everything an argument about how to make the other person conform to your view of the world.'

Most, apart from the deviant Hurley, agreed with Alex that this was 'very exciting.' Colin felt it was 'very interesting' not not exactly 'exciting.' Any further thoughts or clarification Colin? I think I know what you mean, or at least I know what I took you to mean. I think this is just a necessary stage but perhaps it connects with a later point. In continuing to explore the phrase 'you play chess until you box' we later decided that throwing in punches instead of a move, or making a movement instead of a punch, were important tactics to have too. It's not about a simple escalation. I think back to the early work we did on changing action on every line, not stitching them together or concerning ourselves with the narrative, so we had a huge and constant variety in our choices. It's important to remember but I think that is for later in the process. Finding the arugment as we are now is one thing, doing whatever we can to win it is another and I think really exploring how we can do that is an ongoing exploration that we have scarecely begun yet. Perhaps any missing excitement factor comes then. These are just musings but I post them up as this process is also supposed to be an exploration, and I think we have to maintain an interest in exploring these things but disucssing them in the rehearsal room is most probably pointless. Any thoughts anyone?

There is a stage direction in this section that implies Gandhi sits or moves next to a particular spot, so that the drill bit can fly out past him. How can we do this as a company, without resorting to 'staging?' We also decided here that the watchers in each rehearsal should take responsibility for now for any sound effects etc that are supposed to happen, as in some way we will eventually in performance. I'd like there to be a real creativity here too, and an interplay between the action on stage and the effects. So we eventually can play with louder and quieter drilling, longer and shorting screaming and how that effects and people on stage etc. So much better than having one stock drill sound on tape surely.

IN the scene we continued to look at the arguements, Mark and Gandhi arguing over the costume for example. Why is he wearing one/because you told me/but it doesn't make sense/it does. Stripping away the acting, not showing disbelief, confusion, stuttering, these things or the inference of these things will be created by the audience anyway as they analyse each of our actions - instead using each line to do something to the other.person. Not pretending to think how to outfox someone, but trying to actually outfox them/surprise them/scare them/reassure them into defeat etc.

The 'But - / What? / Nothing. / Go?' section.There is an argument here about who gets to own the conversation.

PG 39-41 The Sentences

Try to end the play with every line.

We explored staging, first by having people stood in the corners and not in a line. Then by making the whole group responsible for making sure they could be seen. This was done largely by characters choosing to look at the police, or not, or one and not the other. There was a great game being played here, as each choice made for a staging reason was taken as part of the scene and each choice taken as part of the scene helped the staging. I prefer this so think I'll leave the challenge in for now, but what a top group of actors to change the text on your feet inresponse to the different layout. Maybe I'll just let the policeman inprovise any arrangement he desires.

As we played the scene Alex gave each character secret points of concentration to explore. These aren't, I'm sure, definitive interpretations just an exploration of one of the options. They were:

Gandhi: Not sure whether this is a mistake or not, working it out
Sergeant: Economy - wanting to leave as soon as possible
Mark: The moment the police leave this cell I am dead
Policeman: Any of these people at any time could be a killer so be careful, although I think I am well trained enough to cope
Tom: I know this is a mere formality, so long as I don't step out of line I'm safe.

SCRIPT CHANGES
pg 39 Seargent's speech at the bottom of the page change to "For a number of years we have removed (cut been removing) trial by jury in cases deemed (cut either) too serious or too trivial to be judged by the general public. We prefer to get judges... (cut When possible.)

pg 39 Last line Tom change to "We really don't care about justice."


pg 40 Five lines up add in to Tom's line "They're not. You're fu*ked mate."

pg 41 Change the Policeman's 'Obviously' in his speech about the different ways of executing someone to 'as you well know.' So it reads "Well, Jesus, there's a number of ways. Crucifixion, as you well know, hanging..."

Last section for today, pg 33-36 where Mark and Tom discuss protests and the festival of Moloch

AH - Explore the idea of having a competition about Moloch at least until it is no longer a competition and something else happens

Relationships in this play are never set, they will hopefully vary massively from night to night, and from moment to moment. They need constant re-evlauation, and there is always hope that they will go well. Try to take the pan off the boil. Appeal to the other person's better nature. Change tack. Win the argument and make them conform to your view of the world.

As an added point of concentration think of the 'jury' of people watching you, the police/audience who may or may not be monitoring the cell.

Script Change

pg 34 Half way down change Tom's line that starts 'We have a duty' to "We have a duty, to our parents and our kids, to protect a way of life. It isn't pretty. You don't get it done by playing games. Look at this carnival - "

PS - Just saved this and realised you can't swear on this site. I never knew that. What a complete and utter load of &*%^, ****, *&^%$&, £*&*O$%%!