6th May 2009

Good Morning, Afternoon or Evening which ever time is appropriate for the time you are reading this.

We started last week's session with NO name games. mmmm.......

Recap of last week's session. The game in which you say "Yes" or "No you don't understand" before the line. To help us become synchronised in each others way of working. To listen to how the other Toms, Marks, Policemen or Gandhii -Did we agree on Gandhii as the plural or Gandis?- have said the line and try to come in with a solution (to the problem of the scene).

This session we started at the beginning of the play.

Alex: Now I'd like you to try "I know what to do" before the line. Feeder feeds the line, person speaking says "I know what to do" then says the line. Use the " I know what to do" to help say the line, it's like AND!

Making sure you listen and are aware of how the person opposite you delivered the line. Only then does the feeder give the line, so you are hyper aware of one another. Which in turn will inform you then, how you feel you'd like to say the line.

Alex: Good good, now I'd like you to try "I can help now". Don't worry about being soft, you have a idea that is helping the situation. It's what you want out of this situation. The Unit is isolated and you don't need to join. If you were to join it would sound bizarre that's okay and right for now.

Tea break...

We then tried something that was quite bizarre and difficult for me to get my head round but I soon started to see the benefits. (I need to talk to someone about this exercise before i can write it down here)

I hope so far that this is helpful.

Gurpreet Swing x

...cont...(Steve B)

We then went on with an exercise that seemed to take ages for us to get our heads around. Basically every line was prefaced with 'Because you're too _______....' or 'Because you're not ________enough....' So therefore we were working to pick people up on what (often negative) impression they were giving off, and then using the line to change them. We also added in names, lots and lots of them, in order to hit home more. E.g.

Stef - "Because you're not clear enough, Martin....Does everything I say Martin have to be either clever or funny? Martin"

Martin - "Stef, Because you're too smart arse, Stef... I'd prefer it if everything you said was true. Stef."

[A] challenging [B] -the individual they are talking to- with an observation about [B's] last statement and using [B's] name as much as they feel necessary to really target that person and speak to them on a personal level. Some really connected work came out of this - honest, truthful and stripped back to a beautiful simplicity. It didn't, however, stop people's choices being brave and extreme, the work was risky, specifically targeted and extremely varied.

This exercise evolved -as more than one person was saying the lines in turn- so that eventually (when we were on it) we were answering the person who addressed us, but talking to a different person in the next line.(In the following example Glyn and Martin were both reading the Police Officer and swapping places at every exchange and Stef and Alex were both reading Mark and doing the same) E.g.

Stef - "Because you're not clear enough, Glyn....Does everything I say have to be either clever or funny? Martin"

Martin - "Because you're too smart arse, Stef... I'd prefer it if everything you said was true. Alex."

(The bold bits are the printed text, the other stuff what was actually said.)

Hassell pointed out the beautiful hope behind this exercise, each line is addressed to the better nature of the other character, here literally split into different people. So in that example Martin may not be getting anywhere with Stef, but he can choose to appeal instead to the far more rational Alex. We have ever renewing hope in the other person's good nature. This continued the idea of playing a positive solution to the situation, rather than playing an attitude of sardonic, mean, patronising etc. Of course as a result of the clash of ideologies each character's idea of 'a positive solution' is radically different, therefore they invariably ended up coming across as mean or patronising, but that was never the conscious intention. And always the better nature of that person could be appealed to straight after with the hope of a better outcome next time.

Clear as mud, I don't know what you found so confusing Gurp!

PS - I (Steve B) also had the privilege of being able to do some on the spot writing in this session, feeding lines into peoples ears as the scene happened to try out a new bit, something not really possible with any other way of working and really exciting and useful for me. Which was nice.