Sign in or 
Share this
Round 1 - January 12th 2009
Basically – for those of you who couldn’t make it – it was more of the same.
BUT, don’t stop reading – that "more of the same" - that’s the Big Discipline! The Task! As we heard last week (Bloomer): it’s SO KEY not to skip steps in this process and that sometimes means – painfully - LOTS of the “same old” until we reach a point of real connection to the text.
So : THERE ARE NO SHORTCUTS.
As a slut-rent-a-writer I can say this next bit: we’re not messing with Shakespeare here, in whom we can have great confidence because we have all been taught to have great confidence in him. We are here to build up our confidence with this stuff. We shouldn’t think it’s easy or that in these pieces “what you see is what you get” – we need to work hard to suck out every un-obvious level and possibility in these little things and make absolutely no assumptions. They may be robust – they may be fragile – that’s what we’re working to find out.
Last week: (Bloomer again) made the point that the piece he had been working on seemed quite arch/clever but revealed much more when he was made to slow down and work on it a thought at a time.
So first we read the pieces through (some writers were present) using the Meisner-based technique we worked with last week. Repeating back lines until they reached some indefinable sense of satisfaction and then moving on to the next thought. There was some cheating identified – the aim was to neither say your own line nor respond to your partner’s line with any intellectual logic or attachment I suppose. It was agreed that it worked best when neither the speaker nor responder were “controlling” the flow of lines or how they moved from one to the next.
It was also agreed there is a kind of pain barrier to get through sometimes when all you want to do really is give up on a certain thought and get on with it – but it can be revealing to dare to stick beyond natural endurance.
We then read the scene through “normally”. For some this was a relief – for some a jolt. Take your pick.
After a break, we stood up one scene in the circle and read it through once normally. Once with actions being fed to the actors before each thought, by others in the circle. Next, being fed actions at the request of the actor. Next, being fed TWO actions for each thought – the actor needing to make a choice immediately between the two. Finally, shouting them out en masse.
Amongst this - some talk about what an action is: a transitive verb; something that will affect, or seek to affect the other person. The actions that worked best were broad and physical: to punch; to tickle; to stroke etc which the actors felt could be acted on more instinctively, with less judgement than: seduce; implore; impress etc.
Finally there was chat about bringing these two apparently contradictory exercises together. That we should seek to achieve change in our acting partners, while receiving their responses and channelling those into positive actions without feeling constrained by Logic (Predictable Sensibleness) or striving for Verisimilitude (Common Realness).
And that’s the fastest blog I ever wrote!
Federay x
TimEvans |
Latest page update: made by TimEvans
, Feb 6 2009, 7:20 PM EST
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by TimEvans
1 word added 1 word deleted view changes - complete history) |
|
Keyword tags:
None
More Info: links to this page
|
| Started By | Thread Subject | Replies | Last Post | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CatherineBailey | marvellous... | 0 | Jan 13 2009, 12:37 PM EST by CatherineBailey | ||
|
Thread started: Jan 13 2009, 12:37 PM EST
Watch
...blog Fed, as per usual. I attach to this blog a list of transitive verbs a stage manager gave us on the last play I did. She had put the list together after working with some bloke called Tim Carroll... xxx
|
||||
Showing 1 of 1 threads for this page
|
Transitive Verbs.doc (Word Document - 38k)
posted by CatherineBailey Jan 13 2009, 12:30 PM EST
Transitive Verbs
|
