The Factory - Recently Updated Pages

AGM MINUTES

TimCarroll — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 19:47:43 CST

Factory Theatre AGM 10/12/09

Chairperson: Liam Evans Ford and Alex Hassell
Minutes: Fran Rafferty

Liam Evans Ford [LEF]: Welcome to the 1st formal Factory Theatre AGM – formal meetings have been held before but for more specific reasons such as HAMLET. This is the first AGM for all Factory Theatre Members.
Things have moved on and this is an opportunity to discuss what has gone before, ideas for the future and member’s ideas.
The agenda being used to shape the meeting has been developed from the questionnaire sent out with the AGM invite.
A key objective is for all forms of communication to be improved. Recently an additional Woman’s Meeting was held to give a forum to issues raised regarding gender equality within the company.
LEF welcomes the company to approach in person or email questions after the meeting.
In addition to the answers provided through the questionnaire sent to members the agenda also contains items to be communicated as a priority. It isn’t the intention to discuss items verbatim but instead to open the discussion to a wider floor.

Simon Muller [SM]: Short Housekeeping notice to SEAGULL company members. The showing on the 13th December has been postponed until further notice due to low ticket sales. The reason issued public: Due to cast illness.

Organisation & Transparency
Opening the floor under the subject of ‘The Decision Making Process’.

Federay Holmes [FH]: Casting?
Alex Hassell [AH]: In the beginning there was no central idea as to how to make these decisions. The process is not perfect and continues to be a work in progress. This far it has been the director’s final decision. Using Tim Carroll [TC] as an example, TC is often very busy and therefore decisions have to be made but they are always done so in consultation. Admittedly it has been slightly footloose with the aim of what TC wants at the centre.
Moving forward the number of part currently played by each squad member in projects such as HAMLET will be narrowed down so that weight of work load is distributed in a more manageable way. TC as director will cast the roles as much as possible, including which parts can be played cross-gender.
FH: Is it expected that an actor should put one’s self forward or wait to be approached?
Tim Evans [TE]: Presently the approach to casting has varied, for HAMLET, company members have stepped forward, SEAGULL was slightly more traditional in the casting and the new writing projects were perhaps most conventional in the casting choices.
Tristan Beint [TB]: A question in qualifying which parts a woman can and cannot play, who makes this decision?
AH: Clarifying that casting decisions are ultimately made by the director, it is TC’s decision because it his project.
SM: The important thing is that the reasons are clear. This is the important thing about tonight that we open up the discussion. Following the open discussion then putting the outcome in writing for all to read, avoiding hear’say.
AH: In the beginning of the Factory these processes were just being figured out but it is easy to forget that the company has expanded and not everybody who is now an active member would have been around for those early stages. This is why the company is now in the process of writing a large reference document, a non-binding contract giving clarity to decision making.
LEF: Casting and session membership has become a big issue this year. When the Factory was first setup it was a much smaller thing, it is now much bigger and needs to reflect that growth by setting up terms of engagement for all members. It is not practical to operate as a total democracy, decisions would never get made – there is great awareness of maintaining an open and approachable leadership to the company. We [LEF, AH & TE] had also felt like we were approachable but this doesn’t seem to have been the case in recent times.
FH: It sounds a little like you [LEF, AH & TE] beating yourselves up but we understand this is more about the stage we [the company] are at.
LEF: Not beating ourselves up -
AH: We are taking on a level of acknowledgement.

Jo Croll [JC]: A Question regarding remuneration – What work can be paid for and can’t be paid for? Is there a committee that can access the ‘books’ and can we have transparency in the finances? I don't mind working for free on a weekly basis and I know for ‘away games’ we are often paid –
LEF: The Factory has been set up as a Limited Company, limited by guarantee. What we need to be is a Charitable Trust. To do this we need to establish a board. The board then ensure that we are delivering on our objectives that in turn make us a Charitable Trust.

Some important financial milestones from the period of November 2007 to November 2008;The Factory Theatre has an approximate turn over of 30k.
From this the following areas of cost were administered to
Insurance
Venue hire £250 per showing upwards
Rent
Marketing
Merchandise
Rehearsal Space
Stationery
In addition half wages are paid to AH, TE & LEF which amounts to approx. £125.00 a week for in excess of 40 hours work.
Without the ticket charge the Factory could not continue to run.
The financial variables have differed depending on the company that brings us in i.e. The Globe, York, Hampstead or Bristol Old Vic and again depending on these variables there have been different instances of remuneration to company members.

Funding hasn’t been an easy resource because we don’t fit easily into any Arts Council of England [ACE] boxes.

SM: There are so many hoops that a company now has to jump through to secure funding, it is no longer about being successful.
TE: We have been able to achieve success because we have not operated in a traditional manner. However what we then discovered through long discussions with the ACE is that we suffer at the hands of a double edged sword; we are a success in a non-traditional manner which means we cannot easily source funding and we are all tired and poor but wish to operate in a non-traditional way.
LEF: We have recently made an application to the Grants for the Arts for BOILING FROGS. This project fits in a category that HAMLET and SEAGULL cannot.
TE: We have been advised to start small and then go for core funding.
SM: While the ACE is not the only funding option the bigger picture is the journey from project based funding to core funding.
A comment is made regarding the thought that once funding is secured then you almost certainly receive more funding – this point is clarified by explaining that this was the ACE’s advise.
Nirjay Mahindru [NM}: Commenting on the strategy being considered – when is it strategically wise to apply for core funding.
AH asks NM for further advise on this area following the meeting. NM agrees to advise.
Jethro Skinner [JS]: Why isn’t a company limited by guarantee an attractive proposition to funding bodies and how do we get to be a charitable trust?
LEF: As a charitable trust we would be overseen by a board of at least three people. As a limited company we are not ‘regulated’ and therefore less attractive to funding bodies. As a charitable trust with a board that are company supportive members yet have a responsibility to ensure that the objectives that are being funded are being achieved and therefore the funding body has an assurance. Within the board you would ideally have members who excel in specific areas i.e. funding.
FH: Returning to Jo’s question on the books –
AH: We certainly aim for total transparency.
LEF: Our accounts are at Companies House where they are logged each financial year.
Ben Lambert [BL]: Are you planning on changing HAMLET or SEAGULL to fit the ACE criteria?
SM: We have been trying to change how we word it’s description but the demands are so specific – they require exact start & finish dates, company size (non-variable)...
B: ...Not even if we did a tour?
SM: The funders follow up so carefully that breaking or deviating from any terms could lead to the money being taken back.
Alex Blake [AB]: Breaking with convention – extolling the virtues of poverty.
Nigel Hastings [NH]: The strength of the company is in the squad system, that is our unique selling point and something we must hold onto as our discipline. If we become too conventional we will drift away.
AB: Really agree with Nigel. Talking about the experience of working for little to no money and thriving on it until the job became properly paid, then it was just another job.
TB: The experience on BOILING FROGS would certainly carry on infinitum. Not sure that money would have altered that experience.
JS: Money could help when you have a wife and baby at home and you say you’re off to the Factory again and there is a negative reaction.
JC: The double edge sword again; our strength is in our freedom to come together and play.
Charlie Walker-Wise [CW]: One thing that strikes me is that as a limited company we cannot get funded. The element of being paid for something and it then becoming a job - Yes it is noble, what we do and I commend everyone for the work they undertake, however there is also something noble in seeking to be rewarded. We should continue to strive for extraordinary achievement beyond the already unique qualities of the Factory.
Madeline Hyland [MH]: What do we now compromise on in order to succeed? How do we fit the economic model? Fundamentally you are wanting more voices to be heard than in a normal model – new people need to understand this before committing.
AH: This will all be outlined in the terms of engagement. We could try harder for bigger money but the projects would be smaller and therefore less squad involvement. But this doesn’t seem to be what everyone wants.
TB: But aren’t we a business?
AH: We are but we are an Artistic Business.
FH: There is a balance; we shouldn’t be allergic to making money.
LEF: That is why we shouldn’t be aiming to make money for the sake of making money.
SM: It is a circular argument – the money isn’t there, we’re talking about finding money but not how to use it?!
JK: Worse case scenario would be if projects were formed without artistic concern.
AH: We are searching for the balance.
Alan Morrissey [AM]: How high up in the Factory’s priorities is that actors are paid?
LEF: We can’t answer that now but the aim would be that company members would be paid for the work they do.
AH: The Factory was designed so that people just got to act.
JS: A consideration is how we have aged, some of us have families now.

Management Processes

AH: Our document will address the aims in audience satisfaction; Do we ask “What play do you [actors] want to do?” or do we ask “What play do an audience want to see?”
What do we base our choices on?
TC: What are our reasons for doing a project? It is important not to define the work as satisfying an audience instead of bringing an experiment to an audience. Use of the people/company we have. Look at the great actors we have in the company and we should exploit the resource open to us. Not interested in placating an audience.

AH: The reason it has taken us 3 years to figure this out is a response to the nimbleness of the company. Theory needs to become reality.

Lucy Cudden[LC]: This was brought up in the Women’s meeting – will casting open up again and what is the process with bringing in new members?
AH: Addressing the two issues raised; Membership and Casting. In terms of casting we need to assess the current casting as there may already be 5 or 6 people playing a particular role and therefore would render it a decision to cast new people obsolete.
Onto membership, we are actively seeking to recruit older actors. We need to look at need and demand.
AM: I have a strange perception because I came into the company late. There is real sense of ‘us’ and ‘we’ but sometimes quite rightly LEF, AH and TE refer to the Factory as ‘ours’. To LEF, AH and TE how would you define the company?
AH: We have never really known. We want to actively encourage you to feel an ownership at the same time as being able to come to us and then essentially the decision is made by us.
FH: It is really helpful to know and understand who everyone is?
TE: In 2007 our company positions were as follows; Alex and Tim started as Artistic Directors and default Producers, Tim Carroll as Associate Director. Then towards the end of 2007 Liam came on board as Producer. As part as the Writers Studio from the end of 2008 Emma Stuart worked as New Writing Producer. In 2009 Federay has taken up this position.
Louis Sheeder is also an Associate Director. Sarah Bedi informally filled in as Company Manager. In 2009 Simon Muller is Company Manager with Lisa McClean assisting Liam as Assistant Producer. Bedi, Bailey and Alex lead Factory Futures and we are hoping to welcome back Tamara Harvey.
This will change and evolve. From mid 2010 TE will not be around. AH will be the sole Artistic Director. TE will be in a period of transition from 2009 to mid 2010.
L: Will this period of transition be a permanent one?
TE: From mid 2010 I won’t be around so after vast discussions it seems wise that AH should become sole Artistic Director/decision maker. LEF and AH will retain leadership.
TE will be taking a step back from administrative work in order to spend the transition period in undertaking more Artistic Directorship.
LEF: Following on from this period of change we hope that defining our roles will help us develop into a charitable trust.
We are understanding what the female company members are telling us. There is no one to follow – there is no one like the Factory so we are learning all the time.
AH: Recognition of the enormous amount of hard work that Tim has dedicated over the last 3 years.

Full company appreciation shown.

This motion is confirmed as Tim Evans resigning his position of Artistic Director from mid 2010 to explore new projects which TE speaks of with excitement but cannot give further details at this time.
The meeting is picked up at casting with TC being asked why some parts can be played by women and some not.
TC: The projects were never about gender bending casting. It is about the audience's ability to affect the action. In order to test that, it is important to limit the number of things that you change.
MH: Like the variables in an experiment?
TC: Exactly. In order to be able to see what changes you are causing in the variables, you have to keep everything else as consistent as possible.

Communications

AH: What does the website mean to the Factory and how we use that. Is there information dangerous to have on there or too sensitive?
A key question arising from the questionnaires was how to communicate with us and ensure we respond.
The idea is to have Associate Members whom we all trust and have trust from the company. These would be approachable figures and have the ear of the company. The Associates would be reflective of equality.
Resulting in fortnightly/monthly meetings with Associate Members who will act as a mouth piece for opinions.
FH: So there will be a board one side and associate members to other side. Are you ready for this answerability?
AH: This is journey to accountability.
FH: A responsible role.
AH: Absolutely and aiming for balance in representation.
JS: Do you feel like you are be coerced into being ‘fair’?
AH: We’re not saying it is going to be ‘fair’ but your great minds together will greatly benefit the company.
Ifan Meredith [IM]: makes reference to a ‘bubble’ and avoiding this.
LEF: It would take some of the burden off to get things right.
AH: In terms of ‘are we doing things begrudgingly?’ It works both ways, having the regular meetings with a broad representation of the company assists the channels of communication, giving air to debate.
CW: Making reference to Wednesday Parish notices. The growth of the company means that maintaining the autonomy will need growth and this is essentially what we are finding ways to do. Associate members may sound like school but it is the values not the model that will maintain the Factory’s core.

Resounding agreement from the company.

Moving back to the Website –
AH: Establishing what the member’s website is for and a ‘code of conduct’.
JS: I suspect that this stems from an argument on the website. I was very proud that is was out there.
Steve Bloomer [SB]: Would it have been so personal in a less public forum?
SM: Debate can be un-nuanced and nasty via this new medium [referencing a recent newspaper article on the subject]. Can only hope that the debate has a positive result but had the debate been opened up in person would it have been so nasty?
FH: There are strong opinions on the website and it is an amazing playground that we are, generationally, finding our way with. Agreeing with Jethro, it was great that we could have a **** fight so openly. So proud of the site, when you press ‘publish’ you make a decision and choose an action. It is the same on stage.
Liz Richardson [LR]: But also isolating if you don’t have constant access. It was four days before the news of a good friend leaving the company reached me.
SM: For the egalitarian tool that it appears to be it has the same freedom, as the company itself, to drop in – drop out.
Faye Thomas [FT]: Suggestion that it could be a matter of learning the abilities of the website, using notifications etc.
SM: Acknowledges how useful these can be.
IM: Queries whether debates can start as definitely as is being suggested?
FH: We are still discovering the way to use this medium.
AH: The key questions is; should we have been in the room together, openly rather than using the virtual lines of communication.
M: Is there a way opening up the debate in person?
FH: I don’t have the nights off to debate.
AH: The key thing is we don’t have time to read and monitor everything on the website.
LEF: The two can live together – website and face to face – The open lines of communication will make them work in partnership.

Show Up Keep

AH: The plan in the New Year, in consultation with TC, is to carry on with SEAGULL in terms of weekly rehearsal with the idea of Assistant Directors who would come out of the squads for the rehearsals and be responsible for looking after the show in TC’s absence.
TC: Not because I don’t give a ****, I’m out of the country.
AH: We toyed with the idea because the projects are constantly evolving and not rigidly blocked. Any essential or big changes still go through TC.
The other thing is more frequent rehearsals.
LEF: Playing rhythms – a lot of questions have arisen regarding the playing runs, some people felt that playing for week helped the rhythm. The scheduling is done always with the mind not to overload our company members.
SB: There seems to be a trade off for having a big squad; there is the freedom of choice with the quality of the show and note communication. How do you see the balance being struck?
AH: By having regular rehearsals and Assistant Directors will mean to some extent you will know when you are playing. Yes it is a trade off but the other side of it is spontaneity.
SM: Dual running has affected the drop out rate – needing time out form one project while you work on another.

TC: People can’t just come to showings. Intensives are as important as revelatory moments don’t reach the wider squad.
SM: Is this the someone [Assistant Director] to say you need to go to a session?
NH: The key thing that seems to be missing is the frank and self-realising feedback at the end of a showing. I miss that.
TE: This is more relevant to the ‘away game’ format.
TC: This was felt to be quite crushing, a free for all, and dangerous. An elegant solution was to have a small part player give 5 minute feedback.
CW: Agreeing with TC. Loathed those sessions because it became a critique with false chastising. Not the best time to be having that kind of conversation.
AH: What we would like to do about this is have the Assistant Director do the feedback.
SM: A trial of this worked well in Clapham with Faye and Alex.
JS: Referring to an established set of principles.
AH: If we are always there then we can bust each other.
FH: Pointing out that ‘notes’ was were the game was learned – should this be remembered in the new model for new members –

Exploration

AH/LEF: Non project based sessions have dwindled and the lack of these has been recognised.
We plan to revisit the Jam Studio and open it up for you to explore writing and directing. There is question over how often these can be and should be held.
Also continuing to explore New Writing, it is about igniting everyone’s interest in writing for their own objectives.
FH: It is important that it is a nourishing experience, giving time and space by designating a few sessions to the development process. Providing you with an arsenal skills.
AH: Being malleable.
FH: We’re really interested in the overlap.
AH: Coupled with that is the Feedback system in a tweaked version from that of 50/50. Very much about pushing writing, acting and directing.
Elena Pavli [EP]: Will that be led by the writer?
AH: tbc
TC: Both HAMLET and SEAGULL started off as sessions and could quite easily have been left there. An experiment in the New Year will be THE ODYSSEY. Following recent work with classics TC would like to visit this project which will be very much about the process.

AM: Comments on the growth of the Factory from a massive company with small projects to a small company with big projects –

Membership

AH: No plans as yet have been formalised but they will be. One idea is a tryouts and feedback system regarding who works with the company.
If you know someone who wants come along they may need a proposer and a seconder. They are then invited to several sessions as guests, are we for them and vica versa.
Alternatively there are the tryouts. Going to the numerous enquiries we get and inviting them along to a try out.

We want to actively get older members into the company, we want to be representational of all ages – not just a young persons company.
FH: It is not just about age – race.
AH: To a certain degree it will be about who finds us and who we find.
SM: Reflecting on the broad spectrum of membership but specifying with regard to the under representation of active members.
AH: It is important to say we will be getting lots more people involved. We don’t want anyone to feel obliged when you can’t afford to or don’t want to be active in a project.
SB: Weekly exploration is interesting but with more interesting projects do other projects suffer?
TE: It has always been our ethos to work on what interests us and stop it when it fails to spark interest.
Robyn Kerr [RK]: How do you get into shows that are already up and running?
AH: We haven’t yet properly decided.

Future plans

LEF: What we are trying to work towards is some kind of Factory rep. Possibly bringing projects back, changing others. The current structure is working towards 2 or 3 projects in rep with no money and a drop in drop out policy.
Do we want to work towards paying a smaller squad to take on full runs of a project? We have been testing this with the parallel runs of HAMLET and SEAGULL.
Do we feed in new members through smaller projects like ROUND 1 before taking them on in larger more classical projects?
AH: A possibility to aim for is that we have enough shows and members that everyone plays each week maybe in different projects.

LEF: We have talked about Sarah Bedi’s departure and it is important to discuss. It was very upsetting but a lot of good has come from that – we are learning to listen. The women’s meeting minutes are on the website. We have to be more aware of it in the future. We are not going to be tokenistic but we will sustain an environment of equality.
AH: Born of the pain we caused we understand it was not Bedi alone. We are working on projects geared towards reflecting that equal opportunity.

AOB

JS: Can we have a company photo while we are all here?

Company agrees and camera’s are offered up.

SM: It is worth clarifying how you move to another show – email LEF, TE, TC and AH.
LEF: Express interest, nothing can be promised.
FH: And that route will be described in the terms of engagement?
LEF: Email us or approach face to face.
SB: There hasn’t been a single point of discussion or point of contention that isn’t born out of the rapid growth. A feeling to be recognised.
AH: The Factory is a credit to not only our hardwork but yours.

The resounding feeling that the Factory is a gift and that it is wonderful that it exist voiced.

NM: To clarify that new writing should be sent to you – in the same format as 50/50?
AH: If you are comfortable remaining in that brief but we will happily receive anything.

Finally huge thanks to all for masses of hardwork. To TC for the projects, Bailey on Futures, Tim for huge amounts of work and all for attending this evening.

Hamlet show report 30th November 2009

LeilaCrerar — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:56:22 CST

Dalston Boys Club

Cast:

Catharine Hamlet
Jimmy Ghost/Grave digger 1/Fortinbras/any more?
Steff/Rhys Horatio
Tim Laertes
Ben Guildenstern
Nigel Polonius
Alex Hassell Claudius
Maddy Gertrude
Charlie Player King/Barnardo
Claire Priest/Player/Francisco
Scott Rozencarntz
Muller Osrick/Marcellus
Maz Ambassador/Player
Leila Grave digger 2/messanger/sailor/Player4
Katie Morgan Ophelia
Random audience member Captain

Here's a few things that occurred to me during the show:

This was a great show, the energy was high, focused and driven, Hamlet being the driving force, and everybody else hurtling towards a tragic chaotic end. All the cast playing positive actions, not playing the problem, there was a lovely sense of unknowing, not a hint in the beginning scenes of the tragedy that will unfold. The clarity in the verse was great.
I thought less prop use was a good note from Alex, and led to the props assisting the action not hindering it. Also the audience appreciated the objects more, as the use of props was less obscure which meant that when an actor did use them in a symbolic way, or to tell the story, the audience was able to appreciate and recognize this as a clear actor's choice. Also I liked there only being one obstruction, and this coming quite late in the play. It meant we had already settled into the story, so instead of slowing the action down it enhanced it. Although this was largely due to the wonderful playing by everyone, not allowing themselves to be slowed down by the obstruction.

Pace seemed to me to be key in this show, people where thinking and re-acting on the line.

One thought; the signalling of meaning with the hands, as in 'story boarding' what we are saying. When this happened we watched the hands, and it took away from the voice. It felt like things needed to be spelt out when actually there was such a clear and beautiful use of the verse we already had the meaning without the physical demonstration.

My notes deciphered, please add if I’ve missed stuff and also feel free to change the scenes/acts around if I have noted them down wrong.(and casting)

Act I
Started in conventional playing of the space, audience in circle. Lovely clarity and pace at beginning.

Crackling fire
Guest appearance from spooky black cat crossing the space. Great re-action from audience and cast alike.

Toy car enters the space, followed by Ghost on all fours. Toy car used throughout by Ghost/Hamlet as presence of dead father.

Excellent example of prop finding from Horatio, searching for prop without breaking the line, audience enjoy the spontaneity.

Sc2
Alex enters has golden ball as Crown/symbol of his Royal status. Up on chair, speech to courtiers, nervous, then relieved when it’s finished.

Gertrude plays the piano.

I enjoyed Claudius's unease with his newfound power and status. He was an unlikely king, not allowing the golden ball out of his possession for an instant. I have never seen this vulnerability in Claudius before. King and queen wonderful playful relationship, I believed they loved each other.

Laertes heads straight for the golden ball picking it up, creating a problem for Claudius. Ball is returned by Polonius, undermining the king’s authority.

Hamlet enters with Mask “She refers to her suites of woe” this brought great clown like quality to Hamlet, a smiling face hiding the inner pain.

Claudius persuades Hamlet to stay sympathetically, Hamlet smiles and appears to put him at ease. Great! No body playing the problem. Just feels like a dysfunctional family trying to cope. Everybody believes they can make things better.

Queen gives king piano lessons during Leartre’s advise to Ophelia. Lovely double scene playing without distraction. Again the music is happy the mood is light.

Act I sc3
Polonius enters with cat in arms. Real concern and trust between Ophelia and Polonius.
Sc4
Ghost beckons Hamlet to follow his toy car.

Queen enters during ghost speech to Hamlet, sets music up. I thought it was a great offer from Gertrude, but either it wasn’t quite picked up properly, or not committed too enough, it was a little confusing.

Great energy from Hamlet, who appears to have a dead line, a sense that there is time is running out. Hamlet appears to be exhilarated by his father’s visitation.

Act 2 sc1
Ophelia enters no props, simple story telling, moving the action forward.

King still clutching the golden ball, Queen plays the piano. She’s the one with the real status. For ‘Kings remembrance’, Guildenstern is given an inflatable Banana, he doesn’t want it.

Sc 2

Polonius has a lipstick, missed what he was doing with it while outside trying to stop consistent front door bell ringing.

Hamlet enters with ‘antic disposition’ in the form of feather bower and fluffy hat. Playing the clown. Enjoying the dangerous freedom in fain madness.

Polonius enters wearing the lipstick; Hamlet reads paintings on the wall.

Player king delivers speech sat on balcony ledge, then stands, to the horror of player 4 who holds his legs, as thoughts of being responsible for eminent death of actor race through her mind!

Act iii sc 1
Claudius and Polonius hid under ill-fitting lampshades, very funny.

Ophelia is given a ball to play with; she wants to return a plastic toy to Hamlet.

Act iii. Sc 3
Recorder is a screwdriver, as Hamlet attempts some DIY. Demonstrating he is being screwed by Guildenstern, or is it Guildenstern who is being screwed by the King? Either way great metaphor.

Sc3
Polonius forgets his lines, but done with such conviction, everybody loves it. (It helped that he had already won over the audience with brilliant funny Polonius)

King drinks from wine bottle in act of praying. (This is picked up later by Queen who enters Act v with the bottle)

Sc4
Brilliant entrance, Polonius and Gertrude sweep into the space. Great when people enter the scene with a conflicting energy. Not picking up each others rhythms

Polonius hides under lampshade

Hamlet uses two coats “Look upon this picture..” Then puts them on different people, the difference in brothers.

Queen plays the piano, “stop wringing of your hands”, Hamlet demands.

Polonius is dead he slaps his head in slow rhythm

Hamlet takes off feather bow and hat and puts them on Queen, as she explains she is mad in craft, let the king know.

Act iv
Liam sets the obstruction ‘every time you speak you need to be touching someone else.

sc1
Gertrude enters drunk, broken, lovely sense of horror from both Claudio’s and Gertrude, First time I got the enormity of Polonius’s death, again great re-acting in the moment, not preempting.

sc3
Guildenstern enters with audience member, who is also bold looks a bit like him. Very funny.

Alex gets three friends up and hides behind them.

Alex grabs Bailey and holds her in a headlock; very powerful as Claudius’s frustration overtakes him we get a glimpse of his capability to murder.

Act IV 4
Audience member reads Captain

Catharine talks directly to girl in audience leaning on shoulder “How all occasions…” she then pulls more girls into the space to sit with her. Great use of the obstruction to get something, Hamlet needs advisers/friends…(and the boyfriend, who looked particularly freak out).
This whole act was playing the obstruction’s at it’s best. It occurred to me that each obstruction/prop should be used as a tool to get what you want. That might be pretty obvious, sorry if you’ve all been over this loads, but as someone new to Hamlet I am discovering these things as I watch, the best uses of both props and obstructions seems to be when people use them as a device to get what they want from the other person/scene/space.
When it doesn’t work it seems too much concentrating is given to the obstruction/prop, thus it becomes a distraction from the action, hence slowing things down.

Act v sc 5
Ophelia crouches on table stroking audience member’s head as she sings, Horatio holds her like a baby, passed around the group, tactile, very moving.

Audience claps as Laetres enters.
Laertes instigates a mob from audience who then lift the king above their heads, the king clutches his golden ball, levitates it with his feet, out of harms way. Spectacular!

Ophelia gives her clothes as flowers, great sense of danger as we all wonder if they will stop her before she’s naked. Gertrude saves her modesty.

Sc 6
Horatio plays wooden frog as letter

Sc 7 Wooden frog again is brought in by the messenger, who looked distinctly similar to the sailor…and who also forgot the obstruction!….Shame on her.

Grave digger’s use pillows and cases. Grave digger one, use’s audience member in scientific experiment.

Priest from exotic tribe, chant’s ceremony.

Gravedigger one and priest hit Katy with pillows, (covering her in earth.) looks quite brutal.

Laetres plays the piano, everyone stops him. Hamlet challenges him from balcony.

Act v sc 2
Osrick brings on candle, lights/puts it out, as he is commanded by Hamlet.

Foils are a plastic snake and plastic parrot. The game; throwing them through hole in balcony. Magically/skill, they manage to make this happen on almost all the right lines.

Poison is wooden spoons dipped in poor bastards drink.

Audience clap for Fortinbras’s entrance, over Hamlets dying words. Lovely, very clear, moving.

The Ambassador’s been on the booze, giggly.

The kings golden ball is handed to Fortinbras, Hamlet is lead onto the balcony and the audience clap increasing in speed until this turns into applause. And the lights dim…or was the lights dimming in my mind? Great ending!

Beautiful show, it felt very complete, followed everyone's stories, lovely pace, everyone serving the play as a whole.

Brilliant show, pleasure to write a report. Well done everyone!

Leila

Factory Book Club

FayeThomas — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 09:01:02 CST

If you have a book that you you have read and found helpful, inspiring, thought-provoking please add it to the relevant sections, with a review or blurb as to why you are recommending it.

To add your own recommendation, click on the EasyEdit button above, and add the book to the table below.
If you have trouble with any formatting, don't worry, get the information published, and the community will tidy up after you!
Jonathan Oliver recommends: Hamlet by William Shakespeare.
It's really good...closer than most other books on the hamletness of life, love, lies and taking those lines for a walk.

Maddy Hyland recommends: Shakespeare and The Goddess of Complete Being by Ted Hughes

This is the most mind-blowing book I ever read. It's Ted Hughes' 25 years or so worth of thinking and feeling about Shakespeare, one poet talking to another - and it's like he sees the whole cannon as this living creature, and can see the pattern that made it. I say that because like a living thing he does not separate the myths and parents of it from its brains and its heart and its search, like a child just learning, for the best language and rhythms to say what it has to, voice/mind/dreams/body/architecture all being part of the whole struggling being - and he reminds you of the deeply split and divided world that Shakespeare was writing in, which is so easy to forget if you believe in anything whatsoever the Victorians ever told us about the Elizabethans. He basically looks at Venus and Adonis as being the source myth for Catholicism, and The Rape of Lucrece as being the source myth for Protestantism, but also more fundamentally of female based worship and male based worship - of the left brain and the right brain, of the cycle of living things on our lovely dualistic sun/moon planet, and he talks about the points at which they connect and detonate in the plays, the point at which the Adonis figure transforms into a Tarquin, the way the two poems link up and cause all the explosions from Measure for Measure onwards. As an actor its great because it just means Acting with a capital A is so much less important - you know that in the rhythms and shapes and sounds of the words and what they're saying about and doing to each other, the images they are invoking, are so powerful it's like you're going in to the game with this arsenal of gods and rituals and magic behind you and through you - that as long as you get the form right then you can just get on with playing. Which you all know already - I just want you all to read it so I don't sound like such a vague raving lunatic. And it's not written in scholarly language either, it's just like your diving in to Ted Hughes' and Shakespeare's dreamland and getting what makes both of them, and England before and since the Civil War, tick, beat - best - what is healthy and what is a killer about the interplay or oppression of binary opposites - and why we keep needing these plays.

Victoria-Anne Bulley recommends:	To The Actor - Michael Chekhov I don't know if this is one of those "kinda goes without saying" books since it's not on here, but I think its great so here it is :) I haven't read many books on acting but I think it's just a darn good one really - it re-clarifies everything about why we want to do this insane thing called acting and, in my case, it's reminded me that I'm not so crazy for wanting to do it. It's very simply written and flexible, so you can read it in bed (yay!) or on your feet as you do some of it's exercises. The key excercises in it are so easy to do and very much is achieved with just a bit of space (even my messy cramped bedroom sufficed) and lots of imagination. One to go back to again and again...

Victoria-Anne Bulley recommends:

To The Actor - Michael Chekhov

I don't know if this is one of those "kinda goes without saying" books since it's not on here, but I think its great so here it is :)

I haven't read many books on acting but I think it's just a darn good one really - it re-clarifies everything about why we want to do this insane thing called acting and, in my case, it's reminded me that I'm not so crazy for wanting to do it.

It's very simply written and flexible, so you can read it in bed (yay!) or on your feet as you do some of it's exercises. The key excercises in it are so easy to do and very much is achieved with just a bit of space (even my messy cramped bedroom sufficed) and lots of imagination.

One to go back to again and again...

Federay Holmes recommends:	A ****'s Profession: Notes and Essays Always provocative. Always inspiring. Though I don't agree with every last word he says he always makes me clarify what I do believe and wish for. This is full of beautiful writing on writing, life, and art. A great inspiration for writers of plays, prose and shopping lists. A great inspiration for artists of any kind. This book is an anthology of three of his early books: The Cabin; Writing in Restaurants* (a seminal work in itself on the art, craft and act of writing) and Some Freaks.

Federay Holmes recommends:

A *****'s Profession: Notes and Essays

Always provocative. Always inspiring. Though I don't agree with every last word he says he always makes me clarify what I do believe and wish for.
This is full of beautiful writing on writing, life, and art.
A great inspiration for writers of plays, prose and shopping lists. A great inspiration for artists of any kind.
This book is an anthology of three of his early books: The Cabin; Writing in Restaurants (a seminal work in itself on the art, craft and act of writing) and Some Freaks.

Ben Lambert recommends	Yes Man, Danny Wallace Not a book about Acting. How refreshing? But a book that I thought was worth putting up here because of the work we did during Round One; specifically and obviously the Cosmic Yes. I think it's fair to say "Yes" makes us vunerable but because of this it changes us and others far more than No and that's always interesting to watch and in this book interesting to read. The book is full hilarious Yeses. The book also includes the occasional random tangent of thought and unnecessary elaboration on trivial detail which can be annoying... but it made me laugh out loud quite a lot and smile even more and generally feel pretty positive about life so for those three reasons I recommend it.

Faye Thomas recommends	Rage and Reason: Women Playwrights on Playwriting Women playwrights speak about their art and the theatre in this collection of interviews about a key decade of British drama Twenty leading contemporary dramatists discuss their work from the perspective of being both writers and women. Each talks about the state of the theatre now, the craft of playwrighting and the pressures of working within a male dominated environment.'What I think is so exciting about the response to a number of the plays written by women in the last ten years is that they are popular with audiences - because they've got this quality, this energy and this culture that hasn't been seen much on stage before: a humour, sexiness and wit that's been missing' - Charlotte Keatley - Slightly dated publication... but none the less interesting. Rather topical in the current theatrical climate.

Leilani Holmes recommends

The Playwright's Guidebook | Stuart Spencer

A book, perhaps the book, on writing plays. Stuart Spencer is a talented playwright who clearly speaks about the process of creating plays and characters. A wonderful insight for actors as well as writers.

Here's what others say about it:-

“The Playwright's Guidebook is indispensable. Clearly and thoroughly, Mr. Spencer—a playwright himself—leads all playwrights (not only the beginner) through the travails of creation and the jungle of production.” — EDWARD ALBEE

“If you want to be a playwright, here's your bible.” — DAVID LINDSAY-ABAIRE

“Eureka! A clearly written, well-structured, intelligent how-to book about playwriting. Like the good teacher and good writer that he is, Stuart Spencer guides rather than browbeats. Should be next to the laptop of any aspiring, or working playwright.” — WARREN LEIGHT

“Mr. Spencer's Guidebook is full of solid, straightforward advice in a conversational voice that takes the mystery out of how plays are wrought, not written.” — MICHAEL WELLER

Amazon.co.uk link

You may also want to check out Stuart's own plays, many of which are free to download from his website at stuartspencer.com - I've met Stuart on a number of occasions and seen many of his plays performed.. it's always a joy!

Joanna Croll recommends	The Actor And His Body. By Litz Pisk This is fantastically clear and inspiring. It focuses on Pure Movement as the foundation to impulse, intention and transformation. As it contains written exercises it's a good guide for your own work.
Faye Thomas recommends	The Sanford Meisner Approach: An Actors Workbook by Larry Silverberg This is actually one of 4 published Meisner workbooks... There is also: Workbook II - Emotional Freedom , Workbook III - Tackling the Text , Workbook IIII - Playing the Part I've not read the other three... and I've no idea how useful they are as I've not used any of them as a practical guide. But the first book is written as a practical workbook - it's broken up into 'sessions'... with warm-ups and clearly explained practical exercises to be done in a group situation - written almost like a script for the benefit of someone acting as a guide/observer in practical development of Meisner Technique. It even has 'homework' instructions... Something useful for the jam sessions, maybe? "This is a workbook. I will be giving you very specific things to do. You can not do this work alone, you must work with an acting partner. Also, the most effective approach would be to have a group of at least three people so that when two partners are working, another can become the observer. Throughout the book, the two people as the 'partners', will be taken through a series of acting exercises. Like building blocks, with each step we lay the groundwork for what is next and only the doing of each exercise will allow the possibility of what is to follow. A third person as 'observer' will recieve instructions on what to be looking for and how to simply interact with the partners who are doing the exercises. Together, we will build an exercise that, ultimately, contains all of the dramatic elements. As you do these exercises consistently, your acting skills will grow and strengthen. Learning the craft of acting does not happein in our talking about, thinking about or reading about, which may all be very intellectually appealing but will remain in your head merely as a concept or theory. As with any craft, true learning only occurs in the doing of it and with time." - Silverberg's intro blurb at the beginning.
Matt Maltby recommends	Through the Body; A Practical Guide To Physical Theatre by Dymphna Callery A fantastic look at physical theatre in its various guises, from experimental dance to simple characterisation. Taking inspiration from a varied range of practitioners from Grotowski to DV8, it's part theoretical exploration of ideas, supplemented by over 100 different games and exercises. Invaluable for an actor to have a read through, or for a director to get inspiration for workshops/rehearsals
Kate Alderton recommends	Games for Actors and Non Actors by Augusto Boal This is a practical book where he sets down his theories through stories and examples of his work in europe then explains every drama exercise he's found useful in his practice.
Kate Alderton recommends	Theatre of the Oppressed by Augusto Boal
Kate Alderton recommends	The Rainbow of Desire:The Boal Method of Theatre and Therapy by Augusto Boal
Kate Alderton recommends	The Line by Israel Horowitz Acrobats by Israel Horowitz In The Line a man steps onto a bare stage places a line on the floor and forms a queue. The characters relationships and politics become twisted as each one uses his/her manipulative powers to gain a stronger position in a queue to something they know nothing about. The Acrobats is a 2 hander performed by a husband a wife acrobatic balancing act. Their relationship has crawled into a bitterly abusive hole but their dependance on eachother creatively and physically drives them on and they lacerate eachother with words as they move expertly through their act with fixed smiles.
Kate Alderton recommends	The War of Art by Steven Pressfield Not strictly a book about acting, its actually for writers sat at the desk facing an empty page but something i've found really useful to return to in times of creative doubt. "most of us have two lives. the life we live and the unlived life within us. between the two stands resistance"
Kate Alderton recommends	Freeing the natural voice by Kristin Linklater I think voice books can be really tricky but I found this one to be clearer and easier to understand than most. I'm not good at sitting and reading it like a novel but it's good to dip in and out of - an exercise at a time.
Vivien Heilbron recommends	Exposed by the Mask by Peter Hall
Vivien Heilbron recommends	Shakespeare's Advice to the Players by Peter Hall
Vivien Heilbron recommends	Freeing Shakespeare's Voice by Kristin Linklater
Vivien Heilbron recommends	Performing Shakespeare by Oliver Ford Davies
Tim Carroll recommends	Different Every Night by Mike Alfreds Mike Alfreds came along to The Factory and spoke to us about his working methods. For further notes on this session click here.
Tim Carroll recommends	The Ode Less Travelled by Stephen Fry This is ostensibly about how to write poetry, but contains a very useful crash course in iambic pentameter.
Ben Hassell recommends	Shakespeare. A Very Short Introduction by Germaine Greer Does what it says on the tin.
Ben Hassell recommends	The Hidden Plot. Notes on Theatre and the State. by Edward Bond Difficult to read and understand, annoying, full of pretentious shorthand and polemic and guaranteed to make you, at least once every half an hour, say 'For **'s sake Edward stop spouting generalisms as if they're the voice of God! And why can't you write Theatre Event or World Stage in full, it's not frigging algebra, it's a book! Typeset by other people! Nnnnnnn!' (Bites hand). Nonetheless brilliant, mind-blowing, amazing; this book will turn what you think about writing drama upside down and inside out. And also at the same time full of **.
Simon Muller recommends	The Full Room by Dominic Dromgoole Dominic's most recent book, "Will and Me" has reached a wider audience, which is a shame as this book is indispensable for anyone interested in new writing. It caused quite a fuss when it was first published in 2002, as it is an entirely subjective A-Z survey of contemporary playwrights that makes no apologies for its lack of objectivity or the violence with which certain 'national treasures' are knocked off pedestals.....Witty, wise, frequently vulgar and extraordinarily passionate - much like the man himself - the book takes the form of a series of short essays (some very, very very short... On Reza, Yasmin: "Yasmin Reza is very rich, Yasmin Reza est tres riche."!) and is, as such, easily digestible.
Alan Morrissey recommends	Tales from Ovid. By Ted Hughes This is an amazing book of poems that revisits the stories of some of the most popular and frequently referred to Gods and Goddesses. It's perfect as a source for all those tricky Shakespeare references, as well as being a great way of discovering/re-discovering the original stories. So many plays and popular story-lines used in the theatre are based or derived from these classics and there isn't a more beautiful, modern, translation than this one (also adapted as a play itself). Its a valuable addition to any actors bookshelf.
Faye Thomas recommends	Other People's Shoes, by Harriet Walter A fantastic book of the kind that one should read with a highlighter and lots of bookmarks. Intelligent and absorbing. And it's £3.72 on amazon..! The back-cover blurb says it best... "If, as the actor Booth said, acting is sculpting in snow, then writing about acting is writing on water, but Harriet Walter manages to write something tangible and truthful - and occasionally touching and witty - about the way she earns her living. She is a fine actress and a lucid writer: her book breathes practical advice and observation culled from a very varied and very successful career. She wholly avoids the kind of mystification and self-indulgent sophistry that usually attends discussions about acting by following her own advice: DON'T GENERALISE. My advice to a young actor: read this book." - Sir Richard Eyre
Tim Carroll recommends	Arguments for a Theatre by Howard Barker
Tim Carroll recommends	Death, The One, and the Art of Theatre by Howard Barker No holds barred: this is what Barker wants theatre to be, and if you don't like it, you can stay in the lifeboat. It is a bracing vision. I particularly like his assertion that our task should not be to create a unified audience response, but to welcome - nay, insist on - the fragmentation of the audience into each person's personal reaction.
Tim Carroll recommends	How To Do Things With Words, by J.L. Austin All about performative utterances, i.e. things we say which constitute not 'just saying' but an action. As someone who works from the assumption that we never 'just say' anything, I found this book seminal.
Tim Carroll recommends	True and False by David Mamet One of those books that, the first time you read it, you think is fun and provocative but obviously a bit extreme. Then, the second time, you realise he's bang on the money.
Tim Carroll recommends	The Actor and the Target by Declan Donnellan. Essential for getting it off yourself and on to the other guy. And full of invaluable exercises.
Catherine Bailey recommends	Tough Acts, by Steven Berkoff This collection of anecdotes by Berkoff is candid, vicious, tender and at times bonkers. It never fails to entertain and offers an insight into what it must be like to be the outlaw of British theatre. He waxes lyrical about some, and verbally lacerates others. One actor he can’t praise enough is Christopher Plummer, who he worked with on a TV production of Hamlet in the 1960s. Plummer was in the title role, Berkoff was one of the players, and Michael Caine was Horatio. Crikey. Other highlights include his diary notes when directing a production of Coriolanus in New York starring Christopher Walken, and also his confusion at the fickle treatment he received from the legendary Stanley Kubrick.
Simon Muller recommends	Playing Shakespeare by John Barton This, in my opinion, is the bedrock text for a lot of the work we have been doing with Tim Carroll on verse and prose speaking at the Factory. I know that this book inspired Tim to start exploring text in the way he has, but it must be noted that a lot of Barton's theories are ones which Tim has now moved on from. However, if you want a grounding in how to approach line endings, metre, syllable construction, breathing, and Folio theory - in fact, pretty much everything to do with Shakespeare and text - this is the place to start. Just don't get Tim started on Barton and messing with the metre....
Vicky Jones recommends	Family, Sex and Marriage in England: 1500-1800 by Lawrence Stone Okay, this is much more of a dip-in-and-out book than a read-cover-to-cover. Unless you’re really hardcore. I stumbled across it a few years ago and I found it an invaluable background reference when approaching a classic text. Attitudes to family, sex, life and death, religion and politics have undergone massive cultural and social shifts during this time. This book has come under some criticism for relying heavily on anecdote and making some sweeping generalisations. But I've found it fascinating nonetheless and it'll definitely expand your knowledge and imagination of the time and circumstances the play was written for.
Daniel Kramer recommends	Harold Clurman on Directing
Jemima Rooper recommends	'Sanford Meisner On Acting' by Sanford Meisner and Dennis Longwell This book documents an acting class of eight men and eight women over fifteen months. It's written like a diary and provides a vivid window into Meisner's classes. It very much reminded me of Mr Carroll which is probably the thing that struck me most whilst reading it. I also think that of all the practitioners, Meisner is the most relevant to today's actors. A big emphasis is put on actors not preparing too much cerebrally and also always having "full" emotional preparation. Anyway, very quick and easy to read and really enjoyable.
Mark Springer recommends	'The Secret Love Life Of Ophelia' by Steven Berkoff. Just thought it may prove useful to recommend the play. It is basically a collection of letters(written in verse) between Hamlet & Ophelia. It is published by Faber & Faber and might be good resource material for the Hamlet project. Good read!
Alex Hassell recommends	How To Stop Acting. by Harold Guskin Alex Hassell lead a session based on the theories and working methods set out by Harold Guskin in his book. This book is ******* amazing. It totally changed the way I act and freed me up in more ways than I could have imagined. I also think it complements T.C's work really well in terms of possible home/prep work. GET IT.

The Factory recommends

Louis Scheeder is Co-Author of Training Of The American Actor.

He has worked extensively with The Factory exploring with The Hamlet Project his theories and work on Thought In Action.

Tom Payne recommends

Antonin Artaud's 'The Theatre and it's Double'

I have had this book since I studied it at school and it still chimes exactly with the thoughts and beliefs that I believe continue to be prevalent. It is a reactionary book without many answers. But I find it just as relevant now as when it was written. A lot of what it says fits in with the ideals and intent of the factory and thus I feel it is a valuable companion to its work

Matt Maltby recommends

DEBRIS by Dennis Kelly
(First performed at the Latchmere, April 2003) - Contemporary. Set in unknown British city. 1M, 1F

"On my sixteenth birthday, my father erected a fourteen-foot crucifix in our living room". The play charts, through a series of chronologically displaced monologues and duologues shared between siblings Michael and Michelle, the history of a dysfunctional and loveless family. At the heart of the play is Michael's discovery of a baby in a rubbish heap, whom he takes for his own; filled with lyrical flights of poetry, wonderfully drawn characters, unimaginable pain, intriguing ideas and cruelly black comedy, this is equally challenging for performers, directors and audience, but brilliantly rewarding.

Faye Thomas recommends

THE NIGHT SEASON by Rebecca Lenkiewicz
(Performed at the RNT Cottesloe in 2004) - Contemporary, Set in Ireland, 4F 3M

"Late at night, shoeless, in the rain, a film actor playing the poet Yeats turns up drunk at his appointed Sligo digs. He is met by the grandmother and they dance together to 'Lili Marlene'. In the morning they are discovered, sharing a blanket, by Patrick and his three daughters. Patrick craves tobacco, whiskey and a date with the local barmaid; the sisters yearn for sensation and escape.

A funny, modern, intoxicated tale of love and loss."

Factory Female Members Meeting

liamevansford — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 07:47:12 CST

Factory Meeting with women and management
Present (alphabetically): Linda Broughton Lucy Cudden Tim Evans Liam Evans-Ford Alex Hassell Federay Holmes Robyn Kerr Emma King Flora Nicolson Tyne Rafaeli Claire Redcliffe Faye Thomas Minutes: Catherine Bailey Apologies: Jo Croll and Elena Pavli

Introduction: L.E.F and A.H. L.E.F. We are all here to look at what we’re providing and not providing for women

A.H. Been thinking about it a lot regarding stuff from the other week’s women’s meeting. Communication is a big part of it – what people’s reward/return is for being part of the factory, what are their rights as members, how do we make the flow of communication, feedback and information work. This is also for the AGM. We want to have more frequent meetings. Website – a different issue. Want to create associate members, of different ages and backgrounds to act as mediators – so that they can gauge the feeling of the company in weekly or fortnightly meetings. People can pass their feedback on anonymously. Feed information back, for example, when Laura was injured she was looked after, but no public communication was made about it. This is a priority. Smaller issues have fed into lack of clarity and communication within the company. We want to clarify membership, draw up ‘terms of engagement’, i.e. ‘this is what you get out of it’. We had forgotten that new people were not there at the beginning, that people don’t all have the same knowledge.

L.E.F. The company is different now to how it was at the beginning.

A.H. Regarding the issue of imbalance in opportunities, we hadn’t noticed it as a problem. We did Frogs because Steve Bloomer was the only one who came up to us and said; “Here’s my play.” We are pleased to be alerted to this gender issue. We should consider The Factory as a microcosm of the industry and we understand there is an enormous weight of frustration in the wider industry in terms of female opportunity. At some point we want to focus on a project entirely focused on females; perhaps directed by a woman. We have no time scale for this yet. There is no woman in management apart from Fed – her appointment is not a token gesture. The positive outcome of this is that it has gifted us with the next project to get on with, and we are diving headlong into thinking about it.
Now, we will open the discussion to the members present…

L.B. With regards to Fed being an associate, what exactly is the structure?

A.H. We are trying to figure that out! At present it is Alex Hassell and Tim Evans as artistic directors, and Liam Evans Ford. as a producer - and indeed a lot more than that. Tim Carroll is associate director, and so is Louis Scheeder. Federay Holmes is new writing associate. Lisa MacLean is assistant producer, and Fran Rafferty is Administration.

L.B. So when you appoint these associates, what meeting has decided that? New idea of having a 3-tiered management system?

L.E.F. Management is Liam, Tim and Alex.

L.B. And Bedi?

A.H. She was advisory. She was company manager, informally and unpaid, and was present in discussions but not decisions.

L.C. And Simon?

A.H. He is company manager. I should add that Bedi and Bailey also project manage Factory Futures.

L.C. Might the feedback to intermediaries go through Simon? So he is like a spokesperson, and can impart parish notes?

A.H. We’d love that if there were more time and money!

T.R. So these intermediaries, are they a soundboard or voice pieces? Are they soundboards for ideas and decisions?

A.H. Yes, they won’t be towing the party line of course. We want this to be the sort of company where we listen to what you have to say, and then we decide.

L.C. Is the website a place for blogging (show reports etc) or for talking about issues?

A.H. We wonder whether certain parts of the site should be closed to the public. We are not in the business to censor. Bedi posted her resignation letter publicly on the website. We need to decide what the website is for.

F.T. What about having a private section of the website?

T.E. Wetpaint doesn’t provide that service.

A.H. …but we could work out a way in which to do that…

LE.F The use of the site is a question for the AGM, and we want to find out what you think via the questionnaire that went out.

F.H. Do we have membership stats?

C.B. 282 women to 222 men approximately.

T.E. But those are online members - not active company members.

A.H. We want to formalize membership so that it is reliable.

F.H. With a ceremony? A tattoo perhaps?

(laughter)

A.H. We know informally how many we have.

L.B. How have existing members become members?

A.H. Recommendation until now. Currently we are scared to say: “come along and we’ll vet you…”

C.R.. …like an audition!

L.B. I had someone in mind who I thought would be excellent when you needed Gertrudes but wasn’t sure what the procedure was in terms of inviting them.

A.H. We are aiming for clarity on membership.

F.H. It does seem quite cliquey.

L.E.F. We want to formalize a lot of things but not at the sacrifice of becoming less nimble –we don’t want to be bogged down with bureaucracy.

F.H. That is my concern about having associates. Would we just be people pleasing rather than making projects? We don’t want to stagnate.

L.C. Opening up communication would be good – if I know there are three people that I can feedback to, it gives me confidence. It helps to know how to navigate the company.

L.B. Wondering if there is a better solution, rather than associates? Check other options before it is a fait accompli.

T.R. How would associates be chosen? By membership voting? Or by Liam, Alex and Tim choosing?

L.E.F. We haven’t got that far yet. We would probably approach people directly. I feel we are skirting round the issue - we need to get to the grit of this discussion now…

L.B. Want to talk about Bedi – who was around a lot. I would like a moment of reflection on events – how could it have occurred? An astonishing actress, loyal member etc. Why wasn’t that person part of management? You are men, and a female presence, a female sensibility would give a different slant on issues small and large. Want to pay tribute to Bedi, and I was delighted to read what Liam wrote about her on the website. Time has passed, we have to move on, but it felt as though she had more to give, and it is tragedy that she has gone. Is there a way back for her, or for The Factory? It seems her departure was symptomatic of something bigger, and should have been tackled immediately. If it is left untreated it will keep coming back. We started Monster’s Regiment in response to a male dominant company called Belt and Braces. When they continued to favour a male bias, another company formed of women sprung up called Bloomers…

A.H. Bedi was almost brought into management…

T.E. There was no immediate souring between Bedi and The Factory – she was available to help where help was needed, very capably. She worked out the permutations, did Simon’s current tasks, education, and more… But on the other side, we did disagree and it was not Bedi’s say. The role she played to outer company maybe gave the impression that she was more management than she actually was.

L.B. But wasn’t she an obvious candidate for a management role? You need to decide whether you want to keep the company as it is, with male absences in thinking.

T.E. We had a woman in management, and that was Emma Stuart until the BBC gave her a role. Now it is Fed, who has been pivotal in how we think about projects.

L.C. So with Fed in charge of New Writing – how do we decide on whether it is Fed or someone else in the top 3 tier? Might there be a female presence in the top tier as well?

L.E.F. There is no one else that would give this time and energy to it that the three of us do! We are still two more years away from core funding and don't have the money for our current positions, let a lone a new role.

F.N. Bedi! Surely the work she put in was enough to have a voice heard?

A.H. She was heard.

F.N. So when did she bring the gender imbalance up?

A.H. Early on in Hamlet.

C.B. Almost two years ago we were invited to write to TC about females playing male roles, following a rather tense group discussion at City and Islington about women playing larger roles in addition to smaller male roles in Hamlet.

F.N. And outside of Hamlet did she raise the issue?

A.H. The first I knew of the issue of gender imbalance was in Bailey’s blog for 50/50 in September.

C.B. I felt that in conversation and debate, Bedi was always championing the women in the company.

F.H. So you are saying Bedi was not invited – yes she directed things with Maz, lots of opportunities and plays (Hamlet) - just not absorbed into management tier?

A.H. When it came to artistic and business decisions she was philosophically different. So when we came up against those decisions I had to say “I run the company”. So she decided to remove herself from those things she disagreed on.

T.R. I take it there are no resources to bring someone else in.

A.H. We are attempting to, with new roles etc… but we can’t go far without money.

T.E. We would be concerned about the business becoming leadership by committee. We stagnate if everything is leadership by committee.

T.R. I am not arguing as to whether you have the right to run your company – of course you do, you are the artistic directors! It was more in terms of some sort of female advisory group.

F.N. With new writing decisions, we do seek Fed’s advice, right?

R.K. Why should anyone else be making the decisions? Women’s voices need be heard by management, so why should we have women in charge for the sake of it? We have an open forum…

T.R. What open forum is that?

A.H. We haven’t got one yet. We want to create an open forum for everybody’s voice to be heard.

L.E.F. The problem Bedi had was that she would suggest, “I think the company could be xyz”, but there was no clear forum set up for her to voice that openly.

A.H. We champion ourselves as doing the opposite of the industry, try to do everything fairly – I guess we lost focus on this one.

L.B. It would just be good if the next major decision made could be gauged by an associate – so that we don’t end up doing another play with 10 men for example. On another note, I am worried about the lack of money, and what you are doing for us! It would help to know what you are up to. I remember that first Hamlet intensive month, and with what Tim had on his shoulders during that time. Maybe there is more work to share? It would take time and thought to delegate at first, but perhaps it would mean less work in the long run?

A.H. We have tried this, but it hasn’t worked. And again with no time or money maybe we were not good enough to run such things before.

T.R. Formalising would have helped. I was on membership and there was a limit to how much we could do – perhaps farming out responsibility to others would have helped.

F.H. By the way I want to point out that I was not picked to be writing associate because I am a woman. I also feel positive that men don’t get the notion of male privilege – but that these men are making an effort to understand.

A.H. Most of our feedback thus far came from Bedi and Bailey.

T.R. So you didn’t perceive inequality – perhaps with a female in advisory capacity, you may have done, but why didn’t you see it, why didn’t the women voice it? Is it trouble in ranks, the inability to perceive it?

T.E. We only responded to what we were told regarding female members and the frustration they feel in the industry…

A.H. We hadn’t noticed.

F.H. You didn’t notice loads of talented people waiting to get into the circle and work – but I am more experienced, I am used to sitting and watching as a woman, and I have strategies for dealing with it! And Hamlet is a classic example. People don’t notice it, let alone young men – it is exciting that you are noticing it now!

T.R. An inability to talk, a lack of communication, this is a reality in the industry that we are trying to break. Sometimes to have men break those boundaries is more helpful.

T.R. Regarding the manifesto, does the power of casting lie with you, or TC? When directors come and work here, does everything have to be passed through you guys?

A.H. With TC ‘s projects, he is utterly powerful in terms of casting.

F.H. Isn’t it a casting free-for-all sometimes? Like when we are doing Hamlet and we realize “****, we haven’t got a gravedigger” and someone has to take up the slack!

A.H. We aren’t going to do that anymore. We want a greater sense of clarity and transparency. We want to be far more specific.

L.E.F. Artistic choices, like cross gender choices, or casting, hasn’t been properly defined at any point. The Factory is different to everything else out there, so there is nothing to refer to. TC has a lot on, and isn’t constantly around for us to question him…

L.B. Yes you don’t want to lose that fluidity and flexibility. You don’t want to be hamstrung.

C.B. What about other companies and how they deal with diversity – is it worth looking at how they share things out?

L.E.F. Yes, according to buildings, diversity policies all get a bit box-ticky. We want to make choices for the right reasons.

L.B. At the beginning with TC it was so cheering, as I knew he liked strong women, and he cast 4 very different Ophelias. The company is full of lots of strong women, and this all about ways in which to use them…

A.H. …to give them the respect they deserve.

R.K. I felt from my debut experience in 50/50 that is was quite equal – a place in which you can play a part where age, gender and race isn’t considered… I hope it continues.

L.E.F. And 50/50 brought up this debate. Did the rest of you feel it was equal?

L.C. A friend who watched it felt it distracted from the writing having two men cast in a play that was clearly a love scene between a man and woman.

C.B. I thought it quite masculine. There did seem to be a few love scenes between men, also there was male POV in the writing; in pieces like Turf and 12. Also permeating the pieces was sexual aggressive language of a masculine kind.

F.T. I felt the 50/50 shows championed a male quality and spirit. I would simply argue that there was another element that could have been included.

A.H. A lot of the casting came down to availability, and so yes sometimes it came about that there were two men in a scene together… I guess we didn’t explore the possibilities of two females in a scene together.

F.H. With regards to the nature of the pieces, I see how differently people had perceived the nature of the selection. We never said “you will increase chances of selection if you blah blah…” but there was definitely a gender difference in how people responded to that.

F.T. A lot of the writing was typically male...

F.H. Perhaps that sort of male stuff was there in 50/50, but it so happened that the blokes had more collective experience, you could tell that this one has an agent, this one is properly formatted etc. They were more polished. And it was for the Hampstead theatre, a more product driven place. We don’t want anyone to feel they failed. We don’t want to nourish that kind of thinking. And just so people know - we had 2 women and 2 men choosing the pieces, myself and Alex with two from the Hampstead. 71% of the submissions were from male writers and the remaining 29% from female writers.

C.B. What is the next step from this Fed? Where do we go now in new writing with all that has happened recently?

F.H. We continue to have a collective ambition as artists.

A.H. There are lots of opportunities for Round 2. We thought, this is not right for this project, it is better as a film for example, and we can do that now.

F.H. Hampstead made a lot of the decisions. I wonder does money and kudos skew expectations? It is interesting when we stray into big theatres. Should we be unambitious?

T.R. So Factory are trying to fight against the **** in the industry, as well as acknowledge the demand for compromise.

L.E.F. We should wrap up soon. I would mention that the company cannot be all things to all people, and that we are going to fail, we are also going to get better, and we are going to gain a greater understanding because there has been some pretty painful stuff recently. With regards to all female projects, we won’t make promises we cant keep, but we can address things properly now that they have been brought up.

L.B. Thank you, I have learnt a lot! This has been very good!

A.H. We want to become more aware.

F.N. Alex, how have you found directing a piece with only men in it?

A.H. Hard!!!

L.B. So we are going for all female membership then?

(laughter)

L.B. Want to point out that as women getting our voices heard, we don’t want to lose our female sensibility – there is something about that difference that we need to keep – by not pretending to be like men.

L.C. What about opening up casting for flagship productions?

L.E.F. Put it on the questionnaire, it is for the AGM.

A.H. Do we feel more positive about this?

Women: Yup.

A.H. This is not the end of the matter – this isn’t your only chance to talk about it.

L.E.F. We want to be approachable. We want to be here to hear and understand.

F.H. Do you think boys, that you are understanding and learning too? Moving beyond pacifying?
Boys: Yup.

T.E. This is all a massive learning curve; leadership, people skills, management…

A.H. Sexual politics – it is a big deal. But I am excited about this now, it is an opportunity to solve stuff, to learn.

F.H. Further to what Linda said, as women we do get used to dancing to the patriarchal beat, and it would be good to change that beat.

A.H. You can challenge us with upsetting and difficult stuff, we will try and listen.

L.E.F. End of meeting!

The AGM will be held at Factory HQ at 7pm on Thursday 10th December at 7pm

brief Hamlet praise

TimCarroll — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 05:39:59 CST

Things I liked last night:

Marianne’s emotional availability in her soliloquies. I really didn’t know where they were going or how they would make her feel, but I knew they would go somewhere and that they would affect her.

Maddy’s voice: rich and relaxed. An object lesson in the importance of warming up, even in a small space – and indeed in the importance of working on one’s voice generally.

The way each obstruction started to work after an initial ‘how do we do this?’ period. Each act contained moments of pure bliss, like Maz being put to sleep on the table, or Alex praying to a very plausible Jehovah, or Jethro trying to convey that Hamlet went mad through some alien abduction suggested by an audience member.

Claire and Leila sharing the player king, with each other and an audience member.

Polonius saying ‘this is too long’ as if it was true and he wasn’t being an arse.

The pearl in the drink being provided by a (presumably poisonous) audience member.

The ghost inhabiting the audience member who was already there in his place, instead of competing with him.

No thing to lie between a lady's legs - at last!

Maz accepting the offer of two chairs pushed in front of her making a barrier she couldn't break.

Katie asking why honesty and beauty couldn't go together as though it was occurring to her for the first time.

The way we trust our audience these days. Some were sensitive, some were talented, some were both, some were neither; but we accepted it all with something like humility, and the result was, of course, not always comfortable, but it felt healthy – even our acceptance of the fact that the young man in the corner wanted no part of it.

Plenty more, but that'll do for now.

Seagull Show Report - 6th December 2009

FayeThomas — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:13:59 CST

Venue: Arch 635, Clapham

Cast:
Leila Crerar – Actress
Steven Bloomer – Son
Katie McGuinness – Girl
Marianne/Maz Oldham – Bailiff’s Daughter
Scott Brooksbank – Bailiff
Madeline/Maddie Hyland – Bailiff’s Wife
Colin Hurley – Brother
Simon Muller – Doctor
Jethro Skinner – Writer
Steffan/ Rhys – Teacher
Alex Blake – Servant

The Warm-up game: We ran Act one, being forbidden from using metaphors, similes and abstractly poetic phrases to express things… instead we must be as specific as we can possibly be. Eg: “I thought you were going to go into town yesterday and get a haircut from mister magoo?” “Well mister magoo wasn’t there, but his shortsighted little brother Edward was, and I did get a haircut, but he missed my head entirely, which is why I look like this. I paid for it. It cost me £5.76. It was pensioners day” [or something to that content] Colin in reference to his scruffy appearance.. this was a great game… very useful, and much more interesting acting… the detail created a landscape and a history… and stopped people drifting off into vague generality… or finding ways of escaping what they had to say. This game greatly informed the show…

[The notes that follow are very note like. More of a train of thought commentary really. My writing was rather indecipherable and very elliptic… so apologies if bits make no sense. I've emboldened my favourite quotes and I will be including photos and a video for multimedia enjoyment in due course…]

ACT ONE

I like your white pumps. Bit of a departure for you.

Maz enters with ipod. Shut up steff. Why do you wear black? Maz walks away faffing with earphones. Steff stands solemnly in the middle of the space whilst maz sits with audience. Go and sit somewhere. Cruel. Maz plays ipod.

I walk three miles here…You’re not even listening to me whilst I’m talking to you.
I don’t want to see you. Never have.
It’s close tonight.
Very close.
You have a word with him about the f*cking car alarm.
Come on steff.

Great start. Audience engaged.

Colin and Steve – Steve erects a sort of balancing beam on which Katie can sit. Steve is excited and playful. Mimicking Leila, but not cruelly: “I’m a great actress.” Scene dips to quiet “She had a go at me last night for cramping her style” Groucho. Specifics perfect. Embarrassed in front of the press and her celebrity pals. Steve gets low. Audience is wrapt. “They just don’t hang well on me”. Colin hugs steve. I wanted to be a writer etc. Katie clambers through audience. Frantic and upset. Colin’s singing. Steve tries to kiss Katie. Alex enters. Very hungover. Audience is seated at tables around the space. “Can we skype?” “You tw*t.” “Sorry. I love you. Sorry about that.” Katie in ref to jethro’s presence: “I’m so ordinary. In a garden. Oh God.” Simon and Maddie enter. Audience very quiet. Simon wearing boyscouts cap. Maddie “Up all night Smoking weed. Leila’s hilarious when she smokes weed.” Subtlety of Maddie’s jealousy is sophisticated and clever. “Women tend to be relaxed around doctors, they find us calming.” Scene great… but the love issue maybe too subtle?

Leila has compliments for breakfast, praise for lunch and now she’s getting adulation for desert. Leila quotes hamlet “Anon he finds him! Striking too short at greeks”. Lively. Amusing. Steve introduces play very sincerely. Earnest. “Don’t apologise for it steve” He wanders off like an endearingly chaotic artist. The script seems new. Reference to greeks in the play “Euripidean echoes” we want to listen. Intelligent. Too intelligent. Alex Blake drops a bag of sugar over a fan as a special effect. Disruption not massively dramatic. “Steve, you’re choking your actress.” Subtle. Fuss. Very real. No caricatures. Leila and Colin shout at eachother. “He loves you” Steff pipes up from back. “You can hide a multitude of sins with classical references.” Steff’s earnest teacher amuses audience. Music is Oasis from over the lake. Leila is quiet. Talk of simon is masked a little. Katie emerges. Leila puts Jethro down “he went to public school. Not good at talking to girls”. Jethro stares wide eyed and silently at Katie. I’ve read all your books. Just finished ‘The Magpie calls’. Awkward silence. Audience laugh. Cross-conversing is great. Everyone watches Scott with patient boredom whilst he embarks on a painfully dull anecdote about a childhood banana language. “Scott. Have you ever thought about therapy” asks simon. Energy is low level. Simon shouts random criticism from the back. Car alarm complaints. Alex B stomps about the space as Jakov. Grumpy and hungover. Very amusing.

Simon stands centre stage for doctor’s monologue. Very articulate - but risk of getting preachy here? Steve enters – cross overs are great. Alex marches in. Grabs beer barrel. Amusing. Love the comedy of Yakov. So important to balance the weight of Simon/Steve’s profundity. Maz enters with a crash. “Your mum wants you. She’s worried!” “That’s fine. That ‘s her natural state.”
See video of end of act One.

ACT TWO

Sometimes you sit in a room for hours and no one even knows you’re there.
Perhaps I’ll sing.

Colin’s gentle grumping is lovely ‘ahhh look… my invisible bottle of medicine’ ‘there is no connection to coughing and smoking’ This scene is quite static. Audience on both sides. Specifics brilliant. Heavy, stuffy space – we need more life. Maz walks off singing and limping. She doesn’t announce why until asked. I feel like we’re watching a reality TV show – voyeuristic. Peering in at a languid day in the Hurley house. Scott “We are varnishing the fence work. In the second week of july, we always varnish the fences. The car is parked 10 miles away. There are other days that we could do it… but if we leave it to autumn, it just doesn’t get done” Highly amusing. Low level oppression. Leila is close to anguished tears.

Leila come here!
Please don’t shout at me!

Leila exits whimpering. Scott freaks out and throws some sort of psycho tantrum in which he creates an invisible Leila out of a coat and umbrella… and proceeds to attack them. Hilarious. Colin kicks the umbrella/coat/scott. Scene quite subtle again. Audience hungry for fury.

Simon and Maddie:

I don’t know that bit of the script Maddie.
I do.

Simplicity is moving. More talk muddles the clarity. Train rumbles. There’s a storm coming. All these little dramas... Maddie “I want to die. I can’t do this anymore. I want do die.” They hug. “There. Just there.” It echoes the Masha moment in act one. I’d never noticed that before…. Katie enters with flowers… Merci beaucoup. Maddie walks towards Katie/Simon.

“Flowers. What sort of flowers?”
“White ones.”

She smiles dangerously.

“White flowers? Is someone dying?”

Maddie tears up the paper flowers. Steve marches in with a stuffed raven and hangs it on the wall. Rather frightening.

Steve and Katie. Sad and melancholy. Steve is vulernable. Katie calls him self indulgent. Steve is rational. Criticises Katie’s acting. Again low level oppression. “Every time this man is in the room, I see the change in you.” / Jethro: “the short talktative one with less hair than me kicked off. So we’re going.” Jethro slowly wanders towards Katie”.

I’d like to get inside… your mind… and rummage around in there…. And see what kind of creature you are…
I’d like to get inside your mind.

The audience shift around.. immediately excited.

I get under my duvet and have swine flu for a week.
What an amazing way to live.

These two pace the space. Quite animalistic. Katie perches on a stool in front of Jethro. But sexual tension gets lost in multitude of words - then the playfulness in his arrogant irritation, and slipped in remarks about her attractiveness bring it back. Audience are in on the subtext. Waiting for him to shut up and do something.

Your writing had an effect on me…. I gasped.

Audience are hungry for more. We are best when we tease them with the subtextual doing… less good when we deprive them completely and get lost in words. Articulacy is brilliant. Discovery of seagull is effective – helps us to see the world around them. The bareness of the space is difficult to palate when we’re static. Noises off and quiet observance from within scene is beautiful. Jethro and Katie’s exits are mesmeric in their simplicity.

ACT THREE
Maz and Jethro on the sofa – Listening to ipod with Jethro. Abruptness and simplicity of Maz’s decisions is effective. Less words. More clarity.

Here’s to you. The most honest man here.
Steff’s steff.
He’s tall.
He loves me.
I feel sorry for him.
I think we’ll be fine.

Lovely comic drunken Masha.

Katie enters. Join me. Have a seat on my sofa. Try and guess my middle name. It’s a psychic thing. Ophelia. Jane. Mary. Jennifer. Avril? Rleaxed intimacy of new setting – inside the bar. Brilliant from where I’m sitting at the back… Leila, colin and jethro… alex’s Yakov. Audience relaxed and engaged. We’re waiting for the storm. And we know it’s going to be hot. Hoxton – xmas prezzies. Specifics great… “I’ve seen him trying to shave with his eyes closed.” People pass in the street and peer in the window. I feel like we’re inside a special zoo. Feels very secret and privileged. Everyone is in sync. Colin coughs. Leila nags irritably at him. Colin freezes. Leila yells for steve. Leila screams… Ambulance… Drama of this is great.

[One of my pages got wet here, and all the ink has run… totally indecipherable]

Steve and Leila – When scott and Maddie had a really bad fight. And Maddie got hurt. They’re always fighting. No.. she got really hurt. And you looked after Maz. You remember? Oh yes, she was so sweet… Steve colouring in the blanks. Lovely, rather sinister reference to past history. And Leila’s habit of purposely glossing over the problems. You are three times the man that Jethro is. Magical blue lights dance over scene. Kicks off with steve and Leila. F*ck off. No respect. Shutup about my play. You’re sucking me dry. I can’t give you any more. I can’t love you any more. Leila lynches herself with words. Very moving. Dips in sincerity with the retraction. Jethro enters reading Katie’s quote from a book.

Close in a cage a bird I’ll keep
It sings all through the night.
When other birds are fast asleep,
It yields such sweet delight.

The beauty of this lifts the scene again. Jethro repeats it several times, ignoring Leila. Beauty is gold dust.

Some higher power is pulling me towards her at a speed that I cannot interrupt.
Let me stay. Just one more day.
She’s a child. A puppet.

Very moving. Jethro’s language is poetic throughout. Very writerish.

I need you to respect who we are. I know what you can do with your eyes. Don’t beg me Leila. Just be f*cking strong. Stand up.
NO NO NO. I will not stand up. – she says, standing up. (Audience laugh… relief from intensity)
I will fight for you.

Leila is endearingly ridiculous in her actressness.

Do you really respect a man who’s got less will than a…. lettuce?

Scott appears outside… banging on the window… miming walking down stairs. Hilarious. The beleaguered Alex struggles to exist with massive bags. Scott seems engrained in the scenery. Leila watches him with incredulity. Leila, Maddie. I love you. A mime of general fuss and departure takes place outside the window as they all exit the venue… very hilarious.

Jethro – Katie. Just give me your number. They kiss.

ACT FOUR
Maz enters. Tries to engage sexily with steff…. Then loses interest. Let’s go home and tuck William in… Lucy is there… coming at it from different angle. I’m going to hit the road. Feels like night time. Maddie, steve and maz – secret language. Everyone enters. We’ve been invited into this secret world… Colin has deteriorated… Conveys passage of time. They talk of money. There is a lightness about Colin despite his morbidity. This act is intimate. I’m excited… feel somehow invested in these people… they are all likable… no polarisation of characters. They are real. No annoyingly pompous doctor… no irritatingly moody son. No disgustingly vain actress… No monsters. People.

Steve talks about Katie. He is succinct and quite sad. Audience faces look concerned.. loving. Quite motherly. Steve is not overly sentimental. Leila, Jethro and Scott enter from outside…. But pace picks up… Steff exits rather dramatically. Steve confronts Jethro in not reading his article. First time I’ve seen this... but works well. Leila glosses over it. We feel like time has moved on but Leila is dismissive as ever. Feels like we know each one of these characters… all their delicate traits. Steve moves around the space as they play drinking games. Pace never drops. Constant chatter. Very enjoyable. Feels like this has been carefully orchestrated... but it hasn’t. Steve’s monologue is peaceful.

Katie enters in doorway. Quite quiet.
Hi.
Hi…
Katie seems very different. Quite eerie. Very beautiful. No high drama. Very filmic quality to this scene… calm sort of real-ness. Audience appear to be on the edge of their seats.

Very intimate. Delicate. They sing ‘Baby it’s cold outside… I really can’t stay’…. Female audience members look like they might cry. Quite choking. Steve explains how he’s destroyed her… he confesses his love. Leila and jethro interrupt from outside. So valuable as the texture of the world suspended in imagination. This scene is brilliantly articulated, although quite long, audience wavering a little… We need a climax – doesn’t really have one… Katie exits with ‘I hate him. I hate him’ She cries. They hug and we’re back with them. Steve quietly rips up his work whilst red/green starlights from the bar’s disco ball are projected on his face. Magical and very sad.

The group enter drunkenly. Air of sinister beauty in the instant contrast. The gunshot goes off horribly loudly (directly behind me, in fact). Everyone jumps. Sounded very much like a gunshot. Rather shaken. Leila laughs continually. Really painful to watch. Some audience are crying. Mediocre chit-chat continues. Until Simon returns and gently informs Jethro to get Leila in a car immediately as Steve has blown his brains out.

CONCLUSION
Brilliant show, in my opinion. Subtle. Real. Delicate. Profound without over-sentimentalising. Quite a breathless tension in audience hubbub as they exit. Lots of laughter. Very female heavy audience. Quite gentle. There is another loud noise as something is dropped behind the bar, and lots of people jump and laugh nervously. This show felt very classy. Lots of beauty in the language and the people. Swearing very minimal, and never used gratuitously. No one ever became petulant. Language was generally poetic yet very specific. Felt like the edges of a bigger world… maybe aided by making Leila and Jethro genuinely into the artistic elite… and using a real and rather frightening stuffed bird to represent the seagull… Only critique – possibly too subtle at points? If we could retain the intelligence and delicacy, but have more fire when it’s needed… I reckon that would be what Chekhov would have wanted.

- Faye Thomas

Boiling Frogs Run-Through Aftermath Blog-Thought

AlexHassell — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 05:49:54 CST

Is theatre always a work-in-progress? Does it become dull as soon as it is polished, or ‘slick’?

I reckon so.

The run through of Boiling Frogs yesterday was rough. But inside that small square taped on the floor, there was a lot of real work going on, and consequently, a lot of it was working.

If theatre is alive, like a human, if it is always a work-in-progress, then this play and this group of men collectively achieve their goal.

The subject matter of the play and Steve’s very acute and complex writing, are both too serious to be performed by actors who are doing any less than digging deep for their attention and their presence.

But it seems a very good and delicate balance is about to be struck; the combination of a text which deals with very serious themes and of actors who are dedicating themselves to their performance and their characters journey, rather than preaching the content of the play.

The resulting chord chimes emotion, engagement and questions in the heart of the audience, or at least it did for me.

I was reminded of something yesterday, or perhaps I learned it for the first time;

When we are afraid, or when we do not notice our fear and fight it actively – our standards begin to slide, we give our allegiance too easily, we become less discerning, our ‘moral compass’ begins to be swayed by too many factors – by more than just the magnetic poles of ‘okay’ and ‘not okay’.

However we chose to engage with the current political issues surrounding our Liberty in these bizarre times, it is this slide, which we barely notice until, it seems, we have done something regrettable, that may matter most.

Great play. Great guys. Real treat. Many, many thanks.

Portia x

MORE...

While its fresh in my head, here are my thoughts...

Firstly, congratulations to you all, I loved it. It's such a thought-provoking, powerful, articulate, funny, moving, fast-paced, strong piece!

The writing is fantastic - very clear, well-balanced and thoughtful with interesting and well rounded, believable characters. The acting was brilliant. Sensitive, affecting and extremely active - there were very few times when an actor wasn't doing something to another and that really helped to keep my attention and make it mean something. You could see that you've all done a great deal of work together on it. Actors were making specific choices and responding to one another in the moment and this despite scripts in hand/asking for lines etc.

I thought it was really well directed, it felt very exciting to watch and there was a sense of danger all the way through that i really enjoyed. The closing in of the space was very effective and although simple had a very particular effect especially once we moved back out at the end - it really made me aware of the journey of the play and forces one to look at events from a bigger perspective. I loved the way the humour was brought out and the balance of danger with comedy throughout. I think the use of costume, props, lights and sound was effective and served the play really well although wasn't sure what the things thrown down were supposed to be?

The only questionable part for me was the speech by Colin at the end. I half liked it and found it moving and a nice way to round off the play but the other half of me found it a bit annoying - as if it had been tacked on as a kind of justification or explanation of some sort. I couldn't decide whether it worked for me or not?

Anyway, thats my ramble over. Ultimately, I think The Factory are really lucky to have been allowed to work on this piece, which i can imagine seeing in any of London's main theatres (which is a great deal better than the majority of things i've paid to see in most of London's main theatres of late) and I think Steve is also really lucky to have been able to work on it with the Factory, in such a fashion, with such a great group and I look forward to seeing it again!

Katie.x

Boiling Frogs Showings Feedback

SteveBloomer — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 14:40:23 CST

I know we asked you to Email us feedback but if you would prefer the anonymity of putting it here please do, this can also be a place for any constructive ideas for the cast about rehearsals or the showings or the project as a whole. Anything really.

Also, I've a few questions, which even if you are emailing us it may be nice to consider as a start, I'll keep them general...

What do people feel about Tom as a character?

Are there too many long speeches?

Did you feel Gandhi was supposedly a genuine threat?

Did you understand and believe in Mark's reasons for his actions?

Did you understand and believe in the sentencing/torture threats when they happened? Or did anything undermine your belief in it?

Did you get the festival of Moloch reference?

Anything else?

Sx

Hamlet show report November 17th 2009

RhysMeredith — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 03:05:52 CST

Show report written without bias by Colin, who would like to dedicate his performance of Polonius to Al Pacino and Merryl Streep.

The team/cast/squad/players:

COLIN POLONIUS
Jethro Polonius’ son
Elena Polonius’ daughter
Jimmy Polonius’ would-be son-in-law
Steff/Rhys Polonius’ would-be son-in-law’s possible best man
Jonno Polonius’ boss
Amanda Polonius’ boss’s wife and ex-boss’s widow
Alex Hassell Ghost of Polonius’ late boss
Maddy and Simon Siamese courtiers Ros and Guil (summoned to court at Polonius’ suggestion)
Liz Polonius’ daughter’s First GD
Charlie Parkie Wiser Polonius’ daughter’s 2nd GD
Leila Priest (and old school friend of Polonius)
Scott Fortinbras (bastard son of Polonius)
Muller Osric (Polonius’ protege, perhaps?)
Alex Blake Polonius’ Nemesis
Maz Player king (well, most of it, played Brutus to Polonius’ Julius Caesar at university)

Impressions and memories in no particular order:

Ghost and Hamlet on a tiny square. Why does the ghost deliberately go to such lengths to not mention Polonius?

Act 3 Jimmy attempted a little DIY on an audience member with a hammer. The audience member looked like he might have a few spare hammers secreted about his person, so I'm glad it didn't kick off.

“From this to this”, from juice to lager or vice-versa, (I couldn’t see, as I was still immersed in my character, visualising some previous circumstances and freshening up some sense- memories to inform my next high octane entrance. Or exit. Oh yes, and I was being dead)

Is it just me, or was there a palpable tension and audible buzz every time Polonius (disguised as Colin) came on?

Hamlet’s letter to Ophelia a padded fabric number 2. (Which is the first word of the letter, a gag Colin commendably ignored, to gasps of disbelief from audience and cast members alike (mainly because it didn’t occur to him ‘til, like Elvis, he had left the building))

I think some of the cast found it hard playing scenes while the audience were looking around wondering when Polonius was going to come on again.

Foils Animal masks Parrot vs Bull/goat?

Stoop of wine - hat (brilliantly found under a chair, by Colin) with a poisonous cuddly toy pearl

And did the lights seem to fade whenever Colin left the stage?

“Wipe thy brow” with this duvet

“Read on this book” silver tape (Gaffer? Duct? Gimp?)

Tape picked up and used for the funeral

Jethro and Jimmy in the grave having a waxing competition, taping over all and any body hair. Braver men than me.

Fortinbras snake Scott /scott Snake.

Nicely sung posy of a ring

Play - audience members

Audience members used for Player King’s speech too.

Act 2 Props hidden under the coats of five audience members sat in the middle of the playing space

Act 3 If you’re in a scene you have to be touching up a member of the audience. Took us a while to realise that this makes entering and exiting easier, not harder.

Act 4 overlapping (some cast members took this to mean overlapping if your name’s Jonno)

Jethro played guitar as Laertes, tried to accompany Ophelia. Rather beautiful, I thought (though a lot of audience members would have liked Polonius to be more present in that scene).

Act 5 Corridoor, props, anything in the room, in a row

I found it hard to keep track of prop usage in the grave scene, they were used at such a rate, and at ground level, and being swept away, but there was definitely a toy dumper truck and a mermaid, plus umbrella and manikin’s arm. Why did no-one think to knock up a portrait of Polonius for this scene? Come on, Factory!

Welcome back Charlie P W.

I hereby swear that this is a fair and accurate (not to say practically photographic) account of the events that took place in the departures lounge of Stoke Newington International Airport.

Wot?

Seagull Show Report - 29th November 2009

RhysMeredith — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 03:00:16 CST

Dalston Boys Club

Cast

The Actress - Amanda Hadingue
The Brother - Jonathon Olliver
The Son - Tim Evans
The Writer - Simon Muller
The Doctor - Alex Blake
The Bailiff - Paul Jenkins
The Bailiff's Wife - Jo Kroll
The Bailiff's Daughter - Faye Thomas
The Teacher - Steff/ Rhys Meredith
The Girl - Katie Morgan
Mr Yakov - Max Hell
Mrs Yakov - Maddy Hyland

Warm Up

The game, indecipherable when I entered, was playing Act One with the most left-field, obscure version of your units possible. Thus a dancing play etc. Interesting, it crept in to the play in some helpful, some unhelpful ways I thought.

Notes from after

A couple of things, first off - space. There were a normal of confusions over the space used - is it 'as is' or 'as the play says', with Alex's direction being that it is the latter - that we are outside in Acts 1 and 2 and must imagine it as so. I noted a couple of these confusing moments e.g. - Act 1 constant reference to the constant pouring rain, yet it wasn't raining in the scene which was also outside. In Act 2 someone mentioned taking Jono 'upstairs' yet again they are outside. Also Simon, quite brilliant, used the chandelier as a metaphor for the way he looks at everything from a writer's perspective, yet of course there would be no chandelier hanging from the ceiling outside. In Act 4 the space wasn't phsyically changed from that in Act Three, although the play says it has been. Plus Alex referred to the spot in the room Katie performed Tim's play (the balcony) which was supposed to be in the gardens, and Tim's piano - set outside the room by reference as he left a scene to listen to it and somebody said 'he's left now', yet later he was stood there and someone spoke to him, making it confusing where the room ended and what he could or could not here.

Also, this seemed a rather slow, low-key, low stakes run. Beautiful, quiet and desperate at times, chatty and inconsequential at others. We missed some of the play's arguments - e/g the doctor and bailiff's wife discussing the attraction of artists versus regular people in act one, often in favour of pursuing our own games. Wonderfully Chekhov's story was still told, we didn't stray that far, but we missed some wonderful detail: at times filling it with new ones of our own, at times filling it with repetition and chat. Again units that are a line or two in the text lasted much longer, and oddly key moments got truncated yet more 'conversational elements' of the story were lengthened (such as reading the book in Act Two).

Finally I thought a couple of the more left-field choices flumuxed us, we felt the need to do both the obscure one and a more literal one as a safety perhaps. Obviously this is a new thing we are exploring, or toying with, and how and to what extent to do it, and how we deal with it and how we continue to move the play on whilst doing it we need to learn to deal with if we want to continue using them, even sparingly. Examples are Paul dismissing Max for stealing before everyone leaves in Act Three - a very brave choice on his unit which is normally along the general lines of 'the bailiff talks about theatre again' but definitely allowable if the unit is defined as 'the bailiff causes a scene/the bailiff goes on at length'. However then we had a bit about asking Simon to get in touch with Terry Pratchitt, so two units for the price of one. Similarly Tim's lovely long speech to Amanda in act Three about their childhood and his love for her which seemed to be a more direct version of telling her a story about when she was caring or whatever that unit normally is, but then was followed immediately by a story about her stand-in breaking her leg, which was also lovely, and their laughter had a beautiful juxtaposition with Tim's next 'Why are you with Simon?' but I felt we didn't need both and neither does Chekhov give them to us.

Some random observations and bits that stood out

Act One - At the far end, audience end on.

Tim has dotted plants around the space, and three umbrellas to start tonight's rain theme. (We got a little self-referential with all the rain chat I thought, though it was biblical outside, especially as like I said the characters are outside in this Act but never mentioned that they were wet/it was raining out there.)

Steff's opening line comes a propos of nothing.

Steff to Faye "I don't view you as a dark person." Nicely put a stop to us labelling the Bailiff's daughter, at least Steff anyway.

Jono and Tim argue about theatre - nice reason to speak here. Tim's house growing up was 'another green room.'

Tim hides behind a plant and jumps out at Katie and carries her off for a kiss as a caveman 'ooba dooba.'

Max and Maddy, our two servants, both enter flustered. Maddy admits they've 'not been swimming.'

Jo and Alex seem to miss their whole scene as an arugment over who's scarf Alex is wearing continues until others start arriving. We jsut hear 'Nobody knows it's mine' as Jo passes Alex a hat to keep him warm, but I'm not sure someone who didn't know the play would get they were having an affair from just that.

Paul's anecdote (about seeing Nation at the National recently) didn't die on its arse as usual but instead he was ignored and finally was left unsatsified as everyone else moved on and left him unfinished, with no audience. Perhaps an example of a nice, and nicely 'Chekhovian' obscure take on the unit, although I felt the loss of the Doctor's put down of him.

Alex had a nicely different energy for the doctor's speech - really enthusiastic rather than moved and reflective. Playing with what energy we think of units having is important I reckon, and a great way to continue to find new things. We shouldn't need new actors to come in to unlock these things.

The end of the act finished before Faye's declaration of love, partly because we had heard Tim and Alex Blake already say it was apparent, and partly perhaps because it looked like we might not get there. Plus the show was already feeling a little long.

Act Two - Audience on One Side, we had the rest of the space

Alex described Jono's condition as 'Terminal' to which everyone in the moment reacted, 'Terminal?!' Alex 'Muscle relaxants and sleeping pills are the only thigns that will do him good.' This was clearly news to all concerned. Whether it's in the text or nto, a left-field unit or not, whatever, once this has been said on stage it becomes fact, and yet we just let it go. The play would have worked had the Doctor used this to tell everyone he had only a few years to live - it could actually have been really nice - but instead we very quickly moved on with no reference to the fact that a relative had just been pronounced terminally ill.

I've written here ' very slow, lots of chat.'

Paul has taken people off the insurance to save money so only he can drive the car, but he's not feeling well. Great. Suddenly we are in an argument, not a huge one but it really doesn't need to be, it is important to all, and everyone is playing to win. Amanda need to get into Town to pick up a 'prescription' - everyone here seems to be ill! However it struggles a little I think once she is offered a free Taxi, although Amanda's accusation of Paul Martyring himself is great. But this happens often here, the logic of why they can't get what they want needs to be strong, and their solutions unworkable I think - Chekhov I don't think has anyone offer a viable solution at this point which is then ignored. The Brother suggests one option but the Bailiff refutes it's availability.

A lovely walk through by Amanda and Simon as Jo and Alex talked - the first time I for one have seen this moment really work. And when Jo and Alex were alone again the shift in their tone was lovely. Both tried hard in the scene, Jo pushing Alex on whether he 'won't leave or can't leave'.

Tim is cruel and c*ntish to Katie, so different from Act One it is painful. He keeps demanding she 'Give us a kiss.' Then says 'Do you know what you've done to me?' He openly baits Simon with his unit about his appearance, a lovely choice. But then they stay on and we are in a three person scene Chekhov never wrote. Albeit an interesting one.

Simon - lovely use of meeting Ian McEwan after Tim compared Simon with him unfavourably earlier. He gets upset about his 'success' when he feels unsatisfied - 'Paul think's I'm like Terry Pratchett!' Katie consoles him with a lovely hug, a great moment. Simon 'Oooh! Aah! Thank you!'

Act Three - In the snug alcove at the side of the room

Tim and Steff enter well before their cue, sitting on staging chatting and laughing over a Phrenology skull. This forces Jono and Amanda to conduct their conversation about him in hushed tones, well as hushed as Jono's resonance will allow.

Steff is sent to get Alex to help Jono, who then comes. This is a very different play, that said this choice makes sense and from my opinion doesn't slow/limit/hinder the story in any way so, other than that fact that it takes some clever juggling from Tim to invent a new reason for him not changing his bandage a little later (normally the doctor isn't in the house at this point because he's late), I guess it works fine.

Tim leaves the stage mid scene and returns to tell Amanda "I have no one" Amanda "You'll always have me" He leaves again and we hear him crying. He ends the scene from the balcony above. Tim and Amanda had the climax of their scene almost on the playing space - we seemed to break our own convention of staging here in an exciting way, the scene feeling like it was spilling out of the frame and off the stage.

Simon asks Amanda "When was the first time you were in love", he claims never to have been in love until now and stresses their age difference "You're 43, I'm 26." Making him so specifically young helped, Tim outed his age in Act One. The play suggests he is much younger than her, but never says by how much. However I think in our production this is lost a little often, especially as we have so many people playing ages that are a bit of a stretch (The Bailiff's wife's for example, or the 'middle aged' Doctor.)

Amanda tells Simon 'We all need you' and he starts to ask audience members 'Do you need me?' They don't know how to respond and some nod, some say no. He shouts out 'Who needs me?' Amanda "I need you." She makes a great last ditch for him which would have won me over!

A nice version of the 'obscure' yet not obscure use of units I thought was Simon setting Katie up with a Bar Job near his flat in London by giving her the name and number of the owner, rather than putting her up in a hotel room.

Act Four - Space Unchanged

Steff talks about tatty rogue umbrellas still by the lake, hitting people in the face. He thinks one of them made somebody cry... This was lovely, as the idea that The Teacher heard somebody crying by the lake always seems at odds somehow, perhaps because it seems neither grounded in a specific reality/experience or consciously ethereal/other worldly.

Jo tries to leave Faye and Tim alone, she watches as Tim struggles to make conversation 'Hello Faye. How are you?' then he leaves. Faye berates her 'He's left now.'

Jono and Alex argue over death to the point of causing Alex ot have a coughing fit, and Jo to tell Alex to cool off. He tries to check himself but keeps beating the old man up.

Jono is quite clearly about to die. This is all a tired, quiet, unhappy, desperate collection of people.

Faye leaves the scene and moves about the space to get wine, Stef sits disconsolate alone.

Tim to Alex 'Alex will you f**k off!" A nice brave dib on the 'philosophis' unit.

Tim asks an audience member what he thought of his poetry 'It's brilliant' he says 'Thank you, you're lying.' Tim responds. Then he gives the rest of his speech about writing like Simon to him alone. Lovely as we had such a small (15?) audience.

A great feeling that it has indeed been 2 years since Katie and Tim saw each other. Katie is going to Berlin. They watch a fly pass. Tim tells her how he still loves her. Quiet, frank.

We listen to an extended conversation between Amanda and Simon as they sound like they are on the verge of shagging nearby - the effect on Katie is lovely, and it is so much richer than the generalised 'rhubarb rhubarb' type offer we normally have at this point. Something to explore further in many different ways perhaps.

Katie "Will you see me out?" Tim walks her to the door and watches her leave. He comes back slowly and instead of ripping up his work sits and contemplates the Phrenology skull. Maybe he was going to rip the work up but the cast come in- some translations do suggest he is there for anything from 'two' to 'several' minutes here ripping up piles of writing but this must be judged by those coming on, and how interesting is a guy ripping up scrap paper anyway?! He picks up the skull and walks off.

The last scene, indeed the whole play, was so low-key I didn't expect the gunshot myself, and half believed it was just the top of some medicine when Alex said it was. Nice for me to be shocked that Tim had, at last, killed himself.

Quite a long show, around 2hrs 45 with no real interval, but some lovely moments.

Steven

FactoryMember

TimEvans — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:41:59 CST


FactoryMember is a social network, consisting of all actors, directors and writers working with The Factory. Here you will find archive resources of sessions, discussions and work taking place at The Factory, as well as up-to-the-minute online forums. Online Membership is open to all. This allows anyone to access and contribute to the content and discussions on the site. So sign up and join in wherever you may be in the world. We encourage you to maintain and contribute to Factorymember and develop it as a community of creative minds working within the industry. IMPORTANT Please Note: Online Membership of FactoryMember does not mean access to The Factory Sessions and Studios. If you would like to Sign Up as an Online Member, register here under your real, professional or Equity name and create your profile. Please ensure you add a profile photo and tell us about yourself! The more information you provide in your profile the more chance there is to connect with the company and its work.

.

.

.

.

Open Factory Session at the Globe, Thursday, 05 November 2009

AdamWelsh — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:59:48 CST

I get in from work, I feed the cat, the kettle is on, I check the emails- one new message from TIM EVANS- THE SUBJECT - "PARTICIPATE IN AN OPEN FACTORY SESSION". Before the cat has finished her mush or the kettle has had a chance to boil, I've opened the email, read it and replied with a "Yes please!" and a "Thank you very much!". My promptness denotes my enthusiasm- as a secret Factory junkie but not a fully outed member, I was naturally very keen to muck in. As I dunk my tea-bag, however, that irrational fear sets in, "Will I be good enough?" "Will I fail"? alas, "Will I be rendered creatively impotent by my unwholesome desire to please?"... So, I consult the cat... She doesn't look all that positive... in fact, she looks indignant... Then, fool that I am, I realise that I'm projecting my irrational fear onto the poor cat - the cat doesn't actually give a fu*k, which is comforting in way, depressing in another. Luckily, the fear dissipates temporarily as I settle down with my tea for some mindless T.V.

Fast forward to the Open Session. Tis a bitter cold November evening. I arrive, I sign in and I'm greeted by the lovely Tim Evans, who is the only familiar face in a room full of strangers - Then that blo*dy fear again; "what if everyone hates me?" I wish the cat was here but, alas, she ain't- "Pull yourself together man!" I think. None of us participants know anything about the trajectory of the evening - all we know is that we are making some kind of recording for Radio 4. We're assured, however, that having no preconceived ideas or plans is best--- "Yeah right, it's all in the preparation, isn't it?" Anyway, when everyone seems to have arrived there is a brief spell of chitchat and then, suddenly, the lights go out! A suitably juvenile 'Ooooooh' ripples through the room. Perhaps someone's knocked the switch, easily done. Or perhaps this is all apart of it? "Brilliant!" I think, "at least now I can make an absolute *** of myself and no-one will see!" Anyway, the mystery continues and as the lights come back on there is general relief. Everyone is immediately in the mood for the kind of mischief which only the sudden onset of darkness can achieve. And I'm feeling immediately more daring.... Lights out again, "Something's afoot here" type mutterings bounce off the four walls... Lights on again... then off... and then, out of the darkness comes a blood curdling scream! Sudden silence............ "Can we put the lights back on please"...... "What's going on?"... some cod-fear but an optimistic modicum of genuine panic in the air. There are no explanations or introductions. "I guess we've started then", I hear one guy say. Meanwhile, the part of my brain which isn't busy being confused is jumping for joy - so grateful that the session hasn't started with any of those putrid cliché's - the obligatory circle and the painfully embarrassing name game, the clunky gear change up into "work mode"... Here, we're straight in the deep end and we're responding to a volatile environment - the lack of preparation and the taste of the unexpected has definitely helped to create a mischievous atmosphere where there is no time to plan, think or fear, even. Maybe having no plans is best after all?

Thankfully, it seems that the one person who definitely should have made some plans, has. Tim proceeds to show us an oversized flip-chart which he prepared earlier. On each page there is a scenario or an instruction. The first - "A BUSY RESTAURANT"... (I feel like I'm back in the playground "Ok, I'LL be the customer, YOU be the waiter?" etc...) A story unfolds as Tim flips onto each next page and we play out the scenario - "There's a terrible smell coming from the Kitchen"; the customers start complaining and the waiters start retching - chaos quickly ensues. And then, the theme of the unexpected continues with Tim's next page, "There is a Tidal Wave heading for the Restaurant". Imagine my delight. There's nothing better than a good dose of total panic and hysteria in a safe environment. Less then five minutes ago, these complete strangers were making small talk, now they're rolling about on the floor together. Everything crescendo's into a climatic en masse death by Tidal Wave!....... Hooorahhh! There is spontaneous applause, laughter, red faces and some satisfied sighs. And then, a welcome but brief introduction from Tim, "Everything tonight is being recorded for a specially commissioned play on which the Factory are collaborating with Radio 4. The play is about large groups of people and as such, it seemed perfect opportunity for an open session." And that's it, no more explanations for now, just on with the recording. We rerun the previous scene with just 8 people if only to achieve a more focused and finessed recording, and also this time we transmogrify into maritime creatures who are rather happy about the sudden influx of water. This is largely the spirit in which the evening continues; Tim plays a kind of Conductor, guiding us through a series of improvisations - some with everyone, others with just one person - refining, guiding the narrative and dynamics, fading us in and out - all through ready made signs, whispers, gestures and props.

Another recording - a handful of people are invited by Tim to go into the centre to mimic a packed tube carriage, the rest of us surround them to create the sounds of the train. The atmosphere is more focused now as people begin to become more comfortable going with whatever is thrown at them. In this particular improvisation, Tim directs us by way of a newspaper, that is, as Tim moves the newspaper we react as if the newspaper is the train. Us folk round the edge begin slapping, whistling, squeaking and chugging, whilst the people in the centre are playing at being crammed into the tube excellently - there's the all too familiar 'face in armpit' as well as the person trying to read in spite of the lack of space. As the tube grinds to an unexpected stop the panic slowly begins to build again... (Is there a trend developing here, I wonder - imminent disaster - mass panic?) All the while the chap from Radio 4 is capturing the sound of the improvisations by way of a portable microphone. The evening has a wonderfully impromptu and dynamic feel. There is very little/no talk about what we are doing, we're just doing it. Essentially, this is because there is a very specific purpose to the evening- we're making a recording and as such, we have a series of very concrete things to play out. Nevertheless, I seem to prefer 'DOING' to 'TALKING ABOUT' doing. As much as it is sometimes essential to talk, it occasionally becomes a crutch for avoiding "doing" and can even heighten any unnecessary fears. Funnily enough, the environment which has been set up feels like it's not really focused on the recording itself, but rather on the scenarios dished out by Tim. This is probably why no-one really seems to be suffering from what is sometimes called 'red light syndrome' - the pressure to deliver or perform which can negate the possibility of honest play.

So by now we're really getting into our stride, we're seamlessly moving from one scenario to another, recording as we go. Everyone is still committing fully to whatever is thrown at them. Before we know it, we're outside in the bitter cold and we're frightening the general public. We've separated into different groups and been assigned specific activities; some of us are panicking, others comforting, some celebrating while the recording man weaves inbetween us all to soak it all up. Gradually, the groups split and intermingle and a cacophony of sound floods the south-bank. (I think at one point I even approached a member of the public in a state of panic, thinking that they were with us- they were severely confused!) After a lovely break in the pub, ("A Factory tradition?" I ask Tim, "Sometimes", he says) we've all warmed up again and the alcohol suitably enhances the final scenarios to be played out. Amongst which there is an encounter with God, a total eclipse, thousands of fish fall out of the sky and yet more hardcore Tidal Wave action. Tim finally gives in and reveals what the play is about - if the apocalyptic premise of all of the improvisations hadn't alluded to it already- the play is set at the end of the world.

A great night was had by all and I came away feeling a bit bolder, a bit younger, less dependent upon the cat to boost my confidence (a futile endeavor from the start), appreciating the value of a lack of planning, (but also the value of planning when necessary), and also, I learned that the total annihilation of human kind can actually be great fun- bring on doomsday!

Context and Patience

TimEvans — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:22:06 CST

Before I respond to the various strands of debate that have been thrown up over the previous month or so following Catherine’s 50/50 blog, I’d firstly like to take this opportunity again to apologise for what some, including myself, consider an unhelpful and snappy response to a moment in the debate.
It had been very interesting to se the discussion develop online for the wider questions arising about theatre, the arts, and society.
And - whether or not I disagreed with what I saw to be a shift from the seeking of context of decisions and the asking of questions; to a very specific statement that The Factory simply does not “take women seriously”, I should have done what I had been doing for the month thus far and waited until I was able to respond as fully as possible to many of the issues arising.
I hope what I originally wrote in response to Bailey’s blog which follows will go some way to doing that.

***

Some context...

Criticism: "...it isn’t encouragement us girlies want... it is a chance to have our voices heard."

February 2009. Round 1:

Nine new plays by female writers performed over 1 week, at Hoxton, Pleasance, and Hampstead Theatre.

Including Faye Thomas, Elena Pavli and Federay Holmes - who had been encouraged to write at The Factory, and who had never had their writing produced before.

"Thanks for all of your encouragement. Probably wouldn't have had the guts to send it off if you hadn't told me my writing wasn't **** a year ago!" - Elena Pavli writing to me on confirmation of her Factory-assisted writing being produced in Sydney and New York.

"if it weren't for the factory, I would never have an opportunity to have any of my writing heard or explored... I didn't even consider myself a 'sort-of-writer' until Tim coerced me into writing more stuff for the radio drama project earlier this year... and like Catherine, the encouragement I've received has been invaluable." - Faye Thomas

Criticism: "....80% of the pieces in the set list are written by men."

Final Submissions for consideration for 50/50:

71% by Male Writers
29% by Female Writers

Some Questions

Do you think we chose the final ten on the strength of the writing, and a good range of different styles?

Do you want The Factory to neglect the above criteria and positively discriminate in favour of young female writers, regardless of the amount of submissions we get from them?

Has a huge part of the work we have done in the writers studio for 2008 and 2009 not focussed on the writer allowing either male or female to speak their words and to essentially make such concepts as pre-cooked characters and clichés of types (eg. girls, boys,men, women) impossible?

*

Early in your blog, you say of working on Ben Hassell's Narrated....

" This piece especially gave us performers scope for imaginative playing but also made us aware of the pitfalls of settling for clichéd readings. The trickery I refer to is in lines like “He knows you’re a woman” and “I’m a woman. A girl.” The challenge was to play lines like that with no irony or self-reference..... The idea of saying it and meaning it was where the interesting stuff happened, and for actors and writers to be challenging each other like this was damn exciting. "
 It's a good point.
"The idea of saying it and meaning it was where the interesting stuff happened, and for actors and writers to be challenging each other like this was damn exciting. "
Which is why such an idea was at the forefront of our thoughts whilst reading every single one of the 56 scripts submitted. With re-reads. And discussion. And debate.

What were the pieces that challenged actors, and which were the pieces where the actors would have opportunity to challenge the writing, by bringing who they are to it?

It seems fair that if such a such a criticism of the selection is to be made, an enquiry as to what the ratio of male to female submissions were, and an equal amount of time and process of consideration needs to be made before that criticism is anything other than supposition and a lack of good faith in those making the selection.

Yet without that having happened, it has been determined that the pieces that presented the exciting challenges for the project, were not in fact the ten we came up with, but overwhelmingly in the 29% of submissions by female writers...or more specifically, the 25% if we are to remove both Federay and Barbara for being women but not young enough or too 'established' (a description that Federay responds to here).

So, we have 10 great pieces that were chosen because they were excellent, and because they collectively formed an excellent playlist. Two of those pieces happened to be written by female writers.

What the criticism then seems to evolve to is “Yes. But they’re not young.”

So, what therefore is being suggested, is it’s about speaking words that aren’t written by men, and also words that aren’t written by women who are over the age of......what? I genuinely don’t know. What age is a female writer no longer considered suitable to write words for young actresses to speak?

The playwright Fin Kennedy said recently

“...the piecemeal approach to the development of playwrights means that many of us struggle to be produced again, or regularly enough to make a living at it, and therefore to become masters of our craft.

An eagerness to break ‘the next big thing’ means that theatre companies would often rather spend their limited resources on producing another first play than investing longer term in a regular stable of existing early- to mid-career playwrights.”

I wish to see The Factory investing it’s time and energy in that ‘Longer term’ mentality. In a number of you that I genuinely consider to be the next big thing, and in doing so, not rushing anything out before it is ready just for the sake of ticking a young/ black/ female/ gay/ or any other check-box that people may be eager for The Factory to tick to satisfy their individual labels they may have given the company such as “revolutionary’ or “risky”.

I’m not interested in the labels.
I think they’re unhelpful and diverting. They can be used to mean whatever any particular group wishes it to mean. - In Catherine’s blog, it seems to mean at the moment “ The Factory. Revolutionary. Risky.....because it doesn’t make actresses speak words that men have written as much as the rest of the industry does.”

I would be very wary of and often do find myself very wary when people identify The Factory as being there to do “this” or “that” - for as we have seen it is then criticised for not adhering to those numerous individual tenets, even though it has never made any such claims of doing so.

“THE FACTORY BELIEVES THAT SELLING PRODUCTS, HITTING TARGETS AND PLEASING DEMOGRAPHICS WILL BE THE DEATH OF OUR ART-FORM.”

That is what we do say. It is the statement we placed right at the top-centre of the manifesto.

People will always take one set of circumstances and determine that it means “X”. Others that it means “Y”, others “Q”.

That’s the beauty of the human mind, and one that serves us very well when those minds happen to be audience members. But it doesn’t make X,Y or Q so.

Seagull Show Report - November 16th 2009

Madeleine_Hyland — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:49:05 CST

Okay so here is my three days after show report - Fransiscojo will add things too -.... this is rough notes first and I'll tidy it up as I go along/get time....

Should preface it by saying that though Polonius wasn't in it that it will still be as biased. Though not as funny. Probably the opposite - this version was about death and people stumbling around in a broken world trying to patch things up with words that had lost their meaning, names and roles being called out to try and place an order on the universe - 'you are - you make me - I am not the' - and misplaced love that could fix everything if only one of the relationships in the play were actually healthy. And then moments of actual physical care stuck out a mile and were horribly moving. It was devastating.

CAST
The Actress: Leila Crerar
The Brother: Jonothan Oliver
The Son: Steven Bloomer
The Neighbour: Katie Morgan
The Writer: Simon Muller
The Doctor: Alex Blake
The Bailiff: Scott Brooksbank
The Bailiff's Wife: Liz Richardson
The Bailiff's Daughter: Marianne Oldham
The Schoolteacher: Max Gell
Yakov: Jethro Skinner
MC: Alex Hassell

Things I remember.

For warm-up we did focusing on arguing, adding in 'You're calling me a ....' before every unit.

Act 1: The warm-up seemed to give big mass of energy to Maz and Max through exposition/argument at top - Max's why are you always in black line an astonished accusation, met by Maz with 'I'm in mourning for the death of my career'. Maz's addiction to Hamlet throughout the play was a brilliant offer...I really liked how she kept breaking scenes and making unexpected entrances and exits and really things that had not been done before - it kept throwing everything and the impression of a broken world full of shocked people really strong - but then other people staying really close to units too - so it was a strong ensemble because lots of different instruments got a voice, different rhythms, if that makes sense...it really wins.

Jono can't do up his jacket as he tries to calm down Steve.
Jono: It's broken. Everything I have is like this.

Steve picks a fake flower to play she loves me/not - can't pick the petals off.
Steve: See? My mum the fake flower...They're all at the Donmar looking at me thinking 'shame he got mixed up in all those politics'....Jono defends the Donmar.

Yakov checks Katie out after coming back from swim - Katie suddenly unsure if we've skipped a bit and are now in a different scene...Yakov checks out the audience once her focus is back on Steve/Simon Muller

Steve is openly scathing of Simon's writing: It's airport novels!

The phrase - 'a unique voice' gets repeated in lots of different contexts...I start wondering if that's the problem with the world they're in - all these unique voices but no-oneactually listening to anyone else's...

Katie tries out standing on a wobbly table. Is adamant with Steve: 'I need to understand what you're saying'.

Maz and Max wander directly into Alex and Liz's interrogation/flirtation - it doesn't seem to matter as the world that we're in seems strangely private in public anyway given that of course there's an audience - and it almost moves it further away from naturalism and into a more abstract zone which I quite like - suddenly there seems more room to find pathways of meaning and what the characters might be symbolising - but anyway they dive off again after a bit.

Liz on Actresses: 'They're not higher up they've just breasts and legs'

Leila comes in changing the lighting - 'what about tea lights! Atmosphere! Do you remember wearing this when you were 5?' (a feathered yellow headress) - Leila wears it instead. A beautiful weird family portrait is created against the whitewashed brick wall in the corner as they watch the play ( a new one from Steve?) - which is horribly raw poetry.

Katie 'Death is Amazing. I feel it's warm embrace'. Maz is a still statue all throughout.

Leila introduces Simon: 'He's completely autistic with people'. Simon and Katie genuinely match each other for shyness - for the first time fishing seems like something to cling on to when there's nothing else...an opportunity for an outlet sure, but there is a sense that everyone knows it's not really the topic of conversation.

Scott's story is about death too - at a prizegiving. Scott is a really earthy Bailiff all throughout, and I want to be like him when I grow up, in his attention to detail and ignoring of time and trust of right now.

Alex ditches the black gloves once everyone has gone. The play made him feel alive. Maz cracks up when Steve asks if she means that his mother wants him sexually. He's NOT AVAILABLE. Maz comes back in with To be or not to be. 'Test me on my lines'. Alex waits on book for her to begin. Instead she confesses her love for Steve, and rushes off quickly.

Act 2 - audience moved to being in the round

Leila sucks on a lollipop and challenges Alex to decide who he would rather take to a desert island. Maz concedes that she wouldn't be much good at making bikinis out of fig leaves, but don't worry she'll get over it one day. Her Hamlet addiction becomes even more isolating - she is literally surrounding herself with a completely different discourse to that that everyone near her is talking - her refusal to enter their's is both heroic and awful at the same time.

Katie enters - Leila praises her because look, she'd know how to survive. 'She'd be ripping the heads off monkeys'.

Jono gets calmly reminded by Alex that smoking and drinking destroy the essence of you....Maz interupts with pins and needles, limps off giggling. Again a really nice change of rhythm, and unexpected. Scott enters, he and Leila fight straight to the point, and he really means it when he resigns.

Liz and Alex argue. Liz is passionate, Alex logically reasoning. Lots of logical arguments tonight - not managing to cover up the brokenness of things. Alex can't do it.'I'm just - stuck'. Katie gives him a light blue glove. Liz throws it into the audience.

Steve enters with crow seagull. 'It's like I woke up and everyone was dead. It's a nightmare - everything's broken'. He is quietly desperate, Katie relentless.

Simon enters -immediately sees the dishcloth on the floor that Steve wrapped up the crow/seagull in...'what is that?' Katie says it's a cloth. After a bit he notices the crow...'what is THAT?' Katie explains - the disorder of units again, is interesting in terms of where it throws the other actor - although the audience won't know it I bet they get the sense of danger it infuses everything with. Simon's 'I'd like to spend a bit more time inside you' line sounds like another bad attempt on the part of a very shy writer to have a crack at a pick-up line - it gets a big laugh and Katie doesn't ignore the laughing but laughs along with them, hand over mouth, shocked. The scene that follows is deadly serious though - Simon is genuinely frightened of being locked up, and he is acknowledging his disease to her, in a way it seems, so that she knows what she's dealing with. He really lays out at her feet his dilemma - he is so ill with this thing that he is incapable of maintaining anything healthy, but he must keep going because he knows that massive things are happening to the world that he can nearly put the words to, and if he could, it might really just change things. He can feel a massive paradigm shift but he is frustrated by his own incapability. But he is really hunting something massive and important - but it's like the tube doors shut a splitsecond before he can reach it. he genuinely thanks her for the conversation when he's called away. Katie thanks him via the audience once he's gone. The both of them were'nt afraid to really let the stakes go massively big in this scene - it just blasted the whole game of it wide open exposing the fragile nature of it all - and love and words are the only things that are holding it all together.

Act 3 - playing space is on other side from Act 1.

Act 4 - playing space the same.

Maz is still addicted to Hamlet/Shakespearean tragedy and has a quiet, desperate energy that breaks through every now and then...she'll be coming home 'tomorrow, and tomorrow and tomorrow...' She and MAx make some beautiful antitheses together.

Liz nearly gets a nice response out of Steve. He goes off and plays the Amelie soundtrack on the piano. The scissor chandelier threatens above Maz.

Alex and Jono are frustrated with each other. This whole bit in Act 4 is still the hardest to activate, for everyone in the scene I reckon, to get on the front foot....is it that we know we're being confronted with death? On the part of the brother and everyone knowing about the son....I don't know, maybe there's just something about death that even when someone is ill the thought of them actually not being there is just unthinkable - I was talking to an old chap at the french the other day and his wife passed away earlier this year, and he said that even though she'd been ill for years the actual absence was so sudden - I think maybe the Doc and the Brother can be so blunt with each other not because they're expecting his death, but because they're not, there's a part of your brain that does expect things to just continue and continue...or not. I don't know. Or maybe there's something about act 4 that has something really russian about it that ew havn't unlocked yet...I wonder what the key is. Or maybe it is just like that...it's not that it doesn't work as a scene full of people trying to activate the scene, instead of having raging arguments! Alex and Jono got into electricity metaphors which sort of fed the imaginary apocalyptic landscape feel going on in my head....something about the inadequacy of any technology to fix actual humans.

Alex: 'Death is nothing to be cared of - we make it up - it's a weakness in our imagination'. Brilliant. It somehow rings out because like being scared of the unknown, of death, I'm reminded of what Yoli says about how she used to be scared of the audience beofre working at the Globe. And here the connection is back, so we're not scared of the audience so much. And maybe we know more than we think we do anyway...

Alex's favourite city is Bombay because it's so alive.

Steve describes Katie's letters: 'It's like she's been shot in the head but she's still looking at you and smiling for a momnet before she falls - you can just tell'

Leila brings in Steve's article in the Daily Mail, which she only reads for the stars. Steve shares his aside directly to one audience member - a really lovely choice because the audience on the other side still hear it, but they take in the reaction of the chap being spoken to so personally as well.

The party play Cluedo, or try to start.

Steve plays Satie but wrong on the piano. It makes me wonder whether the times in history where pieces of art or architecture or verse or music have been praised for their perfection is because it creates an illlusion of perfect order in a disordered world, opens a doorway to a way of seeing and ordering...

Jono is helped out to dinner. The physical care is just so moving after all the words not hitting targets, not changing anything. The bodies touching changes things.

Steve reads us his latest - a description of a funeral 'the rain lashed down on the mourners'...

Katie comes in. She's going away to Bruges. She wasn't enough for Simon. He didn't help her choose the coffin for their 2 week old baby.

She stands on another wobbly piece of furniture and performs for Steve. 'Death - where I have never been happier'.

Steve shoots himself - the dull thud of the piano lid.

Brilliant, brave, wonderful, really sad show. Well done amazing people.

Boiling Frogs Session 22

SteveBloomer — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:27:18 CST

Line Learning. Which actually seemed to be going well so keep up the good work.

Admin - rehearsals and showings. Alex will be sending out details of the times of the showings asap, and I think we all have the extra rehearsal info already. Meanwhile rest assured plans for graffiti artists, costume, funding, venues etc move along nicely with quiet confidence and some fingers crossed.

Prop Finding.

Beer Drinking.

I put this page on for one reason, to list a few things it would be nice to have for the showings. If any of you not at the session, or even any factory members randomly reading this page, should have them please let us know/drop them in:

A tape recorder (poss Paul?)
Any policeman's hats no matter how cheap and fancy dress looking
An extension lead (think i have one)
Round glasses (Damian?)
Bits of polystyrene/cement/building

I think we have the other things?

BBC Postcards

TimEvans — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:14:57 CST

Really good night, while the flipchart instructed and the mic listened we responded either as as a whole group or in little sections. Bonfire night was really evocative and I liked the minimal opportunity to discuss what we were going to do so we didn't persuade ourselves out of it. There were vibrant times like running on mass down the street from the tsunami, there were also beautiful quiet moments where we all breathed at the same time or listened to the tallest girl sing.
Also as promised I have included the blurb about Caitlin’s show. Thanks again for last night I thoroughly enjoyed myself and all the people I was thrown together with.

Kelda x

50/50 SATURDAY 7TH SHOW REPORT

SteveBloomer — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:05:03 CST

Twelve

Robyn Kerr

Underwater Love

Alan Morrissey
Colin Hurley

1975

Elena Pavli
Jonathon Oliver

Assistance

Catherine Bailey
Alex Blake

(Fazel was Paul sat in the audience, who spoke back at one point.) One other moment that stood out for me; someone actually laughed when Alex mentioned the Afghan excuse for the missing boys, Bailey looked at them to ask her next line, 'Why are you smiling?'

Turf

Katie Morgan
Tim Evans
Leila Crerar

Turf (Reprise)

Leila Crerar
Katie Morgan
Tim Evans

Just getting it ready.

I am intending to write something about what I learned doing all this so hope you might share more then too.

Missing the Point

FayeThomas — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:41:32 CST

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

50/50 FRIDAY 6TH 9.30 SHOW REPORT

AlexHassell — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 08:23:13 CST

Come on!

50/50 FRIDAY 6TH 2.30 SHOW REPORT

AlexHassell — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 08:22:15 CST

Will you please?

Would be very valuable.

We have had very little sharing of thoughts about 50/50's move into rehearsal and performance because we have been very disparate but I think it would be a helpful thing to do and for us to read!

A

x