Fantasy Productions

The stage is dimly lit, candle light coming from a hanging type of lantern which appears to have been pulled over and set on the edge of a table. We see a man reclining, close under the light. He is reading a book, but appears tired. There is music playing from an older fashioned record player. Instrumental, soft, a kind of soft lyrical jazz. We sit with this image a couple of minutes as the audience takes their seats in a hushed house. The stage seems to grow a little darker and quieter as the lantern continues to burn. The man moves slightly, leaving the book on his chest as he appears to be falling asleep. We see the title of the book, Four Plays by Chekhov. A moment later the music ends and the record finishes. The needle slips across making the scratching sound. It continues, repeating over and over, that scratching sound of the needle as the record continues to turn. The sound is rhythmic, but a little unsettling. We notice and hear now that the man is snoring. Not loudly but enough to know he is in a sound sleep. And now the ticking of a clock is noticeable as well. There is a clock on stage, the hands seemingly broke or not there, the time not quite evident. The needle continues to scratch. The man snores. And the clock ticks. Everything is still on the stage now except the turning of the record and the rise and fall of the man’s chest as he breathes. This image settles on us. Then suddenly we hear a faint chant. A religious chant. We see a man entering. He is holding and swinging a small burning lantern, with incense. He is a religious figure, priest like. He is leading a funeral procession that comes just behind him. The processional led by the quiet almost inaudible chanting of the priest and the swaying of the smoke of the incense and the glow of the lantern proceeds very slowly across the stage, seemingly completely out of place. There is a small coffin being carried. A child’s coffin it appears. Everyone is dressed in dark clothes, black. There is someone who appears to be the mother in mourning walking behind the coffin. She is assisted by two other women, younger. Some of the people step over the sleeping man. The processional moves slowly across and then off the stage with a certain eeriness. We are left again with the scratching, and the ticking, and the snoring, and the stillness of the stage. The image again settles on us. Suddenly there is a blast of a sound surprising us, alarming us. The man sits up quickly, knocking the lantern from its perch. It swings wildly making a big swaying image of light across the stage back and forth. The sound was unrecognizable at first but then as it continued we know it to be a train, blasting its whistle, applying the brakes, screeching to a halt. The man stands groggy in the weirdness of the swinging light, and the scratching of the record. A woman enters quickly carrying a candle. The man sees her and asks, “What time is it?” She moves quickly using her candle to light a couple of others in the room. “Almost two,” she replies, “Light already.” She sets her candle down and stops the swaying lantern as the man moves to peek out of the curtains. She goes to the record player and removes the needle and shuts it down. “But just how late was the train?” he says, almost to himself.

Thus begins The Cherry Orchard. At least thus it begins in my fantasy production. Every actor and director has a few fantasy roles and productions that they can't wait to create, somewhere, somehow, sometime. They may be "lifelong" dreams or ambitions or they they may be momentary infatuations, flavor of the month type of stuff. Either way they are important in the life of an actor or director. Often it is with these type of fantasies that artists learn really how to analyze, think about, and actualize a production/role. Over time, in imagination or in workshops, or at home in front of the mirror, actors and directors are conceptualizing and mulling over these things. Time is a great blessing in these cases - as is the fact that there is no real pressure to open soon. Therefore, fueled by their passion for the role/play, they think through certain details, justifications, behaviors, etc, in new ways that eventually lead to breakthroughs in their work. Their conscious mind sorts through it and over time the creative subconscious starts to take over and next thing you know - there it is! The fruits of their labor may not manifest in that very role or play they had in mind, but the sheer exercise involved teaches them what they need to know and can use in other roles and productions.

Alteration

Some days you find a story, or a person, or you witness an event, and it humbles you, makes you gracious and gives you desire to be forever kind and generous and thankful. I had me one of those days. Leaving the details aside, isn't that what theatre should do to the spectators? Isn't that how it should make them feel? (BTW - I often get questions or comments about why I use the term spectator(s) instead of the more common term in America audience or audience member. I consciously adopted that term about three or four years ago because I realized, or it seemed to me, that it implies one, a single person, more strongly than does audience or audience member. Saying "audience member" still places that person in context of being part of a larger group, with group like thoughts, reactions, behavior. Saying "spectator" makes that person singular with their own individual thoughts, reactions and behavior. I realize too these days when I am directing, that I tend to think of the action on stage intended for a single person, a single spectator. This does not mean I ignore or don't think of the whole of the group. What it means is that I think "can a particular action on stage have a sensoral effect on a person?" Or will it have a sensoral effect on the spectator? And is it a strong enough sensoral effect? And is it the kind of sensoral effect I (we) want? Will the spectator see it, hear it, feel it, taste it, smell it? If a particular stage action delivers itself in such a way that a spectators does one, some or all of that, seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling - having their senses ignited like that by the action - then after that, its up to the biological process of that individual spectator. My control, in conjunction with the actors, and the playwright, is the logic with which the actions are delivered to the spectator. This means both individual actions and string of actions or cumulative actions. But again, as I am considering the manner of the actions, I am thinking primarily in terms of them being received by a single spectator. And no, I don't mean ok the person in row one on the end will receive this but the person is isle 14, section 11, seat 19 won't. I don't mean that. I mean is an action strong enough, direct enough, precise enough, and interesting enough to provoke those senses of a spectator, overcoming his or her other influences currently present? I measure it for one, knowing hundreds (or about fifty), will actually receive it. I see I need a whole post on this very topic.) Shouldn't when you, as a spectator, leave the theatre feel like your personal life and activities, thoughts, desires, wishes, etc will be forever altered? Maybe not earth shattering but if you are generally kind, you know you need to be kinder. If you are generally helpful you need to be more helpful from now on. If you are understanding you need to be more understanding. These things that make us feel this way in our daily lives are usually unexpected, or surprising, somehow radiant. They are specific, precise, often simple, funny, or unusual. They upset or interrupt our usual set of logic and/or expectations and perceptions.
Going to the theatre could or should include encountering these types of qualities - and the end result should that desire and need to change course, however small or large. As a spectator, and in life I guess, what doesn't encourage me to think and feel that way is the mundane, the cliche, the expected, the habitual. Because to those qualities my thoughts and senses are dulled. In the face of those qualities my thoughts and senses simply function. They don't perk up and go hey now! They don't grip on to those qualities and seek more. They don't review it. They don't process it through my Affective Memory, that storehouse, that total sum of knowledge and experience in my life and arrive at some conclusions. On the other hand, when a stranger takes your arm, and exudes a radiant smile, a smile backed by pain and suffering but with a firm and knowing commitment to proceed and give a breath of fresh air to someone else, then, my, your, senses perk up and life, experience, floods over you, emotions, thoughts, desires, physical activity begins to happen in a way that is different than it otherwise would have been. You are altered.

Flowers

Since you asked. The flower pictures that accompany most posts here, save for the orchid, are just ones I took with my camera phone along the way of my days recently. It seems apropos. Heck, we all know of and have read several times "The Flower in Drama" by Zeami. Right? Its a common metaphor anyway. At one of the last Actor's Gymnasium sessions we even had a discussion of Ikebana. You shouldn't have missed it. And now that I'm thinking of it there was another amazing time in Actor's Gymnasium a couple of years ago when Tom Wentzel did this brilliant improvisation with flowers in a vase. He had and kept us all spellbound. You shouldn't have missed that either! Stanislavsky often made references to nature and flowers in particular in his discussions with the Moscow Art Theatre. Nature as inspiration you might say. Through my own work with/at Prescott College there is great exposure to ideas of nature and environment, and nature inspired performance even. (Keep alert for an upcoming announcement about that btw - nature inspired performance.). Anyway, I stay on the lookout for things blooming, whether they be native plants or otherwise these days. My own yard and house is lacking its usual flair right now. I do have sunflowers, some melon vines that recently bloomed, periwinkle, some cactus, and a few others. Haven't been able to get an orchid to bloom in forever.

Top Five

A revival of a really impossible thing - to name my top five best plays ever written. So here goes, but not necessarily in order. (Solid on the first four though. Fifth slot seems to a rotating slot).

1. Hamlet
2. The Cherry Orchard
3. Six Characters In Search of An Author
4. Waiting For Godot
5. Mourning Becomes Electra

Designed Sponteneity

Designed Spontaneity, its a concept in acting. In practice its elusive, but it is the best way to categorize or describe the quality that the best actors have present in their work at their best times, and something we could/should all strive for. It means exactly as it sounds, that the impulses and activities of the actor (as character) on stage are literally arising and happening impulsively, spontaneously, but have in fact been set up in advance to occur in a very specific and particular way.

It sounds not doable. The actor has prepared and rehearsed and anticipates behaving a certain way as the character. How can the impulses, the driving force of this behavior, be literal and real and happening at the very moment, especially when everything is contrived and made up anyway, i.e., its not real, its a play, fake conditions, pretend? Doesn't an actor go through the motions and in effect show or just demonstrate the behavior of the character? Most actors do just that yes. The good at their best don't - they have the spontaneity to their work, and that sets them apart.

So how is it possible? Actors work on stage with multiple awareness. There is the part of the actor which functions telling them they are J. Smith and they are acting in such and such a play, and it is 8:30 at night and they are on stage and when they get home later they have to do their laundry. In other words, the everyday mind, everyday awareness. This type of awareness is never lost. When this mind/awareness looks at the scenery on stage, it never, ever believes or acts like the painted backdrop is real trees or real forest. It knows good and well and forever that it is merely a painted backdrop on the stage. Then there is the part of the actor which functions as the actors craft, this is the mind/awareness which provides a set of instructions - those instructions are intended for next part of the actor, that which is the mind/body instrument - that part of the actor actually doing the acting, or the living within the circumstances of the play. This part too has its own unique sense and awareness. It is on that level of awareness and sensation that the impulses are happening for real, literally, in the moment, providing the spontaneity. This level functions and responds as if that painted scenery really is trees and forest. The design aspect to the spontaneity is coming from the actors craft awareness. That mind/awareness looks at the painted scenery and works to turn it from paint and fabric to the as if it were real trees and forest.

Very tricky to describe this fact of multiple awareness for the actor but that is essentially how it works, or should work. When the mind/body awareness that is the actual acting instrument is responding fully to each instruction given it by the actors craft awareness, and only to those instructions, i.e. not to one given from the daily mind/awareness, then it can begin to come to life so to speak, generating for itself those literal impulses which in turn make the behavior of the actor truly spontaneous. Designed spontaneity we say.

Many actors have mastered those first two types of mind/body awareness - the daily mind and the actors craft - but they have not fully investigated or practiced their working relationship with that third one, the actors instrument, except on a kind of elementary level. They just sort of let it happen. Or they force feed it. That means usually that they have not recognized, or do not recognize when the instrument mind/awareness is able and creative on its own - when it has been sufficiently warmed up and propelled strongly enough by the others to do its own thing. They have not learned to trust it, to let go, to allow it to function, on its own.

Heady explanation, yes. The point is the multiple awarenesses and the fact that one of these can function in the moment with real impulses and activity while following a course set out for it.

Memorial Day

Not long ago I was talking to a serviceman here in Tucson who was recounting for me some of the challenges, the attacks, etc which had occurred during a recent deployment in Afghanistan. Over the years as his schedule has permitted he has performed as an actor in various projects. Those events in Afghanistan certainly took their toll physical and mentally and required from him a stamina and discipline and perhaps a faith that is wholly admirable. His wife, children, and extended family and friends have waited now through several deployments in recent years, always to areas of intense fighting. He is a man's man, a wonderful father and friend to be sure, and a fine soldier to be commended and recognized.

Dave Kennedy who was a member of Tucson Art Theatre, had served a couple of years in the Navy and always considered his service be instrumental in his life. Dave and his wife and children are as kind and considerate and humble of people as it gets. Get them together smiling, and your perception of the world changes in an instant - I wish I had a picture.

Lemon Sky, Live Theatre Workshop

Its blasphemous for me to say, but I can only watch so many NBA playoff games, no matter how many overtimes and last second winning shots there are. (Who put in that stupid rule anyway that you can call a timeout and advance the ball to halfcourt, thereby making those last second winning shots more likely - good for one team but bad for the other - but that's a story for another blog and time). So last night, with everything shaking out as it did, I decided to head down to Live Theatre Workshop and see Lemon Sky. I had read a couple of reviews for this show and heard some good things about if from friends and through the grapevine. Turns out most of all that good stuff is true - but I'll get to that later. This was a last minute option/decision by me to go so any usual pre-show activities were non existent. What I did was guzzle down a Guinness (it was hot. i was thirsty.), jump in the car (i know, i know), turn up some old Bruce Springsteen as loud as it gets, and make the short drive there.

So I was ready! Knowing hey, its Landford Wilson, which means there are going to be some people on stage - not one of those two character deals - people, lots of people probably with big ideas and big emotions and all that. And, not that other plays don't, but I knew this one was going to take some acting, some specific "gotta go there" type of stuff - otherwise the play won't work - it is all in the actor's hands - that's Landford's way. And, I didn't know the details of this play, but I knew at some point in time in the play things would turn devastating, with a capital D.

Landford gave the keynote address at the last State Theatre Conference to be held here in Tucson, back in '95 or '96 I think. Long time ago by some standards. I can't for the life of me remember the specifics but it was one of those "The Artist Will Be Asked" type of speeches. (One or two or three people who read this might know that reference. It refers to something Vahktangov wrote just after the Russian revolution, when ideas and hopes were still high and intentions seemed good). I remember Horton Foote, whom I was kind of escorting that morning, was anxious and excited to get in and get a good seat and hear Lanford's speech.

You get a dollar break on your ticket if you pay cash at LTW. And since I had arrived in the final minutes before curtain, I went right in. Now I'm no spring chicken (a sleek 47 with a 17 yr old daughter -which counts as a multiplier all you parents know), but I was the "youth" of this group of spectators. Seeing how I was by myself on this visit to the theatre, I had no choice but to flirt with the usher, a beautiful young lady a good 20 years my senior. Why she even escorted me part way to my seat when I asked. She's just lucky I'm not 77 or so right now. Anyway, have I ever said its cold in LTW? They tell you on the phone message to bring a sweater. ?

Hmm. How to preface what I might write about this play, this production? There is so much.

The play is as most people know, autobiographical and deals on one level and on one subject matter with the idea of having a family, the kind of family you hope and dream and wish for, but that never seems to materialize as a reality. In fact, instead, your worst nightmares almost happen to and about your family. There is the absolute joy and happiness of what you almost or seemingly have, and then there is the absolute pain and yes, devastation when it all falls apart or the truth comes out. At the core, you are, or try to be, or think you are, that person who loves and accepts everyone, no matter the conditions or the events because its your family and you believe in and want a family. So you stand by them and do your best. But for various reasons, it crumbles and you are powerless in a sense to change it. When you are young, as Landford's central character in this play is, its only worse. And when the very person (people) who should be taking care of and nurturing you and the ones you love is instead causing harm and insult and injury and perhaps death it demands an eventual recount or reconciliation or retelling of some kind - thus, the play. I am no exception as a person to these basic ideas. I have suffered the hopes and dreams and losses and failures of my own family. Most of us have to varying degrees in this society. So there is a powerful Affective Memory at work here for the spectators of this play.

Landford wrote the play in a way that the characters have multiple consciousnesses going on. There is the past time, those events and details happening in the moment to those characters, and there is the reflection back after the passage of time, where characters can and do comment on their own actions and/or those of others (Brecht would be so very, very happy), and the desire to reconcile or make sense of those past events right now, here and today in the presence of the spectators. And, there is the voice of the playwright as well, speaking through the central character, commenting on his own writing skills, as well as commenting on certain theatrical conventions - Pirandellian we call it. There is a certain brilliance at work here in this piece by Mr. Wilson. That's the basic nature of the script at hand to be dealt with.

So going into the play, speaking in terms of if you are one of the artists about to put on this play, you know that you do not need to, or cannot force feed the spectators the content of this play, or make everything so frickin obvious. They, the spectators are going to get it. It's their/our family even as its not - Lanford is that good here. We, the spectators need only to like the people, meaning actors with some charm and ability to convince, and to see this reality of the the family, this memory reality that is, created on stage. And you know, if you are one of the artists putting this play on, you know that in creating this memory reality, you will have to handle those consciousness changes with a deft and subtle hand, seemingly improvisationally and off the cuff, even though you will have rehearsed it a hundred times or so.

That's enough preface. I'll fill in the rest as I go.

I'm here to tell you that I thought the artist who put on this play for LTW did so with those things I mentioned well in mind and did so pretty darn well - with a few small exceptions and one major shortcoming in tow. The clunker right off the bat though was the set. It was just that, a set. It looked and functioned like one of those theatre-looking-realistic-kitchen-looking sets with toasters and can openers and all that. For one scene the lower half of the stage was turned partly into a beach setting. Otherwise, it was a theatre-looking-realistic-kitchen-looking set that was going no where. And it put the actors in odd and unusual positions and made the movement of the entire play awkward, awkward, awkward. It didn't kill the beast. But it wounded it and slowed it down. The speed and deftness with which the characters and the play, changes realities, time and place and logic, was not reflected or equalled or embodied by this set, this group of props and accessories. And why is it that at LTW with that uneven three quarters seating for the audience, is the staging and set design always set up as if the place is a hard and fast proscenium?

There is a ploy that some directors and designer use - they show the actors sketches or models or literal mock ups ahead of time of the set, and ask them how would you imagine yourself, your character moving and behaving here? And from that they work to get a functionality that makes a living, breathing presence, and helps to give life to the characters and relationships actively. The Kitchen, with its views out the windows of the mountains, as gathering place for the family is wonderful. How it goes from warm, cozy happy place to cold, nerve wracking place is a question though for the artists. How do you do that? How does it give life and movement or not for the characters, the actors, and to the play itself. Props for example should become symbolic or useful or meaningful when handled or utilized by the actors, or they should change time and place like the play as written script does. Or this kitchen has to give the actors, the characters something to do, something that is revealing of situation and circumstance. It should provide the spectators with a bit of a challenge to their perception perhaps. Pages of course could be written about sets. In this case I just didn't think it had the fluidity and nuance that the play demands and did not provide a space in which the actors could work freely and imaginatively. You gotta have a little razzle and dazzle and glitz too. It's suburban California afterall in its coming heyday. The coffee pot has to have some shine to it metaphorically speaking. Later on it boils over or explodes so to speak but in the beginning we should see and hear those rhythms of a life beautiful and potentially seducing, at least on the outside. Surfs up!

Despite the set, the physical manifest foundation on which this play lived, there were some things about this production which made it engaging and moving and meaningful for the spectators. First was the fact that the actors and director took what some might call a straight forward approach. There was no trickery, no playing just for the laughs, no showing off, no cliche caricatures. Apparently they spent the rehearsal time working out an understanding of the plays events and trying to make those come alive on stage. It was earnest and excellent effort even in the sections that didn't quite spring to life. In saying that I do not imply a simple minded "yeah they tried really hard" kind of thing. I mean they let the play live and die on the thoughts, sensations, feelings and physical actions of each individual actor in each moment. In this case, certain of those moments and scenes were wonderful, absolutely wonderful. In sections where the actors did not have the means or ability to bring the scene to life it was obvious - but it wasn't for lack of an understanding or the basic sense of letting it manage itself free of trickery. Trust me, all this is easier said than done and I am not about placating anyone or anything here. This was no small feat what they done.

Second thing to mention is Christopher Johnson. The young man is an actor. With this particular role he came close to actualizing some his true talent. His growth and development as an actor has been mentioned by others in various forums and reviews and for good reason. The skill and charisma has always been readily evident but the ability to have the awareness and the sense to create that actual living through of the circumstances and events of the play has always been lacking - until now. At least in the roles I've seen him in. He has broken ground though. There was a definite new quality in his work this time, part of the quality we have all been hoping and waiting for to happen. He is still dependent on his intellectual analytical ability and his instinctual ability to simply deliver a line while imaginatively placing himself in the circumstances of the character, all of which takes him a long ways. If he learns however to let himself analyze and create on stage in a more visceral, more sensoral way, and let the words and thoughts rise simply from that, and if he keeps and pursues the proper work ethic, we no longer will be watching someone talented and pretty darn good. We will be seeing a rare phenomenon on stage. Christopher is that talented. It would take a leap, but he could do it. In this role, as the character and theatrical voice of Landford himself, he is charming, likable and loving with the other characters, all as needed and required by the play.

Let me put these two good points together for a sec and mention out of that, the one major shortcoming in the production - the last scene. As the play progresses in this production, it doesn't for various reasons which lay mostly within the given abilities of the actors, begin to have an accumulative momentum of experience from scene to scene, moment to moment to truly whisk away the actors and thus the spectators in a way it could and should. And when it gets to the last scene, the devastating one, where it all should explode, it just doesn't. The actors don't at that point in time have the physical (at times some were gasping for breath while trying to speak as loud and as quick as was necessary) and emotional capabilities (there was lots of heads down suffering as in I don't have the real thing going so I am pretending to be suffering) as a group to make it happen. So instead we get isolated lines and activities that look and sound authentic mixed with lines and activities that are contrived and indicated. The final result is still somewhat moving and meaningful to the spectators because we have had just enough fully realized moments to fill in for ourselves what that last scene really should have looked and sounded like. Had it actually been there, it would have been great. (Remember that awkward set I mentioned? That too played a culprit here in the final scene.).

And speaking of momentum, the first act ended on a very nice, moving note, and with what I thought was an appreciative audience that was "into it." Three seconds into the silence though some guy appeared on stage and began to make announcements for next seasons tickets. Three seconds. Now I realize theatres want to sell tickets. But this was the most inane attempt I have ever witnessed at a most inopportune and unsympathetic time. It was bad. Whatever feelings or thoughts that might have carried over to the second act, the mood and all, was shattered by this tackiness.

There were two other notable factors which I felt were absent and thus contributed to the production not finding its full momentum and force. The first one was the lack of that unabashed way in which teenagers can be rude, mean, or smartelecky. (I did mention my seventeen year old earlier for good reason). There were moments when scenes needed that pop, the spark, and that tension and it should/could have come in the form of that kind of teenager angst and reaction. Its just the way that teenagers are with parents or "parental figures" sometimes. Fast, off the cuff, sometimes seemingly out of place thought and comments, full of emotion, rebellion or who knows what kind of intention or desire. This production had a watered down version that kept too much in check. The second thing was a lack of overt sexuality - primarily from the one foster daughter character who is called a whore and who admits to a great need and desire for sex. I remember my youth and at 47 (I did mention my age earlier for good reason too) I haven't forgotten what a fast girl looks and sounds like (Did I mention that usher lady who walked me part way to my seat? JK usher lady, JK). As played by this actress in this production, the character was more a candidate for the Sisterhood of Nuns. That is no commentary on the actress herself. I half believe it was a concious choice on the part of the director or the theatre company itself to have the characters sexuality effectively non-existant on stage. Its just a guess though. Yes, the character is trying to go celibate for a while, fighting her desires, but that desire and affectation has to be present, oozing on some level. It should be there, for all to see, juxtaposed to the other foster daughter who really is a bonafide nun candidate, and in opposition to the seemingly non-sexuality of the Landford Wilson character. Three youth in various stages and interests in sex. Not to mention the adult characters who have their own peculiar past and present sexual activities and interests, suppressions and desires. Its such a huge part of the play. Why gloss it over? I do not believe a group of spectators, certainly not the group I was part of, would be collectively offended or surprised to see this present on stage. We were nodding and acknowlegding, sometimes proudly some of Wilson's references in this topic.

Never the less, despite these drawbacks, there were one, two, three or more little golden and memorable moments created by each of the actors individually or together throughout the production, real gems. Its those that I took away with me as a spectator last night, appreciative of work overall and glad I had been there.

Sweet Science

One of the books on my shelf is entitled "Teatro E Boxe." Theatre and Boxing. Its by Franco Ruffini, a man with a brilliant mind who happened to be a great scholar of Stanislavsky as well. But in this case, his topic is the relationship between "The Sweet Science" and Actors and Directors of the Theatre. Ruffini was my kind of guy.

One of the short introductory chapters in the book is entitled "Georges Carpentier: la boxe orchidea." George Carpentier was a French boxer who fought in the early part of 20th Century, 1910's - 1920's. His nickname was Orchid Man - not very macho, but it implies the grace and balance and beauty with which he delivered his fisticuffs. You can see a fight of his sometimes on the ESPN Classics channel, an old black and white film that sometimes seems to speed up.

Carpentier is important in theatre circles because he was the inspiration for Etienne Decroux, the inventor of modern Corporeal Mime. Decroux wanted actors to embody or personify on stage the same type of rhythm, grace, speed, power, relaxation, concentration, balance, and beauty of physical skill and movement that Carpentier did in the ring.

Many people know of mime through people like Marcel Marceau, or those guys on the steet with the stripped shirts - the cliche stuff. Training in Corporeal Mime however is rigorous stuff, and very interesting in its concepts and ideas. I have see Decroux on tape teaching.

The people who studied directly with Decroux, people like Marcel Marceau, who became masters of the work, are referred to as "first generation." And of course those who study with a student or master of Decroux's are called "second generation." By good fortune we are lucky enough to have in Tucson at least one "first generation" and one "second generation," both extremely talented men. Someday I will do a post specifically about their work and connection but I am referring to Reed Gilbert and Grant Bayshore. Reed used to come to Actor's Gymnasium on Saturday and moderate the sessions for us. In addition to his incredible skills and training in Corporeal Mime, he has a wonderful and detailed knowledge of Asian Theatre traditions and principles, including work with masks. He is a true gentleman, an artist with high ethics and discipline, and great teacher. The work he did with us in Actor's Gymansium was influencial, lasting.

Back to Boxing: One of the most popular, in terms of attendance, Saturdays at Actor's Gymnasium was when we brought in Stacy Smith, a former top ranked womens boxer, hometown here in Tucson. Stacy is as "old school" as it gets. One trainer, Coach as mentor, and Stacy as student and practitioner. And the fruits of their commitment and labor were/are evident. Save for a bad hip injury I have no doubt Stacy would be knocking out Laila Ali even as we speak. But anyway, Stacy came and worked with us just as she would kids or anyone coming to learn the first thing about boxing. It was all footwork, in which concentration and balance and timing are key. Foundation. Fundementals. It is a stylized way of motion, of movement, but through practice, it becomes second nature, and easy, and then hopefully beautiful.

The Spectator

Go to a Rogue Theatre show and fifteen minutes before curtain the house opens and you can go in and sit down. The custom is that a band, or musicians, later fully incorporated in the show, will be playing music right up until curtain almost. The players, the actors, will be gathering visibly on stage and in the house and may stroll up to you for a casual conversation even. Just before curtain Joe or Cindy will welcome you, and remind you to turn off your cell phone. If you're like me, you've been on Fourth Ave. just prior eating pizza and drinking beer, or getting coffee or ice-cream.

Go to an Invisible Theatre show and wait in the small lobby for a while, and you admire all the pictures, posters, etc. from the many years of past production. Just before the house opens Susan will usually welcome you and make some announcements. By then the lobby is crowded and her talk, brief though it be, is entertaining in that way that only Susan can do. You go in, walking past or on the stage sometimes to your seat in the theatre, five or ten minutes ahead of curtain. Arriving you had been wondering where to park and thinking to yourself how many more years is IT going to be here and how have they ever managed this far in this local. (Something to talk to Susan about and write a post on it for sure).

Go to Live Theatre Workshop and you wait in the very small lobby or just outside on the sidewalk of the shopping center. Just before house opens there is someone to welcome you and make announcements. Go in and sit down in the theatre ten or fifteen minutes ahead of curtain. First thing you notice, especially if you are new, is that it is cold in there my gosh! Maybe you been a couple of doors down getting a drink, watching a drag show warm-up, or getting dessert and coffee down the other direction. If you haven't, you might be going at intermission to get some hot chocolate - did I mention it was cold in LTW?

Go to Arizona Theatre Company and you stroll around the courtyard of the Temple of Music and Art for a while, talking, gathering, drinking wine or coffee, checking out who is there, what they are wearing, who's hot or not, things like that. Few minutes before curtain you make your way in, upstairs, balcony baby, last row, or downstairs to the main house otherwise. Just at curtain or maybe beforehand depending on the nature of the show itself, you admire and marvel the technical wizardry at work in this place.

Yes, theatre really does begin at the cloakroom as they say for the spectator. Stories abound of theatre practitioners or administrators working to make the experience of the spectator arriving at the theatre a mood setting one. Food, drink, music, visual images, solicitation, greetings, escort, cleanliness and furnishings, and even the old hands-off-never-gave-it-a-thought offerings all contribute to a spectators sensory experience ahead of the actual performance itself. Since the days of Meyerhold's great innovations beginning about 100 years ago, modern day directors have been getting in on the act of "directing" the action, the perception, the view, this experience of the spectator too. They seat spectators in various configurations (not just proscenium), breaking them up into small units or groups sometimes rather than one large group. They put mirrors on the stage to reflect their image back. They employ a "proscenium servant" (a Meyerhold invention and one of my personal favorites) to look after or entertain the spectators. They institute a code of silence prior to the performance in all areas of the theatre or performance space. They have the actors talk directly to you during the performance or come sit next to you. In one of my all time favorite experiences as a spectator, we were sat at two long tables set opposite each other in a long room, with tablecloth, wine, glasses, bread and olives. Right before the performance started the bottles of wine were opened and poured for us.
As the performance ensued, we, as spectators drank wine, ate bread and olives. At the end of the performance, we stayed sitting, still drinking and eating and now talking about the show. Actors went and changed their clothes and all and came back in to thank us, and still we sat.

Its all in a days work of being a spectator.

Text and Action

The word text comes to us as a shortened version of texture, meaning, the weave. Those who write plays weave together words, phrases, sentences. Those words, phrases, and sentences of course contain a meaning and a logic. They usually imply situation, and event (or at least some activity). This of course would be a written text, the kind that many or most of our theatrical productions are based on. The actual word itself though in terms of theatre was derived from the weave of actions created by the actor(s). This would be called the performance text. Its what people spend all their rehearsal periods doing - creating or making up the performance text. Often called a score of actions. Stanislavsky said there are many lines, many scores, of actions included in the performance text, there is the line of physical action, the line of emotional action, the line of psychological action, etc. At the beginning of rehearsals, Stanislavsky often started with what might be called the analytical line, a following along of the basic situation, circumstance and activity of the actor. This process was implemented big time in the First Studio of the Moscow Art Theatre and was perfected improvisationally by Evegeny Vakhtangov. When Richard Boleslavsky came to America and was teaching at the American Laboratory Theatre, he taught this type of analysis to among others, Lee Strasberg. Lee utilized it in rehearsals with the Group Theatre. Later on it became known as Active Analysis and was championed by people like Maria Knebel in the Soviet Union. The commonalities of teaching and directing between Lee and Maria are eery. The Soviets themselves after Stanislavsky's death broke off a version which they held up as the official one and it was proclaimed as The Method of Physical Action - a kind of Pavlov's dog variation which left out the most of the accompanying processes and dried the work of its spiritual and emotional content, and much if not all of its common sense. In 1964, members of the Moscow Art Theatre, the very Soviet style Moscow Art Theatre at that time, came to America for a visit, teaching workshops, observing classes, etc. Vladimir Prokofiev, one of the editors in the Soviet Union of Stanislavsky's complete works (along with Kristi) was vocal and aggressive in his commitment to this version of The Method of Physical Actions. Sonia Moore, another Russian immigrant in the U.S. at the time, picked up on Prokofiev's ideas and began herself teaching this idea of The Method of Physical Actions. Prior to that, she did not teach it. Its noteworthy in Sonia's books, through their various editions that she never reconciles it fully with her earlier ideas. The Method of Physical Action was proclaimed by Prokofiev and subsequently by Moore to be Stanislavsky's final version, the final and most complete way of working. The only odd thing about that is that they left out most of the real substance of Stanislavsky's work. Over the years, various myths, in various forms and forums have sprung up about how Stanislavsky changed his mind about rehearsal methods or training actors, etc. One of the more famous ones we all know of is Stella Adler who worked with Lee Strasberg as a member of the Group Theatre. Stella met up with Stanislavky by chance one summer in Paris and arranged a short series of sessions with him. Stella came back and told the story to everyone that Stanislavsky changed his mind, that he didn't, for example, use the notion of emotional memory any longer, it was all about character action and circumstances. That was Stella's version of what happened in Paris and everyone believed her for a long time - never having heard Stanislavsky's side of the story. According to Stanislavsky, everything Stella had been taught was correct - this included work at the American Lab with Boleslavsky, and work with Strasberg in the Group Theatre. Stanislavsky called her "a completely hysterical woman" and said "everything she had been taught was correct. It was all there." He said he gave her a little lesson in action. Stella took that "little lesson in action" and ran with it. There were notes taken at their meeting. Stella had a secretary take notes. The one person that I know of who has seen them said they mostly talked about their health. Stella never in her lifetime released or published those notes. Wonder why?
Anyway, Stanislavsky, especially toward the end of his life, was attempting to teach actors, and directors, how to weave these actions on stage more intricately. At that time, the Soviet dogma was in full force, the Golden Age of Russian theatre was passing, and actors were being used by directors as kind of idiotic symbolic caricatures. The weave of action on the stage was a general one, dumbed down. Stanislavsky was trying to get actors to think again, to create, and so he chose to ask them hundreds of questions, implying hundreds of actions, big and small, in the analysis.

In America we have been lucky to have long had this tradition and way of working which came to us through the American Lab and others, the Group Theatre and others. We had all these years, the things that others around the world just started waking up to in the last 10 - 15 years. We had Active Analysis, we had the yoga influence, we had the spirituality, we had Affective Memory as the basis, we had work on oneself and work on the role, we had the science. We have had the complete version of the System for a long, long time which allows actors to work imaginitively and personally with the circumstances, events and words of the written text in order to create a dynamic performance text in which everyone, big part and little part, is active and integral.

Stanislavsky Summer

It's that time! Stanislavsky Summer!

Three Monday's in a row, June 8th, 15th, and 22nd, 7:30 p.m. at Prescott College Tucson Center, 2233 E. Speedway - there will be talk and discussion about Stanislavsky, his life, his work. June 8th will be biographical and historical context, development of Stanislavsky System ideas. June 15th will be The Stanislavsky Chart, practical applications of the System. June 22nd's topic will be American Work in the Stanislavsky Tradition.

It's all free and air conditioned.

See you there!

Variation

I'm breaking my "rules" mixing theatre with film today. But I have my reasons. Check out this post in The Sheila Variations http://www.sheilaomalley.com/archives/011107.html called A Really Well-Written Scene. Then check out Sheila's entire blog in general. There is an amazing post today on Mickey Rourke and the movie Barfly. Sheila was part of the Cactus Theatre in Chicago - but after I had returned to Tucson. Before and after her time in Chicago though she was a dedicated student of great and wonderful actors and all things "Method." I hear she is a wonderful actress herself and I know she is a great writer. Please take a look.

With all the new scripts by our local writers floating around out there, some being produced here in Tucson and others being produced elsewhere, I thought it might be good to consider the question of dialogue, as elusive as a topic as that is. The discussions of new scripts that I hear include ideas about plot or character or facts or theatrical devices, things like that. But I never hear a meaty discussion about dialogue - and that is the very thing that a script is really. Anyway, I think Sheila gives a hell of a description in that post of dialogue (and actors).

New Season Shows

Call me hopelessly old school, but here are the shows I am most looking forward to seeing in the 2009 - 2010 Season.

Picnic, by William Inge
Live Theatre Workshop
April 2010

I love this play! I was in this play one long hot summer ago. It was at the UA. I played the paperboy. Jack Wagner was Hal. Dianne Winslow and Dr. Lang were in it as Rosemary and Howard. It was a hoot! They don't make scenes like the one when Rosemary begs Howard to marry her anymore - funny, tragic, sad, frustrating, all at once.

The Glass Menagerie, by Tennessee Williams
Arizona Theatre Company
Feb, Mar 2010

Who cares how many times you have seen it, what's not to love about it? And just because I directed the definitive production several, several years ago...JK...doesn't mean I'm not excited to see it onstage once again. It's a masterpiece.

Our Town, by Thorton Wilder
The Rogue Theatre
Jan 2010

The list is reading like a copy of Great American Plays. This play doesn't make my top five list of all time favorite and best plays but it probably would make my top ten. The battle cry for those of us who adore it is remove the sentimentality (that might be true of the two previous plays as well) and take a stark, honest look at life.

Othello, by that obscure British playwright, William Shakespeare
The Rogue Theatre
April 2010

"It is the cause, it is the cause, my soul"

(Keep the editors away from this writer and he is pretty darn good, pretty darn good).

I can't wait!

Grotowski

I have seen two of Jerzy Grotowski's most famous productions on videotape, "The Constant Prince" and "Akropolis." I have seen his most famous and acclaimed actor, Richard Cieslak on tape doing training exercises. I have heard Eugenio Barba and other proteges and colleagues of Grotowski talk and tell stories. I have read what has been written in the English language by or about Grotowski and his actors. I had brief occasion to meet the curator of the Grotowski Center in Poland (check out their website btw here http://www.grotowski-institute.art.pl/index.php). Grotowski is, to borrow Eugenio Barba's term, one of my theatrical ancestors. I claim him this way as I do so many others, past and present.

For those of you unfamiliar, Jerzy Grotowski was a Polish born theatre practitioner who lived from 1933 - 1999. His productions at the Theatre of Thirteen Rows in Opole, Poland (So named because it had a small proscenium and thirteen rows of seats. Later the name was changed to include the word Laboratory and eventually became known as the Polish Laboratory Theatre or sometimes just Grotowski's Lab, as slang. The official name was Laboratory Theatre Research Institute of Acting Method.) between 1959 and 1969, roughly, were groundbreaking works with world wide influence. Included in these productions during that time were the aforementioned Akropolis and The Constant Prince, as well as the work considered the absolute masterpiece, Apocalypsis cum figuris. Grotowski's theatrical career continued right up until his death, in various forms, in various places, with various intents. Those last thirty years of his life are more difficult to describe in a brief forum like this so I won't even try. (I would recommend the Routledge publication "Jerzy Grotowski" by James Slowiak and Jairo Cuesta if you want a great overview and understanding of Grotowski's life and work).

A couple of summers ago when I did that series of talks at Prescott College Tucson Center, for the one on Eugenio Barba and Odin Teatret, the first hour of my presentation ended up being on Grotowski. I wasn't trying to rubberstamp Barba and Odin Teatret (http://www.odinteatret.dk/) with Grotowski. I just couldn't resist the richness and importance of Grotowski's overall work as a topic of conversation.

In 1955, as a young man, Grotowski went to study theatre and directing in Moscow, at GITIS, under Yuri Zavadsky. Zavadsky had been an actor in Vahktangov's Theatre and had learned under Stanislavsky as well. It was there, with that First Studio of the Moscow Art Theatre influence, that Grotowski picked up his basic ideas of actor preparation and training and the idea of a theatre as a laboratory. In the Theatre of Thirteen Rows, the smell of the First Studio is strong. The exercises for actors there focused and functioned on two levels - basic work on elements of craft and spiritual work on oneself. Straight out of Moscow, circa 1912, with Sulerzhitsky leading the actors of the First Studio in this very same way. While folks like Richard Schechner tried distinguish Grotowski's work and ideas from the Stanislavsky tradition, Grotowski himself always claimed and paid homage to this tradition and this connection. At one of the last ITSA Conferences before he died, Grotowski spoke all night (yes, all night) about Stanislavsky's use of improvisation in rehearsal.

Richard Cieslak, in the title role of The Constant Prince, used the memory of his first orgasm in a sensory way so as to create the "pain" or experience of being beaten as the Prince. Here we have the epitome, the hallmark of Grotowski's work on stage, his finest actor in one of the defining moments, an actor with amazing physical attributes and skills, and how did he go about creating this scene, this reality on stage which so moved and excited the spectators performance after performance after performance? He did it by focusing on a past personal experience, using the sensory details of it to imaginatively bring himself active and alive, seemingly within the circumstances of the character. And yes, we call this Affective Memory, conscious use of past personal experiences associated imaginatively with the events of the play by the actor. It is Stanislavsky. It is Vahktangov. It is Lee Strasberg. And in this case it was Cieslak/Grotowski.

In the Actor's Gymnasium workshop, we have spent numerous sessions working with Grotowski inspired ideas and concepts - from Inspiration, to Physical Action, to Sequence of Actions, to Tasks and Logic, to Personal Meaning and Revelation.

If I have a pet peeve with our local theatre, and our local actors, it is the mundane and banal way in which productions and characters are physicalized in the body and the voice of the actor, and in the placement and recognition of the spectators. (Yes, there are a handful of exceptions here and there, but they are extremely rare). Do not imagine I am craving circus acts or gymnastic skills or Rock Opera. I am thinking of being surprised, something unexpected, crucially revealing perhaps, unusual or discomforting perhaps, (or unusually comforting perhaps). Something that is physically admirable, or vocally strikes a tone that seems impossible, rhythmically different. As a spectator this is what I hope for. Its what I "cheer" for if I notice an actor or director attempting something along these lines. I grow weary watching actors walk to center stage when its their turn to speak and gesture habitually with their hands, or at best calmly hold their hands down along their sides. I grow weary of hearing text recited in that actors way of general energy and importance - a kind of pleading or explaining. I grow even more weary of a single line of action and logic present at all times in every production I see, as if spectators really cannot grasp or appreciate multiple streams of action or logic at a given time.

And so I think of Grotowski - and hope and wish and work for the time that I go to the theatre and have my wits knocked about me somehow.

Please share those times for you this happened - more than likely I missed those shows.

New Play Reading

Tuesday night I attended a reading of a new play at Beowulf Alley Theatre. The play was called "Frozen Heart" and it was written by Dawn Sellers. The central event of the play involved a daughter and father who hadn't seen each other in fifteen years. They were the only characters. It was the second time that Dawn has had the chance to hear her play being read. I believe earlier it had an in-house reading at Old Pueblo Playwrights. There must have been about twenty-five of us in attendance and this was one of those occasions where afterwards the spectators are invited to give moderated feedback to the playwright concerning what they have heard. In this particular instance, Dawn actually had specific questions for the us to answer. The discussion was pretty lively and enthusiastic towards the script. The director of the reading even said he felt the script was "the emergence of a new theatrical form."

As a spectator, you always try to listen with an open mind and ear at these types of presentations and make what sense you can of the script as its read. Afterwards I usually find myself in the place of saying "o.k. if I was going to make a production from this script, how would I proceed? What do I see, hear, feel and imagine from this that I would want to turn into an action-behavioral event on the stage? And why?" Those are my fundamental instinctual questions to myself about any script.

I measure my answers and responses though with a kind of classic appraisal of the script. First I list out all the basic facts from the script. (This is very difficult, if not impossible, when you have heard it read only once and don't have the luxury of studying the darn thing. But lets assume I did have that luxury). The facts can only be what is apparent and overt in the script, nothing you fill in with your own assumptions or imaginations yet. Its kind of the who, what, when and where type of thing. But only if its present in the script. If the script does not indicate where things take place for example, you can't make it up right now that it all takes place in the park. So in Dawn's script for example it indicated it was Christmas Eve - Christmas, late night, early morning I believe. It's very, very cold outside. They are in the family owned butcher shop. They are daughter and father. This is the first time they have seen each other in fifteen years. Etc. It's natural of course for actors, directors and spectators to begin to imaginatively make assumptions from these facts, i.e., every place else is closed, there is no place else to go, no way out, whatever is going to happen is going to happen here in this either cozy or claustrophobic environment between these characters. But you can't do that yet! Or at least I try not to. We have to be good "detectives" and make sure we know and understand all the facts as they are presented. If there is conflicting information we have to note that too of course.

Next I try to articulate the basic story line of the script, again no filling in whys and hows or anything like that. For example, in Dawns script I would start like this with the very obvious. "The daughter shows up and knocks on the butcher shop door late on Christmas Eve. A man comes to answer the door and lets her in finally. They start to talk, she is asking questions. We find out they are father and daughter. She picks up a knife and starts to butcher some meat. We find out he taught her how to butcher when she was younger and that she still knows how to do it, but that she is never as careful as he wants her to be with the knives and the cutting. The daughter is asking about the mother. The father tells her that her mom died two weeks ago." That's the idea, to simply trace the story line, see if there is one. In Dawn's play, there is.

So then, I think what is or what was the initiating event, or beginning event - meaning what occurred somewhere in time in the story line, that if it had never occurred, this play would not be taking place. You can't make this up either. It has to be indicated in the script. Well, in this case, we know if the daughter hadn't had left and not talked to the father in fifteen years, if she had stayed, or had been on the phone with him weekly during all this time, this particular play wouldn't/couldn't take place. So her leaving fifteen years ago was, or was part of, the initiating event that sets this all in motion eventually. But here we have to start asking why or looking a little further to make sure this is correct. Did something happen that made her leave? In this case yes. The daughter got pregnant by her father. It was an incestuous relationship between the two, initiated and controlled by the father of course. This had been going on for some time. But once the daughter got pregnant, and found out she was so, she left. Therefore we would say, the daughter getting pregnant, finding out so, was the initiating event in the story line of Dawn's script. If she hadn't gotten pregnant at that time, she might never have left when she did. Things would be different somehow and the play couldn't take place as is.

Now that I have the initiating event, I try to determine what is the main event of the story itself as it happens in real time before the spectators. In Dawn's script it is a difficult one to decipher as there are lots and lots of incidents and plot lines that are revealed throughout. However, Dawn indicated to us in discussion that it is a play of "forgiveness and redemption" and therefore the characters forgiving each other seems to me to be the main event of the play. When and how does that take place? I will have to think about it for now.

If our appraisal of the initiating and main events is good, we should be able to see definite relationship and meaning in the two. Father abuses daughter, gets her pregnant, she leaves, comes back eventually, they forgive each other. I believe it makes sense in this case. I think the appraisal is a good one, so far. I see definite relationship and meaning in these two events.

Next comes the part where we have to be more critical in our analysis. When have to try and figure out how the playwright, via the characters, expresses these two connected events and why they are expressed in one particular way or another. And, we have to determine what the relationship and consequences of the other smaller events of the play are, how everything weaves together so to speak. One of the things we consider or course is the dialogue itself, the choice of words, number of words, etc. In Dawn's play, the characters speak in very brief sentences which indicate to the spectator what happened in their lives, and how they feel about it. Like a facts list. Or a list of psychological assessments of themselves. The sentences do not go into details at all. They are not subtle nor are they complex. They are sometimes vague, purposefully so. There are long sections where they say just one, two or three words, one right after another - the finishing the thoughts kind of thing. I can't do it now, because I don't have a good answer, but at some point we would need to determine why this is - meaning what are the characters thoughts, actions, feelings from which this this set and manner of words would arise.

I won't continue on with each bit of Dawn's play - but you get the idea. This is the beginning way of play analysis for me. This is what I learned from my teachers and mentors and what I have adopted into my practice over time. These were the things on my mind during the discussion afterwards - which I did not participate actively in - meaning I didn't say anything. Never the less, I was happy to be a part of the evening as a whole, thankful for Beowulf's sponsorship, the playwrights work, the actor's, director, and fellow spectators. I'm looking forward to the next one!

Something James Reel Wrote

Something James Reel wrote in the Tucson Weekly, May 7 - 13, re a production at Red Barn Theatre.

"True, this is exactly the sort of "lets put on a show" amateur production that Gaslight loves to spoof, but it made me imagine living in a small town where neighbors get up a production for their own amusment, and throw their hearts into it. And frankly, this sort of grassroots effort is every bit as important to our cultural health as an Equity organization like Arizona Theatre Company."

I concur. I have never been to the Red Barn Theatre, but I concur.

Coffee, and Lunch with Phil, and Few Thoughts.

I always enjoy talking to Phil Bennett. Phil is currently teaching at Beowulf Alley Theatre, ActingLab@theAlley, and will be directing The Vertical Hour at Beowulf, opening this fall. Recently we met up again, this time at Bentley's, to talk and catch up again on some of our conversations about theatre, acting, teaching and lord knows...Stanislavsky. Now, Phil and I have some profound differences regarding the basic practice, work and reasoning of Stanislavsky. We share, however, the absolute love and commitment to the largest ideas and intentions of Stanislavsky - that theatre should be a conciousness raising experience for the spectators, and this is to be accomplished through the work of a true ensemble, or what was often called a "spiritual theatre company." It's not a concept for everyone. Nor should it be. The ethics and discipline and commitment required to see such an idea through are intense and extensive. Stanislavsky, an extremely wealthy man, and wise, and dedicated, and eventually famous, working in a time and place that was mostly supportive (pre-revolution), had trouble making it all work. But there were then and there are still, those shining moments when it all comes together as such.


Stanislavsky had the crown jewel of this in the First Studio of the Moscow Art Theatre, a group of young actors and directors that included Michael Chekhov, Evgeny Vakhtangov, Richard Boleslavsky, Maria Ouspenskaya, Serafima Birman, and others. Led by Leopold Sulerzhitsky, this group, with their wildly imaginative productions of plays by Dicken's, Hauptmann, and Shakespeare set the standards for preparation, training and production - and gave rise to ensemble and spiritual theatre.


We have several direct ties to this group (and a second group that became known appropriately as the Second Studio of the Moscow Art Theatre) here in Tucson. For example, the well known, well loved, and very, very dear Roberta Striker was a student of Tamara Daykarhanova. Madam Daykarhanova at times taught alongside Vera Soloviova and her husband Andrius Jilinsky here in the United States after they had all immigrated here. (See Jilinsky's "The Joy of Acting" for a gem of a book). Roberta has exceptional talent all her own of course, but you see in her acting and her teaching, that same kind of heart and beauty and soul (for lack of a better word) that seems to be present in so many people from this tradition. A couple of years ago Roberta graciously sat down with Bill Killian, myself, and Esther Blue (a former student of Roberta's) and told us her story of working with Madam Daykarhanova and allowed us to videotape her. I remember vividly her explanations of "the heart." Someday, we will all get together and watch it. For those who remember the late Lester Netsky, he worked with Jilinsky and Soloviova as a member of the American Actors Company. Horton Foote was part of this group as a young actor himself. Lester and his wife attended one of the rehearsals once of a Tucson Art Theatre production (one of our good ones luckily) and after sitting quietly for a while afterwards, asked me very seriously "where did you learn all this?" But mostly I remember the absolute dignity and respect and charm with which he conducted himself and offered to our company at that time. Later I spent a couple of wonderful evenings at the Netsky's home, under their considerable hospitality, looking over old pictures, listening to stories and asking as many questions as I could manage. There are others here in town with one, two or maybe three degrees of seperation from this group, this tradition and someday I'll write about them. Bill Killian is due a lot of credit for actively searching some of these connections for us. And now of course we blessed to have Phil here in Tucson. Phil's direct connection to Stanislavsky comes through Sonia Moore, a later student of Stanislavsky's. Phil has shook the hand that shook the hand. I like that! I shake Phil's had every chance I get now!



Perhaps the point I am trying to make in all this, besides noting each of these people's talent and contributions, is the very manner in which they approach their art. They are, or were, as far as I know them, concerned with expressing something deeply profound and beautiful. And they carry(ied) themselves into the theatre with passion and wisdom, exuding respect, never slovenly or tired, greatly appreciative of their tradition, their teachers, their fellow actors and workers.



One of the many famous stories in the annuls of Stanislavsky is when it was explained to him one time that a particular theatre company had set itself the task to do good theatre (think professional, or highest standards, etc). Stanislavsky asked "good for what?" And went on to say that no one ever sets out to do bad theatre, everyone sets out to do good theatre. But good for what? How? And why? Eugenio Barba of Odin Teatret, my other favorite director, says all actors must at some point in time decide why they want to act, where they will act, and who they will act for. Stanislavsky set himself the task of "Spiritual Theatre" or sometimes he said "To Reveal the Life of the Human Spirit." While it sounds elusive, Stanislavsky's actual work and advice and reasoning on this is profoundly practical and down to earth. I can think of Cindy Meier, of Rogue Theatre, articulating to herself and to others a few years ago her ideas for life and for the kind of theatre she wanted to create. Fast forward to today as Rogue moves into its new space and announces a new season. Not just good, or professional, but with specific intent, a kind of theatre with a specific purpose. The Manifesto on their website, theroguetheatre.org, is a what, where, why, how and for whom guiding document. As a spectator at Rogue, I always have this reference available in my mind. It is not necessary for me to have this knowledge in order to enjoy one of their shows in the moment, but upon reflection, it gives me a perspective, a context, and perhaps an insight which allows me to deepen my appreciation and understanding of a particular work or body of work of theirs.

I don't know if Phil will have the time, desire or opportunity here in Tucson to work towards a Spiritual Theatre. This is a man used to six months of rehearsal for example. That is six months with lines and staging learned mind you. I know many people have trouble wrapping their mind around this - what do you do for six months, five or six days a week, in rehearsal? (You could be pleasantly surprised if you haven't experienced creative rehearsals over this amount of time). But anyway, however it shapes up for Phil, I believe we are lucky and happy as a community to have him here with us now.