My favorite theatres in town to go to are Beowulf Alley and The Rogue. But at the moment I am having a difficult time being or getting excited about their first shows. Beowulf is doing Seascape. Yes I know Albee wrote it and I know it won a Pulitzer Prize... but the whole lizard couple and all...I just don't feel it...yet anyway. And The Rogue is doing Animal Farm. Yes, I can imagine all the music and puppetry and a little razzle dazzle story telling, the politics, etc, but it doesn't touch a nerve in me as a spectator that gives or makes for the hint (or better) of excitement...not yet anyway.
I can experience a show and enjoy it objectively well enough, whatever it is. But my personal opinions and aesthetic taste in theatre is specific, perhaps narrow. I like shows where there is an obvious artistic challenge and sense of theatrical unearthing. I like great and large roles within great and large plays, where actors and directors attempt to come to concrete terms with how to make the material, the script, alive and meaningful on stage. I like theatrics but I don't like shows that are tricked out with novelty. I like emotion on the stage - real emotion, not fake, crappy indicated joy and pain, but the real deal, happiness and sorrow. I don't buy the argument for a second that if the actor cries the spectator does not or if the actor laughs the spectator does not. I do buy into Brecht's idea that you can have the spectators laughing when the character is crying and vice-versa though. Brecht always loved the real tears on stage. He called his type of theatre Epic Realism to contrast it against all the other theatres around him claiming to be Epic but which operated with a sense and style melodrama and fake behavior. Brecht said he wanted it real, like life, but set out in Episodic ways which show characters in various light and logic. By doing so he could indeed induce tears in the house while the characters were seemingly laughing on stage. I like that. And I like a good story as much as the next person - however it is told - but especially with surprises.
Like any good spectator though a show does not have to fit my personal taste or conform to "how I would do it." The Rogue Theatre has produced two of my all-time favorite plays these last couple of years, The Cherry Orchard and Six Characters in Search of an Author. Neither production was as I personally envision how the play can live on stage, but as a spectator at their productions of these scripts I was captivated in various ways.
Some theatres in town have absolutely left my consciousness, though I try my best to keep them in mind - Arizona Theatre Company and Invisible Theatre being the most prominent. There has been nothing intriguing or desirable about their shows for me, the choices of the scripts, and the actual productions themselves, over the last few years that has made me take notice or make me have to go see them. Perhaps I am to blame as much as them for this malaise, I don't know. As much as I hate to say it, they seem to present their shows with a kind of polite triteness while wrapped never-the-less in some socially relevant and entertaining context. I have arrived therefore at the "who cares" point. I hope to break out of it or be broken out of it soon.
Live Theatre Workshop verges on this same scenario for me - polite and trite. But sometimes it manages to escape itself, to free itself from its self-imposed imprisonment and make artistic headway. BTW if you have ever read the mission statement or sense of purpose or whatever they call it these days for Live Theatre Workshop let me know if you are amazed as me at all the things they intend to do - so many buzz words I got lost. Anyway, I do like the fact that at times they come up with a little gem of a production one way or another in and around the murder mysteries and bland comedies. Picnic is going to be one of those this year for them. I feel it. And their late night series, though I have seen a couple of presentations that I kind of enjoyed, is just not my cup of tea, not these days anyway.
I am making my personal preparation as I like to do as a spectator for those scheduled shows that I am excited about. For example I am re-reading and looking over Othello - even as I am finishing some thoughts on King Lear with Patrick. He has recently sent me some wonderful materials and some of his own perceptions and thoughts on that play following the discussion of it in his Honors course he was teaching earlier this month. I've got a few months to go on Othello but I like to make it "a journey." Picnic, The Glass Menagerie, Trip to Bountiful, come later in "the season" as well and I will be returning to those plays in various ways prior to seeing the productions themselves.
In the meantime, I am working on that "in" for Seascape and for Animal Farm. So, if you have any insight, great reasons, fun facts, know of sexy performers in the shows, or any reason small or large why I should be chomping at the bit as a spectator for these, please, please, please let me know.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Tennyson's Ulysses - As Tribute to Teddy K.
It little profits that an idle king,
By this still hearth, among these barren crags,
Match’d with an aged wife, I mete and dole
Unequal laws unto a savage race,
That hoard, and sleep, and feed, and know not me
I cannot rest from travel: I will drink
Life to the lees: All times I have enjoy’d
Greatly, have suffer’d greatly, both with those
That loved me, and alone, on shore, and when
Thro’ scudding drifts the rainy Hyades
Vext the dim sea: I am become a name;
For always roaming with a hungry heart
Much have I seen and known; cities of men
And manners, climates, councils, governments,
Myself not least, but honour’d of them all;
And drunk delight of battle with my peers,
Far on the ringing plains of windy Troy.
I am a part of all that I have met;
Yet all experience is an arch wherethro’
Gleams that untravell’d world whose margin fades
For ever and forever when I move.
How dull it is to pause, to make an end,
To rust unburnish’d, not to shine in use! As tho’ to breathe were life!
Life piled on life
Were all too little, and of one to me
Little remains: but every hour is saved
From that eternal silence, something more,
A bringer of new things; and vile it were
For some three suns to store and hoard myself,
And this gray spirit yearning in desire
To follow knowledge like a sinking star,
Beyond the utmost bound of human thought.
This is my son, mine own Telemachus,
To whom I leave the sceptre and the isle,—
Well-loved of me, discerning to fulfil
This labour, by slow prudence to make mild
A rugged people, and thro’ soft degrees
Subdue them to the useful and the good.
Most blameless is he, centred in the sphere
Of common duties, decent not to fail
In offices of tenderness, and pay
Meet adoration to my household gods,
When I am gone. He works his work, I mine.
There lies the port; the vessel puffs her sail:
There gloom the dark, broad seas. My mariners,
Souls that have toil’d, and wrought, and thought with me—
That ever with a frolic welcome took
The thunder and the sunshine, and opposed
Free hearts, free foreheads—you and I are old;
Old age hath yet his honour and his toil;
Death closes all: but something ere the end,
Some work of noble note, may yet be done,
Not unbecoming men that strove with Gods.
The lights begin to twinkle from the rocks:
The long day wanes: the slow moon climbs: the deep
Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends,
’Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.
It may be that the gulfs will wash us down:
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.
Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and tho’
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
By this still hearth, among these barren crags,
Match’d with an aged wife, I mete and dole
Unequal laws unto a savage race,
That hoard, and sleep, and feed, and know not me
I cannot rest from travel: I will drink
Life to the lees: All times I have enjoy’d
Greatly, have suffer’d greatly, both with those
That loved me, and alone, on shore, and when
Thro’ scudding drifts the rainy Hyades
Vext the dim sea: I am become a name;
For always roaming with a hungry heart
Much have I seen and known; cities of men
And manners, climates, councils, governments,
Myself not least, but honour’d of them all;
And drunk delight of battle with my peers,
Far on the ringing plains of windy Troy.
I am a part of all that I have met;
Yet all experience is an arch wherethro’
Gleams that untravell’d world whose margin fades
For ever and forever when I move.
How dull it is to pause, to make an end,
To rust unburnish’d, not to shine in use! As tho’ to breathe were life!
Life piled on life
Were all too little, and of one to me
Little remains: but every hour is saved
From that eternal silence, something more,
A bringer of new things; and vile it were
For some three suns to store and hoard myself,
And this gray spirit yearning in desire
To follow knowledge like a sinking star,
Beyond the utmost bound of human thought.
This is my son, mine own Telemachus,
To whom I leave the sceptre and the isle,—
Well-loved of me, discerning to fulfil
This labour, by slow prudence to make mild
A rugged people, and thro’ soft degrees
Subdue them to the useful and the good.
Most blameless is he, centred in the sphere
Of common duties, decent not to fail
In offices of tenderness, and pay
Meet adoration to my household gods,
When I am gone. He works his work, I mine.
There lies the port; the vessel puffs her sail:
There gloom the dark, broad seas. My mariners,
Souls that have toil’d, and wrought, and thought with me—
That ever with a frolic welcome took
The thunder and the sunshine, and opposed
Free hearts, free foreheads—you and I are old;
Old age hath yet his honour and his toil;
Death closes all: but something ere the end,
Some work of noble note, may yet be done,
Not unbecoming men that strove with Gods.
The lights begin to twinkle from the rocks:
The long day wanes: the slow moon climbs: the deep
Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends,
’Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.
It may be that the gulfs will wash us down:
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.
Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and tho’
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Corrections for Open Studio
SORRY!Figures, the day after I send this out, I have to change the dates. The Open Studio will now be on Mondays ONLY in September, rather than Mondays & Thursdays.So, the Open Studio dates are: September, 7, 14, 21, 28 from 6-8:30 p.m. We're beginning with these dates only to gauge interest and will add more dates if attendance is pretty good. So, invite some friends!
Thanks! Steve
Thanks! Steve
Friday, August 21, 2009
From Steve Anderson
Hey, all.Starting Open Studios. Here's the info. C'mon in and jam for a while. It'll be fun! Hope to see some of you there.The Open Studio for Actors, a new actor training series under thedirection of Steve Anderson, announces Open Studio Sessions forActors. The goal of the open studio is to provide a safe, creative,and empowering atmosphere for actors who wish to explore theirpotential without a major time or financial commitment. There is noadvanced registration for the open studios; actors simply show up andpay for each individual session. Each open studio session willinclude relaxation, kinesthetic awareness, and various exercisesdesigned to give the actor the tools to layer sense of stillness,focus, place, relationship, character, impulse, and intention-drivenaction. Actors are encouraged to bring scenes or monologues to workon. Steve Anderson earned his MFA in Acting in 1991 and has beenteaching and directing ever since. He has worked with actors from thebeginner to the Broadway pro and is consistently regarded as a giftedacting teacher. For testimonials and more detailed information,please visit www.steveandersonacting.com.WHAT: Open Studio Sessions for ActorsWHEN: Every Monday and Thursday evening from 6-8:30 p.m., beginning Sept. 3WHERE: Artfare. 55 N. 6th Avenue, Tucson - 3rd floorFEE/REGISTRATION: $10.00. No advanced payment or registrationrequired. Simply pay at the door. Credit cards are not accepted.WHAT TO BRING: Bottled water, towel, scenes and/or monologues to work onQUESTIONS: Contact Steve through www.steveandersonacting.com or callhim at 520.981.0145
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Bill Killian
Brecht said "All Art contributes to the greatest Art of all, the Art of living."
Bill Killian tells me he is seventy going on seventy. I don't believe him. He is twenty-one all the way - and a bit of a Renaissance man. I offer a few examples of his deeds and interests, in no particular order, but with freestyle commentary.
Bill has made over one-hundred basketball free throws in a row more than forty-seven times. Just this past week he made 197 out of 200. This is staggering. His form and rhythm when he shoots the ball is impeccable, flawless, and seems effortless, graceful, poetic. Now when I was a kid, I beat the then world record holder, Ted St. Martin, in a free throw shoot out. I made 10 out of 10. Ted missed his first shot, didn't shoot again, but claimed he made 9 out of 10 on the certificate he gave me. I hate to have to dust off my shoes and head down to the gym to give Bill a little competition but I might have too! The only problem is I really don't think I would stand a chance vs Bill. Therefore, I am staying at a distance, preferring to cheer Bill on and admire his ability in this skill which he often shares with young players, teaching them proper habits and the fundamentals of shooting. Bill's personality, love and enthusiasm combined with his knowledge, practice and experience make him an ideal teacher of this sort.
Bill has been to more Actor's Gymnasium sessions with me than anyone. Therefore - I love him no matter what! It's not just that he attends though. His presence has been crucial for many reasons. Bill's work as an actor existed of course long before Actor's Gymnasium and will continue well after Actor's Gymnasium but for this space and time, Bill has shown his great commitment to his craft, his art, with the work he has shared with all of us in Actor's Gym. The list is a long, long one if I tried to mention each session that jumps to mind when I think of Bill's work. But I will give you two, as classic examples, though seemingly opposite types of work.
The first one is of a monologue from Horton Foote's "The Man From Atlanta." Bill presented this work to us in several forms the first time he brought it in. He did it first that day as a straightforward monologue. He worked on it a second time that day, not with the language of the piece but instead with music playing. (For those unfamiliar with Actor's Gymnasium the short explanation is that we explore and work on ways to make ourselves more scenically expressive as actors). In that repetition with the music playing, Bill worked his way through various actions of the character, sometimes metaphorically, touching certain rhythms and moods. A couple of weeks or so later, Bill was ready to present the monologue again to us, having continued his work on it at home in the meantime. Let me clarify something though. Most, most, work on monologues in workshops and classes consist of a stage where the actor has almost learned, memorized, the lines of the text itself, or has just learned the lines and is now trying to work out the basic action and activities as to how best present it to spectators. Depth and detail, meaning layers and layers and layers of human behavior within a specific event and situation are usually nowhere to be found. That is not the case with Bill here. With this monologue Bill was well in to the depth and detail and we were trying to figure out how to organize it craftwise and draw it to a poetic rendition. And then it happened. Bill, as the character, begin to actually live in the space with full blown thoughts and emotions and physical actions, at one point picking up a picture of his son in the most simplest of fashions as he spoke - a loving, heartbreaking moment as he gently but deeply felt asked for his son back. On that day Bill was not just a good actor, he was a great one. One that day Bill was not just a technician with the ability to speak and move and indicate skillfully, he was an artist in the deepest and widest and best sense, revealing to all of us something unique, something profound, something captivating. It was great!
(And BTW the next week Bill, in typical hardworking and practical fashion, was right back at the rigours of the daily physical and vocal exercises that are the "beginnings") .
The second example is when we were all working as group, or taking turns rather, with the words from Hamlet's To Be or Not to Be monologue. Bill and Tom Wentzel were ripping through segments of the speech using the most bizarre and unexpected vocal qualities and intonations. I was on the floor dying of laughter. I won't give further details now but it was hysterical. You should have been there!
Bill has purchased many books and DVDs on theatre and acting that he has generously shared with us and he has participated actively in a ton of research on various topics that we have done through Actor's Gymnasium. He has always been a conscientious supporter of theatre and the arts in general here in Tucson as well as in Phoenix (that god-forsaken soul-less wasteland of a town to the near north).
Bill Killian tells me he is seventy going on seventy. I don't believe him. He is twenty-one all the way - and a bit of a Renaissance man. I offer a few examples of his deeds and interests, in no particular order, but with freestyle commentary.
Bill has made over one-hundred basketball free throws in a row more than forty-seven times. Just this past week he made 197 out of 200. This is staggering. His form and rhythm when he shoots the ball is impeccable, flawless, and seems effortless, graceful, poetic. Now when I was a kid, I beat the then world record holder, Ted St. Martin, in a free throw shoot out. I made 10 out of 10. Ted missed his first shot, didn't shoot again, but claimed he made 9 out of 10 on the certificate he gave me. I hate to have to dust off my shoes and head down to the gym to give Bill a little competition but I might have too! The only problem is I really don't think I would stand a chance vs Bill. Therefore, I am staying at a distance, preferring to cheer Bill on and admire his ability in this skill which he often shares with young players, teaching them proper habits and the fundamentals of shooting. Bill's personality, love and enthusiasm combined with his knowledge, practice and experience make him an ideal teacher of this sort.
Bill has been to more Actor's Gymnasium sessions with me than anyone. Therefore - I love him no matter what! It's not just that he attends though. His presence has been crucial for many reasons. Bill's work as an actor existed of course long before Actor's Gymnasium and will continue well after Actor's Gymnasium but for this space and time, Bill has shown his great commitment to his craft, his art, with the work he has shared with all of us in Actor's Gym. The list is a long, long one if I tried to mention each session that jumps to mind when I think of Bill's work. But I will give you two, as classic examples, though seemingly opposite types of work.
The first one is of a monologue from Horton Foote's "The Man From Atlanta." Bill presented this work to us in several forms the first time he brought it in. He did it first that day as a straightforward monologue. He worked on it a second time that day, not with the language of the piece but instead with music playing. (For those unfamiliar with Actor's Gymnasium the short explanation is that we explore and work on ways to make ourselves more scenically expressive as actors). In that repetition with the music playing, Bill worked his way through various actions of the character, sometimes metaphorically, touching certain rhythms and moods. A couple of weeks or so later, Bill was ready to present the monologue again to us, having continued his work on it at home in the meantime. Let me clarify something though. Most, most, work on monologues in workshops and classes consist of a stage where the actor has almost learned, memorized, the lines of the text itself, or has just learned the lines and is now trying to work out the basic action and activities as to how best present it to spectators. Depth and detail, meaning layers and layers and layers of human behavior within a specific event and situation are usually nowhere to be found. That is not the case with Bill here. With this monologue Bill was well in to the depth and detail and we were trying to figure out how to organize it craftwise and draw it to a poetic rendition. And then it happened. Bill, as the character, begin to actually live in the space with full blown thoughts and emotions and physical actions, at one point picking up a picture of his son in the most simplest of fashions as he spoke - a loving, heartbreaking moment as he gently but deeply felt asked for his son back. On that day Bill was not just a good actor, he was a great one. One that day Bill was not just a technician with the ability to speak and move and indicate skillfully, he was an artist in the deepest and widest and best sense, revealing to all of us something unique, something profound, something captivating. It was great!
(And BTW the next week Bill, in typical hardworking and practical fashion, was right back at the rigours of the daily physical and vocal exercises that are the "beginnings") .
The second example is when we were all working as group, or taking turns rather, with the words from Hamlet's To Be or Not to Be monologue. Bill and Tom Wentzel were ripping through segments of the speech using the most bizarre and unexpected vocal qualities and intonations. I was on the floor dying of laughter. I won't give further details now but it was hysterical. You should have been there!
Bill has purchased many books and DVDs on theatre and acting that he has generously shared with us and he has participated actively in a ton of research on various topics that we have done through Actor's Gymnasium. He has always been a conscientious supporter of theatre and the arts in general here in Tucson as well as in Phoenix (that god-forsaken soul-less wasteland of a town to the near north).
Bill recently came out of retirement and started back to work again as a Chaplain. This time he is at Corondelet counseling the grieved and anyone seeking spiritual comfort, advice and guidance. If there is a more practical and sympathetic ear than Bill's in this regard I haven't seen it. And, in addition to his daily duties (if I may use that word) as a husband, father and grandfather, Bill is completing a book of poetry. Now this isn't one of those I wrote ten poems kind of books. Bill has so far selected over eighty-five poems from a working catalogue of over five-hundred that chronicle his life and work, much of it theatre related.
And one last thing. While I have seen Bill upset and bothered, I have never seen him without a smile and kind words and compliments for everyone present. Bill, you have made a work of art of your life! Thank you for all you have given us and keep up the great deeds!
Monday, August 17, 2009
Winding Road Theatre Ensemble
They just keep coming! Another announcement for a new theatre company and its first production here in Tucson. The new one is Winding Road Theatre Ensemble and the show is an original one by Lesley Abrams entitled Dorothy Parker's Last Call. It is to be performed in the Cabaret Theatre at the Temple of Music and Art in mid October. Check the TTA list for the specifics.
I like that they have "Ensemble" in the name. The question is what does that word mean to them. To me of course it means a permanent group of actors and directors who share common artistic views and who plan and implement their work as a long term endeavor, training and preparing themselves consciously as an ensemble in order to achieve their artistic aims. For the general theatrical world it means a loosely knit group of artists who often work together when they don't have better or different offers and projects going on. Fundamentally that makes for a huge difference. In any case, it is exciting to hear about them and regardless of their form I wish them the best.
Glen Coffman, the director of this first show, studied acting at the HB Studio according to their announcement. That means hopefully he at least carries some amount of "Method" tradition in his work. He directed the production of Lemon Sky at Live Theatre Workshop which I wrote a long post about here on this very blog. I don't recall how I worded it in the post itself, but the acting in that show, even though it obviously did not have the amount of rehearsal time it truly needed to come to fruition, showed evidence of earnest and sincere and creatively imagined work. Aside from that terrible set in that terrible performance space which is Live Theatre Workshop, I sensed an attempt at real theatrical life. Perhaps freed from the constraints of time and place that comes with being jobbed in as a director with these various companies, Glen will be able to establish and create his artistic vision much more fully and definitely with his workmates at Winding Road.
I like that they have "Ensemble" in the name. The question is what does that word mean to them. To me of course it means a permanent group of actors and directors who share common artistic views and who plan and implement their work as a long term endeavor, training and preparing themselves consciously as an ensemble in order to achieve their artistic aims. For the general theatrical world it means a loosely knit group of artists who often work together when they don't have better or different offers and projects going on. Fundamentally that makes for a huge difference. In any case, it is exciting to hear about them and regardless of their form I wish them the best.
Glen Coffman, the director of this first show, studied acting at the HB Studio according to their announcement. That means hopefully he at least carries some amount of "Method" tradition in his work. He directed the production of Lemon Sky at Live Theatre Workshop which I wrote a long post about here on this very blog. I don't recall how I worded it in the post itself, but the acting in that show, even though it obviously did not have the amount of rehearsal time it truly needed to come to fruition, showed evidence of earnest and sincere and creatively imagined work. Aside from that terrible set in that terrible performance space which is Live Theatre Workshop, I sensed an attempt at real theatrical life. Perhaps freed from the constraints of time and place that comes with being jobbed in as a director with these various companies, Glen will be able to establish and create his artistic vision much more fully and definitely with his workmates at Winding Road.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Shaping a Theatrical Conciousness
To write of shaping a theatrical consciousness assumes that there is one, that theatrical consciousness exists. In that regard I may be starting this post all wrong. I may need to write of developing a theatrical consciousness. Hmm. Lets consider both notions at the same time, one big effort - developing and shaping a theatrical consciousness.
But what the heck is a theatrical consciousness? Rendering a precise definition will be difficult. In general it would refer to being actively cognizant and aware of the purpose and implications of theatrical spectacles, of having a strong sense and opinion of aesthetic, and some recognition of elemental functions. If we had a measuring gauge for this, in terms of the average spectator in our society, and for many of our theatrical artists themselves, its safe to assume that the reading would be "parochial." As we might expect, our theatrical consciousness has come into being by our experience and exposure to the habitual and accepted practices of the time and place - whether from one show or from nitty gritty work on hundreds of shows.
Articulation of types of theatrical consciousness is almost endless. Ask someone to describe theatre and it becomes showbiz, art, politics, revolutionary action, literary pursuit, personal journey, etc. Browse through books on theatre and indeed you will find these titles, Theatre as a Weapon, Educational Theatre, Feminist Theatre, The Art of the Stage, Theatre Anthropology, Epic Theatre, Black Theatre, My Life in Art, and Theatre of the Oppressed, to name but a few. There are thousands! While these for example attempt to change or offer perspective, many remain on the parochial level. But not all. Occasionally we run into an experience in our theatre that alters, widens and deepens our theatrical consciousness, lending specificity to our understanding and appreciation. See for example the post in this blog on Lev Dodin's Platonov by an anonymous poster.
For most of us though, we have been to a few shows, we have acted in a few shows, maybe even directed a few shows, we've read some reviews and had discussions with our friends and we have a select few favorite shows and/or performances we can list. In the end though, we typically hold the same assumptions on every single one of them. For example, regarding the "Who Done-It" I saw at live Live Theatre Workshop and the "Literary Masterpiece" I saw at Rogue Theatre, as a spectator I assumed that in both cases it was my responsibility to listen closely and pay attention at all times, lest I miss some clue or important bit of information that will be crucial to my understanding and appreciation by the end. The performers assumed they had to subtly but clearly and with a certain naturalness articulate the words and express the meaning behind them in order to ensure the spectators heard and understood the author whose story was being staged. And do so briskly lest the spectators become bored. My friends and co-workers assumed and expected I would relay to them my complete reaction and experience to the shows the following mornings. Its kind of like the way we "do business" in theatre and this collective way is part of our theatrical consciousness, having been developed and shaped over time.
Let me extract from that description one point, one sentence, for further explanation. "And to do so briskly lest the spectators become bored." Here the assumption is "entertainment." Our theatrical consciousness has been developed and shaped in such a way that we expect as spectators to be entertained by the performers. We do not expect, in other words, to have to entertain ourselves, or find for ourselves, our sense of enjoyment and entertainment. It will be provided we assume by the performers. The logic then goes that this "entertainment" will keep my attention focused at all times on the words the performers are speaking and the actions they are doing so as to finally give me that overall appreciation and understanding of the story.
Since I am not loathe to comparisons...lets say I went to a baseball game. Not one of those god-forsaken professional ones but just some game in the park. I go there lets say with the express purpose of being a spectator to the game, for my own enjoyment. In such an instance, I will not assume that the ballplayers are going to entertain me or that the game itself will move along at such a rapid pace that my full attention is undeniable. Apples and oranges? Yes, but thats ok.
In the long run, the game itself my be exciting with a dramatic finish, or it may turn out to be somewhat typical. Either way, I will, as a spectator, find myself entertained by the action even though it moves at a snails pace most of the time. Brisk pace is not necessary, nor is purposeful attempt by the players themselves to entertain. What I do expect of them though, the ball players, is to be fully involved in the event of the game itself. They may wave at me in the stands at some point but when the pitch is being thrown they are swinging away.
By way of this specific example I am not suggesting that all productions are too fastly paced. I'm trying to articulate the kinds of expectations and relationships we have, that endure in theatre as a result of our theatrical consciousness, individually and collectively. If I took it down to an elemental function and asked what do actors do, the responses again would be varied and somewhat parochial - an actors entertains, an actor does, and actor acts, an actor communicates what the author's intent is, an actor performs the characters actions, etc. If I said an actor takes in information and process it via their affective memory and senses to make living behavior you could disagree with me. On the other hand, you could disagree that a tree takes in water and light and makes branches and leaves. Or I could tell you that a tree stands on a hill, or blows in the breeze, or looks pretty. Any of these would signify part of our theatrical consciousness and our understanding or appreciation for actors, as well as the way we relate as performers to one another.
But what the heck is a theatrical consciousness? Rendering a precise definition will be difficult. In general it would refer to being actively cognizant and aware of the purpose and implications of theatrical spectacles, of having a strong sense and opinion of aesthetic, and some recognition of elemental functions. If we had a measuring gauge for this, in terms of the average spectator in our society, and for many of our theatrical artists themselves, its safe to assume that the reading would be "parochial." As we might expect, our theatrical consciousness has come into being by our experience and exposure to the habitual and accepted practices of the time and place - whether from one show or from nitty gritty work on hundreds of shows.
Articulation of types of theatrical consciousness is almost endless. Ask someone to describe theatre and it becomes showbiz, art, politics, revolutionary action, literary pursuit, personal journey, etc. Browse through books on theatre and indeed you will find these titles, Theatre as a Weapon, Educational Theatre, Feminist Theatre, The Art of the Stage, Theatre Anthropology, Epic Theatre, Black Theatre, My Life in Art, and Theatre of the Oppressed, to name but a few. There are thousands! While these for example attempt to change or offer perspective, many remain on the parochial level. But not all. Occasionally we run into an experience in our theatre that alters, widens and deepens our theatrical consciousness, lending specificity to our understanding and appreciation. See for example the post in this blog on Lev Dodin's Platonov by an anonymous poster.
For most of us though, we have been to a few shows, we have acted in a few shows, maybe even directed a few shows, we've read some reviews and had discussions with our friends and we have a select few favorite shows and/or performances we can list. In the end though, we typically hold the same assumptions on every single one of them. For example, regarding the "Who Done-It" I saw at live Live Theatre Workshop and the "Literary Masterpiece" I saw at Rogue Theatre, as a spectator I assumed that in both cases it was my responsibility to listen closely and pay attention at all times, lest I miss some clue or important bit of information that will be crucial to my understanding and appreciation by the end. The performers assumed they had to subtly but clearly and with a certain naturalness articulate the words and express the meaning behind them in order to ensure the spectators heard and understood the author whose story was being staged. And do so briskly lest the spectators become bored. My friends and co-workers assumed and expected I would relay to them my complete reaction and experience to the shows the following mornings. Its kind of like the way we "do business" in theatre and this collective way is part of our theatrical consciousness, having been developed and shaped over time.
Let me extract from that description one point, one sentence, for further explanation. "And to do so briskly lest the spectators become bored." Here the assumption is "entertainment." Our theatrical consciousness has been developed and shaped in such a way that we expect as spectators to be entertained by the performers. We do not expect, in other words, to have to entertain ourselves, or find for ourselves, our sense of enjoyment and entertainment. It will be provided we assume by the performers. The logic then goes that this "entertainment" will keep my attention focused at all times on the words the performers are speaking and the actions they are doing so as to finally give me that overall appreciation and understanding of the story.
Since I am not loathe to comparisons...lets say I went to a baseball game. Not one of those god-forsaken professional ones but just some game in the park. I go there lets say with the express purpose of being a spectator to the game, for my own enjoyment. In such an instance, I will not assume that the ballplayers are going to entertain me or that the game itself will move along at such a rapid pace that my full attention is undeniable. Apples and oranges? Yes, but thats ok.
In the long run, the game itself my be exciting with a dramatic finish, or it may turn out to be somewhat typical. Either way, I will, as a spectator, find myself entertained by the action even though it moves at a snails pace most of the time. Brisk pace is not necessary, nor is purposeful attempt by the players themselves to entertain. What I do expect of them though, the ball players, is to be fully involved in the event of the game itself. They may wave at me in the stands at some point but when the pitch is being thrown they are swinging away.
By way of this specific example I am not suggesting that all productions are too fastly paced. I'm trying to articulate the kinds of expectations and relationships we have, that endure in theatre as a result of our theatrical consciousness, individually and collectively. If I took it down to an elemental function and asked what do actors do, the responses again would be varied and somewhat parochial - an actors entertains, an actor does, and actor acts, an actor communicates what the author's intent is, an actor performs the characters actions, etc. If I said an actor takes in information and process it via their affective memory and senses to make living behavior you could disagree with me. On the other hand, you could disagree that a tree takes in water and light and makes branches and leaves. Or I could tell you that a tree stands on a hill, or blows in the breeze, or looks pretty. Any of these would signify part of our theatrical consciousness and our understanding or appreciation for actors, as well as the way we relate as performers to one another.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Make Sure to
Check out Chuck's posting on Bill Dell on the Tucson Stage site. It's a great service that Bill does for all of us, with consistency and ethics. Thank you Bill.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Tonights New Play Reading.
The new play scheduled to be read at Beowulf Alley Theatre this evening sounds fascinating. I hope to make it there. Check out the details on the TTA List or Beowulf's website.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Cast Your Actor
From the TTA List - "Male Actor Wanted to Play Dead For One Scene In Low Budget Movie."
I won't be the only one to drag out the stereotypes for this. What the heck, here goes.
The Newly Minted Stanislavskian Actor: "What would I do if I were dead? How long have I been dead? What killed me? Are my ancestors appearing to me in death? Are bright lights moving towards me? How low is the budget?"
From the "Its All in the Text" Actor: "The text indicates I'm dead, but I'm thinking if it says I'm dead the author could actually be indicating life by the absence of it so now I'm confused about how still I need to be. I mean if I twitch wouldn't that indicate more of what the author really intended?"
From the Veiwpoints Actor: "So much seemed to be happening as I was laying there during the rehearsal. My body was telling me that its ok to just be dead, to be in this moment for me and it seemed so easy to be ok with my body for once in my life and just be still and quiet and let whatever was going to happen happen but then nothing really happened but I was ok with that."
From The Practical Aesthetics Actor: "But I'm supposed to be doing something and concentrating on another actor! How can I do that when I'm doing nothing but laying there with my eyes closed?!"
From the Actor Who Claims No Technique: "So last night I was out with my girlfriend and this group of people came by talking about where they were going on vacation and I said to my girlfriend hey we should go on vacation but she thought I meant separate va...what? oh, you want me to lie down. Sorry, I was telling him about what happened to me last...oh, sorry. I am laying down...anyway, my girlfriend thought I meant separate va...yea, I can close my eyes, ok, ok."
From "The Professional": "Just tell me where to die - but make sure my costume isn't stepped upon."
From the Actor who Studied Boal: "This is crap! Why should my character die? I think it says more politically to live in this situation rather than die. The dynamics of power suggested by this death have more to do with eurocentric influences of male dominated ideas of sexuality and influence. We need to have a counter scene where I live!"
I won't be the only one to drag out the stereotypes for this. What the heck, here goes.
The Newly Minted Stanislavskian Actor: "What would I do if I were dead? How long have I been dead? What killed me? Are my ancestors appearing to me in death? Are bright lights moving towards me? How low is the budget?"
From the "Its All in the Text" Actor: "The text indicates I'm dead, but I'm thinking if it says I'm dead the author could actually be indicating life by the absence of it so now I'm confused about how still I need to be. I mean if I twitch wouldn't that indicate more of what the author really intended?"
From the Veiwpoints Actor: "So much seemed to be happening as I was laying there during the rehearsal. My body was telling me that its ok to just be dead, to be in this moment for me and it seemed so easy to be ok with my body for once in my life and just be still and quiet and let whatever was going to happen happen but then nothing really happened but I was ok with that."
From The Practical Aesthetics Actor: "But I'm supposed to be doing something and concentrating on another actor! How can I do that when I'm doing nothing but laying there with my eyes closed?!"
From the Actor Who Claims No Technique: "So last night I was out with my girlfriend and this group of people came by talking about where they were going on vacation and I said to my girlfriend hey we should go on vacation but she thought I meant separate va...what? oh, you want me to lie down. Sorry, I was telling him about what happened to me last...oh, sorry. I am laying down...anyway, my girlfriend thought I meant separate va...yea, I can close my eyes, ok, ok."
From "The Professional": "Just tell me where to die - but make sure my costume isn't stepped upon."
From the Actor who Studied Boal: "This is crap! Why should my character die? I think it says more politically to live in this situation rather than die. The dynamics of power suggested by this death have more to do with eurocentric influences of male dominated ideas of sexuality and influence. We need to have a counter scene where I live!"
From the Just Tell Me What You Want Actor: "Just tell me what you want. You want me to lay down and just be still? Ok, I can do that. Just tell me what you want. Why put all the horror make up on me if you want me to be still and just lay there? Tell me what you want. I mean you want all this make-up or do you want me?"
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Tucson is Out of Control
Are we really big and bad enough, our theatre community here in this city, this area, to have the Arizona Rose Theatre AND The Arid Rose Theatre?! AND the new group in Marana and the group in Green Valley? It seems like week by week new efforts, new groups, spring to life. Its out of control! Its totally fabulous but who would have thought!
Right now its like web domain names - you gotta get the name of your theatre company while and when you can. Therefore, I'm staking claim to the following names. (Not that I have any intent of going beyond Ubi Sunt or Actor's Gymnasium but just for fun.)
Creosote Umbrella Theatre
Teatro Camino Real
Blue Skies and Art
Pueblo Gardens Stageworks
Adobe Players
And then there are names of Theatres around the U.S. and the world that I admire that I wish had thought of like Menos Fortas or Remains Theatre Ensemble for examples.
Send me your favorite names for groups.
Right now its like web domain names - you gotta get the name of your theatre company while and when you can. Therefore, I'm staking claim to the following names. (Not that I have any intent of going beyond Ubi Sunt or Actor's Gymnasium but just for fun.)
Creosote Umbrella Theatre
Teatro Camino Real
Blue Skies and Art
Pueblo Gardens Stageworks
Adobe Players
And then there are names of Theatres around the U.S. and the world that I admire that I wish had thought of like Menos Fortas or Remains Theatre Ensemble for examples.
Send me your favorite names for groups.
Always Learning! and Learning to Learn!
Well when you put it out there, it comes back to you they say. You know, the whole concept about you put something out in the "universe" and then all of a sudden its everywhere for you.For me I guess you could say "the British are coming! the British are coming!" Those British actors and their work with words that is. And lots of questions about it.
Let me preface all this though. I like anything to do with the work of acting, deciphering texts, directing, etc. I'm not about hogde-podge anything goes and everyone do their own thing, but when it comes to a practical working skill, craft, that an actor does in the actual process of acting, including speaking, I'll take it. What I don't like though is common. I don't like when certain elements fall out of context or assume an emphasis unduly. Further, like anyone, I don't like when a craft element becomes a cliche of itself.
An actor with a rich, strong, articulate, flexible voice who knows how to "handle" words and dialogue as an expression grown out of the total experience of the character - yes indeed! Heady, vocal gymnastics, intellectually ground together at the expense of real experience - boring! Booorrriiinnnnggggg! boring!
Stanislavsky's work with words and language is as exhaustive and comprehensive as any ones, detailed and precise in his analysis and use of sounds, meanings, musicality, etc. It wasn't pure luck that the big man was known to have tremendous vocal quality and ability - he worked for it.
But now back to the British. Like many young actors and others, I spent a couple of months working with and learning from members of the Royal Shakespeare Company. Yes, I had my crush on one of them too, a pretty and engaging lady with a sexy dialect. We all had our crushes at that time. (That's important to this post...somehow). We also had some terrific get togethers and parties in the foothills where the RSC members were holed up at the time. (That's important too). What I learned in that time has always carried forward - I'm talking about working with texts and words again now - and I have built upon it as could be expected.
There was a time when the British with their great tradition of "language" far outpaced us Americans in the ability to be expressive in this regard as speakers and orators and actors. That time is gone. Americans are way better now. Yep, I said it! Way better. That's no slam on the Brits. They are still good and admirable and can teach us, but we, Americans as a whole, are more diverse and dynamic now in our developments and uses of language. Who would have thought I would be promoting or holding up rap music as a kind of example - but there you go.
I'm not suggesting it holds the poetry of Shakespeare (as much of it is closer to nursery ryhmes), but the intricacies and the cleverness and the overall sound and action of the words is unique in form. Love it or hate it, it is an American original (as original as we can get in America) and part of a larger complex movement or way with words that has taken hold. We have more regionalisms and sub-cultures old and new, than does UK, each with their own unique sound and details which our playwrights have been able to take hold of for good use. In this case, size matters! As does depth!
That said, I do love watching some of those UK actors in action. Who wouldn't or who doesn't? Royce has been keeping me refreshed in the work of some of the best. Recently he sent me a video of Trevor Nunn working with David Suchet and yesterday with Howard we watched John Barton working with Patrick Stewart and David Suchet on Shylock. My favorite thing about Trevor Nunn in this case, although he didnt go very far with it under the circumstances of the demonstration, was what he told David Suchet at the beginning of their work. They are working on a sonnet. Nunn suggest the first thing that must happen is that Suchet must use an imaginitive and personal substitution to make the words come alive out of a specific situation and circumstance. He gives Suchet a very simple and personal imaginitive substitution for the context and tells him he should focus on this as he speaks the words. Suchet does so. As this work demonstration is brief, they do not follow up with any specifics or other adjustments to this but it is telling in and of itself. Suchet's talent is evident when he takes Nunns suggestion and you see him that first time through using the language to articulate what he is thinking and feeling and doing, exploring his being, his relationship with the world around him with the language, hearing it himself for the first time, making discoveries, all that. The subsequent times through when Nunn asks him to consider certain arrangements and sounds of words, Suchet's action becomes that tired old obvious one that so many actors do - to explain! In the most obvious of fashion. And to show! In the most obvious of fashion. While somewhat entertaining and admirable, the specifics and complexities of life and the poetry are lost, the dualities that existed in behavior and meaning are gone, all at the expense of an intellectual appreciation of the "text."
A more obvious contrast exists in the work with Barton and Stewart and Suchet. Stewart in each of his scenes as Shylock plays an intellectual analysis and understanding of the language, literally, at all times. In other words, he plays an abstaction. Suchet on the other hand plays the life of Shylock as could be created based on the circumstances and events, as real behavior done in actuality. The layers and details and complexities of Suchet's work stand in sharp contrast to the very general and one demensional effort of Stewarts. Suchet makes a human being. Stewart makes words. Suchet's language, the poetry, the meanings, the sounds, intonations are far more beautiful and elegant and impactful than Stewarts. Stewarts words have nothing to hold on to except a single overall action, and that action itself exists only on Stewarts charisma and general energy. There is no depth, no substance as there is in Suchets.
Break time!
Let me preface all this though. I like anything to do with the work of acting, deciphering texts, directing, etc. I'm not about hogde-podge anything goes and everyone do their own thing, but when it comes to a practical working skill, craft, that an actor does in the actual process of acting, including speaking, I'll take it. What I don't like though is common. I don't like when certain elements fall out of context or assume an emphasis unduly. Further, like anyone, I don't like when a craft element becomes a cliche of itself.
An actor with a rich, strong, articulate, flexible voice who knows how to "handle" words and dialogue as an expression grown out of the total experience of the character - yes indeed! Heady, vocal gymnastics, intellectually ground together at the expense of real experience - boring! Booorrriiinnnnggggg! boring!
Stanislavsky's work with words and language is as exhaustive and comprehensive as any ones, detailed and precise in his analysis and use of sounds, meanings, musicality, etc. It wasn't pure luck that the big man was known to have tremendous vocal quality and ability - he worked for it.
But now back to the British. Like many young actors and others, I spent a couple of months working with and learning from members of the Royal Shakespeare Company. Yes, I had my crush on one of them too, a pretty and engaging lady with a sexy dialect. We all had our crushes at that time. (That's important to this post...somehow). We also had some terrific get togethers and parties in the foothills where the RSC members were holed up at the time. (That's important too). What I learned in that time has always carried forward - I'm talking about working with texts and words again now - and I have built upon it as could be expected.
There was a time when the British with their great tradition of "language" far outpaced us Americans in the ability to be expressive in this regard as speakers and orators and actors. That time is gone. Americans are way better now. Yep, I said it! Way better. That's no slam on the Brits. They are still good and admirable and can teach us, but we, Americans as a whole, are more diverse and dynamic now in our developments and uses of language. Who would have thought I would be promoting or holding up rap music as a kind of example - but there you go.
I'm not suggesting it holds the poetry of Shakespeare (as much of it is closer to nursery ryhmes), but the intricacies and the cleverness and the overall sound and action of the words is unique in form. Love it or hate it, it is an American original (as original as we can get in America) and part of a larger complex movement or way with words that has taken hold. We have more regionalisms and sub-cultures old and new, than does UK, each with their own unique sound and details which our playwrights have been able to take hold of for good use. In this case, size matters! As does depth!
That said, I do love watching some of those UK actors in action. Who wouldn't or who doesn't? Royce has been keeping me refreshed in the work of some of the best. Recently he sent me a video of Trevor Nunn working with David Suchet and yesterday with Howard we watched John Barton working with Patrick Stewart and David Suchet on Shylock. My favorite thing about Trevor Nunn in this case, although he didnt go very far with it under the circumstances of the demonstration, was what he told David Suchet at the beginning of their work. They are working on a sonnet. Nunn suggest the first thing that must happen is that Suchet must use an imaginitive and personal substitution to make the words come alive out of a specific situation and circumstance. He gives Suchet a very simple and personal imaginitive substitution for the context and tells him he should focus on this as he speaks the words. Suchet does so. As this work demonstration is brief, they do not follow up with any specifics or other adjustments to this but it is telling in and of itself. Suchet's talent is evident when he takes Nunns suggestion and you see him that first time through using the language to articulate what he is thinking and feeling and doing, exploring his being, his relationship with the world around him with the language, hearing it himself for the first time, making discoveries, all that. The subsequent times through when Nunn asks him to consider certain arrangements and sounds of words, Suchet's action becomes that tired old obvious one that so many actors do - to explain! In the most obvious of fashion. And to show! In the most obvious of fashion. While somewhat entertaining and admirable, the specifics and complexities of life and the poetry are lost, the dualities that existed in behavior and meaning are gone, all at the expense of an intellectual appreciation of the "text."
A more obvious contrast exists in the work with Barton and Stewart and Suchet. Stewart in each of his scenes as Shylock plays an intellectual analysis and understanding of the language, literally, at all times. In other words, he plays an abstaction. Suchet on the other hand plays the life of Shylock as could be created based on the circumstances and events, as real behavior done in actuality. The layers and details and complexities of Suchet's work stand in sharp contrast to the very general and one demensional effort of Stewarts. Suchet makes a human being. Stewart makes words. Suchet's language, the poetry, the meanings, the sounds, intonations are far more beautiful and elegant and impactful than Stewarts. Stewarts words have nothing to hold on to except a single overall action, and that action itself exists only on Stewarts charisma and general energy. There is no depth, no substance as there is in Suchets.
Break time!
Patrick on Language, Shakespeare...
Several things come to mind here in relation to David's post about words, language, Shakespeare, etc. In a dream, Graham Greene taught me that in writing fiction, dialogue must be action. (He reiterated the notion in his autobiography, "Ways of Escape.") Perhaps for obvious reasons, this notion is a given in theatre (though not always the case) and less generally considered in fiction, where we don't think as acutely of every passage needing to propel action forward. So it was a fabulous lesson. When you think about it, this "dialogue/action" occurs naturally in the best fiction writers, and doesn't occur at all in weaker writers. Pick up 9 out of 10 novels in the store and you can practically "see" the story "take a break" as chunks of dialogue sit there, maybe revealing character, certainly taking up some pages, but not necessarily developing "action" as it is understood in theatre, i.e. dramatic, sense One of the reasons I liked the Phaedre, as a play, was that the dialogue propelled the action forcefully. The acting has been criticized as emoting, but the lines themselves, maybe Ted Hughes had something to do with this, the lines themselves kept the story moving forward potently. I.e. the lines were action. Now when David speaks about words as actions in his post, the sense I think is primarily of them as physical action. (Not that he's minimizing their other values, of course, but simply that his post is about the actor's physicality.) And this brings us to Shakespeare. To this day, I hear exceptionally brilliant people, such as George Orwell, say that Shakespeare endures most primarily because of his poetic qualities. That the plays themselves, as plays, are faulty enough not to have endured the centuries were it not for their unparalleled linguistic genius. I also hear exceptionally brilliant people, such as Howard Allen, say that the reason Shakespeare is taught in virtually every English Literature and Theatre program in the world is because he has survived the test of time ON THE STAGE. His plays continue to be produced the world over---and in obviously weaker translations of hundreds of language---and this is why he is still read. In this moment, and probably in most moments, I think Orwell is more right. Shakespeare is our Dante, and he endures for some of the same reasons. By the way, for an experience of language primarily as action, and language which at times stops action, read The Divine Comedy. And we'd probably say that in many Shakespeare plays, the same thing happens. That passages (which are often cut today) do not necessarily move the action forward. I think this may have more to do with our shortened attentions, or, if you will, our quicker mind frames, than with the actual text. I have a suspicion that 16th century audiences found much more of the Shakespeare's text as "active" because they thought differently than we do. Maybe the porter scene in Macbeth (Shakespeare's leanest tragedy) was not simply a "relief" (comic or otherwise) but a propelling forward of the plays thematic action. The "gardener" scene in Richard II is another example that comes to mind. And this brings us to Chekhov's Orchard. The study of "time" in the text by Bill Killian that David describes and then develops as part of his process/production seems a strong example of the indivisible qualities of poetry and action---Chekhov's work as a whole seems particularly apt in this regard. In other dramatists, as in other fiction writers, one can more readily see whether the dialogue propels the action or not. In Chekhov, as David's process emphasizes, the beauty is in the union of theme, action, dialogue, etc. More can be said, but we'll leave it to Gertrude to close with her calling for "More matter, less art." But let's question this plea. She too was all too ready to divorce truth from reality. Patrick
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
King Lear at the Honors College UA
We had a great time yesterday attending Patrick's class at the Honors College and trying to answer questions from the students regarding King Lear. The questions were sharp, astute and required some serious consideration from us at times. I am still considering the last one, "How would you dress The Fool?" Metaphorically, or perhaps representationally and even literally The Fool is Art. He is Theatre. He is Entertainment. But how to dress him? You could say well it depends on the context or how you conceive of the entire spectacle. True. On the other hand, how you construct that character could release the entire spectacle in your imagination.
To me the play is like a well done fairy tale, as Patrick described it at one point, tragic though it is, and something about that Fool's getup I think could be a hinging point. I'm not jumping to any conclusions about fairy tales or cliche costumes - but the question still has me thinking.
To me the play is like a well done fairy tale, as Patrick described it at one point, tragic though it is, and something about that Fool's getup I think could be a hinging point. I'm not jumping to any conclusions about fairy tales or cliche costumes - but the question still has me thinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)