During our lesson on the 4th December I delivered an exercise on the practitioner Mike Alfred's.
Overall I was really pleased with the exercise I delivered. It was a written exercise, exploring the contextual and uniting of the text. I made the cast do several exercises within the texts, all taken from Mike Alfred's own workshops.
The cast all gave really good feedback and the assessor praised my efforts. I put a lot of work into planning the exercise so I was glad it paid off in the end.
Friday, 6 December 2013
Declan Donnellan
During our Declan Donnellan lesson we spent the time exploring his 'target' exercise.
Declan believes that in theatre and performance, there i always a target and an obstruction.
The target is on the outside of the actor, so instead of focusing on the inside, you have to focus on the outside. For example, if you are playing Juliet, your target is Romeo. Declan Donnellan believes that Juliet will give a more honest performance if she shifts her focus onto her target rather than thinking of herself. It is not about what the actor is doing, but what the target is doing and making you do. He prefers the concentration/attention to be on the target and not themselves. Whatever Juliet wants, it will always be out of her reach (going on a quest for her target), and it can get better or worse/you can win or lose.
He also believes that when the stakes are high in a play, the action speeds up. For example in Our Country's Good, when everybody finds out that Liz Morden is going to be hanged, the speed of the action increases.
Donnellan quoted, "Every living moment has an element of quest" (but you don't necessarily achieve it.)
He believes that you should play your objectives in performance as though you don't know the outcome of them. For example we have to play the uncertainty, we don't necessarily know if Liz Morden will be hanged or not, so we have to play it as if it could go either way. The situation could get better, or it could get worse. Keep it honest and play the situations realistically.
In Our Country's Good, Caesar target has two outcomes. His target is to join in in The Recruiting Officer - the first outcome could result in him getting caught and taken for a whipping, and the second resulting in him being allowed to perform in the play.
Donnellan says there is always something to be lost and always something to be won. A target always divides into better or worse outcomes.
Here is an example of my 'better or worse' target exercise.
1. Convicts = I might get food today, I might not.
2. I might escape and grow old in Devon, I might not.
3. I might be allowed a role in Lieutenant Clark's play, I might not.
4. Mary might hate me for selling her, she might not.
5. I might be punished by Robbie Ross for being disobedient, I might not.
6. I might find out Liz will be hanged, I might not.
7. Mary could leave me alone in the women's quarter while she stays with Ralph, perhaps not.
8. Will I learn my lines, will I not.
Declan believes that in theatre and performance, there i always a target and an obstruction.
The target is on the outside of the actor, so instead of focusing on the inside, you have to focus on the outside. For example, if you are playing Juliet, your target is Romeo. Declan Donnellan believes that Juliet will give a more honest performance if she shifts her focus onto her target rather than thinking of herself. It is not about what the actor is doing, but what the target is doing and making you do. He prefers the concentration/attention to be on the target and not themselves. Whatever Juliet wants, it will always be out of her reach (going on a quest for her target), and it can get better or worse/you can win or lose.
He also believes that when the stakes are high in a play, the action speeds up. For example in Our Country's Good, when everybody finds out that Liz Morden is going to be hanged, the speed of the action increases.
Donnellan quoted, "Every living moment has an element of quest" (but you don't necessarily achieve it.)
He believes that you should play your objectives in performance as though you don't know the outcome of them. For example we have to play the uncertainty, we don't necessarily know if Liz Morden will be hanged or not, so we have to play it as if it could go either way. The situation could get better, or it could get worse. Keep it honest and play the situations realistically.
In Our Country's Good, Caesar target has two outcomes. His target is to join in in The Recruiting Officer - the first outcome could result in him getting caught and taken for a whipping, and the second resulting in him being allowed to perform in the play.
Donnellan says there is always something to be lost and always something to be won. A target always divides into better or worse outcomes.
Here is an example of my 'better or worse' target exercise.
1. Convicts = I might get food today, I might not.
2. I might escape and grow old in Devon, I might not.
3. I might be allowed a role in Lieutenant Clark's play, I might not.
4. Mary might hate me for selling her, she might not.
5. I might be punished by Robbie Ross for being disobedient, I might not.
6. I might find out Liz will be hanged, I might not.
7. Mary could leave me alone in the women's quarter while she stays with Ralph, perhaps not.
8. Will I learn my lines, will I not.
Tuesday, 29 October 2013
The final exercise of our Acting Technique class was again focusing on the work and exercises of Michael Chekhov, however relating them personally to our characters in Our Country's Good.
Our director instructed us to get into semi-supine on the flor so that we could participate in a character situation/dream like exercise.
During being in semi-supine with our eyes shut, we were instructed to imagine our character far away, engaging in some sort of activity. We were told to study what they were doing an analyse the activity, asking our character questions.
In my head, during the exercise I saw my character Dabby sat at the end of the shore in Australia, looking out over the sea, dreaming of her hometown Devon. She herself was in a dream-like state, with a lack of energy and growing fatigue, uninterested and unengaged in any form of action going on in the convict camp behind her.
When asking my character questions, I discovered that she was very uncooperative. Dabby just wanted to sit in her daydream, restless that I had tried to disturb her. I really got her sense of pining for her hometown, and actually empathised with her, and decided that this was a factor of my character I needed to interpret into myself when playing her. Every spare moment away from duties and rehearsals, Dabby will merely spend her free time wishing away her life and pining to get back to her home down across the water, on the other side of the moon....
I thought that this was a really nice exercise to finish the lesson. It made me focus a lot on my character's mood at certain times of the day, and made me understand a bit more about her situation.
Overall I have really enjoyed my first term of Acting Technique.
Our director instructed us to get into semi-supine on the flor so that we could participate in a character situation/dream like exercise.
During being in semi-supine with our eyes shut, we were instructed to imagine our character far away, engaging in some sort of activity. We were told to study what they were doing an analyse the activity, asking our character questions.
In my head, during the exercise I saw my character Dabby sat at the end of the shore in Australia, looking out over the sea, dreaming of her hometown Devon. She herself was in a dream-like state, with a lack of energy and growing fatigue, uninterested and unengaged in any form of action going on in the convict camp behind her.
When asking my character questions, I discovered that she was very uncooperative. Dabby just wanted to sit in her daydream, restless that I had tried to disturb her. I really got her sense of pining for her hometown, and actually empathised with her, and decided that this was a factor of my character I needed to interpret into myself when playing her. Every spare moment away from duties and rehearsals, Dabby will merely spend her free time wishing away her life and pining to get back to her home down across the water, on the other side of the moon....
I thought that this was a really nice exercise to finish the lesson. It made me focus a lot on my character's mood at certain times of the day, and made me understand a bit more about her situation.
Overall I have really enjoyed my first term of Acting Technique.
Exercises
Afterwards, we did a few exercises to incorporate Mike Chekhov's teachings into our work.
We started off with a movement exercise to start distinguishing how our characters in Our Country's Good would move, slightly like the Laben exercise, however also using Chekhov's methods of establishing how our characters were different.
Through our beginning movement exercise, I learnt how to distinguish many different characters simply by the format in which we moved and used our physicality.
We started off the exercise by walking around the room in neutral. During this, I must say I didn't make any observations, as I was 'playing' myself. Firstly, we were instructed to walk 'vertically'. To me, this walk felt very different to myself, very structured, very ordered, very purposeful. The character I assigned to this way of moving was Major Robbie Ross. I believe his character is quite a harsh character, constantly pushing through spaces to get his own way.
Next we switched around and began walking horizontally, being allowed to look left and right and search around the space. I could relate to this way of moving, as often, especially when there is a lot on my mind, I become very self conscious and I am constantly taking in and being aware of my surroundings. I assigned the character of Captain Campbell to this physicality and movement as in the play, he is constantly pissed, therefore I imagined him to be swaying viciously from side to side.
The third way we began moving was experimenting with our mental and physical blocks. For example, we would start walking towards something, then by some personal obstruction, we would be blocked from our path.
The character I am playing is called Dabby Bryant. I personally believe that she is quite a vertical character. She is very strong willed, exceedingly stubborn, strong minded and she is not afraid to take risks to get what she wants. She cuts through the space in a very domineering and defined way, which fits into vertical movement perfectly. Being vertical is also a good contrast to Dabby's somewhat 'partner' in the play, Mary Brenham, as she is quite a floaty, horizontal character who is overruled by her someone bolder friend. Mary's movements portray indecisiveness, whereas I am discovered this is a trait that Dabby certainly does not suffer with.
We started off with a movement exercise to start distinguishing how our characters in Our Country's Good would move, slightly like the Laben exercise, however also using Chekhov's methods of establishing how our characters were different.
Through our beginning movement exercise, I learnt how to distinguish many different characters simply by the format in which we moved and used our physicality.
We started off the exercise by walking around the room in neutral. During this, I must say I didn't make any observations, as I was 'playing' myself. Firstly, we were instructed to walk 'vertically'. To me, this walk felt very different to myself, very structured, very ordered, very purposeful. The character I assigned to this way of moving was Major Robbie Ross. I believe his character is quite a harsh character, constantly pushing through spaces to get his own way.
Next we switched around and began walking horizontally, being allowed to look left and right and search around the space. I could relate to this way of moving, as often, especially when there is a lot on my mind, I become very self conscious and I am constantly taking in and being aware of my surroundings. I assigned the character of Captain Campbell to this physicality and movement as in the play, he is constantly pissed, therefore I imagined him to be swaying viciously from side to side.
The third way we began moving was experimenting with our mental and physical blocks. For example, we would start walking towards something, then by some personal obstruction, we would be blocked from our path.
The character I am playing is called Dabby Bryant. I personally believe that she is quite a vertical character. She is very strong willed, exceedingly stubborn, strong minded and she is not afraid to take risks to get what she wants. She cuts through the space in a very domineering and defined way, which fits into vertical movement perfectly. Being vertical is also a good contrast to Dabby's somewhat 'partner' in the play, Mary Brenham, as she is quite a floaty, horizontal character who is overruled by her someone bolder friend. Mary's movements portray indecisiveness, whereas I am discovered this is a trait that Dabby certainly does not suffer with.
Mike Chekhov
Another new practitioner we studied in our class was Michael Chekhov. Michael is the nephew of the internationally famous playwright Anton Chekhov (The Cherry Orchard, Three Sisters, etc) and was born in 1981. His acting techniques proved very popular, being used by actors such as Clint Eastwood, Marilyn Monroe and others.
Michael was born 28 years after another famous practitioner, Konstantin Stanislavsky. This resulted in him training under Stanislavsky's methods of Naturalism. Stanislavsky actually quoted that Michael was his "most brilliant student" at the Moscow Art Theatre. During Michael's lifetime work, he was caught up in the Russian Revolution.
In 1953, he wrote a book called 'To the Actor'. This was designed to let the actor experiment themselves with techniques, and it has an emphasis on imagination and movement. The book, along with Michael Chekhov's work, was an "off-shoot" of naturalism. Meanwhile Stalin was the director of Russia, and got rid of most things experimental.
Michael mostly liked to focus on looking at atmosphere, actors creativity and the physicality of inner experiences. He is looking at the differences between you and your character, unlike other practitioners including Stanislavsky, who liked to focus on the similarities. Michael didn't agree with everything that Stanislavsky taught.
Michael, unlike Stanislavsky, said that actor's don't have to use emotional memory in performance, he said you can just imagine how your character feels. This is different to what Stanislavsky preached, who believed emotion memory was fundamental. He said they don't have to rely on their own experiences, and that they can take a more objective approach.
Psycho-Physical Techniques
Michael Chekhov said that Actor's should take an interest/understand the composition as a director and not just immerse themselves in their part. I think he thought that this would give them a greater understanding of the play dimension's instead of just focusing too deeply on their own character. He believed you should work with creating the atmospheres of the play. Actors should use their higher ego's they can stand up as a confident creative role in the play. He is more mystical and less systematic than Stanislavsky (who has 10 elements towards acting and directing).
Simon Callow, a fellow English Actor, said: Chekhov's theatre is a theatre where magical things happen, where dream like things occur.
I couldn't help thinking that perhaps what makes it so magical is Chekhov taking a completely diverse on look onto theatre, importing this into everything he creates. He describes actors to be "actor-poets" and believes this is the way they should function.
Michael was born 28 years after another famous practitioner, Konstantin Stanislavsky. This resulted in him training under Stanislavsky's methods of Naturalism. Stanislavsky actually quoted that Michael was his "most brilliant student" at the Moscow Art Theatre. During Michael's lifetime work, he was caught up in the Russian Revolution.
In 1953, he wrote a book called 'To the Actor'. This was designed to let the actor experiment themselves with techniques, and it has an emphasis on imagination and movement. The book, along with Michael Chekhov's work, was an "off-shoot" of naturalism. Meanwhile Stalin was the director of Russia, and got rid of most things experimental.
Michael mostly liked to focus on looking at atmosphere, actors creativity and the physicality of inner experiences. He is looking at the differences between you and your character, unlike other practitioners including Stanislavsky, who liked to focus on the similarities. Michael didn't agree with everything that Stanislavsky taught.
Michael, unlike Stanislavsky, said that actor's don't have to use emotional memory in performance, he said you can just imagine how your character feels. This is different to what Stanislavsky preached, who believed emotion memory was fundamental. He said they don't have to rely on their own experiences, and that they can take a more objective approach.
Psycho-Physical Techniques
Michael Chekhov said that Actor's should take an interest/understand the composition as a director and not just immerse themselves in their part. I think he thought that this would give them a greater understanding of the play dimension's instead of just focusing too deeply on their own character. He believed you should work with creating the atmospheres of the play. Actors should use their higher ego's they can stand up as a confident creative role in the play. He is more mystical and less systematic than Stanislavsky (who has 10 elements towards acting and directing).
Simon Callow, a fellow English Actor, said: Chekhov's theatre is a theatre where magical things happen, where dream like things occur.
I couldn't help thinking that perhaps what makes it so magical is Chekhov taking a completely diverse on look onto theatre, importing this into everything he creates. He describes actors to be "actor-poets" and believes this is the way they should function.
Lesson One
Our first Acting Technique class was focused on the theatre practitioner Mike Alfred's.
Mike Alfred's is an English Theatre Director, born in London in 1934. We were particularly focusing on him in our first lesson as we wanted to experiment with Improvisation Acting Techniques.
He once wrote a book called 'Different Every Night', which implies the theory that a production running for a sustained amount of time should be slightly different every night, with the Actor reacting naturally and instinctively to what was happening on stage rather than consciously and planned. He also believed that each performance should provoke a different type of response, emotionally from the Actor and the audience. He thought that if the Actor got used to the same sort of audience response, he would get lazy, habitual and less instinctive on stage, creating some sort of routine.
All of Alfred's improvisational beliefs fall under the genre of Naturalism, which is what he was most known to direct.
In our class, we tried a short improvisation technique exercise in pairs to experiment with his ways of acting and directing. What happened was we were given a scenario by our own director to start off with, and then every time she called out we had to change the improvisation. This was very hard - as I found it hard to generate scenarios on the spot, as once you have just settled into an improvisation you are instructed to completely switch - which was a little unsettling. However the purpose of the exercise was to be 'freeing', giving the actor freedom to experiment. I guess this is what Alfred's was trying to draw out the actor - good instinctive improv skills so that they could use them effectively within performances.
We also had to evaluate afterwards whether we thought our improvisations were truthful, and if not, what we could do to improve that.
Another purpose of the improvisation was to reinforce the theory that 'acting is reacting'. We were being pushed to fully listen and respond instinctively to our partners - making us think more relevantly about relationships to others on stage. We also briefly touched upon Given Circumstances - adding more and more detail to our improvisation sketches so that it abled us to get fully emerged in them and really start experimenting.
I really enjoyed my first lesson of Acting Technique and it was very interesting exploring Mike Alfred's methods.
Mike Alfred's is an English Theatre Director, born in London in 1934. We were particularly focusing on him in our first lesson as we wanted to experiment with Improvisation Acting Techniques.
He once wrote a book called 'Different Every Night', which implies the theory that a production running for a sustained amount of time should be slightly different every night, with the Actor reacting naturally and instinctively to what was happening on stage rather than consciously and planned. He also believed that each performance should provoke a different type of response, emotionally from the Actor and the audience. He thought that if the Actor got used to the same sort of audience response, he would get lazy, habitual and less instinctive on stage, creating some sort of routine.
All of Alfred's improvisational beliefs fall under the genre of Naturalism, which is what he was most known to direct.
In our class, we tried a short improvisation technique exercise in pairs to experiment with his ways of acting and directing. What happened was we were given a scenario by our own director to start off with, and then every time she called out we had to change the improvisation. This was very hard - as I found it hard to generate scenarios on the spot, as once you have just settled into an improvisation you are instructed to completely switch - which was a little unsettling. However the purpose of the exercise was to be 'freeing', giving the actor freedom to experiment. I guess this is what Alfred's was trying to draw out the actor - good instinctive improv skills so that they could use them effectively within performances.
We also had to evaluate afterwards whether we thought our improvisations were truthful, and if not, what we could do to improve that.
Another purpose of the improvisation was to reinforce the theory that 'acting is reacting'. We were being pushed to fully listen and respond instinctively to our partners - making us think more relevantly about relationships to others on stage. We also briefly touched upon Given Circumstances - adding more and more detail to our improvisation sketches so that it abled us to get fully emerged in them and really start experimenting.
I really enjoyed my first lesson of Acting Technique and it was very interesting exploring Mike Alfred's methods.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)