Looking back, we probably should have spent more time on group activities to help us bond as a group, so that it was not a feeling of constant work when we were together. The main times we really used warm-ups or rehearsal techniques were during the final week, and before each public performance. It worked so well then, and perhaps would have been useful earlier. Immediately before we performed publicly, certain members ran different warm-ups that they were familiar with to get us fully into character, and working as a team. Hannah did a series of vocal exercises, which were essential for ensuring we were projecting effectively, and making the most of the language – particularly when speaking Shakespearian text.
Dan directed more physical warm-ups. Exploring characterisation through improvisations such as ‘character ping-pong’ was incredibly useful in gaining a real understanding of motivation. Here, we mimed playing a game of ping-pong, matching certain characters together such as Demetrius and Helena to examine their relationships. This then aided the scene where Helena pleads for Demetrius’ to love her, and particularly the physicality within the relationship. I then got the group to count to ten with our eyes closed, with each person saying a different number, but with no indication as to who was going to speak next. This required a great deal of focus, and so meant we had to listen incredibly carefully, and use our intuition. We became much calmer after doing this, and several members stated the effectiveness.
Often, we could not work with full lighting and sound, and there were occasions where the set was also not available. Much of our physical work involved using the blocks, and so when we worked in spaces without these, it became more difficult. What it did improve, however, was our concentration on us essentially as actors, looking at the scenes in greater detail. Working in different rooms and atmospheres often altered the group dynamic, but we learnt to work on different elements such as language and characterisation when we could not access props or set. As Berkoff states, “A set should be able to melt in an instant”. Being able to adapt to different environments was something we all learnt throughout the Unit 4 process, increasing our improvisation skills.
Trust and intuition were crucial skills to use when creating fluidity of movement within our piece. Many of the scene changes were initiated by one person, and so the whole group relied upon a single person to start it off. This was irritating if unsuccessful, but creating a clear structure on paper during rehearsal time seemed to improve this aspect. Intuition was useful with improvisation, such as the Time and the Conways scene. It was almost completely ad-libbed, even during the exam performance, and we made changes every time we performed it. It was essential that Ele and I could sense what each other were thinking, and could improvise around any new material we integrated, or omissions that we made. The scenes that were very physical obviously required the trust of all group members. I fell backwards during one scene, and was caught, then picked up by two other members. Without trust, my fall would not have been convincing, as I still would have appeared nervous. Practice was an integral part of this, and the more times we rehearsed an element, the more confident we became, and the trust within the group grew.
Ideas and contributions were essential in devising our performance, and so the more vocal and constructive we were, the further we developed, and at a faster pace. Clearly we could not always use every idea for practical reasons, but we continually tried to use each suggestion and practically tried them out before deciding whether we would use them or not. This then encouraged group members to contribute more, knowing that it would be treated with respect, even if it was not directly used.
In order to successfully communicate our concept to the audience, we had to find the balance between stating it obviously, and making it too ambiguous. By illustrating blind love using classical and contemporary texts as stimulus, and juxtaposing comedy with more serious issues, we aimed to appeal to a range of different audience members. The variety of styles within our piece meant we could retain the audience’s attention, and not simply stay on one energy level for the entire production.
The opening was purposely lacking in speech, creating a sense of anticipation and tension for the audience. It consisted of very physical movements with heavy breathing, pulling Ele back and forward on the floor, twisting her limbs as a metaphor for a rape. We felt that any speech was unnecessary, as the subject matter was clear enough and it would be more powerful in silence. We wanted to begin with something dramatic, yet symbolic, to bring the audience straight into the most extreme form of blind love. We didn’t however; want to be too explicit with our image of rape, as we wanted to avoid the typical clichéd angst-ridden piece. It would have forced our production into a genre immediately, when we wanted the audience to be engaged yet remain open-minded at this point.
Dan and I were not involved in the opening scenes of the production, and were instead backstage, waiting to enter from the back of the audience. Our ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’ scene began from the back of the auditorium, with Demetrius’ line “I love thee not” which he shouted with frustration, running towards the front of the stage. We chose this entrance as we wanted a complete contrast to the more intense scene that had preceded it. We had previously begun the scene from the stage, but during rehearsal we felt it didn’t seem as much of a contrast as we wanted it to be. By coming from the back of the auditorium, the audience heard us before they saw us, catching their attention. Our concept was to test the audience’s perceptions of blind and circumstantial love, and so by being unpredictable with our scene changes, they did not know what to expect, and were constantly being thrown in different directions. Audience feedback after in-house performances confirmed the effectiveness of this.
We wanted our piece to contain elements of a variety of drama styles, and have different energy levels, so it felt like more of a journey for the audience. We used comic scenes such as ‘Time and the Conways’, where the nervous and embarrassed looking Madge and Gerald attempted to converse about the dessert they’ve just eaten. This was packed with sexual innuendo (“Was it your first time?”), yet the characters here seemed less aware of this fact than in Hedda Gabler for example. We didn’t use the original dialogue from the play, and instead improvised around it, feeling that our own adaptation was clearer in terms of content “I hope you’re not too busy…not too busy for me?” We also used scenes with a more serious tone based on texts such as A Doll’s House and The Positive Hour. They were the less frequent moments of stillness within our relatively fast-paced production, and allowed for the audience to absorb the energy of the scene. Often, we juxtaposed these two styles together, prevented our piece from being put into a certain genre, and allowing us as actors to show our range. We had a high-energy moment using elements from A Midsummer Night’s Dream, and immediately followed it with the slower, more reflective tone of the improvisation around Tristan and Yseult’s “What is love?”
One possible criticism of our production’s structure was the fact that we used some relatively short scenes which if not treated with care, could have restricted the audience’s comprehension of our concept. Early on in the development of our piece, some scenes could have seemed rushed, and the plot and relationships of a certain element would not have been understood. We didn’t want to use only long scenes as they could have been tedious, especially as our concept involved communicating the enormity of blind love in society and literature. In the rehearsal process therefore, we worked hard to create smooth transitions, and ensured each scene was reshaped and refined so our concept was not ignored, and was clearly reflected throughout.
The scene using elements from Ibsen’s ‘A Doll’s House’ for example seemed irrelevant when it was initially staged, and didn’t seem to clearly communicate our concept. It was only until we used the chorus to slowly mime wiping off the false, doll-like facial expressions that its true contribution and importance in our piece emerged.
