EVALUATION

Devils has grown immensely from our first read-through, to our last performance. At the start of the rehearsal process I think everyone was a little unsure about the play; how it would be received, come together, becoming characters that were so much older than us, etc. and I think these anxieties coupled with the fact that communication seemed to be lacking, we weren’t off to a very enthusiastic or promising start. But once we started to share our worries, queries, hopes, and problems, we realised it wasn’t every person for themselves, and that we can all help each other.

For the first few weeks I didn't do much as my scene was very near to the end of the play, and I would become exasperated at having to watch the same scenes being replayed, refined, and remastered, and lost concentration in the play easily and quickly, and so I believe this is when my disdain and lack of interest for the play began. Although, I never underestimated or disrespected those on stage and their abilities but once I got onto stage and started to act my scene I felt so any things at once; I felt uncomfortable in the scene, I felt incompetent, I felt like I was disappointing not only myself but the entire cast, and all these feeling and emotions coalesced to form a scared and unsure actress trying to ‘act’ a middle aged nun in 17^th Century France.

Personally, I have always been self-conscious and self-aware, and it causes me to worry too much about what people will think, and so I think the fact that I didn't get the character on point straight away made me doubt myself, so much so, that even on the day of the final performance I was doubting my ability of being believable and doing justice of my character Sister Ambrose. For me, finding the balance between being loving, nurturing yet slightly chastising was really hard and so I convinced myself I definitely couldn't play that character, and that I didn't have those characteristics within me to act it out. 
But I was completely wrong, I had to believe in myself and believe I could be Sister Ambrose. And when I accepted I could be the character I believe I became her. I felt especially connected to my character in the final performance which I believe is partially because when its the last show in a series you put everything you have into that last show. I must admit I was relieved to come to the end of our Common Ground Season which had a good influence on me as I believed in myself and went wild and reckless for it.

After the first show I was given the feedback of playing too much to the middle and right of the stage; my back often being towards the left wing. On both shows following the first I attempted to play more towards the left but it didn't feel natural, it felt uncomfortable and inorganic, but I think it was my fault I couldn't play to the left more, as an actor although we should only do actions our characters feels is right, we need to be able to adapt our performance to the stage which I don't believe I did.
Another criticism I have of my performance is that I don't think I resonated in any of my performance. However, this is not because I didn't try I tried extremely hard, but I have always found it hard to put my resonating voice into effect. I take singing lessons, and I have the same problem singing in my chest voice; it is uncomfortable, painful, and my throat feels exhausted. My teacher and I are continually trying to resolve this problem but I believe I may be singing in the wrong place and so that's why I get these side-effects...

If I had to name two people who excelled for me in this play, it would be Jacob because he put in 100% of his energy and concentration into this play from the first rehearsal to the last performance, and because he really gave himself to the wildness, and weirdness of the play, and didn't let his insecurities get in the way of his performance, and he was one of the only people to keep his experiments and abstract movements in our performances.
Another person who stood out for me would have to be Brett. I think it was something that helped him get into his character; he would only put weight on the front of his feet, so that his heels never touched the ground, I think, for him personally, it kept his energy up, and the excitement his character felt alive. But it really made a difference to his performance and his interpretation and portrayal of Mannoury.

En totale, I think the audience enjoyed our performances as we received rave reviews, and our pronunciation and projection was suitable for the stage, there were limited mistakes and overall it was a success.

MIKE ALFREDS

Mike Alfreds born 5^th June 1934 in London, England, is a theatre director, playwright, and dramatist, whom has directed over 160 productions. He studied Dramatic Arts at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, USA, then went on to work as an artistic director of the Cincinnati Playhouse-in-the-Park, and then Theatre West in Tucson. He then returned to Britain to enrol in LAMDA, and directed and worked as part of an ensemble with the National Theatre.

Over his career he is voyaged across the globe to work in many different countries, such as; Canada, Germany, Norway, China, Belarus, Mongolia, Australia, and New Zealand. He also spent 5 years, 1970-1975, in Israel. Beginning as a senior lecturer in the theatre department of Tel Aviv University, 2 years later becoming the artistic director of the Khan Theatre in Jerusalem, as well as directing plays at the Cameri Theatre, Bimot theatre, and theatres in Haifa and Beer Sheva, Israel.

Subsequently, in 1975, he revisited his home-country to tour with Shared Experience, an ensemble of his own creation, and in 1986, he won a Critics’ Circle Theatre Award for his direction of The Cherry Orchard by Anton Chekhov. He then became artistic director of the Cambridge Theatre Company until 1999, and went on to direct for The Royal Shakespeare Company, The Shakespeare’s Globe, and The Royal National Theatre.

Mike Alfreds believes that the actor is the most sacred thing about the theatre, saying ‘plays need actors…however, [actors] do not need plays’, by this he means as actors we create, devise, mime, improvise scenes and theatre, but for a play to be performed, of course, it needs actors, without them it would merely be a set. Additionally, he believes that actors should never be passive onstage, simply waiting for their cue to speak again or exit, but should be living in the moments when they are not centre of attention. I agree with him, in this context, as actors’ job is to become someone else, another character, and to fully do that you must BE that person; as people we are never waiting for someone else to say something for us to react to, but speak often of our own freewill, and because a thought has provoked that topic.

As a director he has stated that he prefers to let the actors find their character themselves, as it is not something they can be instructed upon or guided each step of the way. But to help them do so, Alfreds has created theories and methods of finding character, developing character, portraying character, and understanding character:

Clap-tag: this is an improvisation game where 2 people must enter the space with knowledge of location and relationship, and allowing the scene to flow where it wants to flow, but each actor must always say ‘yes’ – as in allow decisions to be made to keep the scene afloat. Then someone claps and takes the same position while changing the story. I enjoy this exercise as it develops one’s improvisation skills, being able to think on the spot, and anything can happen in the improvisation – it allows the imagination to go wild. The only thing that annoys be regarding this exercise is that I feel as if we are limited to what we can create in certain audiences as they don’t always take a mature stand point on the scene, and so if, for example, someone were to initiate a romantic setting it would become suspicious in reality or hysterically funny – but it shouldn’t be.

Given Circumstances: this is when one person in a pair is completely aware of the situation – location, character relationship, what has happened, why they are meeting, what they want to get out of it, etc. The other person who is ignorant to this information, must adapt to how they are being treated by their partner whilst figuring out the Given Circumstances. I really enjoyed this exercise because I had to decipher what could make my partner act how they were acting towards me, and my competitive nature, forced me to be one of the first to figure them out. I think this exercise also tested and developed our improvisation skills, as we had to go into a situation where the person opposite us had the upper hand and go along, blindly, with what we were getting from them.

Mike Alfreds also creating ‘actioning’ which is a simple phrase expressing what one character is doing to another character in the given dialogue. It should always be presented as ‘I (action) (to/for/with/at) you’. I believe this helps understanding what your character is saying, why they are saying it, and how it helps them to get what they want and the scene progression, this exercise also helps to discover if there are any subliminal messages in what your character is saying. Here is an example of Actioning, taken from A streetcar named Desire by Tennesse Williams (the actions are underlined):

“STANLEY: I test you Yeah?

BLANCHE: I enquire Where’s Stella?

STANLEY: I tell you Out on the porch.

BLANCHE: I warn you I’m going to ask a favour of you in a moment.

STANLEY: I mock you What could that be, I wonder?

BLANCHE: I declare to you Some buttons in the back! I allow you

You may enter!

I look for reassurance from you How do I look?”.

NOTES FOR SECOND PERFORMANCE

I feel there was a detrimental lack of energy and positivity during this performance, I feel that we lost our belief in ourselves and they play and so this was reflected to the audience. Moreover, I picked up on some things I was not happy with personally, and wrote down five things for me to remember to think, not necessarily do, but to feel before and during the final performance:

1. To be bold and fearless; to be afraid to seem unattractive or silly.
2. To keep the energy up, by giving it, retrieving, and accepting it in scenes.
3. To put emphasis on the important words in my dialogue; colour the words.
4. To be loving/caring/nurturing as Sister Ambrose yet firm/slightly chastising, by remembering what the stakes are and how high they are – Grandier is going to die!
5. To give myself wholeheartedly and wildly to the play, especially in the scene where I have to pretend I am ‘orally birthing a melon’ and as Sister Ambrose.

In this feedback session we gave each other notes; notes for the cast. Here is what I recorded;

• Remembering our diagonals especially in Grandier’s ‘with the turn of a scalpel’ scene
• To not be dead weight on stage, always living in the moment in character
• Knowing cues
• To be precise and sure of what you’re supposed to be doing on stage
• Enjoy what you’re doing, and if not, pretend!
• Speak to affect
• To project and keep the voice steady, supported and consistent
• To layer the chorus sections, and overlap the scenes
• Chorus need to feed from the action on stage
• To forget your lines before speaking as if you don’t you are not speaking instinctively
• To remember character relationships
• To alienate the audience through expressive weirdness; to be abstract

WORKSHOP PLAN (Ellie Mulholland partner)

Michael Chekhov warm up:
Pick two contrasting emotions then improv from one to the other. Doesn't matter how you get there just go for it. Teaches them to improvise within the necessities of the play  (lines, stage directions etc)
Meisner main;

In our rehearsals we use Meisner’s copy and manipulate exercise often to help find our character and connect with the other actors on stage by experimenting with their and our own dialogue, and only moving on when we feel a true connection with the words, and feel we have found the best way to communicate the scene. I believe this exercise helps knowing your lines out of dialogue and out of order, but also allows freedom in saying our lines, and experiment, explore, and analyse the different meanings our dialogue could have, and understand subliminal messages we may have missed before.

In pairs.  One decides on a task that they're doing the other gives themselves given circumstances. They have to get emotional cues and behavioral cues from each other

Mike Alfreds believes that the actor is the most sacred thing about the theatre, saying ‘plays need actors…however, [actors] do not need plays’, by this he means as actors we create, devise, mime, improvise scenes and theatre, but for a play to be performed, of course, it needs actors, without them it would merely be a set. Additionally, he believes that actors should never be passive onstage, simply waiting for their cue to speak again or exit, but should be living in the moments when they are not centre of attention. I agree with him, in this context, as actors’ job is to become someone else, another character, and to fully do that you must BE that person; as people we are never waiting for someone else to say something for us to react to, but speak often of our own freewill, and because a thought has provoked that topic.

As a director he has stated that he prefers to let the actors find their character themselves, as it is not something they can be instructed upon or guided each step of the way. But to help them do so, Alfreds has created theories and methods of finding character, developing character, portraying character, and understanding character:

ALLOW TEN MINUTES FOR THIS EXERCISE - Clap-tag: this is an improvisation game where 2 people must enter the space with knowledge of location and relationship, and allowing the scene to flow where it wants to flow, but each actor must always say ‘yes’ – as in allow decisions to be made to keep the scene afloat. Then someone claps and takes the same position while changing the story. I enjoy this exercise as it develops one’s improvisation skills, being able to think on the spot, and anything can happen in the improvisation – it allows the imagination to go wild. The only thing that annoys be regarding this exercise is that I feel as if we are limited to what we can create in certain audiences as they don’t always take a mature stand point on the scene, and so if, for example, someone was to initiate a romantic setting it would become suspicious in reality or hysterically funny – but it shouldn’t be.

WARM DOWN (FIVE MINUTES) – Walking around the space with intention, stretching, and shaking out tension from limbs and body.

GROWTOWSKI

I don’t believe Will uses the physical theories and practices of Growtowski, but I believe some of his theories and exercises really force the actor to accept another character because we become worn out, frustrated, and personally, a little hysterical and so are more open to trying something new, or allowing the connection between our character and ourselves as the physical exertion plays as a kind of test on our mentality which afterwards aids us to experiment with other things concerning our characters. So, here’s some background on Mr Jerzy Grotowski:

Jerzy Grotowski was born in Poland on August 11 1933. He concentrated on finding the truth in the actions, and feelings expressed to the audience through the actor(s) on stage, by physically exerting them, and centring themselves on the play they studied in relation to the feelings they felt through the text.

He believed in finding peace within the actors, and have them be still and silent for a few minutes, knowing that once completed, they would be able to delve into the passage, allowing the aura of the text to entwine with their premonition freeing them to liberate their body into organic improvisation.

Grotowski also developed the idea of a ‘poor theatre’ having the actors the main and practically only focus of their performances. He did this by removing all the cemented elements of conventional theatre, such as; costume, dramatic lighting, music, and scenery. He became known for having the actors use vocal technique to form the soundscape or music of the show, I think this is an effective use of an actor as the actors challenge themselves having to imitate the exactions of a bird call, or create the sounds one may hear when walking down a busy street. In addition to this it adds intrigue to the audience, as, personally, I always find new discoveries in what the human body can do fascinates me, so watching five actors on stage become a ‘day at the zoo’ would encompass me in a new enthralling world where sounds tell the story, and attract me to reconnoitre what else we are capable of.

Grotowski was also a great believer of physical exertion; pushing boundaries of the body and emotions. He applied to his actors many exercises which were often associated with Yoga, as it was physically fatiguing and centred the mind with the endurance of that particular exercise. Although Grotowski soon found partnering was more liberating for the actors, and creatively loosening, I find the idea of endurance quite fascinating and enthralling.

For my site specific performance we are doing an endurance piece which involves cake being rubbed into my face, and I think although some might say there is no progression within our piece as we are doing the same thing for the entirety of the piece, as I actually begin to become tired and bored as it continues, I can channel my negative energies into a new emotion which is effectively expressed through my character. I can change my boredom and need for change, into maybe my character stealing more cake and eating it, which would then trigger a new reaction within my partner, which evolves our scene into something different and with new meaning.

To conclude, I do enjoy Grotowski’s method of endurance, and dragging the true essence of what your body wants to do be freed, and think physical exhaustion, by doing repetitive exercises forces your body to be pushed past adrenaline, and fully commit to the task at hand. Personally, I feel exhilarated when practicing the works of Grotowski as I truly feel I enter another domain and true, natural emotions become more intense and honest within my acting and in organic improvisation

SCRAPPY CONFESSIONALS

Concerning the play, what are you nervous about?

I am nervous that there won’t be any energy in the play, and the scenes will be flat. Also, that the audience won’t understand the play and our experimental adaption of it and so will become bored and lose interest. There are also worries about people being injured in the scene with props, and that the possessions will lack energy and confidence.

Solutions?

Believe in the play. Find moments that make sense to you and that believe in and give yourself to it. Get really excited, adrenalin pumping and hyper before going in stage as your character to get you buzzing. Do more characterisation exercises. Work the consonants of your dialogue as that communicates information, and the vowels for emotion.

IMPROVEMENTS

At the moment, we have blocked the entire play with the exception of the last multiple pages. Act 1 is looking really good, and the energy is up and people seem to know their characters and understand what they’re doing, and why they’re doing it. I believe this partly due to the fact that at the start of our rehearsals, Will would sit and watch every scene and work on small details of the acting so their characterisation was truthful.

He did this throughout out Act 1, and partly Act 2 but I believe it was less thorough, and by the time we got to Act 3 it was barely, but I do not blame him as he didn’t/doesn’t have the time to sit through every scene and pick at cracks until the purest form of the character is achieved. Therefore, whilst we weren’t in a scene we were to watch a scene as a director and tell the actors when we didn’t believe what we saw on stage, and I did this but I realised certain people either didn’t value my opinion or thought I was being pedantic or vindictive when I told them to keep doing a certain bit because I didn’t believe them at all, or that they should experiment with different ways of communicate the happenings in the scene.

I was slightly ruthless whilst directing scenes but because I wanted it to look good for the audience, and for the actors to truly feel their characters, but also because I could envision so clearly how the scene could look, and the potential the actors weren’t fulfilling yet, but by accepting my criticism and being truthful it would be practically perfect.

Nevertheless, some improvements/things that we need to insure we collectively do for our next rehearsal are;

1. Learn lines and cues: not everyone knows their lines which slows down the progression of the play and causes the audience to lose interest and energy, which has an effect on the other actors on stage who know their lines. This also has an effect on those who do not know their lines as they feel incompetent and unimportant.
2. Knowing your scenes: there are times when one person will get up to go on stage but everyone else is still sitting down when it’s a chorus scene because they’re not following the script or they haven’t noted their entrance into the scenes. This wastes time, and prolongs the time the play needs to be devised.
3. Character: we should remember that although this play is our first encounter with our characters, they were not only birthed when we met them. These characters, yet fictionally, have lived and continue to live, depending on the time period, without us – basically, they are people like us; with problems, cracks, memories, and feelings. We need to bring our characters to rehearsal, and establish them.
4. Energy: we need to stop exhaling before lines, and therefore exhaling our preparation and energy for the scene.