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.

FIRST PERFORMANCE NOTES

I believe our show went well as there were no blips or faults made, and we were all energetic and ready for our debut! I think being excited and believing we could put on a show had a massive positive influence on our show, and the audience’s reception of it. But there were some notes and improvements I was not aware of which we received in our feedback session.

It appeared not all of us were using our ‘stage voices’; amplification that comes from voice control, rib swing, and resonance, not from forcing air through the vocal chords. Not using stage voices places strain on our voices and exhausts our voice. In addition to this, it isn’t very nice to listen to, as it can sound scratchy and tense. By resonating it destroys the unattractive traits of only using your voice from your throat, and is a lot more comfortable to use. It also adds depth and richness to your voice that will reach the audience and involve and drag them in the story, rather than forcing themselves to follow the play.

Will also noticed a lot of us were devoicing at the end of our sentences and not relying on our support muscles to see us through the end of a sentence on one breath, but were straining our voices, again, or breathing at random moments in our sentences which made the dialogue quite incomprehensible. One way of eliminating this unfavourable quality is forgetting any doubts, fears, self-consciousness we may have, as if we use our voice instinctively it knows what to do, and how to achieve our goal; by thinking too much about getting it wrong or looking silly on stage gives us psychological anxieties and therefore adds strains and stresses on our minds and subsequently on our voice.

PSYCHOLOGICAL GESTURES

Psychological gestures are movements that carry the intention, feeling, objective, and personality of the character. It is one motion that expresses the character in its entirety and can be used before scenes to establish and become the character; adopting their walk, voice, thoughts, mannerisms, and expressions.

A psychological gesture can simply come to you when you first meet your character, or after reading their dialogue and directions, but if not, there are ways that you can find and create the psychological gesture for your character:

• By asking small and simple questions regarding your character that provokes a response. For instance, “if you are playing a villain, you might begin by asking what it is your character desires. Power? Okay, how do you go about getting power? By dominating? Okay, what is a physical movement that dominates? Pressing down. Start with your hands as high as possible and press them down against an imaginary resistance. Picture the characters opponents as you press down to the floor. Add to the press a quality: rage, frustration, sinister, conniving, fear, etc. Try different qualities until you feel the quality and desire to dominate in every cell of your being.” http://www.michaelchekhov.net/gesture.html
• By visualising your character, and asking them to share with you their psychological gesture, and then trying extremely hard to imitate that gesture. “Visualize a beam of energy (light) going up from your core through the top of your head straight into outer space. Now, visualize beaming the character down as in Star Trek. Imagine the details as the character materializes from the feet to the head. Now, imagine it shows you the PG.”

You can have an overall psychological gesture, similar to having a super objective. And likewise, you can have many psychological gestures; one for each objective - not dissimilar to actioning.   

FRANCE IN 1600’S (17TH CENTURY) (TIMELINE)

 16^TH CENTURY FRANCE TIMELINE ( www.wikipedia.com )

17^TH CENTURY FRANCE TIMELINE

CATHOLICISM

Below is the history of the basis of Catholicism and it's major event in France before the 17th Century which, consequently, has affected the world our characters live in. I have highlighted the sentences, and phrases that I find relevant and linked to 'The Devils' by John Whiting:

“The Roman Catholic Church

The Catholic Church is the oldest institution in the western world. It can trace its history back almost 2000 years.

Today there are more than a billion Catholics in the world, spread across all five continents with particular concentrations in southern Europe, the United States, the Philippines and the countries of Central and South America. What binds this diverse group of people together is their faith in Jesus Christ and their obedience to the papacy.

Catholics believe that the Pope, based in Rome, is the successor to Saint Peter whom Christ appointed as the first head of His church. He therefore stands in what Catholicism calls the apostolic succession, an unbroken line back to Peter and has supreme authority. Popes can speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals but in practice do so rarely.

The Catholic Church ordains only celibate men to the priesthood since Jesus was, it teaches, male and celibate. In the Protestant churches married and female clergy are the norm. Orthodoxy allows married men to become priests but not bishops.

Moreover, the hierarchical nature of Catholicism sets it apart from other Christian churches. It is a pyramid with the Pope at the top, followed by cardinals (who have the right to elect a new pope on the death of the current incumbent), archbishops, bishops, priests, deacons and laity.

Traditionally clerics were seen as having a higher calling than the laity but, since the landmark Second Vatican Council, both laity and clergy have been regarded as jointly 'the people of God'. That same reforming council stressed the need for popes and bishops to consult widely before pronouncing on matters of faith, but in practice they retain the unfettered power to teach on such questions. All major decisions rest with the Pope and his advisors.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/catholic/catholic_1.shtml

 “Also, similar to much of the rest of Europe, France was troubled by religious division.  France at one time had been united by its allegiance to Roman Catholicism, but in the 16th century, John Calvin's teachings began to spread widely.   Many of the friars, disgusted with the spectacle of wealthy higher church officials who had no spiritual vocation at all, converted to Calvinism and worked to spread the new movement.  Many bourgeois types, perhaps eyeing the wealth of the church which was being so badly misused, likewise converted to the Calvinist faith.  And many nobles converted, some because they thought Calvin right, others because Calvinism was a convenient excuse for resisting the growing power of the Catholic kings of France. These tensions led to French Wars of Religion (1562-1589). 

Once started the wars were difficult to stop.  There was a lull in the fighting in 1572, and King Charles IX wanted to make peace.  He arranged a marriage between his sister, Margaret of Valois, and Henry of Navarre, a leader of the Calvinists.  The wedding was to be held in Paris on St. Bartholomew’s Day.  Charles advisors told him he couldn't trust Calvinists, and persuaded him to give the order (which he later regretted greatly) to kill all the Calvinist nobles who had come up to Paris for the wedding and were not prepared to offer much resistance.

Word spread that it was acceptable to kill Calvinists, so people used the occasion to settle all sorts of private disputes.  Debtors killed Calvinist creditors.  Rejected suitors killed Calvinists who had turned them down.  Students killed Calvinist teachers (e.g., Petrus Ramus!).  Thirteen thousand people were killed during the "Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre," and the wars of religion
continued. Henry of Navarre converted to Catholicism to save his life, but then decided he was a Calvinist after all and, gathering his forces together, led Calvinists to victory after victory.  By 1589, he held all France except Paris.  He converted to Catholicism again (!) so that Parisians would accept them as their king and he wouldn't have to destroy the city in order to include it in his dominions.  The undisputed king of all France, commonly known as King Henry IV.” http://www3.northern.edu/marmorsa/delinenotes16thfrance.htm

CHEAT SHEET

Father Ambrose:

Entrance: B                                                                     Exit: B

Where have you come from: I am coming from my own convent/parish – unsure of the whereabouts.

Where are you going: I am going to console Grandier in his cell in Loudun.

Scene objective: To give him faith and the forgiveness he needs to be able to die in peace.

Primary action: To test/push

Props: Bible

Costume: 17^th Century Nun outfit

Time of day: Unknown

Location: Loudun, France. Prison cell.

Character relationship: She is a Catholic priest and he is a successful man of Catholic faith. She honestly wants to help him find God, peace and fulfilment before his definite death. I also believe that she believes he is innocent but he must face these consequences anyway because that’s how their society is. Once rumours have been started, the only way to stop them is to kill the perpetrator. I believe they bond through God, but I also feel as if she is one of the only people that has seen Grandier so raw and understood who he is.

DEBUT

Last week, I had my first ever Devils rehearsal! It didn’t last very long and I feel was quite anti-climactic, although I had my suspicions it would be that way. Although I feel my character is weak, and somewhat selfish, Will believes she is empathetic and kind, and I agree she is trying to present Grandier to the Lord again; salvation.

The scene is my character, Ambrose, giving Grandier hope again, and telling him to confess his sins to God, and ‘all is forgiven’. I feel, and have always felt, that this scene is quite dry; two people having a conversation. Persuasive? Yes. High stakes? Yes – but not in that moment. It’s an important scene for Grandier, but it’s so mellow, I fear the audience will become bored, but I don’t know what I can do to make the scene more interesting. Though subconsciously I believe there is nothing I can do; the scene is what it is.

So, in this rehearsal, we ran it through twice, so I hope that means it was Will wanted, but I feel as though I need to experiment more with how I approach Grandier, as he is a man being accused of sorcery, being in commerce with the Devil, and a womaniser, as I am a woman of holy importance, I should be cautious of Grandier while conflicting wants to protect and help churn. In this rehearsal I believe I did well to enter Ambrose, and become her, although I wasn’t there yet, I think I need to possibly go through a character quiz with her, to know her better, and I need to revise my lines again, as even though I knew them, sometimes I would cut George off or mess up the order.

SISTER/FATHER AMBROSE

I am a priest, of 40+ years. This is considered old in the 17^th century.

In her scene with Grandier, she uses the terms ‘plain and shy’ to describe herself, which makes me assume she doesn’t feel highly of herself, and that she thinks less of herself, than possibly Grandier. For this reason I feel she may be nervous and more awkward than usual in his presence as he has such big reputation – it’s like meeting a celebrity! Furthermore, in the scene it’s just her and Grandier, so I envision her being self-conscious.

In addition to this, in the same paragraph as the earlier example, she claims herself ‘a simple man’ suggesting she hasn’t had a great education, and that she doesn’t know much out of her books, and praising God. Or, she is ‘simple’ in the maintenance sense; she doesn’t need a lot to keep her happy – only God? She also says she was ‘a peasant boy… too awkward to ask for the love of man’ this quote supports my earlier assumption that she hasn’t a great amount of intellect or knowledge outside of religious of studies. This quote also supports and increases my earlier suspicion that she is ‘shy’ and self-conscious, she couldn’t find anyone to love, or couldn’t push herself out of her comfort zone to find love and so stuck to a God who people believe loves you unconditionally. From this I gain that she is a weak character - she wanted love, but was too ‘awkward to ask [for it]’. In my opinion, if you are completely determined to do or have something you will find a way to make it happen, everything is possible if you believe. But she must not have believed in the love of man, or more likely, that someone could love her, and so turned to a religious figure, mostly worshipped in that century and country as the state and Church (Catholic) where still one at that time, who she had to believe, and knew would love her without question, or any hard work.

PART OF THE CROWD

In today’s rehearsal we all participated in a pig workshop to help to achieve the physicality and mentality of those being possessed. We created snorting by lifting the soft palate and inhaling and exhaling through it, while using our faces and hands to ‘dig for truffles’. I think this helped the nuns and the others being possessed as they could practice and try to find their character with everyone so they didn’t feel self-conscious, worried about embarrassing themselves or looking attractive.

In addition to this, we created a flock of people as the crowd for the public possessions; changing positions, levels and gestures every few seconds to create the mood of awe, horrification, fright and amusement. I enjoyed this exercise as it challenged me and I had to remember other people’s gestures whilst remembering to move forward or backwards depending on my previous position. I think the flock looks good and suits the experimental adaptation of the play, honestly, I think there needs to be more moments like this in the play; moments when the literal is developed into the abstract. Maybe more movements like this will be added after we have completed the play, but to make it more than a naturalistic play with some strange bits, it needs to be left to interpretation; simplicity is effective.

LOUDUN POSSESSIONS/ WITCH TRIALS – FRANCE 1634

As with any sceptically mythical historical event, there are many versions of how it all began, or whose responsibility it is, but I will try and give a purely unbiased and factual telling of the 1634 Loudun Possessions.

It has been said that the Loudun witch trials are one of the most infamous cases of mass demonic possessions in history. It took place in a French town 20 km West of Richelieu, and 60 km West of La Haye. Father Urbain Grandier was convicted of sorcery, immortality, and calling on demonic spirits to possess the Ursuline nuns.

Allegedly, Grandier came to Loudun in 1617 as he was appointed parish priest of St-Pierre-du-Marche. One theory believes he was chosen to be the ‘victim’ of this case as he was wealthy, handsome, and well-educated and so he was a person of envy for others around the town. Another theory is that Father Mignon was approached by the Bishop of Pointiers, who wanted Grandiers position as parish priest, and so asked for Mignon to call on the Nuns to become ‘possessed’. The final theory is that the Nuns were actually possessed, and everything was as it has been written, Grandier a worker of Satan, etc.

In September 1632, the possessions of the Nuns began after Sister Jeanne and her compadres confirmed that illicit hallucinations and visions came to them in the night because of Grandier and he brought feeling of lust with him - other sources confirm they were brought by ‘[a] man of the cloth’. From there on, strange disturbances occurred; seual revelations and exploitations by the nuns, receiving physical harm from mysteriously unseen sources, hearing voices, speaking in tongues, uncontrollable fits of laughter, convulsions. The Nuns claimed to have been vivisted by a multitude of demons, such as; Asmodeus, Zabulon, Isacaaron, Astaroth, Gresil, Amand, Leviatom, Behemot, Beherie, Easas, Celsus, Acaos, Cedon, Alex, Naphthalim, Cham, Ureil and Achas. The first exorcisms took place on 5^th October 1632 and continued until 1638

In November 1633, Urbain Grandier was arrested at the Castle of Angiers. He was shaved bare, tortured, and his legs broken – a humiliated man., and on 16^th August 1634 Grandier was found guilty of sorcery and burned at stake.

DRAMA IN DRAMA

I feel, and it is fact, that we are moving slowly in our blocking and progression of the play. This is partly as some people do not know their lines, but it is also because Will has a vision for the play, and how he wants it to be acted, and so he must spend time perfecting the scenes.

I understand it must be difficult for Will, as he is the only director over approximately 20 actors, and he cannot cater and supervise everyone and run scenes as well. But something needs to be done, or work given to us as I do not come in until page 91, and so for the past couple of weeks, and I imagine a few more weeks to come, I shall sit in the rehearsal room, and stare longingly out the window, waiting for freedom or my scene. Freedom may come first.

I do not mean to offend, and I do not believe there is much to be done about this except for me to complete work, and write articles for my blog, which I have been doing. Will says we should send our energy to the people on stage and make valuable comments, which I also do. Though I must admit there are only so many times I can watch the same scene.

Last week emotions were high, and rehearsals were cut short. I think this had to happen eventually as it cleared the air, and now I feel as it the elephant in the room has gone, and everyone is in it together. For the benefit of the play, and to contend as the best show of Common Ground 2016.

AUDIENCE AS PARTICIPANTS

In this performance, we want the audience to be participants; to be a part of what they are watching – not physically but emotionally. I believe it is important to relate and appeal to the audience when performing, as if they cannot connect with the play, it’s not going to have an effect on them, and it won’t prompt questions within themselves, or between friends and family.

Yet, transforming the audience into participants reminds me of the late Brazilian theatre practitioner, director and performer Augusto Boal, the creator of the Theatre of the Oppressed, and his theory of having the audience as ‘spect-actors’. He created shows and exercises to fully immerse the audience in the show – both physically and emotionally.

Within Theatre of Oppressed are many sub-topics and trails leading to other areas, but here are some of the main exercises and games Boal has developed to help people connect, unearth and discuss important social issues:

• Forum theatre is an improvisation which at a moment of crisis, the audience stops the play, vocalises how to solve the problem and someone must jump into the scene and produce that idea in the situation.
• Image theatre involves a succession of exercises which are meant to probe and discover the truths in society and cultures through freeze frames. The actors then physically create still images focusing on thoughts and feelings, true life experiences, or oppressions. The group decides on a theme, and then are free to mould and change the image created in front of them.
• Invisible theatre is a rehearsed play performed to the public, without them knowing watch they are participating in is theatre. A topic of general interest is chosen to observe how society reacts to heated debate, and what they thoughts are, or whilst seeing a confrontation/ situation take place before them; how they respond.

I find Boal’s practices very interesting, and completely necessary, as I feel by exploring the different thoughts and opinions on social and political issues, it broadens how you think about those issues, and how you can cause change within areas of damage.

So, in this sense, we want the audience to be participants; fully immersed in the play; interacting with it. Definition of participant:

1. To be active or involved in something; take part: participated in the festivities.

2. To share in something: If only I could participate in your good fortune. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/participates)

I think it’s an interesting idea to call the audience participants as they are sitting down and never physically or verbally contribute to the play. However, they do contribute by partaking in the atmospheres we are going to create through reciprocating, and passing on the feeling, and being emotionally moved by the art through the subconscious influence on their mirror neurons. It is our job as a congregation of actors to bridge the space between us and them.

Definition of congregation:

1. (Ecclesiastical Terms) a group of persons gathered for worship, prayer, etc, esp in a church or chapel

2. the act of congregating or collecting together

3. a group of people, objects, etc, collected together; assemblage

4. (Ecclesiastical Terms) the group of persons habitually attending a given church, chapel, etc

5. (Roman Catholic Church) RC Church

a. a society of persons who follow a common rule of life but who are bound only by simple vows

b. Also called: dicastery an administrative subdivision of the papal curia

c. an administrative committee of bishops for arranging the business of a general council

6. (Education) Brit an assembly of senior members of a university

(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/congregation)

MIRROR NEURONS

These neurons can be found in both humans and animals in the premotor cortex. When a human or animal observes someone else doing a motor action it triggers the feeling they get when they perform the action themselves. For instance; seeing someone else reach for food, as they are hungry, causes you to feel hungry. However, motor actions are not the only thing that activates mirror neurons, but show of emotion as well. For example; if someone smiles at you the mirror neurons are spark the feeling you get from smiling without actually performing the action. So, you will feel happy without having to smile.

Interestingly, mirror neurons allow us to interpret someone’s intentions, as we can differentiate how they interact with another person or object before they complete the action. Below is an example:

Mirror neurons give us the ability to read hand gestures, and understand and interpret what someone’s communicating to us, and so many researchers believe hand gestures are what language originated from. We are also able to do this with facial expressions, which allows us to empathise and socialise with others.

The study of mirror neurons, and understanding how it affects the way we see things will aid us in the making of ‘The Devils’ by John Whiting as ‘we want them [the audience] to see themselves in it’. We want the audience to enjoy it, be shocked by it, remember it, and to ‘have an insight into what life was like in the 17^th century’. Therefore, we will appeal to the mirror neurons, and use their manipulation on emotions and feelings, to bring the audience into our devilish 17^th century Loudon world.

“Observing the same action, such as grasping a cup, in different contexts elicits different levels of mirror neuron activity in one area of the brain that belongs to the mirror neuron system (right posterior inferior frontal gyrus). This finding shows that the mirror neuron system does more than code the observed action (“that’s a grasp”). It also codes the intention behind the action (“that’s a grasp to drink” or “that’s a grasp to clear the table”).” http://www.brainfacts.org/brain-basics/neuroanatomy/articles/2008/mirror-neurons/

INITIAL REACTION TO PLAY

At the end of year 12, we were given a ‘blurb’ of each play, and the one that stuck out to me the most because of its description and name was ‘The Devils’ by John Whiting. I liked the dark and disturbing nature of it, the fact that main character, Sister Jeanne, was a nun who became possessed – or didn’t – because of her lust for a Priest, and convinced her Sisters to join her in the pretentious act of possession by demons. I found it ironic that all the characters were supposed to be people of God, doing their duty to live a sinless and holy life, making it their duty to out those who sinned, when none of them were completely pure.

However, after reading the play, I felt disappointed as it wasn’t as intense or gradually climatic as I had presumed. It seemed to have a continual theme of sadness, guilt, tragedy; everything negative, and pessimistic. And when there were aspects of love and redemption, it was immediately ceased as if nothing good could come of this world.

Furthermore, what annoyed me most was the ignorant, selfish and misguided beliefs of the characters, specifically highlighting main characters Grandier and Sister Jeanne, were Catholic. I believe everyone has the right to practice their chosen religion as long as it doesn’t affect anyone else, and I respect the beliefs and ideals of that religion, however, these two characters took it too far; they used their belief as an excuse; that their actions were of a higher power, instead of accepting responsibility.

For example, when Grandier finds out that Phillipe is pregnant he leaves her as he feels to have a child is a curse, that he is being punished for loving someone other than God. Yet, I feel the genuine reason he leaves her is because he doesn’t want the ‘burden’ of having a child, and cannot be bothered to look after or care for anyone other than himself. He takes the time and care to pleasure himself with women around the town without a second thought, although to many people that could be considered an unholy act, and marries a girl without the blessing of her father, his supposed friend - whose trust he breaks by impregnating her - then ditches her when he’s had enough.

Another prime example of the egotistical nature of some of these characters is when Sister Jeanne becomes possessed and convinces the other Sisters to be so too. Although the priest has done a lot to some women around the town, he has done nothing to Jeanne – he hasn’t even met her, and doesn’t until he’s royally humiliated and tortured. Nevertheless, after having impure thoughts about him, and when she offers him an offer to become the Father of her convent he politely refuses, she goes on a determined voyage, that takes an unsettling turn, to destroy him mentally, emotionally, and finally, physically. And until the very end they all believe it was a just deed, that he deserved it.

This play is set in the 17^th Century – 1600’s – Loudun, France. Going back to the past, more than one hundred years ago - frankly more than 50 years ago - has never been something I’ve enjoyed, particularly so when the era I must visit is similar to periods I’ve learnt about in secondary school. It bores me. I feel like I’m in a history lesson; as if I must go back to times when equality was at an all-time low, homophobia the ordinary, and let’s not start on racism. Times when things were in greater peril than they are today - as it often seems to be with history.

I enjoy learning about history that’s mostly speculated at; periods that still hold some mystery. Such as: the Egyptians, or the mystery of the BC years, exploring a time when we were cavepeople, when we lived among dinosaurs, or the birth of Buddism. When I take a trip to the past, I prefer it to be something different and new to the daily historical debate.

And so for these reasons, after my first reading of ‘The Devils’ I wasn’t convinced I wanted to be a part of it.