Second Friday - Another White Room

Back in Room 57 we continue our work on the text. Our second day.

But first, a warm up. In the spirit of improvisation we add to our repertoire of 'contact' and 'non-contact' - 'sound'. Again A and B. A has to stand behind B this time and must offer to B a way of changing her physicality - but only by use of her voice. At no time should A touch her partner. Or even be seen by her partner. Keep to the back.

We vary this too. We have two 'conduct' a whole line of subjects. We pair off again and we combine non-contact with sound and A and B take it in turn to 'alter'. Later on, we 'break out' and everyone is free to go and play with anyone in the group who takes their fancy.

There is no chaos. Openness reigns. Receptivity reigns. People both offer and accept within the blinking of an eye.

In the script, Pelagea Vlassova has guests. The revolutionaries come round to print their leaflets but she's not happy. When her son Pavel asks her to make them some tea she says she hasn't enough tea to make them tea. So he says: Make them weak tea. She tells them that she's behind with her rent as it is and doesn't want to get into trouble with the landlord. However, one of the revolutionaries tells her that their main concern is her rent...

With the second group (though I could equally have done it with the first) I ask the audience: "Who looks the more open?" "Who looks the stronger?" "Who looks the more awake?" They decide. I then ask Polly to physically rearrange the actors in any way she wants. She makes them look very much more strong and open. And alike.

It could have been done for the first group. It may well be in the future....

We continue.

At that point in the story the police burst in. Neither Group has an immediate solution to the saying of the line: Police! The most intense first efforts sounding like: I've cracked my nail varnish! Both actors charged with the line in this rehearsal need prompting to find more vocal energy. In Group B Carlo demonstrates and the actor charged (Rebecca) finds a more appropriate level. Hesitantly at first. But then more confidently.

With both Groups - but the second in particular - the question of the Brechtianness of the performances raises its ugly head. Are they putting too much 'emotion' into the saying of the lines? Are they saying the lines 'neutrally' enough? I ask them how they say the lines neutrally? Some say: Well, in a Brechtian way. ie Brecht = Neutral. Yes, I say, but what, PRACTICALLY speaking is this 'Neutral' they're talking about? Do they mean 'without life'? 'Without energy'. In a dead way? How?

Hannah says she is confused. She thinks we may be using too much vocal energy. Pushing our voices. Articulating from the throat. I lay a card on the table. I say I think that we may be, but it is important to commit vocally to the text. Better, perhaps at this stage in the process, to overcommit than to undercommit. Grandmother's Footsteps again come up. Chi, too. The energy that you have in Tai Chi or in Yoga or Martial Arts. Something very alive and strong but not necessarily showing - until it shows.

We must be patient. These are early days. But no one speaks in a foreign language today. We stick to the Engllish text. And we go off for the weekend knowing that we will not be able to go off to Off Stage until Monday afternoon at least. And even then I have my doubts.

Also, still no music.

Second Thursday

We move on to the text. Only one person in Group B has a script - they've not ordered enough at Off Stage - but we survive.

Non-contact improvisation. More difficult than the contact kind. Some people seem to want to complicate the task. Or to lose some of the simplicity that they had before. Whereas one of the main goals in the first instance was to make something strong and clear with their partner, now some start to work against their partner. Someone jars her shoulder. Others lose focus. Become repetitive. Stale. But not all and after reminders all re-focus.

We look, both groups, at Pelagea's first speech in which she tells us that she's ashamed of the soup that she's forced to give her son Pavel. She tells us that her son's wages have just been cut one kopek at the factory. She tells us that she's worried that she can't do her job properly as a mother, that her son is growing away from her and will leave her once she becomes completely useless.

We use our lack of scripts to our advantage. Only some can read. Most have to listen. Most have to watch. Listening and watching are good things to do. We do a variety of things with this one speech. We read it. We practise reading it with the read, engage the audiences eyes - and say method. We do it (with one group) where a 'prompter' reads it to an 'actor' and the actor says it - again using the eyecontact so vital. We do it from memory after spending a few minutes with a partner deciding the main points of the speech or the structure or narrative of the speech.

We do it that way in Swahili, in Farsi, in Portuguese, in Spanish and in a little Catalan and in Lithuanian. I like it this way and although not everyone does, it does seem to fit with the title of the Act: Vlassovas of all Countries. It gives me some ideas as to how we might begin our 'showing' at the end of term.

St Valentine's Day Session

a.. What the students knew, understood, imagined concerning Brecht,>> what he was as a man, playwright; what they knew about his writing, politics, theory of presentation, what is alienation?, etc. Many knew something and a few had a grasp of 'epic theatre' and how it differed from theatre they knew and the type of characterisation on display. >most understood the concept of 'context' and it's importance in the expression of socialist drama.>>>>>>>>>

b.. Fortuitively and as it was St Valentines Day we talked briefly and generally about the nature of 'love'>it's expression, nature, demonstration, context, etc>identifying samenesses and differences i.e. between lovers, siblings, close friendships, between parents and children, etc. Then specifically related this to the play and a 'mothers love for her son', what she would be prepared to sacrifice [personally and politically] for the well-being of her son and, eventually, the well-being of her greater family, or her class, etc. All of this was re-related back to their own lives, relationships, etc What is loyalty? Support for another? Is this a 'love'? Who would you do anything for, and why? What are the boundaries? Kill for love?

c.. Work-out in the space>>>concentration, listening, imagination, physicality, etc>lot of talk/sharing in pairs and small groups with emphasis on generosity, acknowledgement, etc. Led to each choosing a mark/colour/shape/line on floor which they focussed on in different ways incl eventually using it as the focus for their own sense of belonging and security, their need to protect, etc as a mother with her own son. Experiencing a sense of loss as they moved away and need to protect if threatened and fulfilment on return. Both groups entered into spirit of work-out with enthusiasm

d.. Gave each student pairing a list of 'Brecht quotes' [copy enclosed], which I pulled down from the Internet. Each pair were asked to 1] choose a quote, 2] agree what they thought he meant given the circumstances at the time, 3] what this meant to them now [did it still mean the same or have any modern currency] 4] talk about a scene or scenario that best demonstrated [dramatically] the quote chosen. This was later shared with the others. The exercise worked well but demonstrated where they are politically i.e. most analysis was domestic and few had any real sense of a wider political world where a workforce, or class struggled against the power-broker.>along the lines of 'if I strike because I can't make ends meet it might mean that the boss might not also be able to feed his family!!!!

e..Enjoyed working with them. Think some students very insightful but articulate from the relative comfort of 2005 western society.

Roger Watkins