'Out There Festival' of Circus and Street art

'Out There festival' of Circus and Street Arts

20/09/15

This isn't so much a review of the entire 'Out There' festival, yet more of a happy comment on how much I enjoyed this annual festival once again. For those who don't know, this is a festival comprised of many international street performers, based in a seaside town in Norfolk, and has grown into a fully fledged weekend of fun. 

The reason I am featuring this on my blog, other than it being a recap of my recent theatrical goings on, is because it reminded me of exactly what can be achieved with very little. That may sound like a rather underwhelming statement, but when you can be completely captivated by the narrative of two very skilled acrobats, with a few simple props and no sound at all but music, you realise the true power of the actor. The whole experience was very grotowskian in the sense that there was no need for fancy lighting and costume; all that mattered was the two actors. Whilst writing this I realise I am referring to one act in-particular, and that was the work of Circus Katoen with their showing of 'Ex Aequo', a silent (but for music) circus act which told the story of a couple in conflict about where to put their furniture in their new house. When I say furniture, I really mean blocks of wood and potted plants, for that's almost all they used to bring this narrative to life. The two acrobats did all sorts of flips and cartwheels here there and everywhere, often balancing on makeshift piles of wood and wooden planks and often on each-other. It just really brought back to me how you honestly need very little to be able to engage an audience in this way (well apart from intense acrobatic skill of course), and provided for me a huge lesson in the art of clowning, and theatre in general. you don't need anything as long as you have a message, and I think that's a hugely important thing to remember in this industry.   

Being an assistant director

,

This is my first post under the tab of 'my experiences', and hopefully one of many! This year I aim to do a lot of stuff around theatre, but most importantly, things that are a little different to what I am used to. This is simply a little post introducing the fact that I will be helping to direct a play for the 'New Connections 500' competition this year. A national youth theatre competition which sees over 500 companies compete for a chance to perform at The National. Even though I have worked with the Fisher Youth Theatre Group ALOT throughout my life, this is the first time that I will be taking more of a directorial role, and i'm really excited to do so, and push myself to do things out of my comfort zone. A few months ago I wouldn't have even thought of offering my experiences and knowledge to anyone, because I didnt think I had any to give. Then I put into perspective quite how much I have learned in the last couple of years, working with the National Youth Theatre, Alevel drama, drama school auditions etc, I realised you mustn't underestimate yourself. I cant wait to be involved in this project, who knows where it will take us!    

What happens at auditions? - DRAMA CENTRE

This is a little (actually quite long)
 post for anyone who is going into their first year of auditions and is a little curious about the format of the day. Yes the drama school themselves will tell you about what will happen, but this is more of a detailed breakdown about exactly what I had to do in each section at each drama school, a little bit about how I was feeling at each point, and generally the feel of each school and how friendly everyone was etc.
^Here's a random google image of nervous looking people to give this post some atmosphere.


DRAMA CENTRE: My audition at drama centre was one of my favorites, much to my own surprise. I say that because when I went for the open day, the whole school seemed quite repressive. All of the students were MUCH older than I was, and after watching an extremely impressive show by the third years, there was a Q&A with members of the cast afterwards which, to me, made the actors appear almost untouchable. They all spoke of how you rarely get in on your first time and how many gap years they all had, almost laughingly, and quite honestly making the younger of the attendees feel quite insignificant. When I therefore turned up for my audition in late May, which is getting towards the end of audition season, I honestly felt like I was going to have no chance, and considered not going. It's important to add that this was the last of my five auditions, and spirits, after all the rejections, were pretty low.
When you arrive at the audition you are told to wait in the reception of the building until your allotted time slot. When your time slot approaches, you are taken upstairs to where the auditions take place, and I was so surprised to see probably another 80 people auditioning all waiting and chatting in the huge corridor/waiting area outside of about six rooms where you audition. Basically the auditions on this day were running quite late and people were grouped into half an hour slots. Even though it was very close to the time slot I was given when I was taken upstairs, I had to wait about 1 1/2 hours before I actually had my audition, giving you plenty of time to prepare and get yourself together. I wouldn't count on this always being the case, but I think generally you have a little bit of time to just chill out and relax (if you can) and maybe chat to some other auditionees. When sitting waiting I always tend to analyse other people unintentionally, and I remember looking around and seeing so many bold and interesting characters and again thinking I had no chance.
By the time I got into my audition I think I was quite chilled because I honestly thought I didn't have much chance. I performed my Monologues: Queen Margaret 'Henry VI' and Angela 'Like a virgin' to a good standard, but I really didn't feel like I had truly embodied my characters. I was quite distracted and when I can usually concentrate 100% on my character and their thoughts, I felt myself drift off slightly when performing and think in my own head, which I think is the worst thing you can do. Therefore when I sat down for the question section of the audition, which was just sitting and talking to the two auditioners on the panel, I was quite uneasy because I had felt like I hadn't given a very good performance. The man on the panel made me feel like I was right too, because when I sat down he said 'What sort of accent was that?' in the sort of tone which suggested he didn't think it was right for my character. I just replied 'er Northern?' (which it was). Then he said 'what kind of Northern?' and I said 'just general northern'...and as you can imagine I literally nearly died inside because it sounded so unprofessional. Then the man quizzed me on where the play was set and I said where I thought it was set, and even though I was quite sure, he still said skeptically 'and you're sure about that?' I wasn't sure whether he had quizzed me in this way because he thought my accent was bad, or whether I appeared nervous, or whether that is just the way they interviews everyone to detect any kind of weakness, but all the same I tried to stay strong on my answers, even if I felt unsure. I think that's the way to tackle persistence like that, just stay confident. The lady on the panel made me feel a little more at ease as she nodded when I spoke as if it was in some way right or that she was satisfied. The man continued in his patronizing way. He asked why they should consider me and why I was different to anyone else. I spoke of the way I believed in political theater and that I act for a reason and purpose. He replied with 'Well where are you gonna get a chance to do political theatre? Is there really a market for that?' And I told him that I would make a market for myself which seemed to do the trick, and the lady said that was a good answer. We talked a little about what I was doing at that point in my life, which was alevels, and I talked of the way I enjoyed learning and that the workload was something I could deal with. I did however say that I hated history and the man was very dissatisfied with this as he talked of the way history is key in theatre. I said how I very much agreed, but that the subjects I  studied in history were not very interesting, and once again stuck to my guns.

When I came out of my audition I felt like I might as well go home straight away, because I felt like my monologues weren't 100% AND that the guy hated everything I said. I waited all the same probably for another 40mins before we were told who was through to the next round of the day. There are four rounds to the day, and the way you are told is by them putting up a list of who is through to the next part. Everyone else can go home. I nearly died when I saw that from the 100 people that had auditioned that morning, one of the ten names through to the next round was mine.

The second round (which was the last round for me) was very rewarding. I had to enter the same room after a lunch break, and another hour of preparing, to the same lady who auditioned me in the morning and a different man, as well as a drama centre student. They picked for me the monologue I would work on which was my Queen Margaret speech, and then the round worked on bettering the speech, bringing out more of the feeling and intention. I was glad of this because this speech was a new one for me which I decided to do for my final audition because I was bored of my other classicals. I was in the room for about 20/30 mins and probably did my monologue about five or six times, working on the core intention. I was made to take a chair and believe that it was everything that my character had, and everything that was on the line in the monologue I was performing. I then had to interact with the chair when delivering my monologue, throwing it to the side when at the end of the monologue, she looses all of her dignity and is prepared to fight a war. I then performed it without the chair a few times and a couple of times using the student as the character I was addressing. By then end I felt like my monologue had a lot more body than before, and overall I think that stage of the audition process was seeing how well you would work in the drama centre environment, how you take direction, and how you can adapt your understanding of your character. After I had finished acting there was another brief chat with the panel about what I got from that experience, and how I felt about the monologue after working on it more. I was asked also about the plot of the play because I was surprised to hear that the panel knew very little about the plot of Henry VI, and we just had a general comfortable chat about the fate of my character.
Even though I was sent home after that round, I didn't believe it was because I had done anything wrong. I think they just wanted to see how well I worked in that environment and whether I showed much nervousness. A lot of the time I was told to take my time preparing and to take a couple of breaths before performing. I think they believed I needed another year to become a little more comfortable in an audition, and to not have as many doubts. I think they were probably right to do that.

This post ended out being much longer than expected. I will upload a post on each of my auditions from last year all under the title: What happens at auditions?      

'The Curious Incident of The Dog in The Night-time'- Marianne Elliott (Adapted by Simon Stephens)

'The Curious Incident of The Dog in The Night-time'

 

Gielgud theatre

3rd September 2015, 2:30pm

I know I'm a little late to the party to be talking about the incident that is the one of a certain dog in the night time, but unfortunately it wasn't until recently that I got to see this gem that is Simon Stephens' play adaptation of Mark Haddon's classic novel. The play tells the story of 15yr old Christopher Boone, an incredibly intelligent protagonist labelled by the novel's blurb to have Asperger's syndrome, and thus a few social and personal difficulties. Although the central plot revolves around Christopher's decision to snap into detective mode when he finds his neighbour's dog 'Wellington' killed with a garden fork, the narrative develops in a way which allows us to see peppers of Christopher's everyday life, and a chance to see things through his eyes.

Telling you that the play was good would be like telling you that chocolate is delicious: an evidently badly kept secret on the theatre scene, and probably partly due to my delayed watching of the show. Nonetheless I will proceed in telling you just why I loved it.

As a slight beginning disclaimer, as is the case with any novel adaptation, it takes a while for a person (like myself) who's read the book, to adapt to the story as a visual piece. In the case of 'The Curious Incident...', adapter Simon Stephens has an even harder job, as the novel takes the form of almost a stream of consciousness from the perspective of someone who thinks very differently to your average person. In order to keep the element that it was from Christopher's perspective, rather than just a story with him at the centre, there needed to be an element which told us his feelings, and an air of narration. To overcome this, Stephens conveys Christopher's thoughts through his councillor 'Siobhan' reading the book that Christopher writes of his thoughts on the Wellington story. Although a little uncomfortable to hear a woman's voice as Christopher's thoughts, rather than the actor who played him, you soon became attuned to the method, and began to thank Stephens for this, especially during the sensitive parts of the story when we told Christopher's feelings by an external narrator, allowing the endearing element of the story to be kept. 

I think part of the huge success of the show can be put down to the use of aesthetics, as throughout, audiences are bombarded with the beautiful and constant imagery created by not only the ensemble themselves, but the projection, props, lights and sound effects which aided them. Throughout, I felt like the stage was a metaphor for Christopher's very orderly mind, perhaps most significantly achieved through the appearance of the stage which had the projection of a lined graph on the floor, three walls and ceiling of the performance area. Through most of the play none of the ensemble (of 10) left the stage, yet sat quietly at the sides and corners of the space during scenes in which they weren't needed, springing up and moving at the exact same time when scenes changed. It felt to me as though they were all in his head, moving in an orderly mathematical fashion when Christopher wanted them to, yet always in the back of his mind when he didn't. When things became more complicated in his life, the stage became more disrupted, with Christopher dashing about the stage, opening cupboards and cubby holes here, there and everywhere to find pieces of train tracks which he frantically built during scene changes and long bits of distressed dialogue. The stage became more and more messy in the same way that his mind did, and the pinnacle for me was when Christopher found out the ultimate secret that his mother was actually still alive, and all of her hidden letters exploded from the ceiling, Kaffe keating (as Christopher) performing quite the striking fit, along with strobe lighting and the sound effects of muffled numbers and letters. There were many moments like this where we were given quite a display for the senses, and if I had any qualms with the direction it would perhaps be that the (dare I say) overuse of the technical components perhaps played it safe a little when trying to convey Christopher's feelings. In some ways it took a little bit of the naturalism away, and I would have liked to have seen the actors convey things themselves just a touch more than they did. None the less, 'The Curious Incident...' picked a style and stuck to it, and throughout my eyes were always indulged. There were even tiny visual intricacies which didn't go unnoticed, like the fact that 'Mr Shears' wore a yellow tie, an aspect for me which symbolised the fact that Christopher disliked him (yellow being his least favourite colour). 

Indeed, I think intricacy is the only way to describe every aspect of the performance, the choreography of the ensemble by Frantic assembly's Scott Graham, obviously reaching the slick standard which the name suggests it would, with actors sweeping Keating off of his feet at every opportunity, and of course in perfect uniform. There was one especially delicious section where actors performed a 'fast forward' sequence to show time passing, and instead of going crazy with the exaggerated fast movements that you would expect, they each perfected the tiny slight gestures of genuine human quirks: itches, hands in pockets, looking around, flipping pages etc. Possibly one of my favourite parts to watch as an actor, and definitely something that I will be using myself when the time comes. I even find myself noticing as I research into the play further, that it wasn't just on stage that the attention to detail stopped; 'The Curious Incident of The Dog in The Night-time' also has an Instagram page, twitter account, and even a soundcloud where you can go and listen to all of the original music compositions featured in the show. Even in the auditorium of the Guilgud Theatre, each seat number that was prime had a special 'Prime Number Seat' poster suck to it to further the idea that the whole theatre was indeed part of Christopher's mind.It feels to me that The Curious Incident isn't just a play, but a community which fits nicely in the centre of London's west end, and one which won't be leaving for some time.

As far as acting goes, I felt some of the strongest work came from Nicolas Tennant as 'Ed Boone', who I thought carried the dramatic irony of the piece in a way which was so natural. The truly endearing quality of the novel is that Christopher doesn't realise how his at times his difficult behavior can affect people, and I thought Tennant as Christopher's father conveyed the air of an exasperated but undoubtedly loving father with perfect gruffness. At starts I thought Kaffe Keating was a rather confident Christopher, playing the role as though he perhaps knew he was being difficult. Once again however I had to ween myself off of my interpretation of a more self nervous Christopher from the novel, and relax into Keating's more knowy, outward approach, which he conveyed undoubtedly consistently. I think the most perfect moment from Keating as a protagonist however came at the end, when he tells Siobhan that he thinks he can do anything, asking her if she thinks so too. The silence in retort, and black out seemed almost a perfect direction by Marianne Elliott, finishing an otherwise complex show, with just the simplicity of silence, which I think is sometimes needed. 

http://www.curiousonstage.com/  

What I learned from drama school auditions - 2015 -

Now that it's about to get back into drama school audition season I have been trying to get myself back in the mind-set to begin researching my monologues for this year. In doing so I have also been recapping on my experiences from last year and exactly what I learned from each audition, and how I will use that to approach this year differently. I definitely don't have any correct answers, and I sure as hell don't know exactly what it takes to get in to any drama school, but with every audition I did, I started to learn a little more. This is a tiny post (although I do tend to go off on a tangent) about all of those little lessons which  I know will help me this year, and will maybe help some other people too.


No preconceptions: Having no preconceptions is probably the most valuable lesson which I learned from last year, and one which I learned far too late. I think that there are so many stigmatised unwritten rules about the drama school scene: things you should avoid and things you shouldn't, and while those things are only very loosely true, you shouldn't let them determine your audition. What I mean by this is that there are a lot of things people say you shouldn't do, for example perform a 'generic monologue' like a 'Juliette' or 'Viola' speech. In all honesty I think the only thing that matters is that you pick a speech that you are 100% comfortable with, and one which you know you perform amazingly well. Last year one of my main monologues was one which I deemed to be incredibly generic, and was beginning to pop up in a lot of monologue books. Because so many people told me that the panel would have 'heard that a thousand times' it completely made me loose faith in my performance, so much so that by the end of the season, I began to believe they had rejected me as soon as I had even started by seeing it written on the page. This is so not that case, and I'm sure a drama school panel would so much rather see someone performing comfortably a piece which the actor 100% believes in and loves, rather than a piece they learned a week before just because their drama teacher told them to do a different speech. I had friends last year that would change their monologue the night before in panic that their speech wasn't the right one, and only make their audition more stressful by not being fully prepared. No preconceptions quite simply means just do exactly what you want and don't do anything because you think it's what they want. Give them yourself and give them what you think is right.

Be yourself: Being yourself goes hand in hand with having no preconceptions, because a lot of people believe a drama school has an idea of the perfect student in their head which we all at some point have tried to mould ourselves to be. Again, I'm not saying I'm 100% right about this, and perhaps to some extent they have some initial ideas of what they want, but don't believe that just because you're not wearing a pair of Nikes and an expensive sports bra they don't think you're serious. There were so many times last year that I judged people myself because they were wearing Doc Martins, and 'how would they be able to move in those??' I'm not saying turn up in your best stilettoes, but don't be afraid to show exactly who you are. Last year I wore pretty much all black to all of my auditions and spoke very politely and seriously. By the end I just wished I had shown them exactly who I am, joked with them and been a little more natural. At the end of the day these people will have to spend six days a week with you for thee years, and if you didn't have a bit of approachability about you then why would they want to commit to that? I think talking to them as if they are just another human being is the best thing you can do, and I honestly think that those soul destroying stares they sometimes give you are just a test to see if you get scared into being someone that's not you (like I did).

Be serious:I understand this can be seen to contradict the previous point about just being yourself, but I think finding that balance between the calm naturalness of you and the seriousness of a professional is where you can really go wrong. Too serious and confident and they'll think you're an arsehole, but too calm and jokey and they'll think you're not serious. If there's ANY preconception you should have, its that they're gonna want someone who can stick three years of intensity. Try to find that level of professionalism, and channel it without loosing your personality. Definitely easier said than done, but that's simply something that's needed. When I say no preconceptions, you obviously still have to remember the fundamentals of what a drama school is, and that's an incredibly professional environment into which you are trying to fit.

Don't let nerves take over: This is an obvious one, but one that has to be mentioned because I think this is where I fell down in ALL of my auditions. The reason I have written this as 'not letting nerves get the better of you', rather than 'don't be nervous' (says mum as she waves you onto the train) is because (for me) I think that's impossible. Obviously you're gonna be nervous, but there a difference between a little bit of adrenaline and letting the fact that you're shaking mean that your voice quivers while delivering a monologue. A panel can sense nerves as soon as you walk into a room, and if it becomes part of your personality, then you're not going to be able to convey your professionalism. Like I say, they need someone who can stick it. I think the best way to control nerves is to find a way to be at one with your body, and you may think that sounds incredibly hippy and untrue, but on a personal note, the minute I can sit in a corner and do some controlled breathing, or some yoga is when I'm feeling my least nervous. I feel that being able to connect with yourself and have complete focus is when you can train your body not to convey your nerves, even though they're there inside. If you're thinking about the panel, or messing up your words or how you look or anything like that ,then you're not thinking about yourself and your intentions and therefore it's easy to become unfocussed on your nerves. Obviously that feeling is much more of a personal one, but I thought I would share my ways to deal with it. Also there are people who don't get nervous, so obviously you lucky and annoying human being, this doesn't apply to you.

Its important to say obviously that I haven't gotten into drama school (yet?), so all of these things are just what I think. They are not true or what's right, simply what I think I now need to do going into my second year. :) x

For some profesh advice, I came across this website the other day which I thought gave some good points: http://www.backstage.com/advice-for-actors/backstage-experts/10-tips-winning-audition/

'Everyman' - Rufus Norris, adapted by Carol Anne Duffy

 

'Everyman'

The National Theatre, Southbank

8th August 2015, 2:00pm

I think the sweet spot for any modern director when tackling an old legend is getting that balance. A play which can emulate the charm and message of the original text, yet with a modern recontextualisation which can appeal to contemporary audiences. 'Everyman' attempted this, with Carol Anne Duffy making the bold attempt to adapt a 15th century morality play, into a modern materialistic tale of drink, drugs and partying.
The play's opening was certainly an impressive start to this, as audiences were presented with an elaborate physical theatre portrayal of a 40th birthday party. Here the ensemble of 22 moved dynamically and often in synch to snort lines of coke off forever moving tables, chanting an original song 'happy fucking birthday'. This, for any aspiring actor was what you wish to see from an ensemble, the slick, in unison movements being to a standard that most wish to reach, as well as achieving the desired effect of disorientation from the pace. From here it certainly felt that the play was going to remain at a level to which we could all identify with, the modern party etiquette of drinks, drugs and dancing something which we are all at least familiar with. I fear to say however that the play reached a peak with this beginning, the following tone failing to keep that sense of identification with the present, instead fluctuating between the modern and original context of the play.
I feel the means for this lack of balance was the fact that the piece followed the frame work of the original text, poet Carol Anne Duffy (script adapter) keeping the original character names of 'Everyman' 'Death' and 'God', typical of the morality play, as well as much of the archaic language. I feel her reasoning for this was in order to make the idea of an 'Everyman' a timeless one, keeping that name in order to assert the idea that the term is as relevant today as it was in the 15th century. I feel the sustaining of the language was a necessary one in order for the play to be seen as an adaptation rather than a new 'Everyman', yet this came at the price of the play failing to hit the modernisation to which it aspired. It was fine when we were faced with the very entertaining musical numbers of William Lyon, enriched with modern language, swearing and the glitz and glamour of gold armoured shop assistants, yet the moment the play plunges back in the more original sections, it looses that element of sparkle.
In saying this, it doesn't mean the actual quality of the play was anything to be desired, much the contrary the piece was incredibly strong in all areas the way The National Theatre only ever works. Very strong performances came especially from Dermot Crowley as 'Death', bringing an element of funny Irish charm to the part, providing the perfect balance for the gritty reality of his threatening words, which force the Protagonist 'Everyman' on his journey to better himself before facing death. His sarcastic elements reminded me a lot of Arthur Darvill as 'Dr Faustus' Mephistopheles, the admirable interpretation of a enemy death figure as comic relief. Similarly strong was Kate Duchene as the refreshingly female god/morality figure, one of the most poignant parts of the play for me coming from her speech in the rubbish dump where her exasperation with Everyman reaches it's climax. For me this was one of the realest moments in the play which allowed the audience to question that stereotype of an invincible God, and that he too can reach the end of his tether. My only comment would be that had Duchene have been a little less infuriated before this point, it would have been even more of an impacting moment, as previous to this, she seemed a little more angry and subsequently one toned than needed. Obviously all roles are subject to interpretation, yet my own yearned for God to have made the most of those niggles of comedy in her dialogue which I felt didn't quite come through. Talking of one toned, I regret to say that this was the very word to describe protagonist Chiwetel Ejiofor. From start to finish he was undoubtedly strong, with some of the most admirable diction and annunciation I have seen in live theatre, yet there were moments I really wanted to see him strip it back rather than play up to the audience. He seemed exasperated throughout, I suppose a fine portrayal of a man about to die, but sometimes less is certainly more. Had he have had those levels, I feel the audience could have identified a little more with his character which has been constantly knocked as an ineffective 'Everyman' due to his rich living.

http://www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/shows/everyman



'The Mentalists' - Directed by Abbey Wright (featuring Stephen Merchant)

 

 

 

'The Mentalists'

Wyndhams Theatre, London

29th July 2015, 7:45pm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is Ted a fruit bowl, coke bottle or pepper shaker? Sadly I think that if we'd have been faced with that question some 20 minutes earlier in the play, half of the audience wouldn't have left in the interval.

 

Richard Bean's 2002 play, 'The Mentalists' deals with the story of two middle aged men who set out to make a film which will revolutionise the world. This is all because protagonist 'Ted' has found an old copy of B. F Skinner's 'Walden Two' in his shed, a utopian novel which tells the story of a community which lives a supposedly perfect life, residents working only four hours a day, the absence of a ruling body etc. In finding this book, Ted believes he has the answer to the world's problems, and thus Bean's play tells the rather endearing story of his venture to make a film talking about the components of 'Walden Two' (which he assumes a lot of people haven't read) in hope that the world will join him in the quest to right societal wrongs. He and assisting best friend Morrie, also an amateur film maker, rent a cheap Finsbury park hotel room to make the dream a reality.

 

Bean's play is beautifully written, and deals with the peaks and troughs of human nature in an incredibly subtle way. Both characters in this two man play are intricately defined: Ted the controlling but unadmittedly self nervous protagonist, and Morrie, the confident, chatty hairdresser with an air of campiness. All of this is achieved through the play's solid naturalism of characters' constant conversing, peppered with jokes and the general banter of old friends.

 

I fear to say however that the writing of the play was where the positives stop, as sadly the execution undermined the plays beauty. Firstly, although a comforting sight for any west end audience, the grandeur of the embellished Wyndham theatre sought only to belittle the static box set of the north London hotel room. I feel a smaller theatre would have complemented the nature of the play more, making the experience a lot more intimate for the audience. Instead, the grandeur of the theatre only served to make the acting in the show bigger than needed, and as a keen Merchant fan, I was disappointed to find he as 'Ted' the worst offender. He seemed to adopt the shouty tone of an actor who was aware of the audience, directing a lot of the conversation out, often breaking the fourth wall to direct a joke. From my interpretation, the beauty of Ted as a character is that he is unaware of his humorous nature, genuinely believing that he has the key to revolution, unaware of the hilarity he conveys when constantly asking if he looks okay, or nagging Morrie to stop touching the camera. In order for this to be conveyed however, the plays naturalism and truth needs to be unquestionable, something which Merchant broke for me. I wanted him to embody Ted with his endearing quirks, instead he skimmed the surface, showing me a lot of his own personality than that of his character. In response Steffan Rhodri as 'Morrie' was somewhat stronger, never breaking his role as the self confident, reassuring friend to Ted. However, the style of Merchant meant that responses from Rhodri could only equal the outwardess of his colleague, neither actor 100% convincing me of their role.

Because of the lack of embodiment of the characters, the first half of the play fell flat, and I regret to say I found myself loosing concentration during the long chunks of dialogue. There just wasn't that intended sense of personality coming from Bean's writing, and because of this, the intended pinnacle of the play (post interval) fell short. I was unaware whatsoever that there was supposed to be any questionability to Ted's psychological state. To me, his dedication to his quest to revolutionise the world was just a comical trait to his character, as Merchant often directed the audience to believe through his over the top gestures to the audience. To me the suspect phone calls which appear occasionally in the first half are just the familiar calls of a suspecting wife, and again no hint from Merchant led me to believe otherwise. Because of this, the interval came at a time when there seemed to be no plot development, but just a lengthy and dare I say, boring conversation between two men, a lot of the dramatic irony lost. When I returned to my seat after the interval, most of the row I was sitting on had left.

The play took a completely unexpected turn when suddenly there begin to be questions on whether Ted is sane, something which I had not suspected in the slightest. Morrie gives Ted an ultimatum on whether he is the self assured revolutionary he thinks he is, or really a slightly instable man, using the metaphors to which I referred at the beginning. When it is revealed that actually Ted is very much the latter, I felt I lost a huge sense of the impact, because I had never believed in Ted's character to begin with in order to feel sad about his deterioration. Albeit the acting in the second half improved somewhat, probably because Merchant's default to direct the comedy outwards was no longer an option during the sensitive revelation. Ted's breakdown was certainly a touching moment, made even  more so when Morrie's only solution is to console his very broken friend with a haircut. An emotional moment which really brought out the beauty of Bean's writing, the fact that he knows nothing more than to offer a hair cut and something which he is so adamant will help, when fully aware that his friend has committed a murder and is quite obviously doomed.

All in all, it was only disappointing that 'The Mentalists' lacked the detail it needed in order to be impactful. I feel a smaller venue could have helped to serve this purpose, giving the play the intimate audience it needed to allow the actors to relax into their roles, and pay them the intricate attention they needed.  

 

http://www.thementaliststheplay.com/     

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



'Utopia' - Penny Woolcock

 

 

'UTOPIA'

The Roundhouse, Camden

Tuesday 11th August 2015, 3:30pm

Utopia is as nebulous or as clear as you want it to be".

Whilst taking myself through the promenade immersive piece that is Penny Woolcock's 'Utopia', I struggled to find a way to describe it, until I came across this perfect statement from one of the speakers involved.

The nature of the piece is explorative, and allows an audience a free reign to walk around the main space of The Roundhouse, Camden, presented with an array of different audio and visual components all based around the themes of life and life stories.

As you enter the space you are faced with an immense tower of boxes which look as if they are for sale, each labelled with things such as 'wealth' 'happiness' and 'popularity'. Through blue flickering backlights, the tower of boxes are made to look desirable, gleaming for a second and then hazed, the words often difficult to make out. As a young artist, I tend to want to put meaning to everything in theatre, and on my entrance into the space, after comprehending this for a moment, I soon decided that this was Woolcock's way to comment on the unattainability of these fancies in life, through the scale of the sculpture and haziness of the words. Satisfied with this interpretation, I moved into the main body of the piece, which was comprised of the verbatim recordings of many real life speakers. The first I came across was inside a Land Rover placed to the right of the box sculpture which invited audiences to sit inside and listen to the story of a young working class man speak of his childhood and abusive father. Placed just outside of this, there was a huge rubbish bin from which a recording of another young man played. He spoke of his experiences with education and his general failures at school with grades, and the impacts of this. Like everything in Utopia this was left to the interpretation of the spectator, and at this point in my journey, I still applied meaning to the props, deciding that the fact this recording came from a rubbish bin meant that the speaker felt discarded due to his lack of education.

At each end of the space there were openings for audiences to travel through, the first of my journey leading to a messy bookshop, where from different shelves came even more recordings, most of which dealt with the stories of young men talking about their experiences at school. These recordings formed the very core of Woolcock's piece, as they told incredibly interesting and in some cases very touching stories. One recording spoke of an incident where the head teacher at his school had hung himself in the sports hall. When I entered the Bookshop I begun looking at the books on the shelves, trying to find the meaning of why some were on the floor and others not. I even looked at the books around where the recordings emulated from, yet found no correlations. Once I begun to actually relax and take time to listen to these recordings, I began to realise that there were no clever intricate placing of props, and that generally, the recordings took centre stage, the actual stories of people. The props became of less significance, yet more to compliment the words of the speakers, as I'm sure if there were just speakers placed about the space, the piece would have lacked the journey and sections that the props provided. This was when I began to relax into Utopia, taking my time to listen to every word of the amazing stories told.

At this point in my journey, I was beginning to think that utopia dealt only with the rather troubling stories of working class teenagers, and decided that the piece was a comment on the way we all desire those all important components of the box sculpture, yet were in total ignorance of the poverty happening around us. Once again I was wrong, because coming to the end of the bookshop and into a walkway surrounded by piles of bricks and rubble and beer cans, we begun to hear some different natured stories. For example the story of a wealthy woman who spoke of always spending £50 on each meal, and only picking up products labelled 'finest'. There were not only stories on different ends of the spectrum, but in-between, like the story of the a young working class teenager who came from a less wealthy household, yet started making hundreds of pounds a week from burning cd's and selling them on. One of the most intriguing stories was of a young homeless woman. Where at first glance you assume that this was the sad story of a woman who had graduated with a degree and fallen into poverty, the woman spoke poised and confidently of the ways she would act as if she were not homeless, always having at least a pound to have a coffee in a café late at night to keep herself safe. Reaching the end of this walkway some of the props begun to echo the opening image, as some of the boxes labelled 'wealth' 'happiness' etc. were now discarded on the floor. I came to realise that these things were no longer relevant, and that when you take away the material desires in life, you are still faced with the amazing, interesting stories of these very normal people. Woolcock made me question why there is so much desire in life when she was able to put together a very basic series of recordings of just normal, real life people, and create something so enlightening.

Entering back into the main space, I continued down the alternative walkway which was much the same. Here there were even more interesting recordings, for example the recording of just an old woman singing a muffled tune. These recordings were laid out on what looked like office desks, accompanied with even more irrelevant props like stapes and lip-glosses and pens etc. With the gist in my head that these were no longer relevant I barely even took them in, focussing all my attention to the words of the speakers. It made me think that even when surrounded by material objects, the stories of the people prevailed. One which stood out was the story of a mother talking of her daughter who underwent a sex change. By this point there were no props, just a little cubby hole where you could stand and hear the words of a very supportive mother.

Both of the walkways in the piece lead to the same space: a big screen of various people, who we recognised as some of the speakers, reading extracts from 'Utopia' by Thomas More. To me this consolidated the idea that all of the stories we had heard were our version of reality, and that really if we all decided to have a society like 'Utopia' we could have. This was echoed in a set of comments on the piece from Penny Woolcock, and some of the speakers which was on a wall at the very  back of the space. Here Woolcock explained how she was inspired by Darwin's theory of the cave: the idea that people assume that the life we live is reality, and that just because this is way the world is, it doesn't mean there isn't a whole different life outside of the cave in which we are chained to assuming that this is the only reality. The world could be like 'Utopia' if only we got out of the cave









.

Obviously everything I took from 'Utopia' was COMPLETELY interpretational. Others could have walked around the space and taken something completely different. Likewise the nature of the piece meant that you could have either walked through the space in ten minutes, hearing just brief snippets of the recordings and taking in the amazing visuals of the piece; or like me you could have taken your sweet time, listening to every word of every recording, and spending an hour and a half. Either way it would have been an amazing experience. Woolcock taught me quite what theatre can be, as I've never been to see a piece where the people 'performing' are not actually present in the piece. I've never been to something where an audience are completely in control and can be as passive or as active as you like. It taught me so much about the boundaries of theatre as an art piece and formed for me an incredibly cathartic experience.


http://www.roundhouse.org.uk/whats-on/2015/penny-woolcock-utopia/

 



About this blog

 

Welcome to my first blog post, and whilst writing this I'm thinking I'm I am probably welcoming no one because this is my first blog post in an experiment that could possibly have no audience ever...BUT to keep it positive, I'm just gonna assume that one day there will be millions of you, and that I'll probably be rich or something.

This blog is for self benefit, but from being part of a huge society of young drama people, I know I am in the same boat as thousands of others: that limbo between Alevels and the hopeful, sparkly land of drama school to which we all aspire. Therefore if I help some other people along the way, it will be a bonus. Last year when I went into my first year of drama school auditions, I found myself constantly googling advice of WHAT DO THEY WANT, and whilst not finding the answer (because there really isn't one), there were a few blogs I read which actually put me a little at ease, describing their experiences of different auditions. I really want to be able to help other people in that same way, recording what I learned for not only myself, but for others like me. I think especially if you're going into your first year of drama school auditions, its nice to know just exactly what happens at each one, rather that the brief overview given by the school themselves. This way you can be prepared for whatever they throw at you, knowledge that I am grateful to have now going into my second year of auditions. I will therefore write a good long post on every audition I do, recording what it was I was asked to do, the questions I was asked, the panel's reaction, the monologues I did with what interpretation, and hopefully what I feel I learned from the experience. I actually have a little of this stored up from last year which I may possibly share on an alternative post to remind myself, but also for those of you going into auditions this year too, and need the little advice I have to give.

As well as drama school auditions, I will be sharing other theatrical experiences over the next year. A huge aim of mine is to see AS MANY SHOWS AS POSSIBLE, something which drama schools really advise aspiring actors to do, and something that can generally expand your understanding of theatre techniques and mediums, and which I am really excited to tackle! I started this challenge at the beginning of summer, and have a backlog of posts to share taking the form of almost a review. Theatre journalism is a huge interest to me and therefore I will exercise my skills with this over the year.

I will be recording my experiences of the shows that I take part in over the year as well as any workshops I take part in. Lots of organisations offer various programs to improve an actor's physical theatre, monologue delivery, Shakespeare delivery etc. all of which I cant wait to write about and share.

Fingers crossed that this will be a year of productivity and not laying in my bed everyday eating Oreos! X