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