Directing Journal Entry 7: Legally Blonde

This week I finished the blocking for both scenes, and went to see a show! I saw Legally Blonde at the JPJ a few nights ago, and loved it. One of my favorite parts were how smooth the scene changes were. Elle would be on stage at the end of one scene, and the set would change around her without a blackout, and then she would just keep going. It was all very artfully done. My favorite scene change was when her boyfriend came to pick her up at her sorority house, and as they kissed, the scene changed into the restaurant that they were going to. While it seems that to pull off a beautiful change like that, you would need wither a lot of crew, or you would need to train the actors to do it well, and it seems like it could be difficult to orchestrate, depending on how loud the furniture is, and how much backstage space one has, I would love to try something like that. It was impressive.
Another thing I noticed was the large number of times someone changed clothes on stage. Elle changed dresses a couple of times, and one of the boys changed into a different suit as well. I think it must take a lot of specific planning and choreographing just of the change to make it so that the changes are seamless, don’t take too long, and don’t malfunction, causing the actor to flash the audience.
I also noticed throughout the show that there were a few bumps where things did not quite go as planned. The actress playing Elle was supposed to tie one of the men’s ties, but she got the sides confused, and eventually just let him do it. However, the way she covered made it a lot less noticeable. Also, the biggest blip in the show was when the power flickered out and all the lights and sound cut midway through a song. The actress just stopped singing, and she and her partner stood frozen, like a dear in the headlights for a moment or two until they received some sort of signal, probably from backstage, and then they ran off in semi-darkness. Moments later, an announcer came on and told the audience that the show would return in a few minutes. They had to heat back up their lights, cue up their sound track, and check the all of the speakers for potential damage. The process ran smoothly and relatively quickly, and when the actors returned to the stage, they seemed to have had their confidence restored. I think that the situation probably fell directly to the director, and the actors probably sought him or her out as soon as they got offstage to try to figure out what was going on. The director had to figure out what to do with the actors, where to start the show up again, get someone to test and warm up all of the electronics, and communicate everything to everyone. I have absolutely no idea how I would deal with such an issue if presented with it, but their solution seemed to be pretty professional. To have the actress continue to sing without her music, lights, or microphone would be absurd in such a large space, though it might make sense on our stage, if everything was acoustic, and if there was enough light to see the actors.
Besides the blips in the show, small and large, It was well done, the colors and costumes were coordinated perfectly, the lights complimented everything beautifully, the actors never seemed to move without meaning, nor did they ever do anything that seemed out of place or out of character. The dogs were trained well and were used sparingly enough that they did not distract the audience from the play. The sets were simple yet beautiful and convincing. They all shared the same backdrop, lighted differently for different times of day, and had only a few pieces of furniture each, sometimes only a door, but the way the actors lived in the space convinced the audience of its reality. The songs were very funny and catchy, and the dances were great as well. Overall, it was a great play, and I think the director as well as the actors did a very nice job.

Directing Journal Entry 6: Death of a Salesman

This week, I read Death of a Salesman, blocked some more of the Little Women scene, and blocked the Anne Frank scene. I discovered a deep, unprofessed love for all stage managers on Thursday while I tried to block and take notes on the blocking at the same time.
I loved reading Death of a Salesman, though I had a little trouble keeping track of what was real, and what was his imagination. It was a great play that I would love to see performed, but I don’t think I would ever attempt to direct it. The set seems like it would require a big stage and a lot of construction, and though I tried to map it out, the playwright kept adding places until it became too confusing. It would also take a lot of coordination with the sound booth to make it work—kind of like Someone’s Knocking, and a lot of lighting. However, past the complicated set and effects, the play has a great core. It is a very moving piece that would be great to work with actors through.
One thing I noticed about the play was that though I could easily define Willy as the crazy protagonist, Biff as the boy he relied on to be successful, and Linda as his terrified and worried wife, pretending everything is ok, I could not define Happy as easily. It is clear that he wants his father to love him, and yearns after the attention Willy lavishes on Biff, but beyond that, his relationship with his father is unclear. Willy almost ignores Happy, who follows his brother around like a puppy, and is happy if anyone pays a speck of attention to him.
Another funny thing I notices about the play was how the boys, especially Biff address their parents. They always call them “pal” or ‘kid,” indicating to me that they see them as inferior or child-like. As Willy gets even crazier, or it begins to show more, other people much younger than him begin to call him “kid” and treat him as if he was a child.
The dynamics between the characters really intrigued me, and it would be great to see how a director would deal with those things. Would he have Willy react negatively to the pet names, or are they part of his world, something only the audience would notice? If so, he would have to make sure that the use of the pet names would be noticed by making them clear, while at the same time, not hitting the audience over the head with it.
I loved the way the play brings in scenes from the past and beautifully illustrates Willy’s train of thought, but while reading it and trying to figure out how I would stage it, I came to the conclusion that it might be easier to do as a movie, because the flashbacks could be performed in a clearer way that way. However, I do think it would make a beautiful play if it was taken on be a brave, competent, confident director who really knew how to make it work.

Journal Entry 5

This week, in addition to reading a few more short plays and reading the first fifty or so pages of the book “Great Acting Teachers and Their Methods,” I began to block one of my two scenes. I have picked the two scenes—one from The Diary of Anne Frank, and the other from Little Women—and have casted all the characters. On Thursday, I met with Georgia, Helen, and Emily, who are in the Little Women scene, as well as Courtney who agreed to be a body on stage for me to use because Ari was unable to attend the meeting due to another meeting she was to be holding. This was the first challenge. I had to begin blocking a scene without the actor’s presence. The use of a stand-in, however, quickly combated this challenge, and I we were able to move on and get some work done.
I began to realize that while I do have to concentrate to some degree on the picture formed by the actors on the stage, I also have to give or help actors find a reason for all movement—otherwise it just looked like the actors were following orders, and not moving naturally.
Another thing I began to notice was how the actor’s instinct is an important thing to listen to, but not always the thing to go with. If an actor’s instinct to move at a certain time to a certain place can be justified by the character and the action, it is usually a good choice, as long as it does not upstage other actors, block other actors, or just look bad or distracting. If the blocking distracts the audience from the play, it’s not very well done. It all needs to seamlessly work together—a much harder task than I anticipated.
I was very excited to work in the new black box as well. It is going to be a great space for smaller performances, and gives me a chance to play with the way the audience will be seated. Because nothing is set, I could put the audience anywhere in the room, and it could become a chance to try new techniques.
The first rehearsal went very well. We managed to block the first three or four pages of the scene, and we spoke about all of the characters and some important lines (and the inflection, pronunciation, and emotion behind them all). It was really fun, and very enjoyable!

Journal Entry 4

This week I read a book of scenes for young actors, and seven short plays (Enigma Variations, The Mystery at Twicknam Vicarage, Babel’s in Arms, Soap Opera, Lives of the Saints, Arabian Nights, and Captive Audience.) I chose two scenes to direct this trimester (one from Little Women, the other from The Diary of Anne Frank), and I have cast one. I am currently trying to decide the short play that I will direct at the end of the year.
I am really excited about the short play. I think it will be a great chance to practice casting from an audition and difficult blocking. The play I am currently leaning towards is Enigma Variations by David Ives, though I plan to read more plays before deciding. Enigma Variations is about two Bebes and two Doctors and their attempt to figure out what is going on in their world. One Bebe complains about never being alone, while the other complains of having done everything before.
I think it might be a good play to direct because it requires precision and accuracy in the blocking, but it could be really neat if it was well done. In one scene, one pair talks while remaining completely still while the other pair gestures and moves as if they were having the same conversation.
The other play I am thinking about doing is Captive Audience, by David Ives, because it is about a couple who can no longer resist their malevolent TV, and eventually become sucked into it. It appeals to me because in one scene, the husband is trying to pay attention to his wife, but the TV keeps pulling his mind away. It reminds me of when my family goes out to restaurants and the TV is in my sight line. Mo matter how hard I try to resist, I am inevitably distracted by the moving colors and lights, and have to move to where I cannot see the set so that I can complete a sentence.
Both plays would present a blocking challenge in that they would take a long time and a lot of dedication from the actors, but if it was done right, the plays could both be wonderful.

Directing Journal Entry Three: Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

“Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” was a very interesting play. It had a very basic set and only one location, and is performed by only four actors. Ultimately, the play gets deep into the minds of the characters, and dissects the two marriages prominent in the play. Because this play focuses a lot on what is going on in the text, it seems as though this might be a difficult play to direct. For one, as a director, one must be able to explain to the audience what is happening in the play, for as I read it, I had trouble even understanding which characters existed. As a director of this play, I would have to be able to make it clear that George and Martha’s son did not exist.

Another thing one would have to make sure of as one put on this play is that the drunkenness throughout the story must not be played too over the top, for the play is certainly not a comedy. However, it must be clear that the characters are drunk, for much of what they do and say would not make sense if they were not. One thing I have learned through Shakespeare camp is that the best way to act drunk is to try to act sober. A drunk person, does not try to convince friends that he is smashed, but instead tries to persuade them that he is still capable of using his inhibitions and common sense. To play drunk as if one is trying to stay sober lends an authenticity to acted drunkenness that staggering around on the stage does not.

Also, as a director, one must be careful not to let the amount of sitting and talking in the play make the play stagnant. Though the actors might be sitting, one has to make sure that the speed is kept up, that there is enough movement, and that the show stays interesting, because the moment the audience gets bored, it becomes thousands of times harder to recapture their attention.

Another thing I would focus on if I were to direct this play would be following who holds the power in a certain portion of the play. It seems to me as though it should always remain clear to the audience who is I charge at a certain point. At the beginning of the show, Martha holds the reigns, controlling her husband and the social scene, but she trades power positions with George throughout the play and by the end, George has all of the power over her. At some points, nick even holds some power, as in the end when he begins to piece everything together. When he remains the only sane and functioning person on the set, he has all of the power, and through blocking, line reading, intonation, and volume, the bearer of power in a scene should be clear.

A final thing I would watch for as a director would be to not let the actor playing Honey fall through the cracks. Though she often seems small, pitiful, and at times, even unimportant, she is a vital character. Her interaction with George at the end of the play before Nick and Martha return from the kitchen is extremely important, revealing important parts of her nature and the nature of her and Nick’s marriage.

All-in-all, this extremely psychological play seems as though it might be hard to direct. It has many deep themes and other important aspects which need to be emphasized. It also needs to be clearly portrayed so that it is understandable to an audience while still keeping them on the edge of their seat and making them think. The play should kindle fear, outrage, and pity within the audience, but should also be frank and honest. Full of opposites, this play should be played to the fullest.

Directing Journal Entry Two: A Practical Handbook for the Actor

“A Practical Handbook for the Actor” was a useful guide, and I will be able to use many tips from it when directing, especially when directing less experienced actors. The first seven chapters of the guide were on technique: Physical Action, Analyzing a Scene, The Truth of the Moment, Externals, Preparing for a Scene, Trouble Shooting, and The Tools of the Craft. The first chapter, on the physical action, specifies the nine things an action must be—physically capable of being done, fun to do, specific, not an errand, not presuppose any physical or emotional state, not be manipulative, be in line with the intentions of the playwright, have its test in the other person, and must have a cap. The action is an extremely important part of analyzing a scene. Throughout a scene, an actor must have an essential action to carry him through the scene. He must be able to identify what the character is doing by reading the lines and the play, and figuring out the main goal of the actor in a specific scene. If an actor knows, for instance, that in the scene, his action is to “get a friend’s forgiveness,” he can then inference how his lines might be said. The tools he might use to carry out his action could be begging, explaining, or yelling. They don’t necessarily have to be effective, for not all people are effective at doing what they mean to, and therefore not all characters are either. While an actor’s action might be trying to gain forgiveness, the character might flub up and insult the person they are trying to get to forgive them. The intent, however, should be to get forgiveness.

One important rule of an action is that it must not be manipulative, but it must have its test in the other person. Your action cannot be “making someone angry,” but might be “explaining why a friend is wrong.” The actor cannot aim solely for a certain response from his scene partner, but must instead try to do something he can do alone, and can accomplish without the scene partner. A scene partner may read his own lines in a way that yields tears instead of anger, and the actor’s action will never be finished, but if the actor uses a non-manipulative action, he can respond to however the scene partner responds. However, the actor must be able to look at his scene partner and know if the action has been completed yet. The action does not need, necessarily, to be completed, but the scene partner must be able to show whether the action is effective of not.

The action is an important tool one can use in directing. If an actor aimlessly paces or stands completely still, the director can ask the actor what he or she is doing in the scene. Is the actor trying to convince their scene partner of something, or trying to prevent them from doing something? Both actions will can lead to specific movements that have purpose so that an actor does not look as if he or she is just following the blocking their director assigned. If the actor understands what he or she is trying to do with a movement, they can better perform blocking so that it looks to be purposeful, instead of aimless.

Directing Journal Entry One: Summer Camp and Lessons Learned

This summer, I went to a camp called YCTC (Young Company Theatre Camp) at the Blackfriair’s playhouse in Stanton, VA. There, I acted in a shortened performance of the second part of Antony and Cleopatra, and during those three weeks I spent working on the show, I made many mental notes on what I liked and disliked from directors, actors, and stage crew, as well as what shapes and images I liked to see on stage.

In Antony and Cleopatra, I played a vast number of roles (8), ranging from Mardian the eunuch to Decretas to messengers and soldiers. While I understood that the situation of the play—way more characters than actors, and many characters with very small roles—I generally prefer when actors are single or double cast. If a single actor comes on stage in so many different costumes as so many different characters, the audience begins to get confused. Even my own parents, who were honing in on me throughout the performance couldn’t keep my characters straight. I think if I were to direct Antony and Cleopatra (with an unlimited number of actors at my disposal) I would leave Mardian as Mardian and Decretas as Decretas. I wouldn’t double cast those characters, partly because it requires a difficult quick change, and partly because their loyalties are in completely different places, and to double cast them would be to confuse the audience. Also, because there is so much side-switching built into the plot of the play, I would try to eliminate as much doubling as possible that crossed between camps. I would try not to double cast a supporter of Cleopatra as a supporter of Caesar, and if it was truly necessary, I would make it obvious that it was an actor playing two roles and not a character who had switched sides through very different costuming and physicality. I would also try to help actors with multiple characters create a different personality and physicality to distinguish them, not only for the audience, but for the actors themselves.

Another tricky thing about Antony and Cleopatra is the scene where the wounded and dying Antony is lifted up into Cleopatra’s monument. How to get Antony onto the balcony in a realistic way seemed impossible, and we were all stumped. However, we employed a bit of mime work and some trickery to make it work. Cleopatra and her maids were on the monument with one rope, and Antony in the discovery space with another. A person stood behind the curtain in the back of the discovery space with the second rope, and as Cleopatra dropped hers, the boy behind the curtain dropped his, in perfect timing with the lines. A servant then helped tie Antony into the knotted rope, and as Cleopatra began to pull her rope “taut,” the boy behind the curtain pulled his completely taut, again, timing by the lines. Then, the two people holding open the curtains to the discovery space closed the curtains, Antony pulled himself out of the rope and booked it up the stairs to the monument and tied the upstairs rope to himself while Cleopatra and her girls covered with lines. Then, they “pulled him up to the monument,” while he lay on the floor, hidden by the balcony, eventually standing where he could be seen.

While I’m not sure if there is a better way to perform this almost impossible feat (one wonders what in the world Shakespeare was thinking), I do think the method our director employed was too indirect a science. We worked entirely based around a few lines, and the two rope holders could not see one another. Also, while the audience could hear both groups well, the two groups had a harder time hearing cue lines from one another because lines aimed outwards to the audience were having trouble making it through the floor to the people below in the discovery space. Because there were so many variables in the action, a line could be dropped, or someone could move early, the whole illusion could easily have been shattered. Though I have heard of a cast who tied a rope thrown over the balcony to Antony and pulled him up while he also pulled himself up, I think that is also a difficult way to perform it, though there are less variables to worry about botching. When I first read the scene I imagined a group of soldiers holding Antony on his back above their heads in a style akin to “light as a feather, stiff as a board.” I then imagined Cleopatra looking down to him over the balcony when they speak, and making her “how heavy weighs my lord” comments in response the shaking arms of the soldiers lifting him up. I think my imagination miss-judged the height difference between the floor and the balcony at the Blackfriars, though, for what I imagined next was him being lifted up by the soldiers on the ground and soldiers up above into the monument. This would be possible if I were able to design my own set, but not at the Blackfriars. However impossible it might be at the playhouse, I love the image of Antony being lifted by his soldiers above his head in a way that seems to symbolize death. It might be how he would have been carried after he died from the wound he has already given himself, reminding the audience that he is about to die.

All-in-all, the experience playing in Antony and Cleopatra was a fun one, a chance for me to improve my acting skills and play with different physical traits and voices. I was given a chance again to study the way boys walk, sit, talk, and stand as opposed to the way girls do, for all of my characters were male. I also got to see professional performances of Othello, Taming of the Shrew, and Wild Oats, and take notes about what I liked and disliked. I discovered an annoyance with actors who note one another or argue with a director, and discovered that I cannot stand when an audience begins to clap along with a song, for while it shows enthusiasm, it makes me and other audience members cringe about how some people can’t keep a rhythm. Another thing I dislike during shows is lines—unless the line is well-done, and formed purposely to create a certain image, the actors should avoid standing in one, for an unintentional line is usually slightly off, and it looks as if the actors have tried to do something and failed, while in reality, they only forgot to try not to do something.

Altogether, I think I gained some great tools to begin work on this directing study!