FibroHiker Blog
Social Media
  • Home
  • About
    • Contact
    • Actor
    • Director
    • Movement Designer
    • Educator
    • Freelance Writer >
      • Writing Portfolio >
        • Blog: Monologues
        • Blog: Shakespeare
        • Review: Henry V
        • Promo: BBS on Patreon
        • LULLAY
    • Videos
  • LULLAY
  • FibroHiker Blog

Monologues Gone Wild

9/12/2020

0 Comments

 
This post originally appeared on www.BareBonesShakespeare.com.

As an actor in BBS’s upcoming production of
Flowers of Ilium, I’m getting to do a lot of exciting, terrifying, and challenging things in collaboration with the other actors and Brandon Whitlock, our director.  It’s hard to pick a favorite element of this show, but the one I want to talk about today is that of the Displaced Monologue. 

I love seeing Shakespearean monologues out of context, or, more specifically, put in a different context from their appearance in the plays from whence they come.  The vibrant, adaptable nature of Shakespeare's language lends itself to vibrant, adaptable performances. I’ve spoken to members of several prominent Shakespeare companies who use their lines, instead of ad libs, to respond when something goes awry onstage or when audience members react and interact in ways unplanned.  If there are limits to the versatility of the language, I haven’t found them yet.

I first discovered my fascination with Shakespearean monologues out of context when I took Doreen Bechtol’s class The Body in Performance at Mary Baldwin College.  She had us each memorize a monologue from Twelfth Night, and then did a number of Viewpoints and Viewpoints-inspired exercises with us incorporating the text in non-linear ways. My favorite then, and still my favorite now, was The Chair.

Students partnered off and each pair received a folding chair. The partners were instructed to discover a series of stationary poses together and cycle through them, then Doreen told us to add our text.  The seemingly random poses suddenly came to life as our monologues became dialogues, tumbling over one another in a wide range of tempos and inflections. The meanings of words and phrases changed when juxtaposed with those of another character. The poses, too, suddenly developed painful or hilarious significance when used as the context of the burgeoning scenes. Relationships began, progressed, and fizzled out, or characters circled each other like tigers and fought savagely for the upper hand. It was easy to make meaning, to instantly discover “story” in these small, intense character vignettes. Some partners had monologues from characters who were never even onstage at the same time. It didn’t matter. Wherever there is context, there is relationship. Wherever there is relationship, there is story.

As a director and a teacher I’ve done a number of similar exercises since then, encouraging actors and students to embrace the displaced monologue.  I find that it helps stage actors hone the skills I value most highly: reacting in real time to what the other actor gives them, and suiting the action to the word AND the word to the action. But I’ve been missing something all this time, and that was the experience of getting to play in the sandbox of displaced text. 


Enter Brandon Whitlock and his interest in devising plays based on Greek tragedies. He suggested Trojan Women, and I suggested that we use displaced monologues from Shakespeare’s displaced ladies to get around the problem of how prohibitively expensive it is for a small, young microbudget to get the rights to perform copyrighted texts . He agreed, and set out to gather texts and exercises to lead us in creating the work we now call Flowers of Ilium.

Everything that I love about displaced monologues is in this show (we’ve even found occasions for a folding chair or two).  There are moments when the words themselves are of heightened importance, but there are also many others in which the words are vehicles for sound, for invented codes of communication, to underscore movement, to facilitate change, to express pain, sorrow, and fear, but also comfort, camaraderie, and love. The same monologue can be used to seduce or assassinate, to comfort or to shame, to isolate or include. In all of these scenes, we play with our texts and our objectives in real time — we’re defining certain elements of the shape of each scene in rehearsal, but each performance of each scene is unique and fundamentally unrepeatable.  You can’t fake discovery as an ensemble.
0 Comments

The Revitalized Idea of Company-Directed Shakespeare

9/12/2020

1 Comment

 
This post originally appeared on www.barebonesshakespeare.com

Most of the staples of the modern theatre aren't the foregone conclusion that we treat them as.  

Proscenium? Nope.
Set? Nope.
Stage lighting? Nope.
Director? Nope.
Designers?  Nope.
Multi-week rehearsal process? Nope.
Table work? Nope.
Huge casts? Nope.
Actors get the whole script? Nope.

So that leaves... What? A close company of actors and their manager using cue scripts to bring the play to life in one crazy week of anything-goes ideas and no time for second guessing.  Each actor has the opportunity (or more accurately, the duty), to invent her performance on her own -- there's no time for her to wait until rehearsals to start discovery.  But even while she's preparing on her own, acting as designer and director for her part (no matter how large or small), she also has to leave space for the contributions of her castmates.  "No director" means that the acting company has to work together, taking initiative and giving into each others' ideas by taking turns in order to bring the production to life. So let's take a look at what "company-directed Shakespeare" means, and where the idea comes from.

The early modern scholar Tiffany Stern has written several valuable books about what the theatre world was like in early modern England.  The book that most concerns us right now is Rehearsal from Shakespeare to Sheridan, in which Stern distills epic amounts of research into an accessible guide to the rehearsal processes of Shakespeare and his successors.  In this book, Stern points out that many of the trappings of the modern rehearsal process simply didn't exist in Shakespeare's day.  There wasn't a clear division between actor, producer, director, and designer.  Actors didn't audition for a specific role, or even for a specific play -- they joined the company and performed in all of the productions, usually keeping dozens in repertory at a time.  Instead of getting the whole script and doing weeks of read-throughs, table work and blocking rehearsals, actors would receive only their own lines and the one-to-three-word cue immediately preceding their lines.  They would then take these "cue scripts" or "parts" and work on them individually or with one other actor (especially in the case of apprentices).  When the actors did come together to rehearse the play, they would often have as few as three days to form the production.  This rehearsal structure meant that actors had to arrive memorized.  If this description sounds terrifying to the modern actor, Shakespeare's company has good news: there is also a "prompter" just offstage who has the whole script.  The prompter's job is to keep the actors on track, so that the lack of rehearsal doesn't mean that the production dissolves into chaos. 

If you're interested in taking part in such a production, we're holding auditions for our reverse-gender Macbeth at Katie Jackson Park in Dallas on Saturday, 9/19 and 9/26.  Email [email protected] for an audition appointment.

1 Comment

Promotional: BBS on Patreon

9/12/2020

1 Comment

 
This post originally appeared on Patreon.

Many modern production companies try to dazzle their audiences with big beautiful sets, intricate lights and sound technology, large ensembles, and glorious costumes. When Artistic Director Julia Nelson started this company, she decided to take a step back from all of those elements -- lovely as they are -- and focus instead on the language and the sense of community between the actors and the audience. By creating stripped-down minimalist productions, Bare Bones Shakespeare invites the audience to join in and create the world of the play together.
1 Comment

Review: Henry V

9/12/2020

0 Comments

 
This post originally appeared in The Shakespeare Standard 

On April 15-19, Texas Woman’s University in Denton, Texas ran performances of William Shakespeare’s Henry V, directed by Assistant Professor of Drama Steve Young.  The cast consisted of TWU Drama majors, as well as Drama graduate students, alums, non-majors at TWU, and students from other colleges such as University of North Texas.  While this varied casting practice is uncommon among most drama departments, TWU’s Redbud Theater Complex frequently opens its doors to auditions from members of Denton’s larger community.  The element that made the biggest buzz in this production wasn’t the variety of the company, but Young’s surprising choice to cast Britnee Schoville, a (female) freshman in the Drama department, as King Henry V.  I have to say that the Salic Law speech (performed by Shakespeare Dallas actor and director Michael Johnson) took on new meanings — particularly the lines disputing that “No woman shall succeed in Salic land” (1.2. 39).   Schoville wasn’t the only female student playing a male role, either.  More than half the cast of male characters, including soldiers, courtiers, thieves, and spies, were played by women.  Rhonda Gorman’s vivid costuming embraced (literally and figuratively) these actresses and provided clear distinctions between classes and countries that remained consistent throughout the production.  Clarity is an important element when offering one of Shakespeare’s history plays to undergraduate audiences.
Unfortunately, the clarity suffered in the student actors’ performance of Shakespeare’s language.  Verse passages were indistinguishable from prose, and while Schoville’s performance was vivacious and entrancing, she and other actors frequently failed to use the language to inform tactics and character.  Most of the cast attempted a dialect, English or French, at some point in time, though none of them followed through on said attempt throughout the production.  I will say that language-wise, the French scene was one of my favorite scenes in the play. A male “Prince Karlin” (played by Seth Jones) instead of a female Princess Kathryn asked for an English lesson from his nurse and quizzed himself with a warlike air using a plastroned fencing dummy to point out body parts.
While Jones’ haughty demeanor brought new sparkle and verve to the comedic French scene, it failed to serve him well when Schoville’s Henry wooed Jones’ “Karlin” in the final act of the play.  I have no inherent problem with Young’s choice to reverse the genders of Henry and his bride.  I was hopeful that the choice would prove to enlighten and enrich an already bright and treasured text in my esteem.  However, the original scene is about a reversed power dynamic: Henry, a soldier-king, strong and sure, champion of his cause and conqueror of France, places all of his hopes at the feet of a young woman whose lowly position as a second child and daughter in her royal family does not even require her to communicate with dignitaries in fluent English, as her parents and her brother the dauphin do.  In Young’s production, Jones towered over Schoville — his height, demeanor, and sex all preferring him to the status that a female Henry had to fight the entire play to achieve even a part of.  Schoville’s Henry embodied that fight throughout the production, which brought a brilliant new flavor to Hal’s plight in learning leadership the hard way.  However, the scene in question did not read as Henry humbling himself to woo Kate, but as a starry-eyed schoolgirl chasing a disinterested jock, passionately, obsessively, and in vain.  The reversal in which Karlin accepted Henry made no sense whatsoever.  I do not fault Schoville  — she committed fully to the scene and made a valiant attempt, in spite of the decidedly uneven and awkward dynamic.
Not all of Young’s unorthodox choices were a disservice to the production.  There are several events which Shakespeare’s text places offstage — a messenger or other character merely relates or insinuates the events to the audience as or after they occur.  But Young’s production put many of these events onstage, including the death of the Boy, the English soldiers’ killing of their French prisoners, a child Henry VI in the epilogue, and, most strikingly, the hanging of Bardolph.  A harness rig allowed the characters to execute Bardolph’s sentence immediately, before Henry even has a chance to hear of it.  The specter of a hanged friend looms over the rest of the scene, and only when the curtains closed for intermission was the audience relieved of the grisly sight.  More than any other choice, this striking image set the tone of Henry’s reign — one in which might and right strive against each other, and the question is only settled with blood.

0 Comments

    Julia G. Nelson

    An avid eater of guacamole.

    Archives

    September 2020
    March 2018
    August 2017

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.