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

What is Constant?

3/3/2018

0 Comments

 
I applied to a freelance writing job today and, in addition to wanting a cover letter, they also asked me for my answer to the question "What is constant?" I ended up writing more than I intended to, and I decided to include the answer here.

I agree with the quote attributed to Greek philosopher Heraclitus, who allegedly said "The only constant is change." This quote originally frustrated me when I discovered it as a teenager, as it sounds like the exact opposite of a direct answer. However, in my adult life I have found it comforting. When one expects stability, one is inevitably frustrated. When one expects change and occasional hardship, it is easier to be patient when it comes along. Stability is not the basic state of the universe -- entropy is. At the molecular level and upward, all things move eventually from order to chaos. We cannot plan for specific changes -- or rather, we can, but it is not enough. Demanding that the universe bow to our expectations is a lesson in constant frustration. 

A surfer has to keep her knees bent slightly to allow her body to react to the subtle, or sudden, shifts in the water beneath her. She is standing on a man-made board trying to balance on water, and she can only do it if she lets herself relinquish the illusion of control. Modern humans are so easily seduced by that illusion of control, perfection, and certainty. Certainty makes us feel powerful, it makes us believe --falsely-- that we have mastery over our environment. But artists, surfers, parents... we have to admit that the constant chaos of the universe can occasionally defeat us. It doesn't defeat us as often, though, if we are prepared to surf; prepared to keep our knees soft in the wake of change. Change is constant, but frustration doesn't have to be. 

As an actor, my very favorite things are improvisation and interacting with the audience. I think it's because theatre can't compete with movies in terms of epic visuals, but movies can never compete with theatre when it comes to shared human experience. Theatre reminds us that we are here, right now, with other people -- breathing the same air and experiencing the same ephemeral event. When I train other actors in improv and audience interaction, I have to remind them that there are things they just can't plan for. You can't decide how the audience will react to you. Actors have to be fully present in order to do their job well, and that presence can't be faked during audience interaction. The audience will know if an actor is on autopilot, because they won't be sharing a genuine connection. Actors who rely on certainty will inevitably seem phony and unappealing, especially when they try to trick the interactive audience. This fact is why I invite the audience to interact in the first place: no matter how good at my craft I become, I never want to slip into the trap of replacing adaptability with overconfidence. I want to stay present. I want to be the surfer and keep my knees slightly bent so that I'm ready for change. I don't have to know what the change is going to be, but I do know there will be change and so I might as well prepare my knees in order to give myself a fighting chance to stay on top of the waves. 

The philosophical follow-up to Heraclitus' quote is the one attributed to Edward A. Murphy in what has become known as Murphy's Law: "Anything that can go wrong, will." Murphy is really saying that in an infinite universe, there is room for every possible outcome -- it's not a matter of IF something will happen, it's a matter of WHEN. There is only so much control we can exert over our environment, to force certain outcomes into impossibility and thus render them "safe" from ever happening. As I see it, there are only two ways of comforting ourselves in the face of this limitless possibility for unexpected change. The first is certainty: investing fully in the complete illusion that we are masters of our universe and we can prevent or explain away absolutely everything that happens. This path leads to constant frustration because we are not actually omnipotent, and therefore reality keeps intruding uncomfortably on our fantasy. The other way of dealing with the constant of change is by relaxing and embracing our position as finite and flawed mortals -- accepting our incapacity for preventing the inevitable. This path is also uncomfortable, especially at first, because we have to deal with the vulnerability of admitting that we can't control everything. However, I believe that relaxing, like the surfer relaxes her knees, is ultimately its own reward. We are better able to deal with the unexpected when we are calm, rested, and aren't wasting so much energy on getting angry with the universe for failing to meet our demands. It is easier to be patient with constant change when we are honest with ourselves about our limits. 
0 Comments

Theatre Review: A Debt That Led To Home

8/25/2017

0 Comments

 
I had the pleasure last night of going to Richardson, TX and seeing A Debt That Led To Home at The Core Theatre. This original play by James Hansen Prince (Founder and Artistic Director of The Core Theatre) is about two homeless men and the young journalist who visits them for an interview and gets much more than she bargained for. 

The play is witty, sad, heartening, and heart-breaking. My favorite parts were the humor; the witty dialogue between the two main characters, Lamont and Stevie. The pacing occasionally pulled me out of the play, with some scenes a little too short and one scene in particular standing out as too long after all of those quick, sketch comedy style vignettes. I also found it surprising that the last several scenes dropped most of the comedic aspect. I would have liked to see the main characters return to comedy in the face of the changes and tragedies of the play's ending. However, these details are my only complaints. I found the acting and the dialogue wonderful, and the set fascinating (kudos to scenic artist Jim Finger - I loved the depth and artistry of the graffiti). Brandon Bradfield Sr. played a magnificent Lamont, the brains of the operation, and James Prince was alternately hilarious and gut-wrenching in his portrayal of Stevie, a clownish tramp who uses humor to battle with the ever-present ghosts of his past. The supporting cast was lovely. I particularly remembered Phil Mendoza's portrayal of Slow Mo as packing a lot of interesting detail into a small handful of lines. 

I found it odd at first that Hanson chose to double Garry Nation as the Pastor with the sexually predatory Dance Instructor, the verbally abusive Major, and finally the kind Doctor. However, as the play went on, the characters sort of gelled together in my mind, and I imagined that Stevie may have a dreamlike sense of all of his father-figures being aspects of the same person. I decided that the Doctor at the end may represent Stevie coming to terms and forgiving the other father figures for their crimes against him. 

I agree with director Eric Hanson's interpretation that "the invisible among us... have experienced things just as we have." This play uses humor and compassion to remind us that the homeless are, in many ways, just like us.

A Debt That Led To Home runs August 18th-September 17th at The Core Theatre in Richardson, TX. For more information, visit TheCoreTheatre.org or call (214) 930-5338 for tickets. 
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.