We shot most of the scenes to be projected today with two great actors Christopher Whitlow and Stephen Moriaty. I also shot 2 of my Kaja scenes. I had asked the actors last week to have a really good grasp of their lines, and also the lines of the actor who would be interacting with their filmed scenes – this was so they could look like they are reacting to what is being said and not just standing there until they say their lines. Christopher handled this particularly well and had a real grasp of what was needed to make the scene work. He has no formal (3 year) acting training, and so his scenes had a very natural and genuine feel. He has film experience but has not done much theatre work. It seemed to take Stephen, formally trained and with more theatre experience, longer to get a naturalistic take. Also he wasn’t off book, so we had to settle for holding up the script directly behind the camera. At times, enlarged, this appears to be a mistake, for his eyes glance left to right.

For scenes where Christopher was alone we stood behind the camera and made arm movements to represent when we thought the live actor would have finished.

It was very difficult to judge how an actor would want to deliver the live lines before we have even started rehearsals. Both Lars and I had different takes in this – often Lars saying I was too quick with my arm delivery. We settled for having several takes of the same scene with different speed infills so that the live actors can have a choice of 2 or 3 variations. However, this still potentially limits the versatility of the live performance considerably.

We started shooting at around 11am and finished by 4:30. I left some Kaja scenes to shoot later during rehearsals so I could at least read through them several times with the actor, if not have him silently on set behind camera during filming.

It wasn’t possible to have the live actors present at the filming because 1/ we need to keep costs minimal and 2/ we still had not found our actor!

In the evening, alongside re-casting Solness necessities, I chopped up some of the days footage into a very rough edit and sent it to the actors to see prior to rehearsals beginning.

Looking back it may have been nice for the film actors to record some personal introductions for the live actors to see and interact with during rehearsals.

Tuesday 25th

Got a phone call from an actor I previously auditioned saying he can now be Solness! Fantastic news

Wednesday 26th

Got an email from same actor saying actually not available. Frantically trying to cast in the morning

Nanouche, James and I went to The New Wimbledon to discuss tech and set arrangements. We will need to get some projector cable longer then anticipated for the projector. We are also planning to use DVD players instead of laptops as it seems more practical and cost effective.

Need to do risk assessments and get production insurance

Set up 2 auditions with actors for Solness tomorrow.

Thursday 27th

Both actors turned up to the audition, they were very different and it was difficult to make a decision. One was late 30s the other early 60s. We decided to go with the older actor as it just seemed more credible.

Friday 28th

Nanouche, James and I spent 2 hours on experiments with a projector that we intend to use. It took us an hour to set up the projector with footage because the laptop we had did not have the right cable for the type of projector. In the end we plugged my Lumix GH1 with unedited footage directly into the projector so therefore we have no filmed examples of the investigation. We investigated the projection in relation to the cardboard colour, the cardboard hanging angles, the distance between the cardboard pieces, the quantity of the cardboard pieces and the use of transparent plastic and white paper. We discovered it gave good effect to angle at least one piece of cardboard and to keep at least 3 inches between them. We discovered nice effects with scale also when the cardboard pieces were separated further from each other.

For the back projection on the set window we thought that it was more successful using white paper as it gave a better quality image, however we will experiment with this further during rehearsals.

The decision to incorporate new media into the production was primarily a directorial artistic one – although the creative restraints of working on such a small budget in a non-theatrical or technically equipped venue did set the scope of experiment, design and integration. In our production, just as Kranich argued film provided the ʻanswer to a smaller theatre lacking the fundsʼ and equipment that was most usually demanded for such an epic text 1.

Designed by Mike Lees the stage set consisted of 6 simple wooden framed flats covered in opaque white (Figure 1). Stretched from floor to ceiling their disposition resembled Becky Gunstoneʼs painted structure for What Fatima Did (Hampstead Theatre, 2009). The flats were placed at various degrees to provide a feeling of depth and to illuminate projections – which combined all other elements of Leesʼ design, aside from costumes and props. The productionʼs lighting, CGI and sound were played off and front projected by a Dell notebook situated at the rear of the auditorium.

After initial group building exercises and source material analysis, technology was brought to the rehearsal room within a few days as an aid to develop the modern dialogue we wished to use. Digital camcorders were set up and the actors were filmed improvising all of the original scenes in modern language. The adapted script to be used in performance was written from sections of the recorded improvisations and further source text study. The use of this technology in rehearsals was paramount to the development of the text and the production. It also gave actors opportunity to engage with the technology that would be enveloping them during performance early on in the development process. This helped to inform their performance as they made key character decisions including vocal tone, bodily structure and in the construction of the charactersʼ emotional palette. It also allowed the creative team to document ongoing performance explorations and experiments.

After the self-reflective use of video in rehearsals the actors had time to build a portrait of their character in a bare space whilst the creative team collaborated on the integration of projected film and pictures. The main purpose of this, aside from the substantial scenographic one (Figure 3 – projected lighting), was to replace and enhance some spoken sections of text and to provide choric commentary on the onstage action. The use of new media in this production supported the performance without extensive interaction between performer and screen. The play would have been coherent, should the projection not have been available, although its flow would be drastically affected.

Alongside sceneographic and choric uses the projection enhanced and enabled various scene and costume changes. It animated the small space and extended the scope of the stage. It provided an opportunity for the audience to see into places that even the most elaborately funded but technically bare theatres could not (Figures 4, 5 and 9).

Simple technology was used to ensure a practical balance between the recorded material and the theatrical action in such a small venue (so as not to create an intermedia spectacle that would have been inappropriate for the space). Split second co-ordination between technician and performer was needed but this did not affect the ʻlivenessʼ of the production and it didnʼt noticeably prevent the actors from investing their performance with an in-the-moment spontaneity as the technical cues were given by themselves. It did however require a rehearsed technician to deliver these quickly and successfully, which directly affected the production budget. Whereas some shows may be electronically programmed and executed by various technicians, our production required numerous cue rehearsals where technician and actor developed a performance relationship and understanding (even though it involved simple technology).

On several occasions projected pictures were used to evoke subjective feeling (Figures 6, 7 and 8). This dramatically enhanced Medeaʼs often lengthy soliloquies which had a direct result in the development of the text: it didnʼt have to be cut.

The virtual performance setting in some scenes did affect the actorsʼ usual relationship with a three-dimensional set and perhaps negatively brought the show back in moments to pre-Appia days. However it did present a dramatic parallel to the collage of post-modern culture in which new media, especially the camera and the screen, surrounds and often dictates. In this, the projection became emblematic of the wider thematic concerns, assuming a metaphorical function which spoke of the role media holds in contemporary culture – as a backdrop to modern society.

Humble Theatreʼs small confined space which was only extended by the use of new media reinforced how the trapped celebrity lives – in a world dictated to, surrounded by, and shaped by the media. This proved an extremely effective method in communicating the overall message of the production which was to question ethical, social and moral boundaries primarily relating to the media, celebrity culture and the topic of abortion (Figure 2 shows an image from our scene 1 – literally the story was covered by the media). Much like the work of Alison Jackson we wished to incite our audience to look afresh at how pictures of ʻrealityʼ are constructed and without the use of new media this wouldnʼt have been possible in the space.

The audience were not deprived of the capacity for active critical thinking; rather the use of new media sparked, encouraged and created space for it. A good example of this was where the narrative was carried further by film in our scene 8. The film here depicted the unborn babies moving around inside Medea. As she watched footage (that she appeared to be playing on a dvd) of an ultrasound scan, the projection rendered the image of the unborn baby directly onto her head, resulting in a kaleidoscope of the live and the mediated. This provoked key questions surrounding the productionʼs themes – questions that would not have been raised so quickly or fluently should the use of new media not have been incorporated at this point.

Figure 5 shows a still image from the film used during the production which documented a real abortion via ultrasound. This introduction of documentary material illustrated the real context of the fictional action and forced the audience to engage on a new level – it added another dimension to the representation which extended beyond the theatre walls. It provided the production with a unique moment of realisation as the audience saw a non-fictional embryo being ripped out of a motherʼs uterus, taking it beyond the theatre and into the real world. This had a successful effect in raising the questions that the production aimed to, and proved considerably more effective than Medea acting out the filicide live on stage.

Negative press reactions are not uncommon for productions that integrate new media or adapt canonical theatrical texts, and our production of Medea attracted a few dissenting reviews. As incorporation of the live and the mediatised becomes increasingly common in the theatre the staunch classicist appears to hang onto the notion that the ordained texts should remain unaltered and unaffected by new media or modern culture. From my point of view the ways new media enhanced the production, described above, far outweighed any classicistsʼ concerns regarding the displacement of Euripidesʼ intention. From my directorial position the most significant times when the use of new media detracted from the performance were when technicians making mistakes with cues or apparatus suddenly jerked the spectator out of any emotional engagement. Actors were unable to cover these mistakes without coming out of character or changing text and these few but noticeable moments problematised the representation they had created and greatly distracted from their presence.

On the subject of taking the production further a noted director who had been in the audience shared how although he had been moved by the production he would be unsure how the text, that had since been effected by the use of new media, would work in a less intimate venue. The likes of Robert Lepage would perhaps have an answer, stating that the use of new media is the very aid to maintaing intimacy in a large venue and that ʻyou have to rely on technology to magnify you, to change the scale on which you workʼ2.

Bibliography

• Euripides. Medea and other Plays (tr. Philip Vellacott, London: Penguin, 1963)

• Giesekam, G. Staging the Screen (Hampshire and New York: Palgrave, 2007)

• Birringer, J. Media and Performance (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998)

Quotation from Charest, R. Robert Lepage: Connecting Flights (tr. W. R. Taylor, London:

Methuen, 1997)

1 – Cf. Giesekam, 2007, 34

2 - Charest, 1997, 111. Cited from Giesekam, 2007, 219.

Jodi De Souza

The Junction and The New Wimbledon

]]> http://jodidesouza.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/the-master-builder/feed/ 1 jodidesouza The Master Builder http://jodidesouza.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/hello-world/ http://jodidesouza.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/hello-world/#comments Fri, 14 May 2010 15:07:27 +0000 jodidesouza http://jodidesouza.wordpress.com/?p=1 ]]> Hi!

This is my new blog, which is here for research purposes to document progress of practical experiments / investigations / productions relating to my MA.

Today we sent off the technical requirements for The Master Builder. It was difficult to pin down exactly what we will require as we haven’t began rehearsals yet and so experimentation has been limited.

Enjoy

Jodi De Souza