Thoughts after Thursdayâs 13.06.19 rehearsal
Hi all. This is a bit of a long read but I hope youâll take some time to read through and give some thought to the points below. Some of these I spoke about on Thursday, others have come from the past couple of days. Thanks.
- Â Â Â We started with the agreement to try out:
1. The proposed composition
3. Be more relaxed about the rules of inside/outside and embodiment
And a few other things as well. The performance started off very well and it built an unexpected sense of anticipation in me as the audience member. I wasnât totally aware of the people on the outside, but I was excited about what the set-up space holds and is going to produce. And when people started to enter, there was a natural and easy energy - which Graeme rightly pointed out as the performers being relaxed and confident - which immediately drew me in. Natusha did something different from the rest and later told us that she did not follow the rules and essentially went against them. And it worked to a degree because it allowed us to make some interesting discoveries. As a result of that, an early conclusion Iâve made is that: Do we need a set of rules in place to achieve the same outcome? Did the idea of us collectively having an objective and set rules in mind contribute to us being confident and relaxed? And did the fact that the other 6 of us âfollowingâ the rules, to a certain degree, allow Natusha to break them and break them effectively in a way which contributed to the piece and not take away from it? Is having an agreement of the rules, rather than a strict composition as I proposed, and with possibility of breaking them the way to go?
-    Is our performance a long-improvisaton? If it is, then we have to respect the rules of improvisation. We react not just to the phenomena of the Green but also to the people in the space. I think there is still much more âlisteningâ that we can do. How do we really listen to the space, the people, the aura around us. And allowing things to develop in the space. Improvisation is about the idea of âyes, andâŚâ. It is a very simplistic understanding, but itâs about keeping the ball in the air and not letting it drop. Itâs the allowance of space for oneâs self to follow and lead; taking turns to lead and follow until the audience canât tell who is following or leading. Itâs a dance,or a duet, where both people shine equally in the end. We have to see the show as a whole rather than individual segments and even when there is a reset, how do we keep the energy and hold the audienceâs attention?
- Â Â Â The previous point reminded me of Graemeâs point about good Jazz musicians, and their ability to improvise and create magic. Their ability to do that is borne out of an understanding and mastery of the basics and play the standards well. When the basics become second nature, then are they able to jam and improvise. Itâs the same with sportsmen/sportswomen; the really good ones have such strong mastery of the fundamentals that it allows them to improvise on the field of play and complicate the basics to stun the opponent and audience alike. Compare this to us, I donât think we know the basics and fundamentals well enough at this point to be able to improvise. And what are our basics and our fundamentals? Is it the rules? Our understanding of the rules? Our understanding of each other? And itâs also about being a good team. We all need one another to perform. We cannot exist without the others. We are Eight as one. Going back to the Jazz, Iâm sure the good ones can perform and be brilliant on their own, but when they jam together, the magic is different. I think we can get there, but we need to master the basics and then trust the otherâs brilliance as well. And all of us have something equally brilliant to contribute.
- Â Â Â One of the most memorable moments for me in the last rehearsal was Itxasoâs and Hanaâs stillness. It was such a contrast to the rest of the busyness in the space. It was the most economical and frankly boring action, but for me, it was a stand out moment and one of the most interesting things that happened on the day. Ironic when you consider that we always want to do something interesting to be interesting, but it was the simple and mundane thing that achieved that for us in the end. It also felt that both Hana and Itxaso were so in control and confident with what they were doing, that they managed to steal our focus with such economy. So maybe letâs try not to be interesting?
- Â Â Â How to repeat the performance, with not necessarily the same outcome, but still evoking the same sensations in the audience? What is the anchor that we can hold on to that can help us achieve that. For example, an actor performing in typical play has set lines and blockings that he must remember and execute - those are his anchors. But the anchor alone is not enough, he still has to organically live through each moment and create new life each time. He has to really live it and be in the moment. Having an anchor actually helps the actor, because it allows him to really play on the edge with the knowledge that if he falls off, he is still holding on to the anchor. So instead of restricting the actor, the anchor actually liberates him. Of course, this applies mostly to a good actor. Still, having an anchor can even help the bad actor get by. But the really good ones, know how to use the anchor in the best way and take the most advantage of it.
- Â Â Â I would also like to caution ourselves from entering masturbatory territory. At the end of the day, we are creating a performance for the audience. And we need to be clear with what we are giving them. Thereâs no point us doing something that satisfies and makes us feel good, but the audience goes away with nothing. Not only is that quite selfish, itâs also pretty stupid I think. I think that as artists, we have a responsibility to create something that we can share with an audience and has meaning for us and them, and not just be a wank for us. I strongly believe that the audience needs to leave with something.
Questions that I still have:
- Â Â Â What is our definitive rain plan? Since it looks most likely that one of our shows will be in the rain. We have decided to play with the elements so we have to go with it and really consider it. The one plan that we have about putting the audience in the building adds a quite drastic and significant meaning to our performance. So what is the best alternative? I have a feeling that the rain plan that we agree on has to be something that fits with what we ultimately want to say about with show, rain or shine.
- Â Â Â How significant is the sound to us right now? Like in my observation in the last rehearsal, the sound seems to be more for the audience rather than it is for us. I think itâs great if the audience gets something more from the sound than what we intended for them, but it still needs to come from a base of us already ascribing a meaning to it for them. And that has to start from us being more aware of the sound and living off it. Does this mean we respond to the bell in the sound? Add whistles to it and take away the âresetâ power from the performers? Do we incorporate more silences? I donât know.
- Â Â Â Definition of the inside/outside space. I think the definition of what each space means and what is allowed or not in the respective spaces can be good. Although still with the knowledge that we can break the rules. BUT, how do we establish that there are set rules, and the performers are knowingly breaking them? Rather than it just end up looking like a mistake? Because there is also a danger that, to the audience, it can look like we are unclear of the rules. Or what is actually necessary in terms of defining the inside/ouside space?
- Â Â Â Iâm unsure about the lights pointing in different directions/away from the centre, because I feel the sense of expectation of a performance that I got on Thursday would then be lost, But Iâm happy to try it out to see if that aligns better with what we are trying to achieve.
