I enjoy the way Piddimus mapped the Birth-Death-Resurrection structure to the theatre/creation process in his latest blog entry. It’s interesting that you say that there’s nothing pleasant about the Death part of the process. I actually disagree… for me almost all of the joy in creation is in the execution of it (no pun intended).
I find pre-production (Birth) to be satisfying in a detached sort of way – trying to make solid decisions to ensure a strong production, finding the right cast, space etc. In the end, the success or failure of the work you do in pre-prod will define the scope of what you’re able to accomplish with the work.
Performance (Rebirth) is the least satisfying stage for me. It’s (of course) gratifying to have people enjoy your show, and every decision made in the first two stages must work toward and support the audiences eventual experience of it, but in terms of actual pleasure or joy, I’m usually left feeling kind of cold, and often spend the time wondering what my next project will be.
The rehearsal process (Death) is where 99% of the fun of creation comes in for me. This is where the creative decision are largely made, and the detail and depth of the show are discovered. (Rereading that sentence, it’s probable that a lot of directors would put this work into the preprod phase… I’ve always been an on-the-fly type though). One of the things that fascinates me about directing is take a creative work from potentiality to actuality… it’s the process of the execution of the work that gets my blood flowing in the end.
A quick caveat: I’m not trying to reopen the Process vs. Product debate again. As I said before, every single decision made in the pre-production and rehearsal phases of the show by necessity must work towards the good of the final product (which is a bit of an ‘ends justify the means” argument, I suppose). All I’m saying is that the actual pleasure for me largely resides in the journey of discovery, not the stasis of a destination.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Where did I say there's nothing pleasant in the death process? Show me, show me!!
No, I actually agree with you both as an actor and a director. The stakes become the highest during the "death" phase, and I think it's where the most exciting things come from.
Just taking "Nervous Boy" as an example, there were at least a couple of elements that didn't even appear until the very last part of that process -- when we got into the space. Here, I'm thinking about the larger role of the cloakies. I don't think that any of us (maybe you, but I didn't get that impression) had planned on the cloakies becoming such a presence in the show. But I can't imagine the show, now, without that element because they brought so much. I'm talking here about them ushering off the bodies, and setting up the "job interview of death". As I mentioned during the run, I enjoyed being a cloaky soooo much every night. But it sprang out of necessity, and it added something that hadn't been there at the outset, but that was perfectly in keeping with what the show was becoming.
I think that this is a good example of us naturally assuming -- because we're human and finite -- that death is intrinsically unpleasant and "bad", somehow. It's not, necessarily. It's just a part of the triad. And it can be one of the most exciting parts of that triad.
But when you're looking at the birth/death duality it develops into something sad and hopeless. When you know there's going to be another step to the process, it loses its power to scare.
There's also an IAO process during the run (within the "rebirth" phase) as well.
Don't make me quote your own blog to you... well, ok I will.
"There's nothing pleasant about the "death" part of the process, except that it holds the seed from which "rebirth" can, and will, grow."
That phrase has been removed by the management, because it does not
express the real feelings of the author.
heh heh heh
Don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that phrase.
The cloakie device is a great example of on-the-fly inspiration in the Death phase. It did come very late in the game, but I still consider it as part of the rehearsal process, as it was implemented before the audience came in. Sometimes these things go down to the wire. The cloakie was in the Poisoning scene from the beginning (although it always worked slightly differently than James detailed it in the script). What I loved the most about it was that it was an organic solution to a technical problem… We needed to get dead characters offstage without a blackout, so we expanded an existing device that was already in the show to provide a smooth transition.
It makes perfect sense that the performance stage is slightly unsatisfying for you, in much the same way that the midwife doesn't get the same things out of the birth that the mother does.
The performance of the show is not the part where the director is active; you've set it up, and now it's up to the performers to execute within the guidelines.
Death is usually profoundly unpleasant. The dying, I mean. The choices that allow one to transcend the state and move on could actually be said to be part of the rebirth. The enuui, the doubt, the thrashing about in dead ends and fruitless choices... yeah, that part sucks. Not to be the negative guy (which is usually NOT my role) but to view the Death from the perspective of Rebirth misses a crucial part - if you were already where you needed to be, you wouldn't have to die.
When you work out (lifting, running, whatever), there's pain. No question. It's one's attitude toward pain that makes it fruitful. Honoring the pain of it, recognizing "this is the part of the process that sucks." By acknowledging that something sucks, it becomes possible to move on and out.
And not to belabor the point (any more than I already have) but the depth of one's pain may occasionally be the measure of where one can arrive. If I'm really sucking, I'll work that much harder to find a solution. A solution that transcends a really stuck, messy "death" period usually has to be pretty awesome and amazing to truly work.
We were terribly blessed during NB, in that there were solutions from all sides, and the deaths were mercifully brief, so we didn't notice the pain so much.
Though the best "solutions" come, not as a result of work, but almost from "outside" of ourselves. An inspiration comes, "Oh, we should do it THIS way," and there is a lifting, a lightening. Was that door always there that pathway out of the darkness? Yes, yes it was, but you wouldn't have seen it if you didn't get lost first.
Shutting up now...
Yeah, I definitely think my attitudes about rehearsal are tied into looking at it from a director's perspective. I would assume a writer would have the most fun in the writing/pre-prod phase, when they are most dominant.
That actually gets back to my One Voice theory... I firmly believe that a creative work needs to have one voice in charge, in order to build a coherent, uncompromised creative work. The trick is, that voice changes bodies throughout the run of the show. In the initial stage, it's the writer's voice as he/she shapes the script. In rehearsal the authority moves to the director, who implements a practical vision to bring the play from concept to reality. And once you open, the voice belongs to the actors, who have the ultimate say in what will be presented to the audience.
At each step, the dominant figure should have autonomy to create in whatever way they see fit. In practice, this is why I will very rarely give substantial notes once the show opens... blocking adjustments possibly, but almost never any character based notes.
Yeah, the writing/pre-prod aspect is the most fun for the writer (that is, the most fun for this writer, anyway). The run itself (the rebirth) is also enjoyable, since it enables me to see the show from a completely different angle than when I first envisioned the show looking. The cloakies and the monster hand from the liquor store, for example, are things not in the script (aside from being mentioned in the poisining scene) and not at all what I pictured originally but now am hard-pressed to imagine the show without them.
For writers, or at least, writers who are lucky, they get to experience the resurrection stage more than once with one work (i.e., viewing multiple productions of the same script). For me, this treads into the hypothetical (as of now), considering most of my plays (births), with some exceptions, have only seen one production (rebirth) each.
The monster hand was another practical solution... I always knew that I wanted the clerk to be demonic in nature, as the scene was so close to the end of the show and the surrealism was rmaping up into the Stripper scene. The doublecasting got very very tight at that point though, and I couldn't afford to spare any of the actors for a full costume change. Limiting the clerk to just a hand allowed for a much more visually interesting image then if we had had to work out a full costume.
I find it interesting that, in the creation of the play as you envision it, the "one" voice transmutes into the multiple voices of the cast. One in intent but multiple in their expressions. It sort of points up the posibility of a non-authoritarian model for creation.
Maybe it's very similar to what you expressed - there's a nominative "leader" (the "voice"), but that function is not fixed permanently in any one person. This helps to avoid the ego over-investment that tends to cripple creative endeavors that are too authoritarian. One of the things that helped NB was the way that solutions in the rehearsal stage were filtered through the director, while he remained egoless enough to recognize useful solutions and discerning enough to discard unworkable or inappropriate ones.
scot
And obviously, the "voice" transitions as time passes from writer, to director, to actors. Yeah, you pretty much nailed it.
Very true, there are multiple voices at the production stage. But each actor has an autonomous voice in their own character(s). Which is why there is always instant drama when one actor starts giving another notes... it impinges on the creative expression.
While I don't believe in a collaborative decision-making process for an artistic project, I'm smart enough to know that not every good idea will originate with me. So my ears are always open to creative solutions from any quarter, as long as they filter through me first. Good artists borrow, great ones steal... I aspire to be a master thief.
Wow - what an amazing conversation going on here. I need to bookmark this.
From a production person standpoint - I have to say the re-birth is the most fun for me. I enjoy working through the death, but I have to go with Scot on - if you were already where you needed to be, you wouldn't have to die. However, figuring out how this is going to work and coming to a solution - like the cloakies - is amazing. And, especially when an idea starts as one person's, then someone else adds on and so forth, to where you get this community idea. All involved get to feel the ownership and really become part of the production. Not that they weren't already, but they are no longer a mark, but a road on the map.
The part I dislike the most, I believe would be called - the process of re-birth, Tech week. Long hours, late nights, never knowing if it is going to get done, more than likely, getting sick. And, the nerve racking feeling that you will never be able to get all the cues when running light and/or sound because the light cues were finalized the night of dress or the first performance and you just started working with sound and lights the night before. It's a tight rope act without a net. Most of the time there are only minor injuries of the ego. And, thus far, no one has died.
Birth is probably the most boring. Trying to figure things out, thinking to yourself - shouldn't we already know how to do this-getting people together to meet about, well, everything. Ick!
From a director's standpoint - I agree with Pete - the death is the most fun. You are performing a resurrection. Working your magic with the actors to bring back to life this dormant piece of writing. I mean that is what any writing is - a dormant piece. Until someone picks it up - reads it, performs it. It is alive, It's ALIVE!
One experience I recently got to be a part of, was in Ireland. We (a group of about 12) were given the topic of "Community" -now write and perform a piece -you have 4 days. Going through the whole process of birth to rebirth was amazing, frustrating, eye scratching, transcendal. We were lead through some exercises by a playwright who does this a lot with other communities - but not with other theatre practioners. So, there were egos that had to be squashed, then re-molded; ideas that had to brought up and then destroyed; talents that people had were utilized to levels they didn't even know they had. We started out with a word - by mid-way through had 4 story board ideas with about 5 to 10 characters per each. By the end, we had a show that was about an urban apartment building and the interaction between the tennants - 12 characters. This was really where I felt all three parts in FULL.
WIth something that Pete mentioned - The one thing that was deeply felt in the end was the need for one leader to really get the blocking, etc. We had decided that our group leader would be the director, but because it had been such a shared experience, it was hard to get others to just let him lead. When it came down to the wire, yelling was done, everyone shut up and we got the show blocked and characters worked on and the show was fabulous.
Post a Comment