A Bit More Improvisation…

I hope you had a great Easter weekend! 
Just a quick one this week – I have another great improv game for you… that we did on Wednesday evening – really gets the brain buzzing.

It’s called “meanwhile in…”
Essentially the game consists of two people starting a scene with a given theme (/ location / relationship / task) and at any point during the scene another actor can shout “meanwhile in….<insert appropriate location here>” and starts a new scene which is happening at the time the previous scene was interrupted.

FOR EXAMPLE
First scene: The situation given is that they are two robbers in a bakery
The scene plays out that they break everything in sight, smashing glass, breaking shelves etc. They are just about to leave when….

** Another actor shouts  “meanwhile in the flat upstairs…” 
** [Cue scene two]
Second scene begins: The new actor is joined by someone else as they negotiate their way around a darkened bedroom and sneak down the stairs armed with anything they could find in their room. One of them calls the police…

** Another actor shouts  “meanwhile in the police station…” 
** [Cue scene three]
Third scene begins: The newest actor, this time alone on stage, is a lazy police officer – just wasting time, letting the phone ring out. After which another rookie officer runs in a panic explaining they have just received an urgent call about a robbery in progress etc….

You get the idea!
What’s great about this game is that it really engages your imagination, as there are no limits – people start getting engrossed in the story that unfolds and all sorts of characters come out of the woodwork!

A good exercise to warm up with before this would be “yes and…” as it encourages everyone to start running with whatever their partner brings to the scene. If you have a chance, give it a go – hope you enjoy.

 

 

P.S. This is what else I have been up to…

ShatesFringeLogo

RumDoxy Theatre

 

How To Stop Acting – Harold Guskin

Cover Photo

TRUST YOURSELF

As an actor there is a sort of threshold we cross, as we approach the character. That being the moment we speak the words aloud – when we take them off the page. He quotes Glenn Close discussing her shyness when moving to this moment, she describes it as having a “shyness in relationship to the character”(P3) it can be like “breaking some sort of sound barrier” (P4)

Guskin says; if we can trust ourselves, and trust that whatever comes out of our mouth (& mind) will be useful & valuable – it will allow us to approach the character with a real creative freedom. To connect with the words from our instinct. He says, Approaching the text from an analytical point of view only unlocks the intellectual part of our exploration, which can be restrictive as it doesn’t allow you to be in the moment with the character and the words they are saying. By approaching the words without analysis or forethought means an actor can “begin his exploration from within the character” (P5)

Guskin suggests that ‘Taking it off the page’ is not to be used as a technique, as such – I take from his writing that it is bass line to work from rather than something to do letter-by-letter. Taking it off the page involves breathing is as you look at your line – take in as little or as much as you can (don’t worry about how much you can recall) look up as you breathe out and say the words straight away, while you’re still in the moment. This apparently enables us to by-pass our conscious mind, and speak the line/phrase/word  from our subconscious, from our instinctive reaction. This avoids the feeling that we have to say it how we believe it ‘should’ be said – which can create a falseness, that we are ‘showing’ how we feel… rather than actually feeling it. (In this, his view is similar to Meisner – in that if we feel it, it is right at that moment and we should not try to manipulate it to fit what ‘should be’. We should not try and ‘correct’ it, or at least that’s my understanding so far…)

He says that if the reaction does not feel right – trust that next time you come to it, your instinctive reaction will change. At this point, you are not looking for answers or absolutes, you are “…in a state of discovery triggered by the only thing we know for sure about the character – what the character says” (p9)

I can see that if you are trying to find the character solely through text analysis and research, the end result could easily be 2D – like a really good illustration of what they should be, rather than a well-rounded, ‘truthful’ character. By worrying about how words ‘should’ be said, you place a distance between the yourself and the character, especially in the explorative stages.

I’m just getting to the bit where he goes into suggestions for practice… Looking forward to reading more and having a go!

Cannon’s Questions

Still grabbing moments to read this book, in between the madness!

img_2208
I thinks it’s very instructive as well as interesting.
Today I read about Dee Cannon’s ideas behind researching your character, and her list of 10 Questions. (It is suggested that depending on time, you might not be able to do all 10.. just be sensible…)

Here are Cannon’s 10 Questions to finding/researching/connecting with  your character.
IMG_2280

Essentially these questions are there to lead you to understand the situational, emotional and psychological elements of the role you are going to play… nifty!

For example;
No. 9 – HOW will I get what I want? (Choices) – Explore the psychological effect you want to have on the other actor(s) in order to get what you want. To beg. To entice. To charm. NOT focussing on how you say the line but how you action it. “actioning your text“(P52)

“This technique allows the actor to be free and truthful without playing external emotions. It’s really about what you don’t say ad trusting that actions speak louder than words.” (P53)

When I am playing a role, even in rehearsal, I automatically refer to my character  as myself, or myself as the character – either way, it’s in the first person. I’ve not really thought about it, but Cannon digs into it a little in this chapter. She suggests that if we are discussing (and I suppose even when thinking as/about) our character, referring to them in the third person immediately creates a psychological gulf between you and them… baring in mind you have spent your time identifying with them, or “bringing the character closer to you“(P62), if you speak of your character in third person – in an instant you can undo all your hard work, or at the very least send yourself 3 (or 4) steps back. Makes sense.

I’m sure there will be more from this one!