After some reflection, I think I can objectively deconstruct the process that built Emma’s final product: “Small Crimes,” her IP.
It was undoubtedly one of the highlights of my first month at Pearson—having always felt “at home” on the stage, the camaraderie of collaborative productions can’t be matched; in the time spent preparing a theatrical work, you forge connections with your cast mates and director which, hopefully, yield a genuineness during a final performance.
I wouldn’t say, however that those connections I built during the production of Emma’s IP were like those I’ve experienced in my past theatrical experience… perhaps due, in part, to the size of the cast, or even to the isolation of each of the characters within the play. As such, as sometimes happens, I didn’t find myself looking forward to rehearsals for any sort of friendship or “group” collaboration; instead, most rehearsals were an opportunity to develop my character as part of a very introspective and personal process.
In previous posts, I’ve voiced some of my frustrations with Emma’s broad criticisms of my character, stage presence, and physicality. Ultimately, these were resolved, but because, in the final performance, my character had a suitcase, packed slowly with clothes over the course of the performance. This had been planned all along, however I didn’t have the prop to work with during rehearsals until the final dress. I’ve resolved that some of my awkwardness on stage was due, partially, to the fact that, for long stretches, my character literally had nothing to do but pace, and fidget. As soon as I had the suitcase, I immediately planned the actions surrounding its packing, so as to mirror the rising action, though subtle, of the monologues themselves. I was ultimately pleased with my character’s physicality as a result, and so too, I think, was Emma.
Part of me wishes that I’d had closer performing relationships with Alice and Elisabeth—ironically, I’ve become closer friends with each, especially Elisabeth, after the completion of the production, and it would seem that the experience had very little to do with the development of the friendships. Perhaps this was purposeful on Emma’s part—a very interesting directorial technique, if so. Based on reactions of audience members that I’ve intercepted following the performance, some people felt that the characters’ isolation was effective, and captured the bleakness of disintegrating relationships. However, others have told me that they felt the monologues themselves were disjointed, and instead of contributing to a narrative mosaic (the way in which I’ve inferred Emma’s vision to decipher the monologues), they were simply fragmented, leading to total confusion on the part of the audience.
Another point: the esotericism of the piece’s language and narrative. I’ve spoken with very few people who’ve confidently stated they’d understood the “plot” of the piece. Perhaps this was intentional—poetry is rarely conditioned to be interpreted in only a single way, so, it’s possible that the intention of the play itself was to capture emotion in a way that would provide audience members with “form-fitting” puzzle pieces which they could assemble to construct personally interpretive narratives. Perhaps for the savvy, natively English-speaking audience member with an interest in literature and language, this would be the case. However, for the broad majority, I think the play was confusing. I don’t know that this is necessarily negative, though. Artistically, I admonish anything that panders to the majority, and so, if the play spoke to only two audience members, but it deeply affected them, then I think the production was a success. And, I’ve not spoken to anyone whose voiced outright distaste for the production—perhaps this is due to the fact that they were speaking with me, and I was in it. On the whole, people have stated that they “didn’t understand it,” or “found it confusing,” but, they also say that it was beautifully performed, and many say that they found the ending to be impacting.
Others, though, have said that they found the ending to be disconcerting, and starkly disparate in its tone from the rest of the piece. Throughout the production, Emma voiced her intention for the piece to be Brechtian in its staging and tone. Admittedly, I found this to be conflicting with her direction to deliver the monologues to the audience, as I felt that this conflicted with Brecht’s theory of an audience’s alienation. In all other aspects, though, I think the performance was Brechtian—the costumes, props, and sets were stark and austere, and the color palette of the stage centered on grays, blacks, and whites. This, then, was fitting with the final sequence, in which the players literally became the crew, and broke the set.
Ultimately, I was pleased with my own performance—I felt that I truly knew and understood my character’s plight by the final performance, and, following it, I found it difficult to let go of the “portal” into his psyche which I’d developed. In speaking with Elisabeth, though, I understood her to have had an entirely different experience. Many audience-members expressed their difficult in understanding Elisabeth as she’d delivered her lines. And so, too, did Elisabeth express concern. First, I must voice my intense admiration of her bravery and talent in learning and memorizing her lines. I think there are few native English speakers who could decipher the language of the piece upon an initial, second, or even third read. However, I think that, considering the piece, in casting the production, selecting native speakers for the three characters should have been imperative. The language was simply too esoteric for a non-native speaker to grapple with, considering the time constraints of the production schedule. But, Elisabeth did an incredible job nonetheless, and far superseded any expectations of someone in her position.
Having participated in such an atypical theatrical production, I consider myself lucky to have experienced such a unique take on the process. Considering the experience as a whole, I’d do it all again in a heartbeat. If I could change anything, I’d have vocalized my thoughts regarding my character to Emma sooner rather than later—perhaps, had I done so, the production would have progressed in its depth of emotional analysis. For me, though, the experience’s most valuable byproduct was the excitement with which it’s provided me for my chance to direct an IP, in a year’s time. Having worked with Emma, I hope that I’ll have a conception of the strategies she used that worked well and those that didn’t. Although I don’t think the style of my project will be similar to hers, I am appreciative of her abilities and vision, for I think they’ve provided me with impetus to create something spectacular.
No comments:
Post a Comment