Teaching Shurtleff
I’ve probably talked about “Audition” by Michael Shurtleff on this blog once or twice before. If you’ve worked on a production with me, you’ve heard me bark about “humor” and “opposites” more then once. The powerful thing about Shurtleff’s guideposts is they are easy to understand and execute in the moment, whether it be an audition situation or during a rehearsal process where sometimes we’re just as stretched for time.
The Village Theatre Project just recently finished up our High School REP semester. Throughout the semester the students got many professional actors and directors to work with week to week from the company. I worked with them on the first class and the last two classes of the semester. A few weeks ago, I taught Shurtleff’s Guideposts. I am often way too academic when it comes to this stuff, so I created some games around
the guideposts to get them across in a more creative way. Some of these are obvious and probably already exist as theatre games, but I don’t have a lot of games in my memory bank, so I had to create them. Here is how it went down:
The Moment Before
Based on the monologues they created in Week 1 (from scenes), we improvised scenes around what happened just prior to this scene. I told them to focus on something specific related to their “other” in the monologue and it had to be a reason to drive them into the scene. Pretty basic, but fun to see what they came up with.
What are you Fighting For, Competition, and Communication
I sort of lumped all of these together into one game. I took the idea in the book of “You are always right, and your scene partner is always wrong” and turned it into a game. I had the first person get up and state something factually incorrect. A simple statement like 1+1=1. The scene partner would then say “No, 1+1=2″ and from there on they argued their points. I told them that the factually incorrect person could win if convincing enough and let hilarity ensue. It was a lot of fun to see the factually incorrect person come up with so many tactics to get the other to agree or just give in to their point of view.
Opposites
I like the idea of opposites in real life. No matter how much you love someone, there is something you hate about the moment with that person. Maybe they have a habit you hate, maybe you hate the fact that you haven’t kissed yet. I always love giving the example of the audition of a fight scene where you go in for a kiss. We see that cliche over and again. If you start looking for opposites in life, you will find them. No matter how much you feel one thing in a scene, the opposite is also true. It really helps to develop multi-dimensional characters. So for the game, I had two people get up and perform this scene in relation to their monologues they created in Week 1:
Actor 1: How do you feel?
Actor 2: <primary feeling>
Actor 1: Really?
Actor 2: <opposite>
Actor 1: Really
Actor 2: <primary emotion but raise the stakes>
Actor 1: Really?
Actor 2: <opposite but raise the stakes>
You can repeat this as many times as you want until you feel you’ve gotten to some great ideas on the extreme opposites of the character in that moment. It was a great exercise and uncovered many things we could explore in the monologues themselves.
Some ideas for you crazy teachers, directors out there. Hope it helps. I had more games on Humor and Relationships, but they are less inspired so I will spare you. If you have games that relate to the Guideposts and/or want to hear more of my ideas, let me know.
Shurtleff-esque Roar,
Corey
Now Reading: Albee’s A Delicate Balance
Just finished Act I. What an amazing Act. Totally have me hooked into what’s next. Nothing has really happened yet I am completely ready for more. This is an example of where character development has kept me engaged. I actually care about these people and I don’t know why.
Can’t wait for Act II. Probably be done with this by tomorrow with my round trip train rides to work.
Stay tuned.
Albee’d roar,
Corey
No Romance Here…
Well. I am either getting dumber, not politically charged enough, or both, but Romance lost me. Don’t get me wrong, the play was once again genius, real dialogue, but the farce didn’t connect for me. I didn’t care enough about the goal. I thought it was funny to end an absolutely absurd scene with the realization that the Defendant could solve the middle east crisis, but I didn’t really care if he would be able to do it.
In most farce, the chance meetings of people and things are realistic and make sense. I was very let down when the defendant and Bernard (prosecutor’s gay lover) knew each other. Just too much of a leap to believe it would happen. And yes… even in this absurdity, I want to believe it all could realistically happen. That’s the beauty of Frayn’s Noises Off, which this doesn’t even come close to.
Guess I’m having a whiny week. What should I read next? Thinking about a new Albee. Maybe Three Tall Women.
Stay tuned.
Dis-mamet-tinized roar,
Corey
Why do I still buy LaBute plays?
The first play I read of Neil LaBute was The Shape of Things. This play really got to me. It was an interesting take on society’s obsession with the shape and form of both the inside and the outside of a man. It presented a good question to the audience, “What is perfection?” as well as “What is art?”
Since this time, I’ve read several other LaBute plays and seen Some Girl(s) at MCC in NYC. Nothing has impressed me or caused me to think like I had the first time. In fact, I posted some time back about Some Girl(s) and it’s almost cookie cutter Shape of Things-esque ending.
I was driven to post this due to just finishing In a Dark Dark House. This play was pretty weak. It deals with some rather intense topics such as childhood sexual abuse, strained familial relations, and revenge. The play itself was well written and LaBute’s dialogue as always is a masterpiece. The plot barely held together for me. I think a dumb audience would have a hard time with this one.
As I was reading this play, I realized why our audiences consisted of 3 people each night for the only LaBute I ever directed. No one wants to have this shit shoved in their faces. It’s just too much. Two brothers hating on each other, one jealous of the other because he was molested by the same guy, the brother then ends up going off and killing the molester and his daughter and then stealing her car, is a bit much, no? Granted that last part isn’t in the script, but LaBute certainly hints at it in his now tired dramatic surprise endings.
An “I’m Over LaBute” Roar,
Corey
Seven Brides for Seven Ballet Dancers
Just got back from the North Shore Music Theatre where they have mounted Seven Brides for Seven Brothers. This is part of a joint venture with Theatre Under the Stars in Houston, TX and Paper Mill Playhouse, the struggling, debt ridden theatre of Millburn, NJ. This idea of co-production is something that intrigues me, but I will leave that for another post. The plot is a decent one. Country boy comes to city, sweeps a woman off her feet and brings her home where she transforms his bumpkin brothers into men who comb their hair and dress well. These men meet the women of the town but are driven out after a fight with the local townsfolk. They plot to steal the women and trap them back in the woods for the winter after a convenient avalanche. They then all fall in love and get married.
The performers, as usual at NSMT, were all phenomenal. The singing, acting, and dancing were all top-notch.
Now, this story is funny, if you let the men be men, simple men. Millie is able to turn them into desirables but shouldn’t be able to turn them into ballet dancers. Millie is able to get these boys to put on their Sunday best, but should not get them into their excitingly color coordinated rainbow shirts. Unfortunately these men did become ballet dancers (with the occasional manly humor) and the rainbow shirts…. yeah…. they matched their girls dresses. Clever, but too obvious, and kind of distracting.
Production values must have been sacrificed due to a tight schedule because I have never been distracted at the North Shore Music Theatre. I found myself paying attention to flying trees during one of Adam’s very important solos. Often I wanted them out of my sight lines and I wonder why they are in during intermission at all just to fly out at the very beginning of Act II. There was a fairly simply staged trio in the end of Act I with Adam, Millie, and Gideon called “Love Never Goes Away.” Very well staged for the round, but the lighting completely stole focus as they randomly went on and off and ended with Adam’s face in complete shadow. This is one example, but lighting often annoyed and distracted me tonight. I hope this isn’t a budget issue for NSMT. If it is, let’s get those development people on overtime.
The risk here was a great one to take. The show has a lot of promise and I’m glad it got a trial here. Kudos to Jon Kimbell for once again promoting new work and nurturing it. I think what this production lacked was more involvement from the cast and crews we know and love. I saw too many “NSMT debuts” in the bios. It became clear throughout that there was not as much knowledge of the space as in shows past. Shows with those characteristics need more time in the space before opening.
Tip for future productions of this pretty well written musical. Keep it simple. The set, lighting, effects, and choregoraphy all could have used taming.
A critical roar,
Corey
The First Read
I’ve seen The Full Monty many times on Broadway and once at The North Shore Music Theatre here in Beverly, MA. I remember laughing, but I don’t remember crying.
As I sat here preparing for my next project, The Full Monty at Theatre III, I found myself in tears more often then I remember. This reminded me of the importance of the first read. In that first impression you find so many morsels that are so difficult to get to work as a finished product. You see a certain structure and the importance of that structure for the success of the production. I never saw this in my many times watching the production because it doesn’t always come across the way it was written. You’re seeing it second hand, someone’s interpretation to visually show you what they thought the author meant. The first read is your first real experience with the author him or herself.
I wrote down a lot of these first impressions and I’m hoping it will help me as I go into rehearsal on this in August. Casting is this month and I am very excited. More to come on this project, I am sure.
Been a while since we had some boring theatre bullroar. So there you go. Roar.
-Corey
Bad Timing of The Brilliant Speech
There are so many things Corporate Leaders could learn about leadership, team building, and logistics from putting on a show. I think I owe a lot of my success as a Director to my corporate skills as a Project Manager and vice versa.
Our office is getting ready for a big move from one location to what is, in my humble opinion, a much better location. Recently we invited the team over to the new space to check it out. They all arrived and assembled in the new break room and the first thing the leader did was give a big speech about the building, the many uses of the building, and the corporate goals around the use of the space. I realized as I looked around that no one was paying any attention. Even I was sort of eager to get moving around the building to capture people’s reactions to the new environment. The end result being that no one heard or understood what the leader was saying. They had other things on their minds. This is the most natural thing for a leader to do. They think they are setting the stage, but in reality, short and sweet and get to the point is much more effective. Give them the brilliance at the end. Keep em waiting for it and send them home with it. Much more effective.
So, how does this relate to theatre? In a great book, Notes on Directing, there is a small note, that urges all directors to never give the brilliant speech BEFORE the read-thru. Give it at the end. People are so anxious to hear everyone for the first time and nervous about the first rehearsal and being brilliant enough for everyone in their first line readings. Above, we had a crowd of people worried about where they were going to sit for the next few years of their career, and how noisy it was going to be, and what the views out the windows were going to look like. This audience would have been much more open and maybe even added to the conversation if it had happened at the end of the tour.
Boring bullroar for some, but I wanted to get that down as I am always intrigued at how we can bring theatre lessons into the workplace.
Bullishly yours,
Corey
Personalities and the Importance of the Assistant Director
I’ve thought for some time that as a director I should get a degree in psychology. Actor’s are so hard to read. When I direct, I try often to remember and channel what it feels like when I am on the other side of the fence. When I do that, I can often understand why I am getting attitude, why they question everything, etc.
Actors come in so many shapes and sizes.
There are “the clowns” who fool around the entire rehearsal and either deliver (or not) depending on their ability to “multitask”. These coincidentally are always the last ones offbook.
There are “the questioners” who doubt just about everything you do. Sometimes this is for good reason but most of the time there are reasonable answers to these many many questions. This is my least favorite as all it does 90% of the time is slow down rehearsal.
There are “the passive aggressives” who will agree with everything you say and then still do whatever they want to do. They will often hold on to this until you get mean and then let it go. More on this type later in the post.
There are “the golden children” that do everything you want them to do, and repeat that every time. These are of course, every director’s favorite.
However, there’s one more type which blends a little of the “golden child” with “the questioner” and comes out as an “intellectual actor.” These types can be fun, if you like coaching. They really want to know the answers to the questions but not because they doubt what you are doing, but because they are trying to be better actors and really hone in on the moment they are recreating. This can of course be tedious and it’s really hard to know if someone is asking question for the right reasons or because there is a trust issue.
Recently I had the hardest time breaking through to an actor on a project I was working on and my assistant director took them aside and did one on one work them until it started to work. What my Assistant Director figured out was that he was a “passive aggressive” who had his own ideas but was too afraid to tell me. Instead, he’d just nod in agreement and still do it the same way he did it before. I thought he was just a bad listener, but he heard every word I said to him.
I always knew that a Stage Manager was key to keeping a cast dynamic strong. They can complain about me to the SM, etc and it helps the whole system bond together. What I didn’t realize until recently was the power I had in having my assistant director work on the trouble areas to really figure out exactly what I wasn’t picking up on my own.
I guess this is a bull-rant. I will stop babbling now. If I have any director readers, would love your comments. Or if anyone would like to tell me “I suck” again like my last commenter, that’s cool too. At least he read my post 
The bull roars onward!
-Corey
Forgetting to Play
I am currently directing a middle school/high school production for a local regional theatre’s young company. The other day we ran Act I for the first time. Something happened during that rehearsal that I wanted to remember, so here I am boring you with the details. We ran Act I once and it was horrifying. All the staging, scene work, and music rehearsal seemed to have been for nothing. It looked as if we were going to have to reteach the entire show. We have two casts so we decided to run it a second time. Maybe it was cobwebs. It turns out it was to some extent, even though it was still pretty rough going.
Now. Here comes the part that made me remember what acting is all about. We got to a scene that we had never done and the kids asked if they could wing it. So I said, yes…. Well…… It was the best thing we had seen all night. They were engaged for the first time. They were discovering things, thinking on their feet, really listening to one another. They were “playing.”
This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t block scenes, stage musical numbers, and provide guidance, but it did remind me that I need to encourage them to “play”. No matter how many times we do things, how much we set something in stone, we must never forget to “play.” The older we get, the more we forget to do this. We put up walls and a lot of us stop playing all together both on and off stage. This is what makes working with kids so inspiring. It brings you back to the sandbox, when it was ok to fake like you were a dumptruck. VROOOOOOMMM!!
Ok, I think I’m babbling now. I am a little tired. Guess I’ll go to bed.
Bull<yawn>roar.
-Corey
Verb as Foundation
I do an exercise with most of my casts where I have them take a single sheet of paper and break it into two columns. One column they use to describe themselves and the other they use to describe their character. The impulse is always to describe both in adjectives, but I make them do it using only verbs. The more specific the action (verb) the better. I then have them compare the two lists. Those actions that they have on both are actions they don’t have to work too hard to implement on stage. Those actions that are not on the personal list will take a “substitution” or a “what if” to make happen. I beg the actors to bring themselves to the stage. To help them realize that I actually cast them for a reason. The reason being that they are who they are.
What I’ve only recently realized is the verb exercise is only the first layer. Sometimes in this art form we are asked to portray very specific characterizations where we do need to bring adjectives into our work. We need to show a physical ailment, and sometimes we’re even asked to be “fake.” I say “fake” because I believe adjectives make us “Act” and not “Be.” The adjective can come in to a character who is “acting” like someone he is not. This can help the audiences understanding, as what they are doing will seem fake or “put on” versus the real person they are watching on stage.
This post is mostly for my benefit so I remember this when next I perform this exercise with a cast. Hopefully it’s not inducing boredom.
I promise for more riveting posts over the next few weeks. And that’s no Bullroar!
-Corey
Da Bullroar
The Bullroar Report dissects theatre and sometimes delves into pop culture in both the trivial and academic. You’ll even get the ocassional boring directing or acting lesson. The Bullroar Podcast, is now on hiatus, but old episodes are available on iTunes or at the links below.
-
Archives
- May 2008 (1)
- April 2008 (6)
- August 2007 (1)
- July 2007 (3)
- June 2007 (5)
- May 2007 (8)
- April 2007 (16)
- March 2007 (2)
- February 2007 (2)
- January 2007 (1)
- November 2006 (3)
- October 2006 (1)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
