Having finished my MA and gone back to the day-job full time to save some cash I needed something to keep my directing juices flowing and, well, really just an excuse to get into a room with some actors which is, at the simplest level, the best thing about directing.

 

Cat and I have formed a very good relationship fortunately not ruined by her having to work with me - lighting my last two productions in the miniscule and poorly equipped Barons Court and the better equipped but challenged circumstances of my MA showcase at BAC.

 

Cat’s a modest woman but I eventually realised she was a well published author and we got onto the subject of plays. Of course, she had three drafted – varying hugely in scale, theme, historical setting but all demonstrating the scope of her imagination. She brilliantly supported a piece of devised work for another module of my MA dashing off great swathes of dialogue, monologues together with snatches of thoughts, images and ideas. Her talent excites me hugely and coming to this career slightly later in life finding excellent collaborators to work alongside is vital if I am going to progress – I don’t have the space and time of a director ten years younger.

 

What I was very clear about, and has been borne out in rehearsals, was that Cat was not in any way precious about her writing, whilst also taking it very seriously. She works quickly, instinctively and has a real feel for the theatre from her RADA Technical training. Almost regardless of whether not this particular play ‘makes it’ I think we are both learning a huge amount from the process.

 

It’s been an odd one for me to get to grips with; it’ neither devising, nor the full performance of a final play, or even, initially working towards the actual rehearsed reading. Traditionally, I’ve been very process driven (what Sarah Esdaile called my ‘stabilisers’) and am gradually trying to move my directing to somewhere more organic, less structured and less terrifying for actors as they see me consulting my detailed rehearsal plans. Therefore finding a process for this work-shopping was difficult and I felt that I was really adding little value and floundering.

 

The first rehearsal was a read through of draft 5 (having spent a lot of time in meetings with Cat and bouncing e-mails back and forth on all aspects of it) I got excellent feedback from the actors on the play and specifically their characters – journeys, objectives, consistency and fed this back to Cat. This resulted in a new draft and this was the pattern over the next 3 rehearsals.

 

Cat joined us for these middle sessions and we got a number of scenes on their feet and worked them in different ways, using different rehearsal methods. We discussed character attitude to the plays themes, discussed characters in lateral, non-logical ways useful for some actors and with the purpose of providing further stimulus to Cat. We read sections of the play and tried them with different objectives with basic notes like pace and energy. On the penultimate rehearsal we ran the whole play on its feet with basic set and no props allowing the actors to improvise through the whole and for Cat to get a sense of its shape and rhythm. I think I’d approach things slightly differently now – this should have been far more about what was useful to Cat and too much of the work wasted time and didn’t tell her too much.

 

Oddly for me, I hadn’t done enough work, struggling for a little motivation in a process without the firm deadlines and process that I am un-used to – basically, I wasn’t sure what work TO do and what would be wasting time in a text constantly changing. (not sure I had also fully re-charged my batteries either) Only yesterday’s rehearsal did this suddenly change. We were now working for the actors – preparing the piece for performance and this bought a new energy and focus. I had united the first 30 pages, planned the timing and heavily notated the text with questions, observations and options for the actors. The actors too had worked hard on some homework I set them – objective, obstacle, stakes, thought changes and ensuring every line was doing something active to another character (although I didn’t ask them to fully action the text) We worked quickly, with good purpose and with a great sense of energy and good humour – just one of those rehearsals where things start to click.

 

We got through 24 pages of what is currently a 70 page text, leaving us still plenty of work to do at our next rehearsal on the 24^th. I now have 7 days to provide Cat my final notes, ideas and questions on the text, leaving her a week to finalise it before handing it back to me and the cast. We’ll have to work very quickly on the 24^thto get through the rest in the same detail before one complete run through. Increasingly excited by the play and I’m really looking forward to the opinion of theatre professionals on it to take it to the next stage.

 

In this essay I will explore my experiences during rehearsals and the performances of my showcase production, The Ugly One by Marius Von Mayenburg, and evaluate areas that worked, as well as those which failed and provide room for further improvement.

 

The first area to address is the choice of play. Amongst a number of other factors I wanted to choose a play in a genre that I had not directed before and which I hoped would stretch me within a ‘safe’ environment – both in terms of support from tutors and having no financial outlay. Whilst I remain largely happy with the choice, the particular stylistic challenges of this high-tempo, surrealist farce was something I found extremely difficult. I have learnt, however, a tremendous amount about energy, tempo, design, non-naturalistic acting and style. The length of the show was a key consideration and I am pleased I had that foresight; the sixty minute running time reduced the impact of a slightly truncated rehearsal schedule of three weeks. I also enjoyed the play very much and felt passionate about its energy and comedy as well as the themes it explores and this ensured that my enthusiasm throughout the process was high.

 

Working only with actors that I had directed before brought its own challenges. I believe that I was largely able to maintain the separation between being ‘friends’ on a personal level as well as protecting the actor/director dynamic in the rehearsal room.  However, I did feel that my energy was occasionally lower than it had been during previous productions where more of the cast was new to me. It should be stressed that casting the play was extremely difficult, with a high drop-out rate amongst prospective auditionees; the impact of a long journey from central London and possibly the short run, resulted in only having six actors to audition. I am confident that without having my contacts, the quality of actor would have been a good deal lower, or taken a lot longer to source. I could have auditioned elsewhere which may have reduced the drop-out rate and ought to have investigated much earlier the potential for a transfer of the play, which might have made it a more attractive proposition for candidates.

 

This process was the first time I had been able to work as a director under professional conditions; with a consistent rehearsal space, full time hours, complete actor availability and without needing to juggle other commitments or production responsibilities. The team ethos, hard work and energy in the room was strong the vast majority of the time and contributed hugely both to the final result and to the very positive experience of all involved.

 

We spent time early in the process approaching the show as if it was a naturalistic play. I felt this was vital to understand the intricacies of the text and to ground rehearsals in a naturalistic way before experimenting with the form when the actors were off-book and had a greater knowledge of the play. However, by the time we started to find the shape of the performance it was clear that a lot of this time had been wasted. Although, it’s very difficult to judge whether the actors would have felt as free experimenting later without this grounding.

What I wanted to portray, both in acting and staging, was the naturalism of the first fifteen pages gradually becoming grotesque and surreal in both movement and acting style. This mirrors Lette’s (the protagonist) journey as his life is turned upside-down, he becomes beautiful and is thrown into a number of different, increasingly irrational, illogical experiences. Largely I think we achieved this, but not with the clarity of communication which we were striving for. The lack of a consistent acting approach may, in fact, have led to audience confusion and an inability to connect with the piece on anything more than a superficial, comic level, potentially alienating them from characters, theme and narrative.

I was clear that the production needed to move at speed and an accelerating pace as it progressed and the tempo quickened – scenes become shorter, scene changes swifter and line rhythms quicker. We used lots of different theatrical techniques – puppetry, mirroring and hypnosis, amongst others - to suggest the expressionistic feeling of the central character in each scene, but I am aware that this also drifted too often into looking like we threw everything at the stage, with limited unity and editing. Many of these ideas would undoubtedly have been discarded, refined and improved during a preview or a longer rehearsal period.

 

There were a number of scenes which failed through too much ‘business’ or through my inability to overcome some of the flaws in the play. This led to a number of lulls in the action, and therefore audience engagement and it took time to draw them back into the world of the play. Even though I had split the text into units and named them I didn’t share with these actors in this process, trying to go for a more organic approach. Whilst I was happy with this choice I failed to realise that by ‘uniting’ I had already identified most of the key narrative moments and could have better used this as a framework for quickly addressing issues and pushing the actors.

 

It took a long time to get the actors to commit to the size of acting that I wanted to explore and I ran out of ways to draw that from them other than coaxing and cajoling. This limitation restricted their options for the physicalisation of the characters and also meant that whereas some became grotesques, others were barely larger than naturalism, with the exception of heightened vocal projection and gesture. Initially I made some basic errors seeking greater energy but not providing a full enough vocal and physical warm up. I should have planned this more fully and utilised other resources at the University. I think the play did though achieve the intense, energised quality that it required even if  this was not coupled with consistency.

 

We tried lots of different ways of physically working with the text in terms of character and I experimented with much of what I had learned during the devising module of the M.A. – especially Laban and LeCoq - which were a much more successful way into these roles than the Chekhov-Alfreds ‘list’ work which we also pursued, in a ‘cut-down’ version. I have become used to staging by fixing a ground plan and then allowing the actors to discover movement organically and hadn’t anticipated the huge change in my role that this process – with a constantly changing setting and with non-naturalistic characters – would require. 

 

I think we used the space well keeping the whole audience engaged. The staging had constant movement, using the full length of the traverse and all of the furniture, and we were very aware of the technical staging requirements as well as tying this movement with the action of the play. We spent a lot of time trying to achieve the correct balance between making the movement both expressionistic visually interesting as well as ensuring the audience followed the narrative. We edited a lot in the final week and even the final rehearsal – a sports scene and a second scene in an imaginary car were both simplified - as I became more confident that the dialogue was enough to hold attention. This was another area where with previews I might have stripped back and refined further. I was pleased with our innovation and imagination throughout the show and especially the contribution of the cast and am confident that I created an atmosphere where the team felt able to contribute ideas.

 

I made some simple improvements in my working with actors. Clarifying the objectives and then asking them to play with greater or lesser stakes, obstacles or time pressure always led to a new discovery – especially in a piece of this heightened style. Giving actors something to do in a scene (especially the more passive character) provided interesting options and the more active character a stronger obstacle to play against. I used actioning work sporadically to bring detail to a scene lacking it and used other exercises - throwing a ball to each other with different qualities for example - which brought home the detail needed in a scene, and actors having to ‘talk’ to each other as if through a pane of glass made them work harder to communicate.

Initially I struggled to explore the detail of the dramatic action, to untie the ‘knots’ in the writing and to understand the dynamics of the play. This did improve, especially after the second of Sarah’s feedback sessions, as we neared the end of the penultimate week of rehearsals. In the past, I may have too often relied on the actors improving ‘automatically’ once books are down and the role better rooted, rather than immediately getting into the detail of the action. In the final week I found myself working more quickly, choreographing movement and staging and making greater demands of the actors, but also staging in a more lateral and imaginative way. I was reacting faster to tell the actors exactly what I was reading from them or the need for greater clarity and detail. I shared fewer positive notes with the cast than I ever have previously and although I don’t know if it affected them too badly I do wonder whether I took the balance a little too far the other way. A key part of my role is to instil confidence – this was a style that required full commitment from the actors – and I may have got the balance slightly wrong. Overall, I felt better able to react and use appropriate tactics for different issues and actors, as opposed to relying on pre-planned exercises and techniques. I do remain wedded to a few of my ‘stabilisers’, and am prone to over-prepare and then have so much material that I can’t react quickly enough in the moment.

 

There were a number of new ideas I tried in the process which worked well. We read-through the show twice on the first day, the first a traditional reading and the second, an ‘improvising movement’ run, with texts but also with a few props and set which gave the actors a quick sense of timing, motion and of each other in space. I also tried a version of Mike Alfred’s logic text work. After a couple of glasses of wine, and late in the process, we re-read the play and I asked the cast to play their lines in a new way – changing  emphasis, coming in quicker, slower, higher - to freshen up the text. Many of these discoveries then fed back into the next rehearsal and were a good point of reference. Towards the end of rehearsals I also arranged a run with side-coaching. At that stage when they were secure in their words and movement it felt great to provide both a push and positive re-enforcement in the moment.

 

The choice of traverse staging was something we were happy with. The wheels on furniture provided the speed of action that I felt was vital and also tied in with the metaphor of the assembly line which guided much of our thinking. The design provided great motion; the dotted lines suggesting the lines on the face of a plastic surgery patient, but also a sports court signifying speed and status. The white plastic and steel of the chairs and tables had the clinical feeling of a factory or hospital, although it should be noted that the trolleys were not fit for purpose, potentially dangerous and needed running repairs by the final performance. The props were problematic and not unified with the remainder of the set. The actors didn’t have them early enough and were not well practiced with them which meant their use was messy, unclear and undeveloped.

 

Trying to get all of the team in the same place at the same time was impossible throughout the rehearsal period, but I did too little to counteract the impact this had.

 

As the speed of the text does not allow actors to change costume to play their different roles, one costume has to serve each actor for all characters. Business suits therefore worked well for the more naturalistic beginning of the play. To achieve the homogeneity I wanted for the lift sequence at the end, the actors gradually removed pieces of costume to end in dark trousers and a white t-shirt. However this told a confused story to the audience, was not well planned and was clarified so late in the process that it was poorly executed.

 

Working with this amount of lighting was a very steep learning curve for me, having experienced limited lighting in an amateur environment and using only twelve lamps in previous fringe productions at Barons Court Theatre.

 

There were a lot of technical challenges getting the lighting rigged during Get In. A number of these I had anticipated and had discussed with both Cat and Al, but I under-estimated the time it would take to get the kit in, up and focused.  Due to the traverse staging, the show was particularly complicated and Cat was busy on show call at the National Theatre, meaning she couldn’t see a complete run (especially problematic as staging was constantly changing) and couldn’t arrange a site visit to BAC.

 

We came in on budget and, despite my criticisms the quality of set, props and lighting were high, even where certain choices could have been better realised.

 

Tech bought a number of challenges, both aspects I should have foreseen, others I couldn’t have anticipated but coped with well and further problems that were outside of our control. The BAC relationship was problematic; getting responses to requests for site visits and indeed all aspects of the production was difficult and led to many design decisions being left until much later than planned. I didn’t involve Al in the timing of the Get In and Tech day and perhaps by him not having ownership, the team weren’t driving to achieve the Tech Rehearsal time I had planned.

 

The quality and amount of staff time from BAC was limited and they added little to the efforts of the tech team on the day. There was a contractual error, meaning that although I had planned to be in the space until 11pm (and this was our official finish time) this had not been communicated to BAC staff so we were forced to leave at 10pm, losing a valuable hour in what was already a very tight schedule. There were further issues with inexperience in the BAC and St. Mary’s teams which meant that although we had a lot of staff, the time it took to hang and focus the lamps was considerably longer than had been anticipated.

 

I’m not sure I should have attended the Get In. I wanted to be there to show support (and be a pair of hands) but I needed my energy for later in the day during Tech and may have put the crew on edge. My resulting lack of energy, as well as reduced time, meant that we were unable to correct many of the focusing and balance problems of sound and lighting. The silhouette scene, which I wanted to be a highlight of the show, failed and I should have had a Plan B knowing that we would be unable to resolve this until we got into the space. Furthermore, with tired actors, lacking concentration, there was an injury on a lift which led to both delay and considerable worry for the actor and rest of the team. I did manage to calmly and quickly re-stage all the impacted scenes the next morning and in the end the actor was fine, but it was a good lesson to learn. Despite the issues, much of the tech team was strong, I managed to find a very good DSM and she ran the show efficiently and professionally throughout Tech and the short run.

 

I enjoyed the experience very much and it’s given me a taste of what professional theatre can be like, whetted my appetite to do it again and given me plenty of areas to improve upon before I embark upon my next project. The reaction of the audiences was extremely positive and I am confident that, with previews, I would have corrected many of the plays shortcomings.

 

 

 

For my showcase production at the Battersea Arts Centre I have chosen The Ugly One, a farce by German writer Marius Von Mayenburg, first performed in the UK in 2007, at the Royal Court’s Jerwood Theatre Upstairs.

My criteria for choosing it was governed by a number of practical and artistic factors. I was keen to direct a play that lent itself to a minimal set enabling me to utilise the £500 budget effectively, without having to sacrifice quality in design. I was conscious of the need to find a piece that could work on a small scale and also believe this play, being both funny and just an hour long, will prove more attractive to industry professional invitees. 

I also wanted to choose a play which I loved and on first reading I laughed often and finished the play in one very short sitting. I enjoyed reading other work by the playwright, especially The Stone, and believe he is a writer of great skill and imagination.  I was eager to choose a play which would push me further than previous projects. The comedy, sparse staging and non-naturalism force the director to find imaginative solutions to all aspects of the production. Furthermore, I have enjoyed the farce plays on the M.A. reading list and wanted to direct for the first time in this genre.

Both the running time and the fact that The Ugly One is a four-hander were factors, as I knew I would be unable to rehearse full time for a standard four-week period. Furthermore, the fact that the cast are all relatively young was ideal, as my experience has been that finding strong older actors for unpaid work is difficult. Fortunately three performers whom I had directed before wanted to work with me again, so I was able to cast the final role from a strong position.

I used Casting Call Pro and Castnet to find auditionees for the final role of Karlmann. Due to the impact of various Bank Holidays and the fact that my production is the first of the M.A. productions, I auditioned on April 18^th, to enable rehearsals to start on May 9^th. I had twenty-seven applications and, having filtered through CV’s based on training, age and experience, I invited fifteen actors to audition, with a week’s notice. In my experience the ‘drop-out’ rate on unpaid work is around 30% before auditions, so I anticipated auditioning around ten actors on the day. As it was, the impact of a long journey from central London and possibly the short run, meant that I was only able to audition six actors. Fortunately, two of these were very good and I was able to cast the play in good time and with a team I was very happy with.

I found my creative team in much the same way, using Stage Jobs Pro and personal recommendations. An excellent Lighting Designer who worked with me on a previous fringe production agreed to design the lighting. After meeting five candidates I chose an excellent young Designer who wanted a final project before going to the RSC for a year. On Sound I had fewer applications but fortunately one ideal candidate, a recent LAMDA graduate currently working at the Royal Court. Finding a DSM has proved more difficult and the person I had chosen pulled out before rehearsals began to take a paid position. I have decided therefore to pay expenses to a DSM whom I will invite to join the rehearsal process during the final week of rehearsals. This is far from ideal, but seems the best solution given the practical problems of the unpaid nature of the work, the length of rehearsal time and location.

The Ugly One is a farce centred around the character Lette, who provokes many changes in his life and the lives of others around him when he has plastic surgery to alter his ‘unspeakably ugly’ face. The remaining seven characters are played by three other actors playing multiple roles, each with the same names – Karlmann, Scheffler and Fanny. The language of the play develops from a simple, non-naturalistic farce, becoming more absurd and surreal as the plastic surgery makes no visible change to the face of each character and as more characters have the same surgery to look like Lette. The play explores many themes in a highly comic and theatrical way, but as it develops becomes darker and deeply thought-provoking.

Von Mayenburg utilises theatre’s capacity to engage an audience’s imagination and to suggest the contrast between inner and skin-deep beauty by making it clear in the play-text that there must be no change in the appearance of the actors after surgery and that the actors must be ‘normal looking’. Whilst farcical it is also political and reminiscent of the work of Fo and Ionesco – Rhinoceros, most obviously. The play appeals to my own sense of what theatre should be, entertaining and engaging, whilst also retaining a strong sense of metaphor about the human condition.

I began play preparation based on the analysis I have learnt during the course, from previous experience and wider reading. This covers a huge range, some of which I will cover here. Identifying the themes of the play in terms of opposition I have found a vital tool for discovering the world of the play and influencing design and staging. In The Ugly One there are many themes the playwright explores, amongst them:

·         Conformity – Individualism.

·         Surface Identity – Inner Value.

·         Consumption – Acquisition.

·         Craft – Mass Production.

·         Alienation – Connection.

This is a play with idea and comic spectacle at the forefront. The narrative is both compelling and has two excellent twists. The characters are largely two-dimensional and become more homogenised as the play progresses. The language is comic and occasionally poetic, but above all rapid. The play is beautifully structured, each of the play’s thirty-eight ‘French’ scenes change quickly, pivoting on a line of dialogue as, for example Lette’s conversation with his boss changes into a scene with him arguing with his wife. At each change the tempo is altered, which is not only comically satisfying, but also keeps the audience engaged.

Like many farces, the play begins at an even tempo as we are introduced to the characters and the narrative is established. As the plot develops the pace becomes increasingly more frantic. It is realistic dialogue, but also rapid and funny. Sentences are short with few long speeches, words are largely short and dominated by personal pronouns and words connected with looking, seeing, cutting, breaking, moulding, sculpting and shaping. There is a lack of colour, providing a clinical, neutral feeling to much of the text. Several of the long speeches are technical and  purposefully dull.

 

There are a number of  lines that stand out, but this final speech seems to me the central one, when Lette’s identity has become confused to such an extent that he no longer knows who he is:

 

“I’m sure you want my best, or his, whoever you think is me. Or maybe you don’t and you think I’m Christian? Maybe that is me, or am I Karlmann, where is Karlmann now anyway and who’s with my wife now, is that me or is this me, or me, or who is this?” (Von Mayenburg, Methuen, 2007: 58)

The central image of the play follows soon after: Lette staring in narcissistic wonder at his mirror image in the surgically-altered Karlmann. The pair exchange, in stichomythic dialogue the most poetic passage of the play, a personal pronoun on every line, highlighting the obsession with identity that runs throughout:

Karlmann: And me.

Lette: And me.

Karlmann: And me.

Lette: And me.

Karlmann: And me.

Karlmann and Lette: I love me.

Their faces slowly move closer until they’re kissing.

 

One aspect that was clear to me was that we would stage the play in traverse. The play is full of references to mirrors and the traverse immediately suggests to an audience a mirroring of themselves. It also puts great pressure on the playing space and as Lette is always on stage, and what he looks like is the central consideration in the objectives of himself and other characters, this allows him to be permanently ‘on show’. The length of scenes (the longest is only six minutes long) also enables the traverse staging to work well, as does the lack of a static set and the quick changes of scene.

I have written what I call the ‘Audience Question’ at the bottom of every page of the text. I captured this early in my reading, before the full analysis, hoping that these questions would be what the audience were asking consciously and sub-consciously throughout. This will, I hope, ensure that as I get to know the play intimately, I retain an awareness of the ‘first-time’ audience’s thoughts, something I have struggled with previously.

There is a strong sense of conflict running through the play. Lette wants to be respected and successful. When he is prevented from presenting his invention he has surgery, which unleashes new desires in him and others. These bring him into greater conflict with his wife and colleagues, until he seems to get ‘everything’: money, limitless sex and an easy life. However, when others start getting identical faces to him the conflict is renewed; he is brought into conflict with his surgeon and the woman with whom he has been having an affair. His assistant also getting ‘his’ face brings him into new struggles at work (he loses his job) and with his wife (who is sleeping with the assistant) He is brought into further conflict with the surgeon who refuses to reverse the original surgery and then at the climax by Fanny and Karlmann who prevent him from killing himself. The play’s resolution comes when he sees his own beauty in another’s face.

 

I presented my analysis to the designers, and showed them a series of images and provided initial ideas on music. They include the art of Bridget Riley and Rothko’s black and white paintings, manufacturing flow charts, global brand logos, factory workers and images of human beauty. I presented aspects of my ongoing research in a number of areas: Plastic Surgery, Beauty, Electrical Manufacturing and Research, Assembly Lines, and Marxist Theories of Alienation. I have researched previous productions of the play, here in the UK and in Toronto, Perth and New York. It has proved open to widely different concepts and I was not surprised to learn that in the first UK production several entire concepts were thrown out during rehearsals.

I was keen to find a metaphor for the production which, to an extent, would inform the design and staging. This piece suggests many different possibilities, fairgrounds and laboratories, especially, but I have been captured by the idea of the assembly line – the epitome of modern manufacturing process with alienated workers, producing identical products in an efficient manner.

Early production meetings covered practical issues and provided an opportunity to have wide-ranging discussions about our separate analysis, pooling ideas and trying to remain open to all possibilities. As the play’s imagery concerns identity, skin, presentation, plastic, cutting, sculpting and shaping we are focusing on plastic as the material of the play – pliable, modern, manufactured and, of course, central to the idea of cosmetic surgery. We also want to explore symmetry and asymmetry in staging and design – a key aspect of beauty in nature, mathematics and in faces.

The set should be simple, chairs and perhaps a table or two. We are also considering using costume rails as screens. These will enable us to create different staging areas, but will need to be carefully plotted to ensure good sightlines. The use of strips of plastic attached vertically to each rail at top and bottom will enable us to screen the surgery. This also presents opportunities such as enabling actors to be hidden and revealed to the audience and for limbs to poke through the screens, suggesting the division between bodily parts and identity. Having the furniture on castors enables speed of movement and opens up other possibilities for staging and moving actors. The props may be real, entirely imagined or using a small number of objects which function for all.

Due to the limited nature of the set we are confident of being able to produce the play on budget, especially as labour costs are likely to be low, and are confident of being able to borrow much of what we need. The exact amount provided for each department will be decided as the rehearsal and design processes continue. The small set allows us the luxury of ‘fixing’ the design a lot later than normal, a fortnight before the opening.

Our discussions on sound have been around both the practical aspects of creating the world of the play with limited set and the use of sound and music at particular moments, such as the surgery or Lette’s breakdown. We will explore jingles, adverts, the use of manufacturing sounds and echo. The sound could become more ‘manufactured’ or ‘Pop-like’ as the play progresses. We may utilise plastic, ‘tinny’ sounds, redolent of an insubstantial reality in this play where people are obsessed with external, not inner beauty. We will also consider the actors making all of the play’s sound effects. Much of the discussion on lighting has been along similar lines. To what extent does the lighting need to provide information to the audience, how much should it be suggestive of Lette’s change during the play and to what extent are these compatible? One of our main considerations was how clear to make each scene change. As the speed makes it impossible via set or costume, sound and lighting may have to help the audience (alongside the actors) in understanding setting. But whether we want constant snapping light and sound changes is still undecided. The choice may, of course, not be one or the other; as the content of this play changes, it may be that the form in terms of sound and light changes too and that we want the audience to become as disorientated as the characters.

As there is no time to change costume we need to find a solution that works for the multiple characters and is dramatically satisfying. One early idea is to change the costume of all characters so that by the end of the play they become less individual, with hospital gowns or the identical garments of factory workers in clinical environments.

Due to my work restrictions, I have arranged to rehearse three weeks on a part time basis (Mondays and Fridays) followed by two weeks full time. This structure enables us to spend the first three weeks exploring the text and getting some early staging ideas for each scene. The penultimate week of rehearsals will then be spent in a wide ranging physical exploration of the possibilities of the play before we bring the whole together during the final week.

Due to the nature of the characters, I have decided against a full character list exercise with imagined histories, but have asked the actors to do the basic list work:

·         List everything your character says about him/her self.

·         List everything your character says about other people.

·         List everything other characters say about you.

·         List all stage directions about your character.

·         List all facts about your character from the text.

Although the play can work well with naturalistic acting, I am keen to experiment with other forms. We are using physical techniques to approach the characters, especially Lecoq’s Seven States of Tension and Laban Efforts. Amongst the other physical ways of exploring the text we will be trying are:

·         Sequences of small, devised movements – repeated, at changing speed and ‘cannoned’ with other actors.

·         Other actors constantly manipulating Lette who cannot move from the centre of the stage.

·         Lette moved at the beginning of each scene by non-active actors or the other character(s).

·         Cannoned action in mirrors – hair, grooming, teeth, make-up, etc.

·         Pointing on every personal pronoun.

·         Large gestures on every line, worked slowly and then sped up, but with the same size.

·         Mirroring one another via gesture and speech pattern.

·         Characters set a gesture before or after saying the line, as opposed to naturalistically.

·         Characters never face one another, so divorce themselves form physical connection with others.

My rehearsal text is something I prepare in great detail. The A5 page of the text is arranged in the middle of a piece of A4. This provides room for pre-rehearsal notes around the text, as well as for further discoveries through the process and practical notes on staging. I note in the text details for each scene on Given Circumstances, Objective and Obstacle, Status, Stakes, Time Pressure, Character Observations and Thought Changes, amongst many other things. On the reverse of each page I have a photocopied basic ground plan to mark particular pieces of ‘blocking’ that we have found.  

I split the play into scenes based on changes of active characters, and further sub-divide the play into named units, governed by changes in character objectives. I have decided in this rehearsal process not to share this structuring with the actors as I have done in the past, but to use it to focus my rehearsal and structure each session.

To schedule the rehearsals I have taken the thirty-eight scenes and collected them into five rehearsal groups. This enables me to work in detail on each scene, without needing to call every actor to each session. I tend to work backwards when scheduling from the Technical Rehearsal, scheduling ‘runs’ first and then broadly dividing the ‘setting’ time as equally as possible based on the length of each scene. For now, I have planned in detail the first three weeks and will schedule the two full time weeks later, enabling me to react to progress and retain flexibility. Each day begins at 10.30am, allowing the actors to have cheaper travel. The day is split into five sessions, providing regular breaks and an hour-long lunch. Sessions will vary between character work, physical games and exercises, desk work on the text, naturalistic approaches to setting and physical approaches to the text, based on factors such as those detailed above.

 

In terms of marketing the first decision was to find an image. We considered a number of possibilities: the face of Lette, possibly with plastic surgery dotted lines across his face, mirrors, conveyer belts and factories. I found some excellent images of stress balls which seemed to fit perfectly. These stress balls have faces and can be squeezed which suits the themes and narrative of the play. They are also mass manufactured, made of plastic and used in places of work. The image is also both funny and slightly disturbing due to the ‘expression’ on the face of the ball. A copy of the flyer is included in the appendix.

We have already begun marketing over the internet. Joint marketing with other M.A. students will be arranged shortly, enabling us the produce flyers and posters. We will be inviting casting directors, agents, artistic directors of fringe venues and directors by e-mail and then by post (possibly with the inclusion of a stress ball, depending on cost.)

I am confident at this stage that all aspects of the production are in good shape and look forward to continuing to discover more about the play, as the design and rehearsal processes continue and intensify.

 

 

 

I'm keen to trap as many of my thoughts, hopes, fears, anxieties and joys of this year of study as I can. This seems as good a place to do it as any!

Cogs willl be out of action until next year now as I concentrate on the MA. Nick, who was in the cast of both Timon and TLD is keen to direct, but I don't have time to produce any more than to direct so I doubt we'll see anything on this during the year either.

The course has been terrrific so far and we're now in reading week so it seems a good time to reflect on what I've learnt and what I've thought.

The guided reading has been wonderful and eye-opening.The discipline and time to read far more plays as well as theatre texts is almost worth taking the course for alone. I've read some wonderful plays - Mamet, Feydeau and Sherman especially - and that's started me thinkingn more about the kind of theatre I want to direct even more, but also the kind of the theatre I should use this year to direct - the farce especially.

In terms of directing texts I'm doing exactly what I've been doing for the past few years - reading a text, marking key passages and then putting those key passages on the PC for future reference. This way I take more in and have to force mysefl to take what is really relevant/new/revelatory from each.

I'm also finding more time to search You Tube for theatre and dance work, to see more plays and to talk more aboout theatre with like-minded people

In terms of the course, the main work is split into four sections - Contemporary Theatre which I'm enjoying a lot - history of theatre, funding, etc. It's been useful to have my views challenged and tested and, in some cases, my opinion altered.

The two directing modules have been very useful too - I've learnt more about working on monolgues in the past 20 days than in the previous 4 years. My toolkit of games, exercises and patterns of work have been greatly expanded - we had our first practical session on this on Friday. I probably learnt as much being directed as directing so it was very insightful.

The text to Production module has also been a useful clarifier of uniting, which I've learnt about through auto-didactic methods until now. This has been honed to a degree and the sense of it and application of it throughout the rehearsal period has been terrific.

I am feeling closer, already, to establishing a working method for me, incorporating elements of both this course and the RADA one, as well as my own experience and reading. No doubt this will be further sharpened during the remaining part of the year.

A wonderful start!

I thought for the final blog it might be nice again to (largely) share what I sent out to the cast…

 
…. Well here we are - I hope you've all enjoyed relaxing the last few days, getting your evenings back and moving on to new and exciting projects. I wanted to share with you all the final budget information and lots of other thoughts to get everything wrapped up.
 
I spoke to you all at one point about 'measures of success' - what does that look like - is it just getting a good review? A profit? Is it my Mum liking it?! As always with any kind of project there are lots of different things that make this up and I thought I'd run through a few of my thoughts on these with you:
 
Artistic and Audience 
 
Overall I'm terrifically pleased with what we achieved with this play. We had 3 strong reviews and lots of terrific feedback and I was satisfied that the heart of the play I wanted to centre the production around, came through loud and clear. The animal work, status, focusing and alterations to key roles worked well and those bits of the script that were eggy were covered by good acting!
 
The play clearly split opinion - you'll all have found that too I expect, but the play was full of superb, individualised performances, the design tied in wonderfully well with the acting and we utilised the space better than I could have hoped. Other than some illness it was a very smooth run under Jade's expert management, with a great sense of team spirit, despite a very large cast in a very tiny space - a testament to your patience and professionalism.
 
It's too soon to give many more thoughts than that to be honest. I still muse on the first play I ever did, the mistakes I made, things I'd do differently now, and I'm sure you do too. I need more distance to properly assess it.
 
Artistic Development
 
I learnt a huge amount from all of you. It was great to work with professional designers for the first time and I fear I may be spoilt for the future because of it!
 
The text work was a really valuable experience - cutting characters and text as well as swapping lines to increase the stage time of Satin (especially) was all a steep learning curve, but one which will help me in future as I approach texts, even those I don't cut (deciding what's vital in a play and what can go is so important, of course) Actually I could have been more brutal. We were probably still 10-15 mins too long and I could have been braver and more ruthless in areas. In large part though, the text worked and I enjoyed how collaborative the work on it became in rehearsals. I also should have had more courage and used the actioning process more fully – it’s so time-consuming I got frightened off but those scenes were we did it early we saved time later having worked at that depth.
 
This is not a fishing exercise, but I hope, whether you use some of the actioning or animal work again, that the process was good food for thought and may have introduced some ideas that will be useful for you in future productions either with us or elsewhere.

Commercial
 
We made a loss of £684, but in my head it feels like a break-even due to the charity donation! I had budgeted the play at selling to 50% houses and in the end we just about got there. It was a difficult show to sell and I certainly made some naive errors on both the poster and the copy which I shan't repeat. So, I'm afraid,  there is no profit to be shared, but you'll be pleased to know I am not now penniless either!
 
I didn't delegate enough and therefore was both a little too stretched and stressed in a number of areas and I definitely missed an AD - hopefully another lesson learned. Emma bore the brunt of that and it's thanks to her that I didn't just completely explode!

A few other thoughts on some of the cost aspects:
 
Lighting was low-cost - Cat used the birdies we'd bought for Timon brilliantly well and we invested in the kit for the fire which we'll keep for the company.

Costume and Set - Katie did an amazing job financially as well as artistically and we came in substantially under-budget on the costume and pretty much bang on in terms of the set. Russell did great work, calling in favours and calling up old friends to get us a good deal on the scaffolding - without that the whole experience would either have cost a lot more or been artistically far less satisfying. You also spent only half of the money allocated to you all for props so thanks for being so frugal there.

Rehearsal Costs: Despite having more sessions, costs were lower than Timon due to having more rehearsals at Kew (£5 an hour) and Dan getting us a great deal (well...free!) in Wapping. The theatre had already waived the rehearsal costs there, due to our flexibility on a number of dates where other companies had mucked up.

Publicity: In hindsight, I probably over-spent. I have no doubt that thousands of people saw the publicity in one way or another, but then decided they didn't fancy it. Got to take that on the chin and think about what it was that didn't grab people - basically it didn't look like a fun night out?! We also didn't manage to get the press interest I had hoped for, despite a lot of work and some obvious tie-ups. Thanks to all of you who flyered and postered and e-mailed. A special mention to Sandy who went above and beyond the call of duty.

Theatre Costs: These remained relatively low and the place is a bargain. But with that comes a number of draw-backs. I don't really believe the theatre has much of a loyal, regular audience. No CC facilities, no website or on-line booking facilities and poor publicity material (including 'box office' spelt incorrectly on two consecutive season leaflets....) Maybe what you save on the theatre you lose on lower ticket sales? There is also no immediate financial incentive for the theatre to sell tickets - which is not to say they don't care, but merely that maybe as long as the space isn't dark they feel their job is 90% done and they don't have to innovate.
 
Charity - I'm extremely proud that we have raised £732 for Shelter, as well as a good deal of awareness for them. Hopefully the play will make a difference to someone's life in a more concrete way than we can often hope for in theatre (despite our claims to the contrary!)
  
So all it remains for me to say is thank you all for giving up so much of your time for The Lower Depths. We've achieved a huge amount with this play and I am proud to have worked with each and every one of you.
 
Love
 
Matt

 

Having stayed away for a week, it was great to go back to see the play on Friday evening.
 
I had intended to see the second half after a radio interview on Thursday evening, but ended up speaking to someone who had come along to see the play. We were enjoying our conversation so much that we missed the second half and carried on chatting!
 
This is, of course, one of the benefits of the internet and he had first heard about the play on a Guardian CIF article. The way like-minded people can find out about people and plays of interest is just terrific!
 
I really enjoyed the play on Friday - having had that distance meant that I was far less hyper-critical and able to enjoy it. A friendly audience, further excellent feedback (including from very respected theatre professionals) also eased my worries. The play certainly continues to divide opinion - it would be easy to dismiss those people who hadn't enjoyed it, but there's no obvious pattern - for some people it's just doing nothing for them. Ho hum.
 
I made a key change on Saturday night too. I have been very conscious about this issue of people not 'engaging' with the play and have been considering how I make it more obvious that they're not supposed to approach it as a naturalistic play with a basic narrative structure.
 
Rather than having the pre-set as a naturalistic period of 15 minutes when the audience enter the 'world' of the play which we have been doing we discussed collectively being actors during these 15 minutes, not characters, engaging with the audience and each other as actors and then changing to characters as the play begins. In this way the hope is the audience are immediately slightly distanced from the action and above to observe and think more than empathise. At least that's the idea!
 
I wasn't strongly, strongly tied to the idea and felt (and still feel) that we might lose something but it did provide a wonderful atmosphere to the beginning of the play with cast and audience much more animated and lively than hitherto.
 
We reviewed on Sunday evening and have left it in place, but not for the interval. I'm not sure how consistent that is (no, I am sure - it's not consistent at all!) but it seemed a good compromise and I hope that it will work. Either way too many of the audience still, I don't think, get that and therefore leave the theatre feeling disappointed. It's too late to do too much to that but on reflection (and possibly because I'm in the middle of Gaskills 'A Sense of Direction') I think I could have gone entirely Brechtian with it - describing what would happen in the next scene, even more direct address, less naturalistic costume?
 
Anyway, it's all useful for reflection but fairly academic now - we finish in a week, I shall probably only see the play in full once more and am far more committed now to the reading I must do for my course!
 

We're a week in now and, after a night off, the cast are about to enter the second week of the play, rested (I hope!) and raring to go.

They'll be boosted by a couple of good reviews (4 stars from Remote Goat, especially) and hopefully at that wonderful stage where they are secure enough in what (broadly) to expect from the audience and each other, they have a deep knowledge of their lines, actions and objectives but haven't yet had to fight against losing concentration!

I've been staying away a little more than I had originally planned. Partly because I have a huge amount of reading to get started on for the MA, partly because I have been neglecting some other areas of my life that I also need to concentrate on and give some time too.

I also felt the first few days I was suffering a bit of a crisis of confidence. I seemed to be second-guessing audience responses to each line, seeing fault in absolutely every aspect of the production and not being anything like as positive as I had been through the process. I decided I was in danger of being a negative influence on the cast and that, at this stage, the best thing for me to do was leave them to it - aside from 1/2 very clear simple guiding statements or practical suggestions.

I have also had to re-learn how one just can't please everyone. We've definitely had some walkers from the show - it hasn't grabbed them, spoken to them or they've disliked the staging, acting, claustrophobia - but others have responded incredibly positively. I think I'd rather be splitting opinions than strolling safely.

The good review helps of course - although more in the sense of alleviating possible embarrasment and also giving encouragement to the cast that they're in something they can feel proud of (and selling tickets) I am aware of what I think the productions shortcomings are and what has worked even better than I hoped - no amount of reviews could (or should) alter that.

It's an often repeated analogy but it is just like children.

• For some time (double the rehearsal period actually!) this play was just mine, I dreamed about it, prepared its future, read all the books I could about it.
• After meeting Katie and Cat and casting the play, suddenly it was shared between all 17 of us - all responsible for our own elements, but with me guiding the progress - being the loving parent, doting now and again, and disciplining too.
• The cast being to love it as much as you do and that shared sense of commitment and excitment is bewitching.
• On opening night you can really do no more and hand it over, hoping that, like children, rather than them needing you, you have taught it well enough to allow it to be independent of you.
• You hope everyone else loves it and you hope that your actors (delicate enough at the best of times) will be protected from people saying horrible things about it!!
• From then on, trying to stop it going off on its own direction becomes increasingly more difficult and eventually you have to decide that any corrections you try to make will probably be thrown back in your face and that the best course of action is a little benign neglect and some love every now and again.

I'm going back in on Thursday, after nearly a week away from it and expecting (maybe hoping?) to see quite a different show. Learning to be excited about that, rather than terrified, ought to be a good lesson if I'm going to progress in this ridiculous profession!

 

Well, we’re into the run now and the first few days have been fascinating. The numbers have been good and we’ve received some excellent independent feedback that I had requested from a couple of places. I’ve re-produced those at the bottom of this blog post. Some obviously have loved the production and others have found it problematic – that’s the beauty of theatre!

I love the play and was desperate to do it in the space, but have wrangled from the start with the lack of narrative, huge number of characters and the perception of his work as overtly political and dogmatic.

Stanislavski tried to make it a more hyper-real story to engage the audience in the quality of the acting and the characters development, but left the audience floundering in Act 4 as all the key characters of the 'narrative' have gone and a minor character (played by himself) suddenly had all these huge political speeches. With 18 characters, mostly with equal stage time, Gorky clearly didn't want us to follow any one story but to see the effect of poverty on people and how they deal with it; and, crucially, to focus on the conflict between, not one character and another, but between concepts of 'truth' v the 'consoling lie' - an incredibly political theme, now as then.

 I've tried to provide my own answers and 'vision' (alright, alright) to overcome some of the structural issues, but the more political aspects can still sit badly with people. Now, I'm not so arrogant to think I've executed perfectly or that my cast are faultless, but it is fascinating to get feedback from some of the audience who struggled to empathise with characters, as if that's just obviously the point of drama, as if unless they're swept along with a story it's somehow not 'worked'.

 I feel some people assume that I must have wanted them to empathise and 'engage' (whatever that actually means) and I've not carried it off ,as opposed to it being just a type of play that  just doesn't operate under the same rules and, maybe, just isn't their thing. Of all the more critical comments they've all, largely, been around that aspect of the play. Audiences are never wrong of course, even when they disagree with each other (!) and so it's all valuable and good for planning future productions.

 Of course, it could be the way I've directed it, cast it, cut it, etc but I am now questioning whether people just want to care about individual human stories first and foremost and, its therefore understandable that playwrights often take that path, even when producing political drama. Maybe they're right to do so?

 Oh, rambling...I'll shut up now!

1,

Our group was made up of 4 girls in their mid twenties, and a couple in their mid sixties. The stage setting was amazing, and both it and the venue were just perfect for this play.  Our group agreed that we really felt as if we were in the hostel with the actors.

 We didn’t know the play beforehand, but felt that the production had made a play that is a hundred years old, relevant to today.  The standard of acting was outstanding, with all characters being very believable.  Our only slight criticism would be that a couple of the characters – who were supposed to be loud - were just over-loud for such a small setting. 

 It’s a depressing subject – but it’s meant to be – and we wouldn’t hesitate to recommend the play to others.   

2,  

 An overall enjoyable performance although I found it difficult to fully engage with any of the characters or the essence of the play. I found the stage set suitably claustrophobic, although to the point that it was too much so, considering the numbers of actors involved. The actor’s movements were clearly sometimes hindered by the limited space.

 3,

 In the incommodious basement of the 'Curtains Up' Barons Court a cast of fourteen directed by Matt Beresford brought to life Maxim Gorky's 'The Lower Depths'.
 
In all honesty it was the cramped conditions and Katie Lias's wonderfully crafted set which stole the show. With its low ceilings, arched brick work and dark corners not to mention the fact that at points the actors were pretty much tripping over the feet of the audience it appeared to be the perfect setting for this disconsolate tale of human mournfulness. Overall the standard of acting was excellent, although certain scenes could have done with being quicker.

Whilst the issues raised in the play are as portentous in today's world as they were in 19th century Russia it was sometimes difficult to empathise.  
In all it was a great experience to be so close to the performance and helped by the impressive set gave the audience the sense of being inside the squalid conditions.

 4 

We thought the acting was brilliant and the location and set added to the claustrophobic feel of the play and suited it perfectly.

 A really thought provoking production.

 Thanks and well done to all concerned.

 

5 

The production gave a memorable impression of destitution and hopelessness. However the structure of the play, with so many characters being introduced, made the first act rather slow - not helped by the length of time before the pivotal character of Luka appears.

 But we thought it was a terrific production over all that really captured the play's subject matter, although there were a few fluffed lines and occasional lack of interplay.  However, felt the actors got to grips with Gorky's idealisation of the characters whilst still giving them life - no mean feat.  Liked the staging very much too.  Will be recommending it :o)  

 A special mention for the programme which was well thought out and produced.

 

Well, I've managed to find a little more time to pop down some musings about the play.

We're into the theatre tomorrow evening and it's all feeling very real now! We've enjoyed lotsof rehearsal hours during the last two weeks when the play has progressed considerably.

Some of this is the practical stuff one expects - the play gets tighter, lines are better known, the actors start layering wonderful detail, choices are refined and, in some cases, blind alleys reversed up and re-navigated!

Katie's been a god-send on the design. Workign far harder than I could have ever expected from a professional designer, wokring for nothing. She will work regularly in this business and it's been a major bonus to have her - I hope we get a chance to work when I can pay her. I think the cast have no idea how lucky they are for a fringe production!

The publcity and ticket sales are both going well and I am lookign forward to breaking even and the cast having at least 50% audiences every night, and probqably sell-outs during week 3. The SWP are also comign to review us for their paper, which I am over the moon about!

Some aspects, especially the role of Satin, have gone through huge re-thinks in the past two weeks, especially in relation to Act 4. Both Russell and I have sought less of the basic conflict I had perceived early in my reading (and earlier in these blogs) and thought more about the impact Luka has on him too and how that ties the play together.

As I see more and more runs of the play I am happy with how it hangs together as a piece of theatre, but by far the most pleasing aspect is the individual performances of the characters.

Of the five basic dramatic elements - idea, narrative, character, language and spectacle - I knew that character and idea held sway in this piece but I hadn't quite realised how much more the firsty was pre-eminent. I hope that what we have done with Satin especially, makes the play hang togethr better and be ultimately more satisfying for our audience.

A play like this is always a brave choice to a degree - there is little narrative, for some it's too preachy - and I have little doubt that some people will take issue with aspects. But we have done a great job with it and I am proud of the cast and of the work. As I embark on my professional training I am glad I have learnt a huge amount again from this process and I hope audience and actors get a lot from it.

Finally, I will leave this blog with my final programme notes. I didn't just choose this play for the intellectual challenge or the showcase. I am passionate about the issues it raises and I hope we have done justice to Gorky's wonderful masterpiece. 

On a Saturday in mid-August I was given a timely reminder of the lives of homeless people, on the streets of Europe’s richest city.

 A young man was in tears, begging for 20p from passers-by on the stairs at Leicester Sq tube. Having stopped to give him some money, his hands bandaged like Gorky’s Muslim, his hair matted with dried blood and his face streaked with tears, he told me he was upset about his cousin, Jay, who also lived on the streets and had died 3 weeks before.  Busy shoppers and tourists streamed past; we can’t stop and give to everyone of course.

 I hope you enjoy tonight’s play – I hope the characters move and entertain you. As excellent as this company is and as much as I love the play, nothing could affect me as much as that young man did that day. When walking down Tottenham Court Road, in tears now myself, I was reminded why I wanted to donate proceeds from this play to Shelter and how disgusted I am that the injustice that Gorky’s characters suffer, still remains with us, despite the vast wealth Britain enjoys. In truth a society as rich as ours should need no charities when people can live in such excess, but Shelter does amazing work and I hope you will give what you can.

 

I’m finally trying to find a spare 10 mins to whack down some thoughts on where the play is now! It’s been about the busiest few weeks of my life with a foreign wedding, house move and the play so some things had to give and unfortunately this blog was an early casualty. However, hoping that I’ll be able to blog at least weekly as we head towards our opening in just over a fortnight.

The play, dramatically, is coming on well. With a third of the rehearsals still left to do we’ve had our first run yesterday and have plenty of work to do. For the first time all the actors got a chance to see parts of the play they’d never seen, but far more importantly got an idea of the sweep of the roles and their characters’ ‘journey’. It also gives me a clear indication of what now needs work and what can be left (largely) to bed in as they get more familiar with the play and each other. I’ll be working on those aspects during the remaining ‘working’ time we have left, interspersing that with further runs.

I was pleased though with some aspects which are already rattling along well, with something interesting happening on every part of the stage. Other individual scenes are well acted, interesting and engaging – there are flashes of brilliance everywhere. The play lives and dies by the character sketches – what it lacks in plot it more than makes up for in terrific character sketches and I am blessed with the strongest cast I have ever assembled, with great youth and experience.

Crucially, the alterations I have made are working well and the role of Satin is far more central on the stage in this version than it is on the page in the traditional version making the central conflict of the play work better and Act 4 not so redundant. We have stumbled upon a key for the ending (of sorts): that what the audience get is the contrast between the way the characters reacted to Anna’s death – indifference, largely – and the way they react to the Actors by all going to see him, given the lead by Satin.

I thought it worth re-producing the general notes I gave the team from the run yesterday. No rocket science at this stage and fairly normal but they encapsulate my key concerns and guidance to them

·         Lines - they are getting there, but they're not there. You should be running all of your lines at least daily by this stage - I managed it as an amateur, so I'm quite sure you all can. There is no substitute for repetition at home - rehearsals are not for learning lines. Only when you know the lines, deeply, can you listen to other people and react based on what they are doing, not just delivering the automatic line in the same way, from the cue you've heard.

·         Be careful of paraphrasing - keep going back to the text (even if you think you know it) - those of you trying new words need to make concrete decisions by Friday so everyone knows what's coming and you can be corrected.

·         Spend time on the lines in the large group scenes, concentrate and LISTEN - they must all have the energy of the first 5 pages, which are already great.

·         Write down all of the more physical things - let's ensure we don't have to go back to square one again on Act 3 ending, especially

·         If you don't know why you're coming on, going off and what you want every moment you are on stage, you're not going to act well. Write it down and speak to me if you have any areas you're not sure about - I am generally available on the mobile all day.

·         Actioning - we will be doing more of this week. I expect you to know SPECIFICALLY what you are doing to the other character(s) on stage with every line you say. A sweep of objective - I want to give you hope (to pick one at random) - is not enough. How, specifically, are you doing that - tickling, provoking, glorifying, selling, pushing, raising. The actioning will help you to colour the scenes and find the shape so that you don't deliver consecutive speeches with the same energy - how close are you getting to achieving that objective, how much time do you have, how much do you need it?

·         Finally - the rehearsal space is safe. It's where you can play, go too far, look ridiculous and fail miserably! This is a wonderfully positive company of people; an atmosphere of fun and camaraderie has been built by you all. Don't waste that - push yourselves in rehearsals. Some of you are, but some of you are still holding back - you've known each other for a little while now and should feel OK to go for it - I will pull you back, give you feedback and guide you, and kick the shit out of anyone who laughs ;o), but some of you must remember what you learnt at drama school and let yourself go. Only by taking these characters too far can you stretch them enough to see what they can be.

 Noticeably some of the scenes that I actioned fully with the cast are looking stronger than others and I am even more sold on that process – I hope to use that more in the next few days as we polish some scenes and throw others away to start again – an understanding of objective and action never stops being important, but sometimes it’s hard to go back to those basics when you thought you had them covered!

The theatre have been terrific as ever – helping us to build the set that we want in the space and, after some initial scares, I think we’ll be able to get what we want for the budget we want.

Katie’s costume sketches and ideas have been terrific and all the team were very excited by seeing the model box and the costume sketches for the first time. Obviously there’ll be more to and fro on that but that is coming together nicely and Kati is busy sourcing blankets, chicken wire and everything else we need.

As ever, some of the team have been struggling on the lines and so part of my job at this stage is to push them, encourage them and sometimes kick them up the arse. Regardless of their professionalism everyone always needs a reminder of the job they have to do and it falls to me to do it. That’s a lonely task sometimes, especially when one can feel that you’re almost pulling the whole thing along with your energy alone, but that is what you sign up for. Fortunately the company are incredibly positive – the key influencers (as you always get in any group) are very positive people and their impact has been massively beneficial to the process.

The next lot of PR has gone out – getting some good coverage in Whatsonstage, The Stage and various other places but really hoping one of the big papers – specially Evening Standard (given the London Dispossessed campaign they are running), Big Issue or one of the Socialist papers will pick it up. I’ve sent out a mass e-mail and post to them all but those ones I will chase up with a phone call too.

Now is the time for the cast to start pushing there too – ideally we’ll have 100-200 booked by the time we open so I can start relaxing. With word of mouth, some good reviews and people turning up that should break even and allow the cast to regularly be playing to at least 50% houses – probably 25% week one and 75-100% in the final week.

Fingers crossed!

 

We’ve now come to the end of the first stage of rehearsals. I am heading off to perform the best man duties at the wedding of my oldest friend, so there was always a planned break in these rehearsals. I have scheduled to ensure that we have now covered the basic book work – uniting, objective and more practical aspects (what does this line mean, who am I saying it to, who’s on stage, etc, etc) and now the cast have 10 days to think about their characters in much greater detail.

 I have mentioned before the amount of animal imagery there is throughout the text. Katie is using that as a major theme of her design and I have been keen to get the actors thinking about finding an animal for their characters which we will express (subtly) in terms of costume, but also their character’s physicalisation. I want to then try altering that physicalisation when they interact with Luka and he offers them hope or possibly when Satin at the end reminds them all that they are Men.

 The rehearsals have thrown up plenty of new questions too – always a positive sign. If I came away from this section of rehearsal thinking exactly the same about the play as I did before I had actors, I’d be worried they weren’t bringing enough to it. The ending is probably not going to be fixed in my mind for some time and the journey all of these characters go on is also changing and being refined – I’m not sure I spent enough time in research reading the play AS EACH character. A change to make for next time.

 I’ve set them plenty of homework, most crucially of course to learn their lines. If there’s one thing that makes all the difference it’s that. You can’t act with a book in your hand and you can’t act whilst searching for lines; I need them concentrating on action – what they’re doing to the other character and objective – what they want – not whether it’s their turn.

 An actor with no memory is entirely useless – both from the practical – lines, movement, actions, what we discussed last rehearsal – but more generally, actors must be able to recall emotions, to observe constantly and remember those observations and allow them to inform their choices.

 Other aspects of the production are also coming together – we have a terrific Lighting Designer and Stage Manager now on board – both young, recent graduates from RADA and Rose Bruford respectively and both talented and very keen.

 The last thing I need to really take care of before the holiday is the negotiating with the theatre on set. Katie and I are meeting Chris at the theatre tonight and I hope he is comfortable with all we need to do to make this a piece which really maximises, artisitically, the space he has. We have modified our first ideas as we had wanted people sleeping above the audience, but have decided that’s probably not very safe and have had to bear in mind fire escapes. But we do want to build a scaff structure on the whole stage space for the characters ‘areas’, but still leaving room for action and bearing in mind sight lines.

 I also need food on stage which traditionally they haven’t been keen on due to rats and their basement location so that also needs careful handling!

 The hits on the website have gone up substantially since the PR went out so it looks like that’s been pretty successful and we’ll get the next load out when I get back in early August.

 I’ve also enjoyed working in detail with actioning with more of the actors – Satin’s first big monologue we auctioned, using the other characters for him to play off of and ‘do’ to – Satin belittles, Satin patronises, Satin feeds, Satin enkindles, Satin stokes, Satin fans, Satin inflames – so that rather than playing a generalised objective ‘Satin wants to inspire the tenants, for example’ we work on the specific thought changes and tactics which the character uses to help deliver a more detailed performance.

 I’m getting more and more keen on the moments of non-naturalism throughout. I;m keen to use music and sound at moments when the characters ‘escape’ into their fantasies – which many of the tenants do and also moments of direct address, especially relating to Satin’s 4^th act speeches. We’ll see how those work in rehearsals and make some decisions during August!

 

 

Things have really started speeding up this week as we get fully into rehearsals and the other aspects of the production start feeding into thoughts and ideas.

 

We’re now two-thirds of the way through the first rehearsals which cover all of the book work. The scheduling has worked pretty well and I’ve probably managed, better than ever, to be a little stricter on time and to get covered what I had planned. The rehearsals are also starting to move a little quicker as the cast get used to the process and begin feeling more comfortable with each other and I think I’ve been fortunate in bringing together a good bunch of people who are getting on well. Having 5 people on board who were in Timon, and 2 others I knew a little already, also helps as you have people who already trust you, so you don’t have to work as hard to ‘sell’ the process to them!

 

We’re also seeing lots of good contributions and people keen to make suggestions about the action. Some more than others as ever, and I’m always conscious of actors sensitivity, as some can take this discussion as a criticism of their offer from another actor. Some hate it, some think it an invaluable part of the process, but all the time we’re at the table I think it’s relatively fair game and that pooling of opinion and experience is invaluable.

 

One of the toughest lessons I have to re-learn every time I do this is that I don’t have all the answers and I won’t have thought of every possibility. If I haven’t after 4 months there’s no way each actor will, so this needs to be embraced. Part of the skill is getting a good, confident, secure team together who can discuss all this without feeling too sensitive about perceived criticism of their performance – but there’s no-one who that applies to more than me. One can feel that someone making a suggestion which is better can undermine, but having the confidence to see that, take it and go with it is hugely important – clinging to your original thoughts when it’s clear.

 

As we get it onto the floor properly I tend to stop any discussion of one actors performance by another as it becomes less helpful then and can cause tension. By then the only arbiter of what ‘works’ and what doesn’t has to be me.

 

I’m still not sure I’m spending that much time on hammering everyone’s objective, but also wonder whether that’s such a bad thing right now. We are discussing it as part of the whole but not in strict detail with each individual. It may actually be better to work the way I have - using these first rehearsals to clarify the units, the energy, tempo, for them to play with it on its feet once or twice (with no ‘blocking’ or staging comments) and for me to provide they key input in terms of play and character. Then allow them to go away and spend more time thinking about that scene as they learn the lines. The way this schedule has worked with a break coming up (I’m the best man at a foreign wedding, so fairly unavoidable) it seems to suit that quite neatly.

 

So, when the cast reconvene in early August we’re ready to start getting it properly into the space, with the set geography settled and the cast off book, everyone is very clear on what’s going on and we can really explore and play for the final 4 weeks of rehearsals.

 

Katie has brought some amazing design ideas to the process. I’m sure that’s exactly what I should have been expecting from a professionally trained designer, but even so I was moved to see the level of work and art she had created. We have some negotiation to do with the theatre to see what they’re going to allow us to do with this space (we really want to transform the whole thing) and I’m hoping that given the three week run and the impact we want to make with the theatre (and how much we’re using this in a ‘site specific’ way we might get more flexibility. I’ll be uploading a few of her images onto the website too.

 

I’ve also been considering sound this week – the possible options of different characters having their own noises, some of which is clear in the text – a prayer, grunting, coughing, scraping, snoring. I’m also considering some more ‘theatrical’ aspects too – so songs in heads – some French jazz for Nastya, muezzin calls for the Muslim, Fred Astaire for the actor which might come in at certain points – their way of escaping into their heads and fantasies?

 

All the PR is also going out this week to about 35 newspapers and websites – hopefully we can get a little interest, but doubt we’ll get too much until August now. Fortunately August is a slow news month everywhere so we might strike lucky!

 

This week has seen the start of rehearsals – always a fraught time for everyone. Actors are keen to make a good impression, get respect from their peers and (as ever with actors) not make fools of themselves.

The read through took place outdoors which was a novel experience, but very enjoyable on a sunny afternoon in Wapping, with the exception of the dog poo we had to avoid! I had planned a few team, name type games, but thought that might be a little much overlooking the high rises, so we settled for a bit of introducing each other and then the poor buggers had to listen to me talking about the play for 45 mins.

The read-through’s always fascinating as lines are delivered in ways you hadn’t imagined, other lines suddenly taken on a new meaning and, given how much work I’ve personally done on this version, some sound clunky and wrong in the mouths of the characters.

The first setting rehearsal took place on Monday evening. We have a particular challenge of an amateur-type schedule – 2 nights a week and a weekend for 2 months, rather than the intense work of a 3 week rehearsal period. This has benefits too – my professionally trained actors obviously aren’t doing paid work at the mo, so this schedule allows them to do the various day jobs and pay the bills as well as doing good quality theatre. In artistic terms it also allows them time for lines, actions, research and to germinate and play with ideas. The drawback is the gaps between rehearsal periods though and needing actors to remember everything we’ve covered and not have to take a vast step back at each rehearsal when we have such limited time.

On Monday’s rehearsal I combined working in a slightly traditional way: Reading through the text we’re covering, whilst I highlight the unit names, Reading each unit, covering thoughts, ideas, notes and objectives – this took up the majority of work on each unit, Improvising with the text the full scene again – allowing the actors to move where they want, just to get a feel of the words.

For the second scene working with Vassilisa and Pepel we began working with actions in detail – deciding the action, then improvising around it, before re-introducing the text.

I made a couple of errors across the evening – not enough concentration all night on objective which I should have made much more central – especially for the final part. I’ll correct that for Friday night and, as ever at the beginning of a process, I ran out of time, leaving the Vass/Pep scene short of work. For those scenes where I am going to action with the actors fully I need to ensure they have auctioned at home so we can work much quicker I the room.  All in all though a good start!

 

I don’t know why I keep trying to find alliterative titles for these but I seem to have set myself a precedent I’m struggling to break!

 

The play is cast. Every book on directing you’ll ever read talks about how directing is 70/80/90% casting, but it is the crucial decision of every play and naturally the one that leads to the most wrangling, the most thinking and the most excitement.

 

Having been working on the play now for several months it’s a great moment when you first hear the lines spoken by a professional actor. Especially in a piece like this where, due to the period in which it was written, it can seem a little melodramatic on the page – a good actor just makes you believe.

 

I’ll be updating the TLD page shortly with cast details and images, but we have an very good blend of new performers and those with a lot of experience and I haven’t had to compromise on any of the character ages which I feared I might. Crucially, we have a team of people very committed to the project and who I just liked very much as people – almost, but not quite, as important as their ability (and especially in fringe.)

 

The casting process also helps one to really specify what these characters are like – only by searching for them can you decide what their energy and status is. Many actors are looking for clues to your thinking before – accents, characteristics and I’m sure for some director’s those ideas are fixed and non-negotiable. For me, however, I want to be offered alternatives and options in audition – I like actors who do something that makes you question your assumptions. For example, I worked with all the candidates trying to draw out a ‘bigger, more obviously PERFORMANCE’ audition from the actors who could play the Actor, but only one had the bravery to go off book and play – which just summed up the energy of the role. Many directors would have hated it – for me it was like striking gold. Similarly, I trust a professional actor can give a new accent but, like many aspects, that’s the actors responsibility to find in rehearsals – I think it’s too intertwined with the character for a director to impose.

 

This process also provides new opportunities for the characters you hadn’t considered – I have cast a much more physically imposing Kleshch than I had initially envisaged and our Satin has a terrific, bursting energy that I hadn’t planned on (I’d assumed a quieter, more watchful man) but suddenly you’re struck with new possibilities – for the violence and pecking order in the space which must be ever-present. That’s what good actors will give you.

 

You’re also trying to balance some of the more practical aspects – can I cast this actor who looks so physically similar to another – a real problem for me with one superb performer. How can I help to differentiate for the audience who each character is (always an issue in Russian drama, I feel, and especially with 14 characters) Is their vocal quality – pitch, speed, tone, resonance, volume - going to allow the audience to quickly grasp who is speaking – especially in a space as tight as Barons Court and where sight lines are going to be really challenging.

 

Enough on that, it’s done and we start rehearsals in 10 days! So now I’m cramming as much work in as I can before the first rehearsal. I’ve given the actors homework and am gradually speaking to them all to set them off and running before we begin.

 

At this stage there’s lots of work on practicalities – rehearsal schedules (hellish at the best of times but far trickier with 14), exits and entrances, in a space where there is no access to enter from a different exit from that which you exit, filtering all the research into my final Prompt Book, adding all the notes I’ve built in the past few months, adding the analysis notes to guide the actors and help us focus on the central conflict of the play, and then finally uniting – giving the play the structure which will dominate the entire process and the ebb and flow of the play the audience experiences. I’ll try and get that all done by the 27^th enabling me to then prep in comfort for each rehearsal and have some time to relax and not go crazy!

 

I'm taking a bit of a break from TLD text and creative work for a few days while I prep for an MA audition at RADA. This is utterly terrifying, so I have every sympathy for the actors whom I have invited to audition on the 11th and 12th June!

Everything seems to be going OK at the moment, although I remain one of these people that thinks if I feel like that I must be missing something huge! The auditions are sorted, although I still need to find a venue for the Saturday sessions, with BCT double-booked and the Actors Centre not available till 10am but that shouldn't be too much of a problem.

The vast majority of the rehearsals are now booked - unfortunately a Friday night, not Thursday but it does mean nearly every rehearsal is at the same venue, very easy to get to, decent facilities, a pub nearby and very reasonably priced which, as ever, is vital!

The flyers are all at the theatre now, nice and early which is a bonus and I hope will help to give prospective cast members a feeling of confidence about the production side of the play.

The script is also completed and with the pre-cast actors already. Looking forward to spending soem time with each of them to discuss their roles and expectations in the next 10 days to enable tme to concentrate on the new actors after auditions.

The script has taken longer than I thought it might (as usual) but I am happy with it. Of course, its impossible to tell until you hear talented actors working with it but I am happy with it - my main focus has been

• It's broadly based on the 1973 RSC text, but with a lot of alterations. Most of those are from other translations, but I have also made a number of changes myself - especially in scenes where the dialogue was too melodramatic - Vassilisa and Pepel's scene especially.
• I have cut Medviedev, Alyoshka and Krivoy Zob, either allocating their lines to other characters or cutting entirely.
• Kvashnia is now a slightly larger role and, as a gossiping woman of mature years, will be the landlords' eyes and ears downstairs, for which she receives a small discount ;o)
• I have increased the stage time and lines of Satin considerably, at the end of Act 1 and at the beginning of Act 3.
• I have removed all of the scene descriptions at the beginning of each act, but included who begins on stage, a number of whcih I have altered to extend stage time - The Muslim especially.
  
• For those familiar with Churchill I've copied her punctuation style in a lot of the group scenes - to explain:
  • a speech usually follows the one immediately before it, but when one character starts speaking before the other has finished the point of interruption is marked with a /
  • This will, I hope, give a feeling of continuous noise, of the struggle for anyone to make themselves heard in this place (they have no more space to speak than they do to live) These are not set in stone and more will be added and some, no doubt, removed!
    
  • It should also help the audience to focus where necessary - you will notice that no-one speaks over Satin or Luka who as the central characters of the play will have the highest focus.
• I've been concentrating on the following a lot during the process:t:
  • lines relating to truth, lies and religion.
  • animal imagery, of which there is a huge amount.
  • lines relating to hell or prison.
    
  • 'philosophical' lines - especially Luka and Satin but many of the characters have them, even when they doesn't realise!
    
  • speeches - to what extent is any other character listening to them?
    
  • status - the pecking order of this place is extremely important and that should be reflected in the lines, interruptions, speech 'turns', number of lines, amount you command or question rather than respond, etc.

Most excitingly I met an excellent young designer last night, who I am really hoping I can get on board in some capacity. I have plenty of ideas for the design and feel very clear now on where the play is heading and the focus and style of this production but the input and creativity of a trainder designer would just be a huge boost.

 

I have completed all of my research now and the play analysis, examining Thought, Spectacle, Character, Language, Plot and Music as well as broader areas of Emotion, Entertainment and Conflict. This is the first time I’ve really had the time to complete this in quite this level of detail and it’s been terrific. Often I have found that, in my enthusiasm for a play in all it’s complexity, it can be difficult to really nail down and focus on the key themes and where EXACTLY those themes are bought to the fore in the play; especially difficult is focusing the actors on it clearly – it’s all too easy to wax lyrical for 15 minutes in the rehearsal room.

 

This process helps very much and also ensures that the consideration of the 6 key areas above are properly given – in this play, it’s clear that the characters are well drawn, largely three dimensional and often with strong development, the language is important – it’s not beautiful, indeed some is melodramatic and often didactic, but it is rich in metaphor, in philosophical statements and in wonderful imagery. The plot is problematic, ‘seeming’ to end at the end of Act 3, if the audience follows the little narrative they are thrown. The thought is strong – the central theme is clear and runs like a thick thread, pulling every action and character to it and the play’s music (in the wider sense of sound) is strong and I am looking to play with ideas of each character have a percussive sound of some form. For some of the character that’s clear in the text and I want the others to find theirs.

 

This sense that the people who live here have no privacy visually, aurally or even olfactorally (is that a word?!) should be strong and the audience, in the middle of the space at Barons Court, not simply looking on, should ‘feel’ this too and not simply ‘observe’ it.

 

Having finished the main research I will be 'uniting' shortly, and am more and more exciting by what this play can be. It's an incredibly deep, funny, bleak (bloody complex!) piece and as always we have to find a way to bring that intellectual complexity to the surface to move and entertain people. I just need some actors to share it with!

 

We have had some terrific applications for audition and I’m now going through the joyous phase of getting confirmation actors can still attend, but I have already planned for a degree of drop out as it seems to be the norm, and with so many castings every day it’s no great surprise. Oh, and they’re actors of course ;o)

 

It's been a busy couple of weeks...the text work is going really well though now and I'm feeling more and more happy with the choices I have made (or maybe just more familiar?)

I have added Kvashnia back in - she's a good balance for some of the tragedy around her but I am still keeping Medvidev out and have therefore cut the end of Act 4 when those two are now running the doss-house. I'm much more keen on Act 4 being set as the house is being destroyed and the tenants being evicted. It's another way of mantaining a sense of progression through Act 4 after the climax of Act 3.

Some of the casting is starting to come together - a few actors who I have asked to take roles have accepted and others will be auditioning but crucially my calls on CC Pro and Castnet also go out today so hopefully by the end of May I'll have plenty of strong candidates for the roles.

I have completed my research in full now and have pages and pages of Word that I need to sift and think about as I work. I have done a lot of work on the 14 characters, their energy, status and attributes for the casting but they;re all becoming a lot more 3D in my mind - I just need actors now to fill them with life!

I am glad I managed to get so much done early though - auditions and interviews for Directing MA's at St. Mary's and RADA in the next fortnight so I might just be a little busy....

I've finally got through the first draft of the text, trying to work with a number of different sources to find what works for me. It's been a brilliant process for really getting under the skin of a lot of these characters and hearing their different voices.

I've also continued to agonise over the characters. The hub of the play has to be Luka and those people whom he really effects. The audience will search for a narrative in any play I think, and especially something like this which 'feels' naturalistic. The fourth act of the play is already problematic; Gorky resolves what may have been the problem he saw at the time by explainign what's happened to the house now the landlords, Natasha and Pepel have gone. But Kvashnia and Medviedev and little other to the plot for me so I am cutting them out as well as Krivoy Zob and Alyoshka.

'The Tarter' (or Muslim as I'll probably name him) is useful both for the play's comments on religion, but he also seems the most disciplined and straight character, offering a nice contrast to many of the others, so I'm going to leave him in. That leaves me with 12 characters, all of whom are affected in some way or have some real contact with Luka. I still have thinking about 'solving' Act 4 when the audience may feel the 'play' has ended.

I've also been thinking a lot about the set and hoping to erect some sort of scaffold structure to provide more room but also make the space feel like it's got people hiding in all the corners, above and around. It can also help for status and chartacter 'lairs' which I'm very keen on exploring with this piece. Probably not going to move Act 3 into the 'Waste'. I need to do some more reading but I'm not convinced it offers me a huge amount extra dramatically than keeping the space consistent but maybe stripping it back for Act 4 (or even during Act 4?)

Progress on a few fronts this week.

Was off in Rome for a long weekend so didn't get as much reading done as planned (plus was deep into Mantel's Wolf Hall )

Have watched the very interesting Kurosawa film. I was surprised at how close it was to the play, but he made some odd choices around cuts - esepcially Satin's big speeches in Act 4 which ruined the real heart of the play. Some of it was terrific though and it's given me lots more to think about.

Much more exciting is that Shelter are keen to work in association with us on the play. I haven't quite decided how to work this - either a % of total profits or a couple of charity 'nights' It's a charity that does a lot of fantastic work and that fits well with the themes dealt with in the play. They are also happy to work with the cast on homelessness and it's impact on people which will be vital if we are to create real, non-stereotyped characters.

On the more practical side rehearsal venues are getting sorted, including some vital time at the theatre and audition dates.

I've also slightly altered the dates - extending to the final Sunday and cutting the first matinee out which should get some better audience numbers.

A lot more reading this week. I’ve worked my way through Hare’s ‘Romantic Realist and Conservative Revolutionary’ and Dan Levin’s ‘Story Petrel’ and have the sections on TLD from Borras’ excellent biography.

Of course each have their own take on the text and I’m intrigued at the different interpretations and how they sit with my own reading. One thing that jumps out of the Borras, especially, is a defence of Act IV. Chekhov found it deeply unsatisfying and at first reading you can see exactly why – the superficial conflict and plot seems centred around Pepel, Vassilissa and Natasha which ends at the conclusion of Act III. With them all gone how does the director sustain the interest of the audience in Act IV?

It’s clear to Borras at least that the real centre of the play surrounds the conflict of Luka and Satin (the role Stanislavski played in the first production) and therefore the whole is dominated by one of the key themes of the play – truth v illusion.

This appeals to me greatly and is a theme I explored in A Dolls House, Timon and in a recent amateur production of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. But although I can see it, it’s certainly not clear (if it wasn’t clear for Chekhov I wouldn’t blame anyone else for not getting it!)

The original Moscow Art Theatre production produced a hyper-realistic version of the piece and, given my setting, I’m very inclined to do the same, but I wonder if that is why this strength of conflict wasn’t clear and one can’t blame the casting with the great man in that role. I fear that although Luka’s role of bringing illusory truths to the doss-house is clear, Satin’s role of opposing is not – at least not until Act IV

What is the truth? Man there's the

truth ! He understood that . . . you don't

You're as dead as bricks. ... I understand the

old man . . . yes. He lied . . . but out of

pity fer you, devil take yer ! There's lots of

people that lie out of pity for their neighbours.

. . . I know ! I've read ! Beautifully, inspiredly,

affectingly they lie I There's the consoling

lie, the preceptive lie ... the lie to

justify the burden that crushes the hand of the

labourer ... to lay blame on the starving. I

know about lies !

So, it seems obvious I need to cast those two roles, particularly, with great care and will have wort work hard to provide Satin greater focus than is clear in reading – he must seem powerful in the house, his status must be higher (in fact his lack of speech could even reflect that with a good enough actor). He must not seem like another cynic Bubnov or angry Kletsch…

Status is always important in drama but in TLD it’s vital – shove 10 people together in a confined space with nothing and they will fight for the higher status (food, position of bed, warmth) as it’s the only thing they have left. I need to be vary wary of this too in casting – who plays high and low status. Many actors struggle to play low especially but it’s vital if we’re to help the audience understand the dynamic, make sense of it and not simply have 10 identikit tramps. Just like Godot 50 years later, if you don’t understand status you can’t make sense of this play.