I
have been watching “Captain Busby” by Ann Wolf. It’s an absurd look at a
station in the middle of nowhere. It’s got some great dialogue but I feel it
lacks a message. The message is what I was talking about before. Ms. Wolf
seemed to be under the illusion that you could achieve success in the absurd
with as little as a carrot and a carriage moving on its own. The original poem
by Phillip O’Connor had many levels to it. It even has a sometimes sombre feel.
I still think it was incredibly brave to attempt to put something like this on
film, especially in 1967 when it was made. The absurd was only for the stage
then and the public at large were generally unaccepting of anything like this.
Overall, this is an example of absurdity for the sake of absurdity. Still worth
having a watch, it was available through the BFI website. I would recommend the
poem by Mr. O’Connor too. Some great surrealism.
Tuesday, 20 November 2012
Task 5a
It’s
been a while since I actually attempted one of these tasks. The reader has
asked me to talk about the professional ethics of my professional practice –
Chickenshed. I was just about to start researching when I read that no research
was needed for this one. All that is required is individual thought… upon
reading that I fell in love with this task. I am very familiar with my own
thoughts, me and them have spent many a long dark winter night together.
In
the words of Mr. Crisp “happiness rains down from the sky there.” Of course he
was talking about New York City but this quote can be used for the dual purpose
here I feel. Chickenshed is sort of like a little world of its own. Located in
Southgate it occupies its own parallel dimension where everyone is friendly,
everyone has time for one another and people talk as if they are pleased to see
you. I know these aren’t “professional ethics” but I believe it is important
for me to set the stage as it were.
Chickenshed
was started in the early part of the 1970’s by Jo Collins and Mary Ward. They
made it their mission to create a place that is completely inclusive – a theatre
where everyone can be a part as long as they have a passion for the work. All
kinds of people with varying abilities are given the opportunity to do what
they love. The building has changed but the ethos, the direction is the same. Chickenshed’s
mission in my mind is to cultivate a world where acceptance and seeing the
worth in all kinds of people comes naturally. The fact Chickenshed wishes to
gather people together to be used to the best of their ability is remarkable.
The feeling of unity it creates is awe inspiring and to watch a show there is
like seeing the world in a whole new light. It’s a vision of a less judgmental
future where people are taught to care more for each other.
The
inclusion of everyone could be seen as a major disadvantage but Chickenshed
will always do what it can to work everyone in. If the people cannot adapt the
material itself will. The inclusion of everyone is more important than the end result,
which actually helps to enrich it.
I
remember a couple of years ago there was a little girl trying to sing a song. She
has several goes and by the end was so out of time with the music the band must
have felt jet lagged. Now, instead of Jo Collins saying “oh, I’m sorry my dear
we need to go with someone else”. She said “I’m going to put another symbol in
there so the beat is a bit clearer”. This is remarkable it’s not only the
patience of the people there but the ability to bend to the needs of others if
they so need it. When I had to sing a couple of years ago, Jo must have gone
through the song with me about 50 times. Never once did she look remotely
bored, or frustrated. Always, with a smile just going over things. These are
the ethics Chickenshed live by. As long as you have a passion for not only
performing but for other people the world can only get better.
Friday, 16 November 2012
All Things Absurd
Chickenshed
have re-launched their Emerging Writers week. I wrote something for this the
same time last year. This time I shall go more down the path of theatre of the
absurd. As I have previously said I find all things to do with the absurd much
more glorious and awe inspiring than anything “normal” who wants naturalism
after all? We are forced to live in real life who in their right mind would
also want to pay to watch it when the highest possible compliment you can give
it is “it was wonderfully mundane”. The absurd
can knock back home perfectly good “real world” kind of messages without the
threat of becoming so close to life that if the stage went on for a further ten
miles you could imagine seeing yourself sat at home.
What
I suggest is make things real to a point – then throw in the one element that
does not match. This element is what makes a play stylish. It gives it that
slight otherworldly hint while anchoring it on the shores of planet Earth 2012.
Some plays however do this the opposite way around – they will be set in a
world so absurd that anything resembling real life will take it further away from
it. This is also stylish and works wonderfully.
The
children’s book ‘Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland’ is a perfect example of
messages hidden through the absurd. It offers a world completely eccentric long
before anything otherworldly turns up. Alice is by her nature an absurd
character. She talks like a Greek philosopher and yet has a sort of pseudo childlike
innocence. She reacts to each situation with no fear of her impending death but
with an insult or a giggle. If a talking Catarpillar calls her stupid she will
not reply “ahhh a talking Caterpillar with a Hookah pipe” she would call it “rude”.
This language, the “rude” serves as both the real world and the absurd joke. It’s
a very typical reply from a very polite and boring period in British history
deployed at the most outrageous of times. However, it would be foolish to
accuse Mr. Carroll of writing nothing but nonsense. In fact much of his writing
is the exact opposite of this it contains messages for sure. Much of them aimed
it would seem in my opinion at the royal family and it’s way of going about
things. First of all we start with the Duchess. Living alone in a stately house
that is dilapidated and being used for the bare minimum we see her sat there –
the upturned nose, the wide face and the squinted eyes perfectly represent the
then unfashionable but quite correct view of all things aristocratic in the
country. Not only is the Duchess drawn like some kind of inbred goliath but she
also has a baby that turns into a pig… I think this shows us Mr. Carroll’s view
on the Royal bloodline. Then we come to the cards. They play the biggest role
in what I consider to be Mr. Carroll’s blow to the Royals. The Queen of Heart
is a despotic tyrant, crying out “off with her / his head” at a whim. This is
perfectly representative of the kind of people who once sat on the throne. Her
likeness is so similar to Queen Victoria. That penguin like appearance with
that oh so familiar outfit. Apparently Queen loved the book. Perhaps she
considered it a tribute. Perhaps it was meant to be one. I don’t want to get
bogged down in the hidden messages of the characters in Wonderland. My point is
simply that the absurd can often offer messages that are presented with so much
style that they are disguised. You don’t just take in the views of the author
you are forced to understand it. You can take it at face value if you like or
you can delve into the psyche of a man with a clear sense of humour and
understanding of the foppish silliness of his time. I am in the early stages of
planning something but so far I think it will have the themes of desensitization
and possibly grief.
As an Ugly Sister in Cinderella's understudy run |
Prospero in Shakespeare's Island |
This
same rule of mixing styles that I mentioned before can be brought to the
foreground in performance. When I played the part of Prospero in “Shakespeare’s
Island” back in March of this year I didn’t for one second presume I could get
my teeth into the character. Actor’s today have the wonderful, blissful comfort
of knowing every way that a character can be played has already been done. So
don’t try. What you instead need to do to make it look like you have created an
entirely new version of character is mix things up a little. First of all start
with your character. Prospero – he can be played, sympathetic, insane, despotic
and even heroic. So how do you play him a new way… it would be a mistake to try
and make him a coward – because It won’t mix with his dialogue. So instead of
making the character himself original in a contrasting way – make the
performance itself contrasting. Now you can play him in any of the aforementioned
styles. So if you choose to play him heroic play him in the style of say –
Michael York. Mr. York to my knowledge has never played Prospero and so taking
elements of his performance as say Tybolt and saying the lines with the same
speech pattern it will look to people as it’s something completely original.
Many of you will disagree with this and say that it’s lazy… and yes it is, but
in my opinion acting is the profession of a lazy person to begin with. I could never
do anything real. So when playing an ugly sister – play it as Al Paccino. It
will be painfully obvious what you are doing but people will come out the
theatre with “oh wan’t it wonderful how that actor played that woman like Al
Paccino”. I like to call that - fashionable plagiarism. I did play an Ugly Sister once as an understudy and created no sensation as I was very safe... but my Paccino is very bad so I couldn't achieve what was needed.
So in reflection everything has been done but don't let it put you off of doing it better. In the word's of Mr. Crsip: "if the sunny side of the street is full walk in the road".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)