Captain Busby

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.  

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. 

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".         

What Other People Have Had To Say

I was saying before that issue based theatre doesn't really date. Well I thought I would share some of the audience reactions from the show so far.

'An updated farce slickly performed!'

'The best comedy that Chickenshed has ever done! You have to see it!'

'Totally madcap!'

'Funny, energetic, clever and positive'

'Very entertaining, an excellent evening out'

I took them from the Chickenshed website. I think it proves there is a want and more so a need for this kind of production. This has furthered my drive to explore the lifespan of issue based plays even further.

My Direction

I think I'm going to change the direction i'm going in with the course. I was originally looking at how theatre can be a good tool for making the elderly feel like part of a community. This was a subject I took a lot of interest in and even put into practice with the short play 'There's No Tomorrow' I wrote that was performed as part of the emerging writers week. Using a member of Chickenshed's over 60's it was a great way to integrate a wider spectrum of performers. I do still truly believe theatre would be a great tool for making the older members of the community feel that the longevity of issues within plays themselves interests me more than anything. Issues that don't get old, issues that do, why certain things stay relevant, why others fade into obscurity. This is where I feel I'll have to start focusing. I have batted the idea around for awhile and even mentioned this is previous blogs like the questionnaire. I'll be looking into other issue based plays and coming to a conclusion in the week. I mentioned London Road before and that really was what started me off thinking like this. I just feel there are so many issues, how do you pick just one. So then the real question raised is 'what makes an issue and issue?'.

Can't Pay? Won't Pay!

An image from the show.

The last couple of weeks I have been in the middle of a show called 'Can't Pay? Won't Pay!' I play the part of John (originally called Giovanni in Dario Fo's script). It's been great and has really got me thinking more about the social relevance of the issues raised in the show.

The fact plays like this can stay so current. Constant references are made to the right laying waste and the people feeling betrayed by the left. This fits perfectly with the state of things at the moment. It's almost as if Mr. Fo had a crystal ball when he was putting pen to paper. The audience reaction has been great so far too. People have found something with such an underlying message of uncaring governments, gun happy police and a terrible economy reassuringly hopeful. It's message is given across with charm and wit rather than lashings of doom and gloom. When you consider the play was written in 1975 it really does speak volumes.

I do get strangely inspired by men like Dario Fo. It's their gift to see things not only as they are but as they will be. Some of the language may need updating but not one issue raised in this play could be interchanged for anything.

Task 4A: Questions

QUESTIONS…

1)     Do you feel that plays with a social economic / social message to convey have more longevity than an original story that is purely there for entertainment?

2)    Is it really necessary to update plays in the way of language and the setting? Or do you feel that plays keep their social relevance when left in the original time period?

3)    In your opinion is theatre really as “accessible” as people claim? Or do you feel in some cases the word “Theatre” itself can act as a divide and put some people off?

4)    In times of recession shows like Matillda, London Road, Lion King and many, many more continue to sell out. Do you feel that in this way theatre produced solely for entertainment is as vital as theatre produced to put across a social message?

5)    Do you feel some issues are more popular than others? And that making issues “trendy” almost takes away from their hard hitting and realistic message?

6)    Are there some issues that should be discussed with more sensitivity than others? Do you feel that some writers will be radical and shocking in their plays juts to be a sensation? I know that Niklas Rådström was accused of this for his 2008 play – Monsters.