9 Questions

Who am I? My name is Brack, I am a circuit judge and I am 45 years of age. I am quite portly but still have a lively spirit. I like to host parties and enjoy nice luxuries within my life such as an nice house, well respected job and many friends to share it with. I view myself as a kindly man however some people have different interpretations of me though I am prone to having my own way.

What time is it? It's Evening. 6:00pm to be precise, there is a wood fire burning as the chilly autumn night  air starts to seep through into the house. The sunset has dyed the room with a fiery orange hue that is both calming and unsettling. In relation to period it is 1897 and the world is full of new innovation and invention, the world grows smaller every day, especially in these parts of Europe; very exciting times.

Where am I? I am in a quaint but well furnished drawing room in the Tesman's household, there is one vase of bright yellow and pink flowers situated on the coffee table to my right. In front of me there is a large pink settee with little round tassels on the end of it. Through a door I can see the adjoining, it has a large slick black piano in the corner next to a desk cluttered with notes. There are large rectangular windows on both sides of the room from which I can see yellowing leaves falling off the branches of a large oak tree.

What surrounds me?  George Tesman's incessant yammering, Hedda's beautiful face and body and quick-wit. Mrs. Elvsted who is a stranger to me at this present time but I wouldn't be impartial in getting to know her. I know Eilert from a former life and we had our... differences.

What is my relationship to the things around me? George is my friend but I find him annoying however I am absolute intrigued by his wife, Hedda. I am jealous of Eilert's relationship with Hedda because they seem to have some unspoken communication. I am comfortable in this setting even though I am a stranger in this house. Maybe because I feel like I own everything.

What's just happened? Hedda has tried to shoot me, We've had a flirtatious conversation where I may have suggested my sexual intent. We spoke about her honeymoon and how disillusioned  she is with her marital life (cha ching!).

What do I want? For Hedda to pay attention to me. To stop fading into the background of this drawing room. To get Eilert out the picture (coming to the party and making him drink) To get George out of the picture so I can pursue my advances towards Hedda. I want to own the space occupy.

What's in my way? Societal standards of infidelity, My respectable position as circuit judge of the county. George's marriage to Hedda and Eilert's obvious prior involvement with her. The fact everyone else is having conversations about other subjects that I can't interject on.

What am I going do to get what I want? By sounding clever and trying to place myself within the conversations, By catching Hedda's gaze wherever possible. By making fun of Eilert so she sees his short comings. By getting Eilert to drink and embarrass himself.

Magic IF, Written as "Brack"

I am a man of iron discipline; I believe that when confronted with temptation I can stand steadfast whilst being bombarded with provocation. Alas I have been trumped by own desires and given over to my own selfishness. As God as my witness I will write an account of my predicament in hopes to analyse my short comings a man and as a Judge - The Judge who tip toes the line between right and wrong.

I decided to take a trip down to Charlie's American chocolate shop with a few of my associates for a little treat. From outside I could the rows of fudge, delicious bonbons and my favourite concoction: Fizzy popping candy! I'd made sure that I'd had a light lunch in order to feel the absolute most ecstasy from this sweet treat. The four of us strolled up to the establishment and began to browse their delectable selections of the finest of candies from across the pond. I knew precisely what I wanted yet I continued to look regardless of my prior decisions. I guess this was because I didn't want to seem to eager by my peers moreover I kept on inspecting the items that I simply did not want to purchase.

My chums finally made their choices and proceded to pay for their sweets. This meant I could now get my damn candy! I picked up the tiny packet of golden popping heaven and held between my palms. I felt so happy and excited to once again enjoy this luscious treat. I decided to spoil myself and go for the extra large packet. I had purposefully waited a long time since my last session of sugary snack just so this particular one would mean more! I walked up to the til and as they asked me for the due payment BUT suddenly, shock horror!!

I had forgotten my wallet at work! My face turned a god awful shade of crimson as I began to realise the mortal error I had made. Why oh why had I been such a dimwit?! I did the only thing I could do and apologise for wasting the business owner's time and return my purchase to the shelf. My friends seem to have caught wind of my predicament and I could see their pathetic, sympathetic faces. Of course they offered to pay for my items but I was having none of that hogwash. I am a proud man and I will not let others pay for my discrepancies. On the inside I was absolutely gutted but I couldn't let them see how bad I truly wanted the fizzy popping candy.

I became a child in a sweetshop but not being able to have any of the sweets. It's an almost unbearable agony; like every caramel bar is looking down on me; taunting me. Showing me just exactly what I can't have. They are simply a hand grab away. Why can't I simply take what I want and walk away no fuss? It was driving me completely insane.

So I did something I am not proud of. I let my friend buy me the candy! I just couldn't help myself; I guess my desire was bigger than my pride. In doing so I attained the thing I was longer for but at what cost?

Brack

Circles of attention

A lot of good acting comes from internalised thoughts or action being brought outside the mind for the audience to see. This is very hard to do successfully because as actors we can't just open our heads and pour it's contents out onto the stage. A way in which Stanislavsky proposed actors communicate their characters inner states of mind was through circles of attention. Stanislavsky believed that the actor needed a sense of isolation on stage. This first circle of attention was called solitude in public. This the total awareness of oneself and oneself only. The next circle is of the room one is in and it's surroundings and qualities. The next is the immediate outside world. The last circles if the greater world that we live in. Depending on what circle you're in this will change the tone of your performance and what you are trying to portray. If you are constantly in the outer most circle your focus is always somewhere else, maybe a lover in another country, maybe it's in the future but it's never quite within oneself.  If your circle of attention is small then nothing else matters to your character, everything is internalized. If you are waiting for a bus to arrive then that's all you are concentrating on.

Bus Stop Exercise

This exercise used 3 actors with 3 different circles of attention. The first had a small circle of attention and was only focused on the bus and what time it was going to arrive etc. The second person entered with a wider circle of attention which was concerned with the first person. They were trying to figure out if they knew them. The final person had the biggest circle of attention; they were focused on the future and the destination they needed to get to. The first person completely blocked out all the other actors on stage and remained focus on their own action EXCEPT when it became necessary for the scene to advance. The second person concentrated wholly on that person mostly forgetting about the task of waiting for the bus. The third person however had an all encompassing circle that I feel surrounded the entire stage space. They communicated with the other actors, moved erratically around the room, physically showed their frustration. I would have thought this as un-naturalistic decision however you do find people like that in the real world moreover those people do have big circles of attention. This exercise also gave me insights into how varying circles of attention creates interesting action and changes the dynamics of a scene. If they were all purely focused on getting on the bus then that would be super boring to watch, however since they all had different things they were trying to achieve in the improvisation the action had places to go.

Another variation of this exercise was all giving a large number of us different scenarios along with a circle. These scenarios were things like "It's the anniversary of your lovers death". This was paired along with us simply waiting at a bus stop. All we really had to do was wait at a bus stop but there was so much bubbling under the service that eventually manifested into physical actions.

What is Melodrama?

In order to determine what naturalistic acting is we must first figure out the inverse - Melodrama. Melodrama is characterised by exaggerated gestures, unrealistic action, stereotypical actors follow a predetermined predictable path, well known character types e.g. Hero, Villain, Damsels etc. During the Pre-Stanislavsky technique era Actor's personalities were more important than the character themselves. Some actors even refused to learn lines. These type of actors relied relied on big gestures, learned facial expressions, and the audience adoration for them. In fact the audience loved this type of performance! They lavished in the celebrity culture, the plays were palatable and easy to digest and the luxury of the theatre made people feel superior. In those times psychological acting was unheard of, the actors didn't embody a role; they simply demonstrated a story.

Affection

We did a few exercises to explore and experience melodrama. This task involved us walking around a playing the stereotypes story characters. For example we had to walk around the space as "The Hero". Immediately everyone puffed out their chests, stuck their chins out and put on a face of smugness. This helped me to see how because we are simply playing stereotypes through learnt societal behaviours our performance were fake and lacked any emotional or physiological elements. We were not embodying real people. This exercise then developed on to partner work. We were given a sentence to say along the lines of "My love burns for you with a passion that feels me fear". This had no true emotional effect on my partner however it did create quite a comic moment. This made me realise that melodrama does in fact have it's uses.

Actor training

Actor training like we have today did not exist; thus actors learnt through "copy-cating". They would replicate, gestures, vocal choices and facial expressions they procured from their predecessors. Obviously they couldn't copy them perfect and performances would become weaker as each link in the chain passed down their acting styles. This is another key factor why Stanislavsky introduced his system, He not only wanted to introduce a more realistic and psychological system of acting but one were actors had honed their instruments and were properly trained for the demands of the stage.  

Naturalism vs. Realism

Naturalism began as a literary movement between the 1880's and 1930's. It was born from writers wishing to exam social issues through the mediums of their books and bring a slice of the real world into the writing world devoid of fantastical ventures. This subsequently spread to the world of acting. Actors were no longer puppets; they were real life thinking and breathing organisms capable of making decisions for themselves.  This method of acting is difficult, after all, what is it to be natural? what is real? It takes a lot more effort to be real then to be fake. The Naturalism movement did reach a peak however. Some of this can be contributed to boring stage action like the opening scene of a play that contains the stage directions of a maid cleaning a kitchen for 15 minutes!  Realism is more what actors strive for in the 21st century however we wouldn't have this without it's big brother - naturalism!

Konstantin Stanislasky by Bella Merlin - Response

Stanislavsky is easily one of the most recognisable of theatre practitioners and after reading this book I can finally understand why. He was a pioneer, experimenter, inventor and much more. During his life it was apparent that wasn’t he satisfied by normal theatrical convention of his time so he only went and lead an artistic revolution! I thoroughly enjoyed reading about his infamous “system” but what I loved even more is discovering insights into why he needed to create it. I can understand completely why he was sick of the unrealistic melodrama in Russia but it never  completely dawned on me that there wasn’t an alternative. I genuinely feel like this is a very important book to read as a young actor and Bella Merlin has done a great job at making it interesting and accessible however I did find myself going back and having re-read sentences over and over again to try and comprehend as much as I possibly could. I had to look up quite a few words as well such as; pedagogic; esoteric ; percolate; despotism; maligned; triumvirate etc. Although this has help to enhance my theatrical dictionary and I am grateful for that. I am going to do a quick overview of what I learnt from each section and my personal feelings towards aspects of this book.

Biography in social and artistic context:  

In my opinion having context is one of the most important things as an actor. It really helps you to understand the “Why” and then you can begin delving into all other areas. Surprisingly I found it fascinating to observe this man’s journey from inquisitive child to elderly adventurer. Konstantin luckily was born into a rich family which meant his childhood was filled with trips to the theatre that most likely set his imagination off. What I love about Stanislavsky most is his ability to never be satisfied. It wasn’t enough simply to be a character; he wanted to dig into the psychology of acting. I feel as if a lot of disillusioned actors do not have this passion and spirit any more. I am guilty of this too don’t get me wrong, sometimes I just want to give the audience a good show and have fun with a role and often leave behind the cerebral content behind. It was great to see his failures as well. He tried spending a night in a cold cellar to stimulate his imagination for his role in The Miserly Knight. Did it work? Nope! But this failure led him to develop observations into affective memory. I liked the way Merlin uses the political climate of 19th century to explain shifts in attitudes towards the arts. I remember in my previous training working with objectives and given circumstances but not understanding where they came from. I understood how objectives work but I didn’t really get why but now I get it. There was no clear upward correlation between his methods and his age. He’d go forwards, backwards, upsidedown and everything in between all in the name of delivering a more naturalistic and truthful method of acting/actor training. The last section of this chapter writes about his later life and how he could no longer experiment in the manner he used to because of his age so he found some prodigies and just tried to give the world the last of him. Active analysis was born was a result of this - Here, Today Now!

Summary and analysis of An Actor Prepares

As someone who hasn’t read “An Actor Prepares” yet I was quite worried when going into this chapter that I wouldn’t understand what was going on. Turns out Bella Merlin does a pretty good job at condensing the information whilst delivering quality commentary. Stanislavsky wrote that book with narratives and insights delivered through watching specifically written characters make mistakes and do exercises and études. Kostya’s constant messing up but constant improvement sends out a good message to me as a young actor. You can mess up but as long as you keep develop you can fine tune your instruments and get better. One chapter analysis that really intrigued me was the one that mentioned about “absorbing rays” and  communicating without using an facial expressions, text or physical movements. I found that slightly ludicrous that two actors could simply sit opposite each other and just emit pure energy towards one another and have an effect on each other.  I really want to try this out practically as I am kind of sceptical of whether it works or not. Also the chapter on “communion” really interested me. I feel as if I have had moments where I’ve been 100% in the grasp of another actor and they equally in me. This is has usually been achieved through improvisational work as that is truly when I am listening to their bodies; every nuance, every twitch, every subtle change you pick up and I think to be able to replicate that for the stage would be amazing. Emotion memory is another mystery that was solved for me. I used to think that using past experience to fuel your performance was just a lesser form of method acting. Turns out it is not! It’s more of a using remembered stimuli to paint the colours of your imagination. It doesn’t even have to be directly related to a plays given circumstances. This is useful to me as a young performer as I may not have as many heart-wrenching memories to call upon when I wish to get weepy for role.

Description and analysis of The Seagull

I found this chapter quite difficult if I’m perfectly honest. It was quite complex to imagine this play that I’d never seen, with characters I knew nothing about whilst being introduced to their inner motive forces and inner tempo-rhythms when I barely even knew the story with which they are contained. Regardless it was a brilliant observation into how to practically employ Stanislavsky's methods. It’s all well and good knowing that opposing objectives create interesting actions but what’s the use of knowing that if we can’t as actors implement it. We can see that through creating an naturalistic and real atmosphere we can trick an audience into believing that these characters that we present before them live their lives after they exit stage right and when they come back we are only seeing glimpses. It’s also interesting seeing how in a time period before the cinematic boom of the 1920’s that a production with such detail to eyes and facial expression could even exist. I mean it’s not like there’s an “extreme close-up button” on the audiences chair. The little nuance, energy levels, opposing temp rhythms, having background action to build an atmosphere; all this never existed and that blows my mind.

Practical Exercises

Strangely I found this chapter the least

useful (at the moment!). Exercises obviously work best when actually physically done thus just reading about how to create a sequence of actions to inspire truthful performances is slightly fruitless. Although I do think if we put some of these exercises into practice we will be able to strengthen ourselves as actors. An exercises that I really found interesting was exercise 4.13 (The one with finding a letter in a room). I find the concept of pure unadulterated reactionary acting brilliant so reacting to finding a letter in a room that’s only meant for you and actively reading it there and then is going to inspire a lot of emotions. The fact you are completely alone even though you obviously know you are being watched also adds a wholenother level to the exercise. How would I react if I just opened a letter and discovered I just won £2000? I guess it’s also about not being a fake and allowing your natural reaction to just flow out of you. This aided me in comprehending Stanislavsky’s “Method of Physical Actions” a little better as throughout the book I was quite confused about what that actually meant! “Active Analysis” was another concept I was failing to fully understand but exercise 4.15 helped me. You don’t have to fully memorise everything about a playscript to understand it. You can just get the bones of it and then move onto this exercise to unlock psycho-physical information hidden away inside these characters.

In conclusion I enjoyed this text and learnt a lot about how to create naturalistic action on stage. I feel this book will be seminal cornerstone in my acting training and am glad I read it.

Hedda Gabler - Response

Hedda Gabler by Henrik Ibsen is a classic “Problem Play” addressing the social and psychological standing of women during the late 19th century. The text depicts the post honeymoon life of our “heroine” Hedda Tesman who is anything but. We see her manipulative nature cause lots of pain and hurt. In this essay I will outline my personal feelings about the play, theatrical potential and it’s relevance today. The text does have it’s limitations and I do have some criticisms of aspects of this piece.  

The entirety of the action takes place in the Tesman’s living room (plus occasionally an adjoining side room). This closed compact setting gives a sense of claustrophobia and lets the audience feel like they are prying into an intimate affair. I also feel like Ibsen uses this to represent the small enclosed world Hedda is trapped in as a woman living during this time period. He also uses a small time scale utilizing only 36 hours of time for all the events to unfold in. I find this interesting because it demonstrates just how quickly life can become dreadful in such a short space of time.

Key Characters

• Hedda - She is the daughter of an army general, from this we can immediately infer that she was raised in an aristocratic household and would have been used to a little bit of luxury. She is very manipulative, often sarcastic/sardonic and very self serving. She feels “bored” with her life and shows a lot of “masculine” attributes that would have been odd for a woman of that time period. This includes; Playing with guns; Talking back to men; Having male companions (Brack); drinking (arguable). I believe Ibsen has written her this way to showcase the want/need for autonomy that women needed.Hedda does some very horrible things like burning Eilert’s manuscript, threatening to burn Thea’s hair, causing Eilert to kill himself and providing him the means to do so. However she is a victim of her time. If her character lived in the 21st century maybe she would have found a creative outlet to eradicate her boredom.

• George - I’m going to be honest; I do not like George. I feel that he is simply a vehicle to show off Hedda’s conniving nature. No offense to Ibsen but George’s characterisation is 2-dimensional at best, and what personality traits he does posses are just plain annoying. Why does he say “no?” at the end of every sentence? I guess this could have been done to indicate his constant need for approval and by ending his dialogue with a question could highlight his weakness via speech. George’s character is very naive and unaware of Hedda taking advantage of him but he has good intentions. He seems to have a constant state of tunnel vision; Unawares of all the things that are going on around him. All he can really see is his work, even when his wife takes her own life.

• Thea - In my opinion she is one big contradiction. She is brave for leaving behind her husband and unfortunate situation but cowardly for not telling Eilert how she really feels. She is clever because she helped write Eilert book but is equally brainless for sleeping in the same house as a woman who just said she was “going to burn your hair after all”. She is comforms to many 19th century social standards of a woman but also breaks quite a few conventions throughout the play. She is an interesting character but someone could easily fall into the trap of playing her as a stereotype.

• Eilert - After Hedda he is the most interesting character in my opinion. He is clever and  enigmatic with clear objectives and things he wishes to achieve. You can tell that there’s a lot going on under the surface. After being in public disgrace following alcohol related scandals however with Thea’s aid he manages to reform himself, write a revered book and start working on his next creation. Eilert had so much going for him but unfortunately he is still human and allows himself to be corrupted by Hedda. I guess that what makes his death even more tragic. Hedda wanted to force him to end himself beautifully but instead he dies in a grotesque manner ruining her dreams. I have a lot of empathy for this character as he is a victim of circumstance. This character is brimming with theatrical potential and can be played in a variety of ways; strong or weak Eilert will have a stage presence.

Context:

When assessing a play's content it’s always useful to look at the world that it was written in. Ibsen wrote Hedda Gabler in the late 19th Century in Norway helping to fuel an artistic renaissance in this country. A lot of his other later works examine the flaws and faults in society and the class system which was quite prominent issue during this time period (arguably still is). I find this text proto-feminist and puts women’s role in society under the microscope. In Norway in the late 1800’s females were expected to be housewifes and nothing more. No voting, no filing for divorce and no taking out loans without a man’s permission. The literature that was written for women at this time was usually about the conquest of finding a husband and being content. Such writers include Marie Wexelsen, Hanna Winsnes and Anna Magdalene Thoresen. Psychologically women were being brainwashed into believing that’s all life should give them and to be happy with their lot. Some women though were not just going to take this lying down moreover during this a period of “first-wave feminism was born. Hedda Gabler definitely breaks the convention by a showing a women that’s not looking for love in the slightest, rather autonomy and freedom from boredom.

Relevance

Why should we study a text written over 100 years ago? Because we can still apply it to life today. The social commentary Ibsen creates is one that can still be explored nowadays. Are  women still treated equally? No! Do females have certain expectations of them and can they be judged for having masculine qualities? Yes! Do we still have a class system that generates alienation between people? Definitely! Is suicide still considered beautiful by some people? Without a doubt. Many themes, questions questions examined by Ibsen still have prevalence in the world that I live.

Dramatic Potential

Upon reading I got a sense of voyeurism, like I was peering into an intimate world that I had no business being a part of. If I was to stage this myself I would use small and intimate stage space with close proxemics to the audience. The theatrical configuration can really help to create this claustrophobic atmosphere. I would use thrust with a raised platform so that the audience can feel connected to the drama but not entirely a part of it. In my head imagined it being performed somewhere like the Cockpit as opposed to the Olivier at the National. Even though there’s nothing wrong with that space I just feel like the story would be dwarfed by the massive auditorium and the small theatrical nuances would be lost. I would also love to test out chameleon casting with this piece. I would do this to represent how many different women can feel these very same emotions as Hedda and how the story is not just an isolated incident.

In conclusion I find Hedda Gabler interesting and very deep in its analytical sense; it has something to say! It’s going to be intriguing finding these characters and seeing how we can make this piece gripping and engaging without losing the overall message.