Friday, February 27, 2009

directors notes 4 (some pics)

Director and actor Emma Hillier (Michelle)





Andrew Gillies (Ian) Natalie Gisele (ASM) Sherry Roher (SM)looking towards director for some kind of answer to something.





Recording session Sound Designer Chris Stanton (foreground): L-R:Fiona Highet (Carol) Kyra Harper (Janine)Emma Hillier (Michelle) Guy Bannerman (Freddy)Andrew Gillies (Ian)Shauna Black (Elaine)




Alan Van Sprang (Trevor)




Directors Blocking notes!



Fiona Highet (Carol)


recording for Missing Chorus tracks:Sound design Chris Stanton (foreground): l-r: Kyra Harper (Janine) Emma Hillier (Michelle) Guy Bannerman (Freddy) Shauna Black (Elaine) Andrew Gillies (Ian)

director's notes 3

Mamet has this analogy about acting in one of his books that I like. He says (and I paraphrase) "If you are getting brain surgery, you just want the doctor to make a good clean cut, go in there fix it, sew it up well and make you better. You don't give a shit about how he feels."

Yesterday was a challenging day for me..one of those days where you feel you are letting your actors down. One of my actors was having difficulty with some lines and no matter how many times I tried to explain where I thought the character was coming from, why the character was saying what they were saying, what the character was "feeling", I just couldn't get the light bulb to go on in the actors eyes.

So once more I felt that uselessness of a director when confronted with that divide between what is so clear in my mind and what is unclear in the actors mind.

I believe my job as a director is to facilitate the creative process of telling a story. ideally to create an atmosphere in the work place where all of us can be as creative as possible. But when that facilitation breaks down I feel that the "failure to communicate" begins with the "warden".

My response to my actor (at least in my head) is: "that's your job..to figure out why you are saying what you are saying." That is at the core of the imaginative process of acting..making choices, bold choices, trying them on and discarding them if need be, but above all committing. As an actor myself, I know the frustration of saying lines that don't seem to have a connection in a play..but I also know that especially in a new play, there are things that will not make sense, and things that need full commitment from the company to see if they fly. I know at times that what we "feel" is really irrelevant. What we need to do is make a good clean cut (and I don't mean text cut although that is sometimes the answer and too often the actor's default request "It must be the line that doesn't work, not me.")--make that cut, sew it up and let the patient go home.

I think that, unwittingly, many of our actors, especially those that make a living doing TV and Film, become anesthetized by atrocious writing that we are allowed to change on the set to "make it work". This often leads to a tendency to think that "my character wouldn't say that" instead of "that's the line, make it work".

This is why Mamet got so aggrieved by what he calls Hollywood "huh" acting. He wants the actor to just say his words. If he is doing his job..the thing will fly,if he hasn't then it won't, but let the writer own it.

Back to my actor..I don't want to suggest that this was going on in their mind or behavior, not at all..but my failure to help, leads me to question not just my process and its failings but the whole process of how we rehearse plays..as I said yesterday, a world premiere done with three weeks rehearsal.

Today, hopefully I can give better facilitation--I want to help, but I also want actors to take full responsibility--I can't expect that unless I do too.


DIRECTOR TIED UP BY INABILITY TO ANSWER ACTORS QUESTIONS:

Thursday, February 26, 2009

director's notes 2

Chris Stanton came to rehs yesterday (Sound Designer) and we played with foley sound created by the actors to blend/mix with recorded sound. This kind of meta-theatrical approach (actors on stage watching actors perform, creating scenic and aural shifts/support for the action) is at the core of the kind of theatre that I learned working with James Reaney and Keith Turnbull years ago on Reaney's Donnelly trilogy. Reaney referred to it as "Kanuki Theatre". I love it, but I always end up questioning my love of it because we live in such a cynical age when it comes to such simple theatre traditions. Audience and practitioner alike has been inundated with so much "realistic" drama via TV and film that the predominance of "naturalistic" theatre in the Toronto theatre scene at one point became, for me, suffocating.

Anyhoo---it was fun to try and replicate the sound of a pot of burning turnips and the sound of Janine (played by Kyra Harper) scraping the grill in her cafe..the sound of potatoes deep frying (popcorn kernals poured into a steel bowl).

We are spending probably way too much time for the actors' taste trying to get the scene changes moving smoothly and briskly (see post #1) and I feel that old pinch of time trying to make sure that I give the scene work enough time and attention. NOTE to self--make sure you do!

Three weeks rehearsal for a new play--how does this country's theatre survive this way. Flo is fantastic support in rehs but there is so much to learn about the play and so much tinkering text wise to make sure it is "right". It is tragic that our theatres consistently do not have the infrastructure and funding to commit to a six week rehs period for new plays---if only the arts councils and foundations had a fund for new productions that specifically focused funding to additional weeks of rehs of new works. So much is at stake for the writer..we are a country for the most part of one production for new plays..the ones that get picked up are so dependent on strong first productions to make that impact.

Monday, February 23, 2009

Missing Rehearsals-director's notebook 1

We had our first stumble through for lights on Sunday and it was, as usual, a terrifying experience for the director. You see your progress, but you also see how far you have to go. The choral work in the play is beautiful but of course it poses real stylistic challenges. We have four distinct worlds in the play that the designers author and I have to navigate..the budget and space challenges of a smaller theatre are always to be considered. We have to go rapidly from a highway cafe with counters, tables, stools and food to be cooked to a farm house kitchen to an urban apartment to a porch to a field or woods. Gillian Gallow has designed a fluid and impressionistic set and we are using the "chorus" to facilitate all scene shift..though we have kept props and set pieces to a minimum we still have to rapidly gave the impression of a different set..no turntables, flies with flats, IATSE crew of 5 to change the scenery, so it is a real exercise in imaginative staging.

The actors have all done really good work and though we are still addressing dramaturgical questions with script changes they have all kept a great humour and are totally committed to finding the truth in each scene.

Chris Stanton brought in a cd of mid 70's tunes by Canadian bands to listen to for pre-show music and it was great to listen to The Stampeders "Sweet City Woman" knowing that actor Alan Van Sprang's (Trevor in the play) father was in that band.


Jody Richardson's songs written for the production are great..I can't stop singing them.