Monday 15 September 2008

Reflection / Feedback

Hi Efro,

Here are now some of my thoughts about the residency and my personal experience during the three weeks.

First of all what was nice to notice, was the welcoming atmosphere of the whole group, considering that some of the people have been in the company before and worked together previously. From the very beginning, there was no hierarchy in the group and after couple of days of getting together we started forming a very democratic way of working.

From early on, one thing that I had to keep on reminding myself was that I need to stand behind my own individuality, which in the end produced the best results. This came up in one of our conversations too, and it was something I just had to keep on my mind. Maybe it was something to do also with the fact that this was my first professional engagement with this company and in such cases I usually take note too much of how other people tend to work.



The individuality issue also came up when working in smaller groups. This allowed for closer connections between people and it also resulted in different ways of working within the different groups. This issue emerged again in the last week when we were setting the structure, when each one of us started automatically knowing a bit more what kind of response we would get from different people.

One aspect, which was new and beneficial for me, was the use of voice and text. I was a bit shy on the mic in the first week, but after getting used to it, it became relatively quickly a new tool to use and improvise with. Here I still think that the text from the scripts was essential for me, because just trying to improvise with no material felt a bit too clunky for me. Maybe an exception to this was the final interviewing scene, but this came up last, so I was already more used to using language in improvisation by that time. So, there the improvisation did not feel too awkward, but quickly, in that scene too, there started to be certain reference points to play with during the performance.



The actual structure and the playing with it “grew” quite steadily I think. In the first week, many of the try-outs were a total chaos and it was hard to push things any further, because there was not enough common understanding amongst the group of what we are doing. When we started to play with it more, the whole thing became much clearer. This enabled, at least myself, to be more decisive when “onstage” and to respond quicker to the impulses. It was also beneficial when we placed only one person onstage and worked on the material as a solo. It helped to create more unified performances and to move from one motif to another more smoothly (was this ever a goal you wanted?).

The actual performance raised a bunch of questions, some of which were also addresses after the show in discussions anyway.

First of all, does the audience need to recognize/make the right connection with a scene from a movie? Is that important or would it become too flat after a while if it was only about that? If the connection needs to be made more clear for the audience, how could we make the realisation process/unrevealing interesting every time and still keep it accessible?

Another thing was the attempt to keep the performance fresh. We tended to fall into some familiar patterns during the last week when running the piece, but in the performance we moved to a bit of a more alien territory. How can we still make sure that the structure works? The material could feel familiar to us, or we could feel that we have already done this, but the audience has not seen it before. So, the question is how not to fall into reproduction of a “safe” pattern, but still be on top of it…



In general, I think we made a huge progress in three weeks. I feel that I found my place in the group (as did everybody else) and this was hugely beneficial and productive for the end result. The thematic of the piece intrigues me and in the future I think one thing to take into consideration more is how else to approach the source material (films). Certain ways were explored already, like: exact copying, taking certain elements and bits of text... These were good approaches, but maybe they can be even more clarified and hopefully lead us to create more material? With time, of course, the approaches we used already could also be taken further (for example, the exact physical copying).

So here were some thoughts. I did not write anything about the format of the residency, mainly because I did not have much critique about it. I’ll write more if/when things come to my mind!

All the best,
Jarkko x

JARKKO

Monday 8 September 2008

Individuality within the group situation

The reason for me why groups can be so strong is that not everyone needs to be good in everything or able to do (dare) everything.

The openness within the group as well as its diversity matched really well I think with the cross training method. That way of training helped me to be open for new experiences every day, in training but also towards the others. It taught me how to accept the differences in skills and knowledge of us performers. And I realised as well that each person needed a ‘special’ situation/atmosphere/feeling to show his/her strength.

The focus on individuality + group started to fascinate me and allowed me to stay true to myself, but also be open to learn from others. It definitely helped me to trust myself more and made me realise how important it was that each one of us had strengths and weaknesses. And, that there was nothing wrong with that, but only accepting that fact would make me a good performer. Patience then (towards others and myself) was a skill I developed further.



Group as I understand it now is a shifting situation where everyone finds a certain place but can also break out from it.

The group situation became a safe place for me in the sense that I knew that whatever I did differently in a performance we would find a way out of it. That I felt so safe was something I realised in Panos’ class, when we were running as fast as we could (eyes closed) towards the group. It surprised me how I could just go for it without doubting whether I would get caught/saved. The group became a very strong element as through our range of skills the possibilities of how to work became enormous. Working in smaller groups brought up the different approaches being used and therefore allowed me to try out things in new and unfamiliar ways.

The 3 weeks definitely offered us space to find ways of honestly presenting ourselves in front of the audience. For example, the Quizoola! made me realise that I did not need to cover my real self with some kind of spectacular story or lie, but that I could be honest, say things as they were, and be confident that no one would judge me for that.

So, then, in improvised sections of the piece, the thought ‘why are you not doing this?’ came up less and less. Either I just did something, or I just accepted that I was not involved. As an MC I tried to ask questions that somehow made sense and stopped worrying about being ‘inventive’. Of course every day was different, and sometimes I handled those kind of situations better than other times…

SUSANNE

Saturday 6 September 2008

The ‘hmhowamigonnasurpriseyouthistime’ rule

First thing that comes to my mind is the fact of working in isolation. I mean getting away from ‘normal life’, whatever or wherever that is, and focusing as a group on a project in a specific space and given time. That breakaway I find enriching as far as I’m concerned, thanks to that added taste of adventure it gives. In general, I suppose it can be considered a double-edged sword, depending on the group chemistry. In any case, it is something I enjoyed. And more generally, perhaps it can contribute to breaking our personal patterns/habits, which - if I’m not mistaken - was one of the commonest individual goals expressed (in many different ways) on our first day of work.

One of the most challenging things for me has been to work in a moving piece. The decision to fix the structural framework of the piece and only that feels much more exciting than a ‘fixed’ show. It gives us the opportunity to allow things to happen in the space; and on the other hand that means that things will happen in the space only if we really let them. Any kind of repetition or recalling of a relation/feeling/discovery cannot have neither the freshness of the first time or the scenic maturity of a well-rehearsed piece. So there is no in between. In between situations where I tried to drag past rehearsal experience in new ones and repeat anything in any way simply didn’t work for me. The material kept its freshness by being slightly altered, when nourished by what was happening in the space. And, of course, every ‘past experience’ is there to add to the group’s own layers of communication and complicity, maybe something like another, unwritten this time, rule - the ‘hmhowamigonnasurpriseyouthistime’ rule.



Some questions I have been asking myself:

The first question for me is that of transposition of one art form onto another, from cinema to scenic art. If we put apart the tool of the microphone, what is left that we can call cinematographic? How can we give that quality without its most powerful tools of camera focus, music, and of course editing? Also, as far as the performer is concerned, the stage invites us to make things ‘bigger’ than in real life, and cinema smaller. Is exact imitation the best way to be truthful to a scene or a film when we put it on stage? Or shall we systematically, as we often did instinctively perhaps, try to work out ways of adapting for the stage, so as to be faithful not to the form but to the spirit of the film. But then, would that be cinematographic? Is it possible to be scenematographic? :-p

The second question that occurred to me was that of narrative. What is left to the person who does not follow, or play the game with us? What is there to see? It seems that the parallel story would be that of the performers, being in and out of a part, being in between characters and self, their journey anyhow. I loved it when in the midst of a show-time vladavoum action moment, someone was left alone making a personal confession to the audience or to no-one. As if all this was in fact the set for our big struggle for expression as artists, through games, characters, or directly through us... Anyway, trying to imagine myself on the other side, I believe I would find some satisfaction in observing some kind of consistency in the personal journeys of the performers, and the relations they do or do not build.

GIORGOS