I find that when directing expressionism the best way to tackle the task is to give the actors a breif synopsis of the scene and what you want from the, what are they conveying and how you think they should move. And then allow them to translate that into a tangible reality. Let them experiment within the context of the scene.
The actors must have time to experiment and a 'free-rehearsal' allows for this, it is a chance for the actors to show you possibilities, where they can work. It is the directors job to then push the actors and shape it into something the resembles what you had in your imagination.
For the actor they need to turn conscious intent, into physical action and finally into subconscious action. Which is why (like n any performance) being off book is of vital importance, ideally before the rehearsal time even begins.
For the director it is important to allow the actors to experiment.
Directors owe a lot to the actors, who will time and again find ways of translating the directors instructions and vision into something real, even beyond that which the director had envisioned. It is always the case that the final result, the product that is put on stage is always richer and more interesting, deeper than what the director had originally imagined.
It is hard for a director to tell the actor exactly what he wants while enabling the actor to experiment on his own, with rehearsal time almost always too little for a production it can be difficult to strike a balance.
A good director will tell the actor what he wants him to do not what he wants to see.
I like to keep director vague, offer possibilities, suggestions of what the scene should look like, but a situation in which actors are allowed to become consciously aware of what it is they must do, as has been demanded by the director, causes them to get stuck, to hit conscious obstacles when they are unable to execute the directors intentions. If they are allowed to experiment then they are able to find a point within themselves that feels right and can be executed subconsciously. A performance where the actors just perform a series of highly choreographed movements becomes stale and dead - ultimately it is boring to watch because there is no substance, no play, no richness in the performance many minds are after all better than just one.
The rehearsal room should be a place of mtal exploration and discovery for actor and director a like.
By allowing the actors to experiment them selves and offer their own possibilities and suggestions, they begin to feel some form of ownership over they work, it becomes a collaborative effort as all good theatre should be. I would like to give you another passage from Clive Barker's Theatre Games:
'The director who brings his finished concept of a production to the first rehearsal leaves the creative work by which he has arrived at it behind in his study. The production becomes eighteen people illustrating the result of one man's imagination. An ensemble production utilises the imaginative work of nineteen people functioning co-operatively. The actors understand their contribution to the whole, and their work is that much richer and more alive.' (Barker, 1997: pp. 47-48).
'The director's job could be defined, like the teacher's, as creating situations in which the actor is free to make discoveries, which can then be objectivised and worked upon.' (Ibid.).
Giving an actor a definitive description of what you want him to do limits him and prevents him from exploration and does not allow him to make his own discoveries and he is limited by his conscious which causes him to reflect which leads to definition, which leads to stereotypes and cliche. Not allowing him to work subconsciously and intuitively to create an organic performance that comes naturally rather than being forced out of him.
No comments:
Post a Comment