« Quick Announcement | Main | Premature Recommendation »

November 30, 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

sashanaomi

Hmmm. Maybe I'm not totally clear, but I don't see the pen click as arbitrary. In acting school that sort of stuff was referred to as a secondary activity- so, you have your main objective, and then this other activity, which of course must must must be textually founded, to help push the main objective. So, the fact that the journalist has a pen she clicks isn't anything far-fetched or arbitrary. Well-chosen secondary activities can save an actor's life. I should also mention that I never needed to come up with a secondary activity doing Beckett scene study- dude took care of all that when he wrote the play.

herxanthikles

I was just talking about this! Although it was actually in the context of a director's compact not with their audience but with their actors. I once had a director who, in the midst of an ensemble exercise where we were improvising a sort of frenzied ritual, cried "OK, the god is this dirty sock! Worship the sock!" It's possible that with a director with a deeply serious sense of play this would have been cool. But I felt this director was messing around without any sort of conviction. The choice felt arbitrary and devoid of any investment. Because of instances like this, it took real effort for the company (well, me at least) to trust in the production. I don't think a director needs to have an explanation for everything they do, for actor, audience, or even themselves, but we should feel the director's belief in their choices. Otherwise it's very difficult to give belief back.

Mr. Six

If you think The Invisibles is intelligible you should eat more psychedelic drugs.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

# of Visitors Since 11/22/05


  • eXTReMe Tracker