Children's Theatre My Journal - Children's Theatre (2005) Week One

It was great to start the year again with Children’s Theatre; it’s such a positive and constructive atmosphere. It is vital that you feel protected and safe in such an environment. For education students, most of us would have discovered the concept of ‘Maslow’s hierarchy of needs’ suggesting the need for a safe environment to promote personal growth and development (McInerney & McInerney, 2002:429). Personally, I find it extremely difficult to produce any work in a location in which I don’t feel relaxed. As Ctace pointed out today, Children’s Theatre is a great unit that develops the individual in addition to developing new skills and approaches to theatre. Looking back on this unit last year, I was a completely different person. This unit changed the way I think about my academic work as well as the belief I have in my skills and myself.

The activities we completed today were rather useful for getting to know each other. I found the introduction circle and the character activities were extremely important, why? Firstly, individual introductions allowed members of the class to speak and officially introduce themselves. It is also important to realise that all of us have different backgrounds and reasons for doing this unit. Some people have educational reasons, others enjoy the theatre and some were just attracted to the idea of the unit itself. Enthusiasm in this unit, and university work, is vital. Personally, the want to develop myself last year was crucial; and in turn my confidence in my own work and self-image developed.

There are of course some areas I still have trouble with, I’m only human (not Ned Flanders however, he’s perfect!) I found the activity extremely difficult, I struggle to produce and develop a character on the spot. I need time to research, workshop, interpret and refine my ideas on a character’s presentation. I fail to create a character instantly, however I have no trouble with improvisation and off-the-cuff dialogue. This is something I could spend this semester refining. Is there an approach for creating a character in one-minute? The official aim of my study is to develop intensive character building techniques by investigating possible approaches to creating a new role. In this semiotic approach to performance I intend to look at different theories, to in turn develop and share my approach. I hope to include each week some important exercises, tips and insights into developing a believable role and structuring a possible approach to theatre.

[i] Latin Proverb, Robin Hyman (ed) A Dictionary of Famous Quotations, London and Sydney: Pan Books, p. 283

This is the most important statement in encouraging my return to Children’s Theatre. If ‘multiple’ meanings can be created by ‘the reader’ (or audience in this case) how can an actor present a character that leaves little interpretation for the spectators to construct? My ultimate goal is to build up an approach that will create a fully developed role that requires the least amount of audience interpretation. Initially, I believe the best approach is to first view how an actor creates meaning from a text, specifically, what an actor reads and how they could interpret it. For this it is important to talk about the activities that occurred today.

The concept of offer and acceptance was explained today by means of various activities. This is something I had experienced before in Drama and the Curriculum (see Other Journals, Tuesday 11^th January). Dialogue can only continue when a character ‘offers’ a situation and another ‘accepts’ and continues it. These are basic ideas, however vital for understanding how a script and even regular dialogue is constructed. The first few activities focused upon presenting an offer and either accepting or refusing an offer. These activities demonstrated the reliance that an actor must have with their cast. To successfully work together, basic rules of engagement must be established and reiterated. I believe interactions on stage (scripted or otherwise) cannot occur unless every actor is open to accept or refuse offers when appropriate. I am not only referring to verbal acceptance but non-verbal as well. Body language on stage communicates a lot to the audience, in some instances, more than words. The ‘yes/no’ activity clearly demonstrated the need for strong body language, especially when we were asked to accept the offer using the word ‘no’. Reliance was on facial expression, body movement and gestures to communicate to our partners the answer ‘yes’ without saying it.

As a separate section, the acting group then played Space Jumps. This is a great activity for improvisation, however it offers pointless repetition unless a clear focus is created. The focus for us was developing the skills of offer and acceptance. I believe that most groups started well as each person entering the new scene offering a new idea and every person accepted and developed it. I found that focus started to shift as each group began to refocus on the presentation of the scene rather than the purpose. Reflecting on it now, I realized my approach was more on presentation as I attempted to stereotype different characters rather than continue and develop the dialogue. The scene with Ilona for instance focused on us arguing with each other rather than creating a narrative. Shouting from both of us in fact was rejecting offers instead of accepting them. Although this may have seemed a basic activity, its purpose was vital as it allowed us to develop awareness for this crucial theatrical element.

The other bit I found interesting today was the development in production awareness. Knowing what the production team has to do and how they are progressing is important to the whole ensemble. Lindsay Lloyd was able to show the finalised backdrop layouts and explain the next steps in its construction. In addition, the production group broke off to develop an approach to a scene from The Dragon Variation (1996). Both of these examples are important to demonstrate to the acting section the colossal undertaking that awaits the production group. It’s not a matter of just making some costumes and turning on some lights, they construct a world for the characters to exist within. No matter how hard I work on creating a believable character, without a realistic setting the full meaning could not be communicated. Quite simply, the production group not only make us look good; they make us become real!

[i] John Caughie (ed) (1977) Theories of Authorship. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

The circus skills workshop is one of the highlights of the Children’s Theatre semester. Acting like a child is one of the fundamental activities that anyone can (and should) take part in. This unique workshop is included to not only help us understand the simple elements of entertainment and how to maintain the audience’s attention, but also to simply support having fun. In an interview with Reg he said circus ‘makes up for all those things that are missing in current childhood…hard work, self-design, risk, trust, aspiration and fun’. What is also important is the ability to create believability in character presentation, which is the focus of my research this semester.

One crucial aspect in creating believability lies in movement, a section we focused upon last week in the class with Salmiyah. The more realistically you present and move your character, the more successfully you can communicate to the audience. In an interview with Salmiyah last week, she suggested that simple changes in movement and gestures could communicate a variation in character presentation for either the good guys or the villains. Salmiyah said that ‘your body’s your tool; it’s like an instrument…a key to body language. If I’m hunched, we are expecting a certain type of personage. If the line is straight and open…it is very straight forward… a body which is open should indicate a person which is going to be open and ‘nice’ compared to the baddy who would always be a bit twisted…I feel body language is very, very important’. What does this mean for the presentation of your character?

Little variations in the presentation of your role can make it easier for the audience to decipher your intentions. The ‘Yes/No’ activity in week three is a great example of this idea. In the activity, we were asked to say ‘no’ but use our body to say ‘yes’. Raised eyebrows, open eyes, big smile, high shoulders and overall positive body language communicated to our partners the concept of acceptance. I would suggest that the semiotics of a conversation, or dialogue in theatre, focuses on what is not being said just as much as what is said.

Again in the Circus Skills workshop, we were able to take part in activities that focused our attention on creating realistic situations. I’m guessing that actually going around and physically beating each other could be rather detrimental towards the group’s morale… duh! I felt creating the illusion of pulling on someone’s nose or even slamming your partner into the wall does provide an important reminder (not solely to demonstrate that violence is funny). These events are not real; we are only acting, thus creating an illusion. The best performers today, however, were the ones where other classmates needed to ask if they were okay after their performance. They created an illusion that made us, as an audience, believe we were watching a real fight.

Kate and Brittany, for instance, created the catfight from hell. I felt like I was watching two people fighting; yet breaking it down semantically, they both presented elements that a spectator would associate with real fighting. They both took turns in presenting clear roles, namely the victim and the attacker. When the attack began, the victim clearly reacted with verbal and facial expressions. The attacker equally demonstrated a reaction, but it was spiteful in nature. It would appear then that our responses on stage must come from the interaction with other characters. In basic Children’s Theatre language, I would assume this would be the difference between the good guys and the bad guys; literally good and evil.

Maybe not this drastically, but your character is defined by the others you associate and communicate with. Your reactions to any other character can also communicate to the audience their relationship to you, friend or foe. One of my favoured theories is based around the notion of atmosphere. Michael Chekhov suggests that a normal happy street corner can be completely altered by a car crash. I find that this concept is crucial in decoding and preparing my characterisations. Take an example of a King entering his palace throne room, a majority of characters would bow in respect or fear and others would not bow at all. The ones that don’t bow could be of equal status to the King (such as the Queen) or may be plotting against the King to dethrone him.

In this simple example of a King entering the room, the atmosphere changes. What is most important is the way the other characters respond. This simple scene shows the status of the characters, the respect of the followers and illustrates to the audience the odd characters out. This example shows solely how movement can communicate to the audience and explains the hierarchy and possible threat to the protagonist. The Chekhov approach is something that I will use a lot this semester. I will be very interested to see how it will develop and how I will implement it over the course of the production. I currently feel it is the most useful technique in developing status as well as contrast, and therefore it should be a major component of my finalised approach to creating a character.

[i] ER, broadcast on Network Nine, 24 February 2005.

View other 'Semiotics and Performance: The Role of the Actor' journal entries...