Lesson

We finished off the workshops today.

Tian, Alex and Jonah didn't choose one of the practitioners we worked on but chose to work on Stanislavski instead. Stanislavski used to believe actors had to be emotionally open and to achieve this, he took them for naked three hour long runs to tire them our then made them perform. As they were tired, they could get upset easily or could be the polar opposite and be happy for ages. The three boys took this idea and made us run around the space until we were breathless and tired then made us do another box improvisation. It wasn't the same as when we did it the first time around, but I could tell the tiredness had got to some people because some were a bit hyperactive and others were just exhausted. If we did the jogging at a more steady pace when we had energy, this could have gone better.

Shanon and Sophie did a written workshop not based on a particular practitioner, but on character work and knowing them on a deeper level.

Firstly, we wrote down the facts we knew about our characters. I wrote:

• George marries and convict, Esther Abraham and has children with her
• He joined the marines and a second lieutenant when he was 12
• He comes from a well-off family

Then we did some objectives:

• George is responsible for studying plants
• He looks after his platoon
• Is for convicts being used for sex and marriage

Finally, we answered some questions about our characters:

• What does he say about himself? Nothing much, though he doesn't seem to think he's a bad person. He thinks he's someone with morals and some authority
• What do others say about him? They say he "enjoys" the convicts.
• What animal would he be? A worm. Harmless, significant but insignificant and ruins beautiful things. Like roses.
• What colour would he be? Metallic Grey. Boring but with a little bit of sparkle.
• What country would he be? The Czech Republic. 

This workshop helped me think about George differently than how I did before. The last three questions were strange, but I knew what he would be. He's a small part but he has a character and I feel I know him well enough to answer those questions. He would be happy with those responses.

Kitty and Harrison made us lie on the floor in semi-soupine and look at the differences between you and your character. What was interesting about their workshop is that they made us imagine what our character would be like if they were alive in this present day. It was interesting to hear what people had come up with. For example, Catherine (Mary Brenham) saw Mary living on an estate with an abusive husband and children in a velour tracksuit. We could all see this because Mary is such a sweet character but she's vulnerable, doesn't stand up for herself and she's fragile, so somebody would have taken advantage of her. I saw George as being a middle-class man who has a golf club membership, divorced with children but married to a much younger woman, a nice house and a yappy yorkshire terrier. He enjoys the finer things in life but I don't think he would be an emotive husband due to his lack of respect for women. He is trustworthy but I think he'd be materialistic and would rather his life look perfect on the outside and no so much on the inside than let it show. He'd also be a workaholic who tries to juggle a social life at the same time. He'd have a circle of friends and though they're friends, they all like to show off about the latest gadget the have or where their next holiday is. An extremely materialistic, slightly self-centred, but kind man.

Lesson

Today we did workshops in pairs based on the works of one of the practitioners we looked at. These were short workshops, no longer than 5 minutes but some people were missing so some of us had to do it without our partners.

I was supposed to have done my workshop with Marian, but she wasn't there. We had planned a workshop based on the works of Michael Chekhov and improvisation to help people learn the differences between themselves and their character. I decided that the best way to do this would be a game of park bench so I set up three chairs and an audience and had three volunteers go up and sit on the chairs. I then gave them a scenario and asked them to improvise as themselves, such as a waiting room and there is a god awful smell. When the scene fell flat, someone in the audience would say stop, tap one of the three on the shoulder, they would leave and the person who has just come in would change the scenario to a different one. I then got them to do this in their characters and the scenarios were more fitting to the time, such as three convicts and one morsel of bread and they decide who gets it.
For most people it helped but I really could have done better with the improvisation if I had set scenarios that I gave them and they reacted once as themselves and once as their characters. Choosing different scenes each time wasn't a wise move because there was just them reacting to one situation and their character to another. If they had reacted as two people in one situation, they would be able to see the differences between themselves and their characters, their attitudes towards each other, their ways of dealing with things and other stuff we haven't yet had the time or opportunity to discover ourselves.

Another workshop that was done today was Layla and Catherine's. They looked at Michael Chekhov's character types. They told us to put ourselves into the groups we thought our characters were best suited to and them Layla, as an officer came to tell us that due to technical and environmental matters we would be spending a few more months on the boat. Us thinkers went first and as soon as we were told the news, nothing was said. Not a word. We all just sat there thinking until Molly broke the silence and said that we should probably look at how much food we had left. There weren't many doers but when they were told, they were angry about it and showed us all how they felt by throwing chairs and kicking walls and cursing. The veils sat there and just spoke about it then wandered off the subject.
Then all three of us character types were put altogether and given the news. It must have been very interesting to watch because the thinkers were evermore still, the doers still got angry and the veils just spoke some more.
This workshop helped us and was in fact quite good because when we first did the exercise a few lessons ago, I couldn't quite take myself seriously and hadn't been able to apply it to my character. This workshop allowed me to do that and it created an atmosphere when we all reacted together. I was aware of all the various reactions, but I was concentrating on how to handle the situation. I understand my character a bit more now and can really see how different we are, because I myself would have been with the doers.

Lesson

Today we moved onto looking at declan donnellan.
He believed that everything an actor does on stage has a target and said the actor should focus on this rather than themself. You shouldn't look for the answers in yourself but outside your target, instead of worrying about what your character is doing, worry about what the other characters/target is doing.
Our warm up games today were based around having a target. We played:
Kill the president: this game uses a ball, someone as the president, another as their bodyguard and everyone else's target is to hit the president's legs with the ball. The bodyguard must make sure the ball doesn't hit the president, but when it does the bodyguard becomes the president and someone else is the bodyguard.
Dodgeball: for this game one person had the ball and their target was to hit everyone else's legs to get them out. Everyone else had to make sure they didn't get hit.
To be able to play situations realistically, you need to understand your target has two possible outcomes and you need to be able to play both of them. Every living moment has an element of quest and at one point, all characters will have their moments of doubt, but targets divide into a better or worse situation.
To look further into the better or worse scenarios, we compiled a list customised to our characters of possible outcomes of their lives. I had:
I might be promoted, I might not.
I might be able to study the plants, I might not.
Will the convicts be difficult or not.
I might have another heated discussion with the reverend, I might not.
We might get another ship with more food stock, we might not.
In a book declan donnellan once wrote, he relates all his target theories back to Romeo and Juliet. He wrote that actors should ask themselves the question "what is the target making me do?". He said attention is about the target and concentration is all about you.

Lesson

We did more on Michael Chekhov again this lesson. We did some work on physicality first and Chekhov believed that there are three main character types; thinkers, doers and emoters and they each have their own houses, or ways of moving.

• Thinkers: thinkers are sticks. Sticks, if they could move, would be very rigid and quite slow, so that's how most of us moved. We had to move around the space as a stick or anything else that was relatively stick-like, I was a stick insect/praying mantis. This was a bit strange at first but I understand why a thinker would move like a stick because when someone is really thinking, they don't think about anything else they're doing, so they'd naturally walk slower or not move at all. Also when people are in deep thought, they freeze like a stick.
• Doers: doers are balls. These are the type of people who will immediately do something when placed in a situation and don't sit around. A ball or any spherical object is constantly moving at a particular pace. I went around the space as an air particle which is round and moves freely which is my idea of a doer. 
• Emoters: emoters are veils. These are the type of people who will "float" around as they tend to get emotional in situations and they'll sweep through. They might get emotional or they might pace a bit. They're almost thinkers but they move and are vocal.

After that exercise, I thought about what kind of character type I would be. In a situation, I have different reactions but I tend to be more of a doer. I move around in anger or tension and can become quite vocal which is very different from what George is because I think he is very much a thinker. In the scene he is in he doesn't say very much, he just sits at the side, listens and occasionally chips in. I think all the officers are thinkers because they are men of many responsibilities and to be responsible, you must think things through thoroughly.

Thinkers also have the ability to remain composed in difficult situations and stay in control of all those who have lost theirs. I am more inclined to lose.

We also did an another exercise where half of the class was the audience and the other half were sat or stood opposite them. We (those who were opposite the audience) had to choose something that our character would be doing either in the script or in their own time. This could be a duty or a personal task. For example, Ralph was kissing his wife's picture which is something that means a lot to the character and is seen a lot in the play. I was polishing my boots which is something an officer would do a lot because keeping up appearances is important for them. Convicts may have been assigned to polishing boots, medals and other various things but I thought George preferred to do that for himself.

Lesson

Today we focused on our character superobjectives and objectives and how to bring them out. My character's superobjective: to study the plants.

For the first exercise we had to walk around the space doing a phycological gesture which is a gesture that shows our objective whilst speaking out our objective. I can't say I got much out of this exercise because it didn't help me discover much. I already knew my objective and that exercise wasn't showing me anything new.

We focused on the physical centre next which is the point of the body through which the energy comes from and through which they lead. My character leads from the chin because even though he's not a high-ranking officer, he still feels superior amongst the convicts and has a decent amount of self-respect. This also makes me walk slower and look more manly if I use the chest too.

This lesson helped in some instances but not so much in others. This is character development I could have done in rehearsals or in my own time. I need to do more research into my character before this would be of any help to me.

Lesson

This lesson we looked at the techniques used by Michael Chekhov whoo is the nephew of Anton Chekhov.

He was born 28 years after Stanislavsky and was unfortunately caught up in the Russian Revolution  whilst he was creating theatre. Stalin didn't like what Chekhov was doing and what his theatre stood for so he was banished from Russia and went to live in America. There he trained many famous Hollywood actors.
He wrote a book called To The Actor in 1953 which explained all of his teaching and methods of acting. He emphasized a lot on movement and imagination because he looked at the difference between the actor and the character they were playing. In most cases, there were big differences and Michael believed you shouldn't try to become the character but pretend to be them instead. Imagine you're them "You don't have to use your emotional memory, you can imagine".
He believed that actors should understand the composition and be concerned about the whole play like a director and not just immerse themselves in their character. Actors should also be able to build atmosphere and bring out their higher ego.

This lesson we looked at our own mannerisms and ways of existing in a space and then becoming our characters then assessing how big of a difference there is between us. The differences between my character and I are:

1. I'm female, he is male. there are going to be differences is how I move and speak on stage
2. I'm 17 and he's probably in his late 30s. Maturity and difference in age will have to be shown
3. I have no army training at all, he does. 
4. I'm in 21st century Britain, he's in 18th century Australia. There will be very big differences in dressing, speech, movement, interaction with other characters, etc.

Lesson

This lesson again focused on Mike Alfreds and improvisation however they weren't as gamey as before.

This day the class was split into halves. The first half went and their task was to do something for someone with an objective behind it such as to surprise them, to prove they can keep a promise or to get their own back on someone. Most people did their task as a favour or as a chore and they were things like making scrapbooks, folding clothes, etc. Caroline started to change things such as the weather, whether they were inside or outside, and where they were. From watching other people I noticed that when they started their tasks, they were casual about it and got on with it but the things that were changed worked for only some people. For others it made no sense.
From my experience, It did start to become at bit abnormal. I was washing dishes and all of a sudden I was washing the dishes outside in the scorching heat but I was using a sink. I think if things were changed on our individual situations, it would have been better.

We also did another exercise where we worked in pairs with a shared objective but no speech. My partner was Harrison and we were putting together our new ikea bed. We were given different points of concentration and these would be the weather and how it affected our situation, a shared point of concentration such as we just had an argument, a private point of concentration given to one of the partners such as trying to seduce the other and once the exercise was done (if you did it in front of the class), everyone else had to guess your point of concentration.

I liked these exercises as they helped us with our improvisation skills and this time we were able to settle into our idea and expand it slowly. We were introduced to the ideas one by one and we were given time to adjust to them unlike before. with the second exercise I preferred it to the one from the last lesson because I got to build a relationship with my partner and think about what would be surrounding us, where we were, etc. The first exercise was beneficial because we could look at how normal tasks would be undertaken in different circumstances and this can help in the future when facing plays that play around with mundane tasks.