FeedsOkay — it’s been WEEKS since I posted a blog entry, but in order to catch up, I’m just going to PRETEND that this one is FRESH!!
THAT’S because the subject bears discussing as many times as YOU can bear it, as you will quickly understand…..
10 July 2009
It’s happening AGAIN! More OPENINGS!
One of the joys of the Shaw Festival is the seemingly continuous parade of special events.
First among these, of course, are the OPENING NIGHTS!
Last night was the opening of THE DEVIL’S DISCIPLE. Our last preview before opening, we played to an enthusiastic audience of over 90%. Was this a sign — audience members flocking in because the word was out that we had a hit? Or — GLOOM! — an attempt merely to squeeze in before our official opening and the consequent ticket price increase? Would our opening be a floppy anticlimax?
NO — in a theatrical happy ending, our opening night crowd was appropriately supportive — laughing in the “right” places in the “right” way, applauding through 7 or 8 curtain calls, and leaving the room with a happy buzz of approval which echoed in our ears, as we made our way backstage to await an onstage presentation to our production sponsors.
All was smooth and largely uneventful – but only for the audience. A brand new member of our cast, Prince Amponsah, a first-year company member, acquitted himself admirably as an historically aware actor playing a British soldier. Some days before, he had received a warning that his services might be required on this night: with one day’s final notice and 45 minutes of rehearsal time, he joined the DEVIL’S DISCIPLE acting company to replace Micheal Querin in 2 or 3 scenes late in the play. Why? Simply because Micheal had taken on the role usually played by actor Al Kozlik, hospitalized for a few days after a mishap.
For those enamoured of such details, Micheal had performed BOTH his own role AND Al’s for 4 previous performances, underdressing part of Al’s costume and effecting a lightning-fast change of wig and demeanour before returning to the stage. When it became apparent that Al would be missing on our opening night, Prince was added to the cast to smooth Micheal’s transition to his second role of the evening — but the wardrobe department wasn’t immediately aware that sharing certain soldierly “non-skin” costume pieces would be impossible in the real time frame of our play. Hence Micheal discovered something never before seen in MY experience at the Shaw — HIS name AND Prince’s name inside the same gaiters!
You probably know that “gaiters” are the cloth or leather ankle and shoe protectors featured on our British soldiers and well-to-do citizens. In our play, the gaiters are authentic – each gaiter has about 7 buttons that need to be done/undone each time the gaiters are used/removed. This is not an easy challenge in a fast change. Add to this difficult item the chest-crossing leather belts that support a soldier’s bayonet scabbard, and you get a sense of the challenging details that even such a simple character substitution can impose. (Naturally wardrobe was soon informed that, in fact, TWO sets of gaiters would be required!)
Our second opening — for those of us who do these two shows –was today: STAR CHAMBER. So far as we can learn, this Noel Coward one-act has only been performed a single time, a matinee in March of 1936. As director Kate Lynch said early in rehearsals, “At least we don’t have to worry about the usual ‘Maggie Smith did it THIS way!’ kind of comment.” Although no words of Coward’s text were changed, Kate DID add a brief “production number” late in the play, as an extension of the action. This has proved popular with cast and audience alike, and provides a more pointed dramatic climax to this little piece.
Those of us who saw Coward’s POINT VALAINE or, even earlier, THE VORTEX, at The Shaw, are well aware that he can be subtle and subversive in his character depictions. Kate Lynch made an interesting observation — that, whenever characters seem to set themselves up to deserve harsh treatment, fellow characters seem to spare the final blow — a sort of humane compassion, an urbane politeness, intervenes to obviate any potential crushing of the spirit. Much of our work on STAR CHAMBER was similar to the work on a new play, simply trying out different interpretations of text over and over again, but always using this apparent lack of cruelty as our guide.
This tiny play, which we initially read in January at approximately 34 minutes, is a particular treat for anyone who has ever served on a volunteer committee. It just happens that the volunteers here are famous stars of the British film, theatre and music hall, and apparently at different stages of their careers. Each has a different view of what constitutes the duty of a responsible committee member, but all, however, seem to be indulgent towards J. M. Farmer ( full disclosure: MY role!), the Honorary Secretary of the fund set up to house destitute actresses. His job it is to obtain the Executive Committee’s approval for extensive improvements to Garrick Haven, the retired actresses’ house. Included in the production as adjuncts to the committee members are baby Patricia (our addition) and a Great Dane (Coward’s specification). The hectic schedules of the performing stars, mixed with their charitable desire to help, prove to be a volatile concoction, and the press photographer who arrives to record their work is only ONE of the distractions.
Unlike THE DEVIL’S DISCIPLE, in which the bulk of the story is carried by 4 or 5 major characters, STAR CHAMBER has a cast of 11, each of whom takes the spotlight from time to time. There’s a saying that I’ve been testing over the last 20 or so years of my career: “The play always becomes the reality.” This seemingly innocuous observation is susceptible of a multitude of interpretations according to the circumstances, but here it simply represents the fact that the actors performing STAR CHAMBER are in a closely parallel situation to their characters’ — no one performer can carry or drive the show without the co-operation and compliance of all the others — and yet each must fervently desire the spotlight throughout. In a production full of potential distractions,finding and following the focus of the piece from moment to moment was/is a huge challenge.
In a later blog, I want to touch on the challenges and satisfactions — and curious coincidences — that arise while rehearsing two plays simultaneously. For the moment, suffice it to say that in both the shows of “mine” that opened this week, the French word for rehearsal, “la repetition”, was very present. Both plays possess an unusual and elusive tone — both reharsal periods involved many, many hours of performing scenes moment by moment, adjusting, correcting and changing as we went.
This was especially true in STAR CHAMBER. The main action takes place around a table — yet there are clear “asides” that only SOME characters hear. Further, all the characters are stars in their own right, and “know” each other in a general way — but do some, as the script seems to hint, “know” each other in more personal ways as well? The decisions we made were based on following spider-web-like clues, and attempting to build scaffolds from them. Various suggestions arose from director and cast alike, and each was applied and tested through repetition and adjustment. Do Character A and Character B WANT to sit beside each other, or are they perhaps on the OUTS? Does their relationship change in the course of the meeting? Is that demonstrable with text alone, or do there need to be explicit blocking changes to suggest these emotional changes?
Throughout our time of rehearsal, much of it spent with all of us present, we sifted and searched for clues, and postulated hypotheses, and made decisions, right up through our final previews.
What you see — are our best bets! Enjoy!
Guy Bannerman
