Day Eleven at LCT Directors Lab - Morning

Instead of beginning rehearsal as usual for the last three days, we were called to a meeting of the morning Macbeth groups (2 directors, 12 actors, 2 designers, 2 design consultants and Anne).

Using tact and by way of describing Labs past, Anne told us that we were going to switch rehearsal spaces for today's rehearsal, in the spirit of experimentation. If you've been reading these posts, you will know that this processed seemed to be about "site specific" work. We were assigned to rehearse in a backstage ramp area six feet wide and perhaps 40 to 50 feet long with very high ceilings and very orange walls. Today we were sent to the traditional "small rehearsal room", a square whitish room about 30 x 30. We all accepted the news with good humor. Furthermore, I thought to myself that this was good, since we would have to be moving to the large rehearsal room tomorrow anyway for the presentation. Abstractly, I thought that it would be easy "to bring the ramp with us", even in an overt way, i.e., that the actors would behave roughly the same way (though not at all demonstrating the architecture of the ramp). But these actors had become more sensitive to their own inner experience through the work we had done...

We got there and no one knew how to proceed. One actor declared a "shutdown". We talked for a long time. Fortunately, observers were barred for the first half. We dimmed the lights. I stopped talking and hoped something would happen. We talked some more. Another actor noted that now we were all doing what we do in a regular rehearsal room with all of its associations. I noticed that, much more than before, the actors wanted me (or seemed to want me) to tell them what to do. Then we tried to do our "free work" again in the new space. Some of the actors used the chairs (and kleenex) as props. This was good to see, as good actors usually find their way physically, somehow.

I said I thought the space needed to be "defined". The actors said that they had, just by being in it and walking on the chairs, moving the chairs, etc...., but I meant defining the relationship to the audience. I was surprised to discover they had not imagined audience members in the chairs as I had. I had taken my own perception for granted.

Taking a cue from something one actor said yesterday, I placed 24 chairs in a square, to "define" the space, and they played again. I threw my right sneaker into the square. Lady M played with it creatively for some time, though that illuminated little, to me. Everything seemed less valuable and conclusive that it had at the ramp. One actor said that without additional direction, they would just play and play, though he said he wasn't asking for any direction (in so many words). I felt loathe to grab onto any kind of limiting "answer." I would love to free play for a month. Peter Brook did it for three years in Africa, without any playtext at all. On the other hand, I wanted a taste of what the next step in the process might be. I called the break.

About 10 observing directors arrived. I asked them to sit in the chairs (which I had reduced to 5 on a side). I instructed the actors to make an analogy between this space and the last... "The center of the square is the ramp... relating to people (audience) is being at the top of the ramp.. being outside the square is like being "around the corner" at the bottom of the ramp. This was enough--that and the presence of new people--to begin again in a more creative environment. I also stopped caring about what the "audience" thought.

Both yesterday and today, the sense of exploration relating to the play dissipated around the event of the "banquet/Banquo's return". We talked about "recognition" which took some teasing out, and ghosts, and seeing and seeing again. I said that this issue was at the heart of the play's turning point. The we did some more play around that issue, which was quite fruitful, made a few more comments, and the time ended.

When the onus was on the actors to explore from very little, two things happened more intensely than in a "standard" situation. The actors make more personal demands (in a good way) based on their own exploration, rather than pleasing the director. Also, it became even more apparent to me that a director must learn to listen to each actor differently, while setting his own agenda aside, while listening. With one actor in particular I kept hearing requests from me on his part, but he really was just making observations -- I think.