Week 2 'The Wardrobe' - Titles and Frantic's Devices

Titles for Scene 1:

To extend our understanding of the play, I decided to look at ways of interpreting scene 1 by applying different titles to it. I experimented with two titles.

The first title I chose was 'A taste of blood'. This title is a body part/physical response to the scene, which means that it refers to an action that happens in the scene. In the text, one of the characters (Elizabeth) who has just cut her hand, puts her hand over her sister's mouth to silence her, which forces her sister to eat Elizabeth's blood. The title itself could appear shocking as it could convey clichéd ideas of death and murder but the title is actually very straightforward.  It refers to the literal action of Cecily accidentally eating Elizabeth’s blood. The titles main use is to draw attention to the shock factor of tasting another person’s blood by accident. It means that at a specific moment in the scene it will become apparent to the audience what the title actually means. I chose this title as it focuses on the key event in the scene. I feel that this type of title is effective as it allows the audience to get a ‘taste’ of what happens in the scene but then it follows up with a definitive meaning.

My second title was called “the roses” because it refers to the war of the roses, which is when scene 1 is set. The war of the roses had raged between the houses of York and Lancaster, whose heraldic symbols were the white and red rose. This title therefore immediately tells the audience about the time period and gives them a glimpse into what the scene could be about. The title relates to the part of the text when Cecily calls her sister “the white princess, who married the red king and thus ended the war of the roses.” I think that the colours become very apparent in this scene as a red rose can mean love and a white rose can mean purity, which could infer that their sisterhood is like ‘the roses’ as they are pure and loving. This title therefore has a double meaning as it not only means the houses that fought against each other but also the English rose resembling women. I feel that a single word title is very effective as it doesn't reveal much about the scene but it makes the audience start to question what the scene is about band therefore might make them want to find out the significance of ‘the roses’ in the scene. 

Using Frantic's Devises:
In one of our lessons, we watched some videos from the theatre company, Frantic Assembly. Frantic is a physical theatre company, which means that they focus on the movement and interpretation of the body in a theatrical performance. One of their improvised movements was called hymns hands, due to the fact that they used this movement in a devised play called hymns. The movement is entitled of a partner placing their hands on their partners body. Both people can switch hands but they always must come back to the main part of the body. It focuses on fluidity between the switching hands and the connection to the partners. To extend the exercise further, the partners do the movements in slow motion but they have to follow the hands moving with their eyes. This makes the partners focus on the control of their movements and the effect of the weight of their touch.

 After watching Frantic's videos, we then went to rehearsing our wardrobe scenes. Whilst looking at the script, I realised that we could included some hymns hands into our scene. In the scene Elizabeth says "I promise you this: you will never die alone in a convent, not while I'm alive and we are sisters." At this point in the scene Cecily (Elizabeth's sister) is holding a dagger as she nearly tried to kill Elizabeth. I thought at this point, Elizabeth could place her hand onto Cecily's shoulder as a sign of assurance and when she says "we are sisters", Elizabeth could allow her hand to slide down Cecily's arm to reveal the dagger, which is pointed at Elizabeth. I think that this would be a very effective movement in the scene as it highlights the danger and disconnection between the sisters knowing that they will be separated due to the marriage. It also reminds to the audience that there is still a chance that blood could be shed in the scene. Therefore it brings back the tension after it has been released when Elizabeth is assuring Cecily, which means something could still happen.

Week 1 'The Wardrobe' - Naturalism and Character Profile

Naturalism and Stanislavski

Konstantin Sergeyevich Stanislavski

Born: January 17, 1863, Moscow, Russia

Died: August 7, 1938, Moscow, Russia

In the lesson we were focusing on the Russian Practitioner Stanislavski and his ideas on Naturalism. He believed that performances show be as true to real life as possible. He taught actors to inhabit the role of their character by knowing their lines, the motive of their lines and every detail of that character’s life off-stage as well as on-stage. His key approach to theatre was experimentation.

Before the practice of naturalism, all acting was melodramatic which meant that there was no real truth in what the actors were doing as they were only pretending to be a character. Stanislavski was against this idea. He wanted the theatre to mirror life which enabled him to create “the system”.

“The system” is a process that actors take in order to make their characters naturalistic, this includes the use of emotional memory, the method of physical actions, subtext, given circumstances, “if”, objective and through line.

“No matter how much you act, how many parts you take, you should never allow any exception to the rule of using your own feelings. To break that rule is the equivalent of killing the person you are portraying, because you deprive him of a palpitating, living, human soul, which is the real source of life for a part.” – Stanislavski

In my opinion this means that if there is no emotion from you, there isn't really a character as you are that character. You provide the body for the characters story but without your emotions they cannot really be alive. This type of acting is all formed from the technique of emotional memory. It means that you draw upon your own experiences and borrow that emotion for the character that you are portraying. This related to our lesson as we tried using emotional memory on our characters. When we didn't use emotional memory we had to use our imagination to get an idea of how our character felt, however when we did use emotional memory we were able to sympathise with our character and it gave us a deeper bond with the character as we were in the same place as them. Considering this technique in acting will be helpful as it will give us connection to our character no matter how different they may be to us.

“When an actor is inspired his emotions flow, his actions are real and theatrical, his performance is clear to the audience; short, the actor reincarnates himself as the character.” – ‘Stanislavski Revealed’ by Sonia Moore

To me the reincarnation hints to the idea that an actor must start from scratch with any character they play and draw from the subtext given to them and emotions they have gained from real life. This also relates to our lesson as we were discussing the idea that we leave our real life coats on the hanger outside the acting area and instead we put on our characters coat. However the characters coat doesn't leave the acting area so that you are safe from mixing up the different lives. I feel that this technique is helpful as you are able to full immerse yourself into the character as you are not constricted by your own life. However it is important to remember that you can still draw on your own experiences with emotional memory.

In the lesson however I didn't feel that using an object to extract emotions was helpful to me as I felt false in what I was portraying, perhaps it was because I didn't feel a lot of emotion for the object. Therefore I would like to practice using other objects and different memories to draw from because I feel that this technique would be an easy way to delve into naturalism quickly without having to put too much strain on emotional memory.

"The Wardrobe" Scene 1

Scene 1 is set in Tudor England 1485. At this time the Wars of the Roses between York and Lancaster had finish as the Yorkshire King Richard III had died and the Lancaster heir, King Henry VII took to the throne. The two sisters’ in the scene, Elizabeth at 18 years old and Cecily at 16 years old are the nieces of Richard III. The oldest, Elizabeth is due to marry King Henry VII but she doesn't want to marry him and her sister Cecily doesn't want to be left alone without any future (e.g. not being able to see her sister, having no husband or children).

In this scene I play the character of Elizabeth of York who was born in 1466 and married Henry VII in 1486 (when she was 20). She bore him 7 children; Arthur, Margaret, Henry VIII, Elizabeth, Mary, Edmund and Katherine. Even though she is due to become King Henry VII's Wife, she does seem to be a very youthful and jolly character in this scene, as she says small jokes like "I'll start a new fashion: Barnaby the First". This starts to show a bit more of her private life as she is more open to her sister and the audience in the wardrobe and it shows her trying to bring happiness into what is an awkward moment for the sisters. I think this a key element to the scene as it shows the character's true nature to the audience. It also allows the actor to experiment with the maturity levels of their characters and show how much different they appear to be from their public faces.     

      

In the early 1400’s women wore dresses that could be slipped over their head which were called ‘houppelande’. They often had v-shaped necklines that were broad to show of the undergarments and tubular sleeves. Around 1470’s the bodice had to be done up by lace at the back of the dress and most dresses had trains. Some dresses also added fur to the necklines and sleeves. In all social classes women wore gloves. The wealthy ladies would have worn embroidered gloves that were encrusted with jewels.  The women had many limitations in the way they moved. They would have a very straight back and the dresses would be very hard to manage.

This showed me that my character would be limited in how she sat in the wardrobe and she would not be able to get up quickly.  It would also show that she would be uncomfortable in the wardrobe as she would not be able to slouch. I think it would be important to show how uncomfortable she would be at the audience to show how she hides this un-comfort from her public life. She is also limited by the fact that she is a female. women had many restrictions as they were seen lower than men and they had no legal rights. They were only seen good for marrying wealthy and barring children to further the family line. This therefore makes me consider whether or not her whole life is uncomfortable as she has no control of her life and it has been planned out for her. I think this factor will change the way Elizabeth is played as it shows the bigger differences between her public and private lives.