My Friend Grant

The never-ending cycle of artist grant-writing continues. What an unnerving task; baring your artistic soul for a panel of strangers, hoping that the samples of your work that you have selected will adequately convey your skill, talent, and passion. Not to mention your worthiness of the grant, need, desperation even? It is like an audition where you don't even get the chance to try to talk your way out of an awkward choice or presentation.

In other news, in my many pieces of planning for departure, I have been aiming to downsize my considerable closet. I am selling many pieces of clothing that are much-adored, but oft forgotten. Not surprisingly, I am very attached to each piece, recalling when and where it was purchased, important occasions on which I wore it, who it reminds me of. It is a sad procedure, but at the same time quite uplifting. It was satisfying  to look into my closet unit and see far less clutter, only keeping those things I actually need and use. I would strongly recommend this to all for a "lightened" perspective. I will be posting a link to photos of the pieces later this week....consider a purchase a donation to my "london" fund!

Explanations

I was on the bus with my 7 year old yesterday, trying to keep her amused after a long day at the zoo. She really loves art, so I hauled out my iPad, opened up the app for the British National Gallery to look at some paintings with her. We were scrolling through images of paintings from the 19th century when she came across Monet's "water lily pond" and exclaimed "Mom, that is the one I have in my room!". We proceeded to discuss what the real painting looks like, how large it is, the brushstrokes, etc. She then asked how many of this painting existed, and I tried to explain that part of what makes a work of art is that there is only one.



This got me thinking about creation and art and things. I think that to me, the most appealing part about art, and specifically theatre, is just that; the immediacy of a piece. Thinking back to that Monet...it has long been one of my favourite paintings, since childhood I have had prints, postcards, stationery, and am very familiar with the work. Yet the first time i saw the actual painting I was awestruck. The size, proportion, colours, were unreal. And it seemed to have the effect of a calm wave moving over me as I stood before it.

I can't recall who said what i am about to paraphrase, but it will always stay with me as a nugget of gold from all that university reading; what makes a work of art timeless is that you can encounter it over and over again, and take something new from it each time. It will resonate within you going forward, and impact the way you see the world.

I endeavor to create something which will have this kind of impact.

Dionysus

Once in awhile, an artist gets to be part of a project that is truly unique, one that pushes boundaries and extends the understanding of their work. I had the fabulous opportunity to be part of such a work with Theatre Incarnate this winter. The piece, which I have referred to in earlier blogs is called Dionysus Is Getting Impatient, a co-creation led by Brenda McLean, with myself and Claire Therese. Our starting point for this creation was the work and influence of August Strindberg, tracing the lineage from his play Miss Julie, to Ibsen's Hedda Gabler, Genet's The Maids, and Sartre's No Exit. Using physical theatre techniques, and the text of each play, we created a piece examining the situation on women in drama historically, and celebrating our modern situation which allows women to create this kind of work.

It all sounds a bit academic when put that way, but this process was a truly visceral experience. In our meetings to develop the piece, there was debate on the philosophical and social implications of each woman, which we then translated into physical movement. Constant experimentation played a large role in this, regularly moving lines or movement from one character to the other. After several weeks of this creation process, it became inherent to the three of us that the "art" here wasn't only in the production of the final product for an audience, but also in our daily experimentation and discussion of the piece. Going to rehearsal each day was a joy, something we looked forward to heartily.

The production itself was a success; many audience members spoke to us afterward about how the piece moved them, and how it continued to resonate with them days or even weeks after the performance. It had the same impact on us as performers - after our last performance, I found myself continuing to consider the ideas evoked in the piece both from an intellectual standpoint, and a performance standpoint. Not all who encountered the work felt this way, some audience members and reviewers were left confused by the script....and that is ok too. What is important though, is the things they noted about the show; often what was confusing to them was intended to be so, in staying true to the expressionistic style of Strindberg, and the feminist non-linear approach.

I would be doing a terrible job of promoting my work if I didn't link to some reviews of the production.So here they are...the good......and the..er...not so good.
Kenton Smith, Uniter
Allison Mayes, Winnipeg Free Press
Joff Schmidt, CBC Theatre Blog
Jen Zoratti, Uptown

We took a break of nearly two months after the production completed, each of us going to separate projects. Then in March, wanted to return to the piece to create archival photos and video to send out to festivals and theatres to potentially pick up the piece as part of their season. What was truly amazing was upon our first return to the piece, we remembered a majority of the physical and text work, as if we had never stopped rehearsing. It sat in our bodies, dormant, waiting to return. This "second coming" of the show ended with another performance for an invited audience of family and friends who had missed the original dates. This performance felt every bit as new and exciting as it had months before.

Also, some production stills by Leif Norman



What have I done?




Just home from the live-via-satellite showing of The British National Theatre's Frankenstein and I must say, it was magnificent. I had read about the production earlier this winter, and was intrigued by the idea. Director Danny Boyle, in an effort to explore the duality of the characters Dr Frankenstein and The Creature, had cast two actors to play both parts. The pair alternate roles, while the remainder of the cast remains static. This in itself fascinated me, not to mention the new play being written, with an increased focus on the original book, and returning the Creature his voice.

Well, I am grateful for technology! This production exceeded even my imaginings of what it might be like. First, the use of lights, sound and set to create the locations was unrivaled. With sound design by none other than Underworld the space was transformed from a dark laboratory, to a bright field, to a dirty European town, to Lake Geneva, and finally The Arctic. Lights rippled through the space like lightning bolts, shining clearly through to the actors like rays of sun. Particularly notable was the effect of the burning house, which employed a scrim house, red lights, and lots of stage smoke. The use of the multi-leveled set over the large expanse of mostly bare stage was truly an achievement in design and direction merging. At times the actors were right out in the audience, while at times so far removed the sense of loneliness was palpable.It was exciting to see the extent of the "magic" of theatre pushed past its boundaries to new heights.

The performances, most notably of the two leads, were brilliant. This broadcast featured Jonny Lee Miller as Creature, and Benedict Cumberbatch as Victor Frankenstein. The opening scenes of the Creature's "Birth" were a truly riveting piece of physical work. We watched as Miller was thrust out of the man-sized womb, muscles twitching with a yearning to move. Beautifully choreographed movement ensued as he learned to push himself up, then to crawl, then to stand and walk. The pure agility of this sequence was amazing. At the same time, he learned to speak, first through expressionistic sounds and gestures, and as the play continued, through formal language. This physical and intellectual progression was seamless from start to finish; at no point did we question his ability to adapt and assimilate into "Normal" human functioning.

Cumberbatch's character played a secondary role at the start, however truly came to force as the drama came to a tipping point. The assured intellectual clarity of his movements and actions devolved slowly and methodically into the ravings of a madman. By the end, once roles had reversed, the mirroring of movement between the two actors solidified the idea that they were two parts of a single being.

The performances of supporting cast should be noted as well; Naomie Harris was simply beautiful as the pure and moral Elizabeth; Ella Smith was both raucous as the prostitute Gretel, and pious as the maid Clarice. The only note that rang false in this production was George Harris as Frankenstein's Father, the Magistrate. Enjoyable in many other roles, Harris lacked sensitivity and passion as the Magistrate, as a result some lines came of as insincere.

Overall a brilliant and inspiring production, marrying technological feats with physical theatre and brilliant performances. Bravo!

I suppose a good place to start is why I am here writing this. Well...I am about to embark on my Masters Degree at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art in London, England. Just saying that sentence is daunting enough. I have been out of University for six years now, and haven't functioned as an academic for most of that time. I've been working in both the business world, and the theatre world, which as you might imagine, causes a lot of confusion in my poor little brain. So I've endeavored to create this blog with 3 main goals:
1) Actually articulate what the heck I think makes good theatre. I think this is an integral step to actually feeling prepared for my dissertation a year from now. 

2) Refresh my mind on all the amazing thinkers who have gone before me, and what I've thought of them. Maybe my thoughts have changed. 

3) Talk about the projects that I am working on, and the process. 

That last point sticks quite firmly to my mind. I recently read an article in The Guardian that talked about emerging theatre artists of today, and the lack of discussion of their work. This really made me think...I have been working and creating for many years now, but haven't ever actually sat down to record what we did, or why...the process and the result. And then I got to thinking....MAN if people like Brecht and Grotowski were as lazy as I've been, I wouldn't have had anything to study in university! 

So here we are. Hopefully this won't be too painful or academic. Or maybe you'll like that it is so. We'll see!

Up next....an exploration of the creation process for Dionysus Is Getting Impatient,  a project I recently worked on with Theatre Incarnate..