9 years ago
Monday, April 23, 2012
Thursday, April 05, 2012
CDP 438 Entries #6- #10
After the first preliminary presentation, I found that the presentation of Hakim and Russell were somewhat lacking in what they were trying to present. I suppose I was a little too preoccupied with directing the minute details of blocking and stage movement (since I was afraid of things becoming too stale on stage without movement), that I had forgotten about the entire vision that I had for the piece – that is their death scene. This excerpt that I chose was supposed to be a re-enactment. So in choosing to focus on the intricacies and the insecurities of poor directing I had overlooked my original vision of having Russell and Hakim cast in darkness illuminated only from waist up. My intention was to create a disembodied feel to convey their deaths. However, given the limitations of the space the idea was shelved.
Indeed, after the first presentation I was forced to relook at the piece again and to explore new ways of staging with my original vision in mind. The message in conveying that vision was not clear enough in my directing. I then recalled while we were reading through the script in the earlier parts, the stage directions mentioned two corpses being laid out on the ground with the soldiers acting around it. I then decided to have the actors laid out on the stage, much as if they were being pulled right out of a morgue. I decided to take a departure away from realism because after all you don’t have dead characters talking in realism and directed it in a more stylistic manner with more concise blocking. I realized that I had to create a very strong impression of death and along with it create a very strong sense of regret for both Russell and Hakim.
I want the audience to realize the horror of their misunderstandings. It would also bring their deaths full circle as we can understand it better given it mirroring the earlier death scene in the play. I want to audience to realize that their deaths were not the result of the race issue. I also want to portray more poignancy to this scene because we only fully understand the circumstances of the deaths now. Even more so evoke a sense of pity because despite understanding the issue at hand, audience as well as the Russell and Hakim are powerless to change their circumstances.
To do so, I would need to draw the audience’s attention to the fact that they are dead. Therefore, in the final presentation I decided to have Hakim mime the removing of a cloth covering Russell’s face, the kind that would be pulled over one’s eyes when one is dead. Their movements are also supposed to be rigid and still, as if they are slowly waking up and suffering from the effects of rigor mortis. Their voices are also mechanical and dead. I wanted the audience to know that the conflict they had was more personal, so I had Hakim mount a pressing verbal attack on Russell, in terms of picking up in speed, anger and intensity as the duologue moved on. Russell seemed moved to defend himself as well as he questions his own objectives. As the duologue moves to a climax, the audience realizes that these are not racist slurs being thrown at each other. But rather how their personal dramas are being coloured by the colour of their skin, something which they never wanted when Russell says: “Everyone down here wears the same coolour, even our fucking haircut! Everyone has equal treatment here”. This rising action is mirrored by the actors movements as well, as they slowly stand up to push their point. Hakim too acknowledges Russells ignorance and cultural insensitivity: “You dragged a dog to lick that Malay trainee, sir. That’s my fight with you. Not because he was punished, sir!” this matter is much deeper than just the colour of their skin that the outside world perceives, they do not see the intricacies behind Russell and Hakim’s actions. All of which I tried to explore here.
After Hakim’s last outburst, it becomes crystal clear that both parties have explained their behavior, and Hakim has acknowledged that it is more a personal insult to the religion due to Russell’s ignorance, rather than a blanket racist hatred that Russell had for the Malay trainee. At this point Russell sits down leaving Hakim standing, with this frame I wanted to portray they idea that Russell has subordinated himself in relation to Hakim as he says: “I said I am no longer a ‘sir’”. The shift of the duologue appears at this point as the intensity winds down. They both slow to their original monotone pace and lie back down on their backs. This is symbolic as it points to the resolution of their conflict; it also provides the audience with a resolution with regards to the play itself. Their final apology would echo the audience’s reactions as well. Hakim pities Russell while he apologizes for the furor that his actions have caused. That they are both powerless in death and the chapter between them comes to a close.
All in all, I feel that there are two things that are integral to being a good director. A good directorial vision as well as to have good people management skills. It is a rather interesting kind of relationship between actor and director. As a director you realize that the actor is a vessel for you to communicate your vision. But they have their own flavor that they add to the piece that you are directing; often they can give you some things you have never thought of. A performance is as much a director’s vision as it is a creation of the actor. It is the melding of these two creative minds that create the performances we see today. Indeed “No book can ever adequately describe director-actor working relationships. The chemistry is as complex as humanity”. I’ve been directing a few hall productions; just had a third one recently, but this would be a more formal approach to directing. I guess I have been focusing more on the actor’s perspective in directing, rather than maintaining the director’s own vision in directing. As much as I should be asking “what is the character trying to show” I should also be asking at the same time “what am I as a director trying to show”.
Indeed, after the first presentation I was forced to relook at the piece again and to explore new ways of staging with my original vision in mind. The message in conveying that vision was not clear enough in my directing. I then recalled while we were reading through the script in the earlier parts, the stage directions mentioned two corpses being laid out on the ground with the soldiers acting around it. I then decided to have the actors laid out on the stage, much as if they were being pulled right out of a morgue. I decided to take a departure away from realism because after all you don’t have dead characters talking in realism and directed it in a more stylistic manner with more concise blocking. I realized that I had to create a very strong impression of death and along with it create a very strong sense of regret for both Russell and Hakim.
I want the audience to realize the horror of their misunderstandings. It would also bring their deaths full circle as we can understand it better given it mirroring the earlier death scene in the play. I want to audience to realize that their deaths were not the result of the race issue. I also want to portray more poignancy to this scene because we only fully understand the circumstances of the deaths now. Even more so evoke a sense of pity because despite understanding the issue at hand, audience as well as the Russell and Hakim are powerless to change their circumstances.
To do so, I would need to draw the audience’s attention to the fact that they are dead. Therefore, in the final presentation I decided to have Hakim mime the removing of a cloth covering Russell’s face, the kind that would be pulled over one’s eyes when one is dead. Their movements are also supposed to be rigid and still, as if they are slowly waking up and suffering from the effects of rigor mortis. Their voices are also mechanical and dead. I wanted the audience to know that the conflict they had was more personal, so I had Hakim mount a pressing verbal attack on Russell, in terms of picking up in speed, anger and intensity as the duologue moved on. Russell seemed moved to defend himself as well as he questions his own objectives. As the duologue moves to a climax, the audience realizes that these are not racist slurs being thrown at each other. But rather how their personal dramas are being coloured by the colour of their skin, something which they never wanted when Russell says: “Everyone down here wears the same coolour, even our fucking haircut! Everyone has equal treatment here”. This rising action is mirrored by the actors movements as well, as they slowly stand up to push their point. Hakim too acknowledges Russells ignorance and cultural insensitivity: “You dragged a dog to lick that Malay trainee, sir. That’s my fight with you. Not because he was punished, sir!” this matter is much deeper than just the colour of their skin that the outside world perceives, they do not see the intricacies behind Russell and Hakim’s actions. All of which I tried to explore here.
After Hakim’s last outburst, it becomes crystal clear that both parties have explained their behavior, and Hakim has acknowledged that it is more a personal insult to the religion due to Russell’s ignorance, rather than a blanket racist hatred that Russell had for the Malay trainee. At this point Russell sits down leaving Hakim standing, with this frame I wanted to portray they idea that Russell has subordinated himself in relation to Hakim as he says: “I said I am no longer a ‘sir’”. The shift of the duologue appears at this point as the intensity winds down. They both slow to their original monotone pace and lie back down on their backs. This is symbolic as it points to the resolution of their conflict; it also provides the audience with a resolution with regards to the play itself. Their final apology would echo the audience’s reactions as well. Hakim pities Russell while he apologizes for the furor that his actions have caused. That they are both powerless in death and the chapter between them comes to a close.
All in all, I feel that there are two things that are integral to being a good director. A good directorial vision as well as to have good people management skills. It is a rather interesting kind of relationship between actor and director. As a director you realize that the actor is a vessel for you to communicate your vision. But they have their own flavor that they add to the piece that you are directing; often they can give you some things you have never thought of. A performance is as much a director’s vision as it is a creation of the actor. It is the melding of these two creative minds that create the performances we see today. Indeed “No book can ever adequately describe director-actor working relationships. The chemistry is as complex as humanity”. I’ve been directing a few hall productions; just had a third one recently, but this would be a more formal approach to directing. I guess I have been focusing more on the actor’s perspective in directing, rather than maintaining the director’s own vision in directing. As much as I should be asking “what is the character trying to show” I should also be asking at the same time “what am I as a director trying to show”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
