ORDER ORDER

ORDER ORDER


5 bodies scattered around 4 tables. 1 moving spot, 4 fixed around areas, 1 spot fixed in front of cage. Birdies to be hung above cage? Upturned buckets needed in front of cage.


ACT 1

AUDIENCE IN WITH USHERS, PLACE WINE, PROGRAMMES ON TABLES, PIANO PLAYS

MOVING LIGHT ON LEAH, SINGS TO INTRODUCE PERFORMANCE – MOVED DOWNSTAIRS WITH USHERS TO MARIONETTE POSITION – INTRODUCES CLAIRE – LIGHT OFF LEAH, ATTACH VELCRO

CLAIRE ACT – MOVE TO MARIONETTE TO INTRODUCE ANDREA…

ANDREA (LOUISE ASSISTS HER TO MARIONETTE POSITION) INTRODUCES VERITY.. VERITY JOINS US

LIGHT ON MARIONETTES, HEAD HUNG. ‘AWAKE’ ON YOUR FIRST NOTE – ARMS MOVE ON FIRST NOTES. FLOP TO END.

BLACKOUT


ACT 2

TRANSITION TO CAGE – KIM AND LEWIS MOVE US BACKWARDS AND START WITH LEAH AND VERITY ON OUTSIDE OF CAGE, THEN ANDREA AND LOUISE; BOTH MEN LIFT CLAIRE. THEY RETURN TO BACK DOOR – WHITE NOISE DURING THIS PERIOD

LIGHTS UP IN CAGE AND 30 SECONDS OF SILENCE. LIT – WHITE/BLUE ON PIANO.

‘MUSIC BOX’ MUSIC BEGINS.

SILENCE IN CAGE WITH EITHER FOCUSED MOVEMENTS – SOIL – WATER

CHANTING? WE ARE ALL EQUAL IN DEATH?

CHILD VOICE – POEM? WITH SOIL EXPERIMENT?

BLACKOUT AND STROBE..


ACT 3

..STROBE AS VINCENZI BEGINS – PROJECTION nb projector on floor, glow tape AND LIVE - AS WE MOVE OFF CAGE INTO SPACE IN FRONT – WHITE NOISE HEARD

STROBE CUTS AS WE ARE IN ALL POSITION – SPOT TO REPLACE STROBE

AS VINCENZI IS COMPLETED –STROBE ATTACK – VELCRO UNLEASHED – HOISTED BY USHERS BACK TO INDIVIDUAL POSITIONS

SPOT ON LOUISE – WHERE TBC – NEAR BATH! .. COLD SONG

ALL SPOTS ONSTAGE UP – VERITY WORMS IN SOIL, AS CLAIRE RECITES TEXT BACKWARDS, ANDREA FALLS

LEAH’S EPILOGUE CUTS ACTION – LAST VERSE AS ENSEMBLE?

BUSKING AND EXIT

RUNNING ORDER

USHERS

MC

CHARACTERS - acts
leah and lousie
claire
andrea
verity

end in marionette poses

KLETZMER - voices and movements

LIGHTS INTO ACT 2 - HAND PROJECTION

CAGE

SILENCE - movements and hands

SOIL EXPERIMENT - 'girl' voice

VINCENZI

ACT 3

OUT OF CAGE INTO SEPARATE AREAS

VERITY

LOUISE - cold song

CLAIRE - text backwards

ANDREA

LEAH - epilogue

FEEDBACK SCRATCH 3 – WEEK 10/11

-Jen generally questioned the use of projections for all three groups. Additionally movement may be pushed and developed also.

-The main feedback was that the intention of the piece had been lost – for example the sparkler perhaps needs rethinking with burning things or lighting matches seen as preferable. Likewise the motivation behind Louise’s section was questioned; many were not aware that Louise was standing on ice at all. Jen suggested playing with a block of ice with Louise perhaps inserted in the block.

-Perhaps this links in with a lack of clarity – the physical clarity seen in the Vincenzi section needs to be seen in the other sections also. Jen commended our through line in the performance – that we are bodies which are moved rather than free moving – but still stressed perhaps the narrative hits spoken about with Hilary – each section needs a dramatic purpose.

-Characters seem to be the way forward; each move is then potentially motivated to enhance the through line as discussed by Jen. Perhaps bringing back the singing may go someway to making us liberated again as performers.

-Several of the pieces of set also need refining; in addition to the sparkler and the ice, the elements needed to be dramatically enhanced with lighting or relevance in performance. The clarinet also needs working into the performance more to seem effective. The poem section needs work also – slowing and a different voice effect?

-Framing the piece was another issue – initially, what is our relationship to the cage? We need to leave the cage sooner and spend more time out of the cage that yesterday. It was suggested that the cage is placed in the centre and that each character finds another restricted area in which to perform in the second half, but is constantly tied to the cage by the elastic. This may be a possibility and may also link to the split screen idea with the projections which is intended to either break up or expose the one dimensional space – the word axis was used.

-The final issue was the intentions we have as directors – what do we want an audience to see? An installation? A digital performance? A cabaret? An ode to death? And importantly are they involved in our practice or are they segregated.

I think that all of the above can be answered with relative ease – it is the time to make distinctions and stick to ideas. What do we want the overall concept to be and what do we want an audience to get out of watching/interacting with us? (Perhaps this is the time to use our self-evaluation sheet from a few weeks back). Once more of a solid grounding is in place ie our research questions refined, so the rest should fit into place: how we stage the piece to reflect our central aims, the structure of the piece, the set and movement work, the individual characters and even the afterlife of the piece can be made clearer. We have produced three scratches with rich material in all and these have in turn provided three very helpful feedback sessions – my feedback would be to strip back to basics now and work upwards. Its all there – we just need to locate THE concept and then realize it.

THOUGHTS TOWARDS SCRATCH 3

Considering that our 3^rd scratch will be the last we’ll get feedback, I suggest we to stick with what we already have, refining it, polishing it but trying to abstain making big changes.  In my view those sections works quite well, just need to make some fine-tuning. Reflecting on feedback I wonder if we were perhaps telling a kind of too literal story during the cabaret section? and thus instead of achieving a strong contrast between the 2, the piece was somehow diminished from the original strong quality we’ve achieved the previous day while rehearsing.

Although I love to entertain the idea of staging the piece in one area, it brings doubts for me too. but for different reasons than those mentioned by Claire: I think that it won’t be easy to keep the audience’s attention focus just on one place for 30 –even 20 minutes-; and although it’s not impossible, working with the body require and/or include other elements perhaps may take more time than the available.

Last week each of us started to get some idea about characters –during discussion and rehearsal: Marilyn, orchestra director, immigrant. that allowed me for instance to make different body movements during the 2^nd section, movements that I relate to this emergent character of mine. I wonder if would you be willing to extended them to the last section by thinking how may they behave when re-incorporation? in this way they could guide us –not necessarily by making it explicit to the audience but working just as an aid for us, inside our heads.

in terms of transition to the last section, I appreciate the feedback of ‘exchanging languages so they come more as a substance like the soil in the mouth. To be about body not language’ (Rachael). that exchange means we to speak a language that is foreign to us: i.e. the german for spanish; we french for welsh, and so on.

at that point we could draw the audience’s attention somewhere else for instance into a projection on the opposite wall to the cage. having them concentrating on it, it will give us time to come down from the table and to surprise then again when the projection finishes, producing another unexpected situation.

how are we going to surprise them again? William Pope.L’s performances could be a source of inspiration here (Jen’s post). the audience could suddenly find our characters crawling on different directions on the floor; a different character –for the audience’s eyes- transformed or as they are transforming themselves during re-incorporation (into the same society though).

this would bring us back to the ideas of separation, transformation, re-incorporation we’ve agreed as concept: the characters might have produced some kind of change or transformation –during the cage state- but they end up going back into the same social structure than before.

some links where you could read about William performances and to see some pictures of his crawling -some of which may go well with the idea of puppets. see you later, xx

http://www.villagevoice.com/2002-01-08/news/superman-enters-the-culture-wars/

http://picasaweb.google.com/andrea.argenta/MOVINGBODIES7INSPIRATIONS#

IMAGES 25 and 26.11.09

Scratch 2 pictures, performed 26.11.09

http://picasaweb.google.com/andrea.argenta/MOVINGBODIESSCRATCHPERFORMANCE2261109#

(pictures by Kim Bumstead)

group meeting and rehearsal pictures:

http://picasaweb.google.com/andrea.argenta/MOVINGBODIESREHEARSAL251109#

Short videos, discussion around voice/sound

25.11.09 – GROUP MEETING FOLLOWED BY REHEARSAL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH2jlM7iQ38 0:10”

25.11.09 – GROUP MEETING FOLLOWED BY REHEARSAL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i54Miu3Y02g 0’25”

Weeks 9-10, cont.

I think that the main feedback from this week was a concern for the levels of performance. The approaches to solving this varied; either emphasizing the differences between each section to create more of a texture or increasing the stakes on everything we have produced. Either way the focus of the piece needs adjusting ahead of the next scratch. What was encouraging was that not only could we have predicted this feedback – I think we were all aware of the flaws – but that due to this, we had already in parts considered the solutions. Perhaps what Verity says on one of her posts, to leave the audience in cabaret mode and I am assuming therefore us beginning in the cage, will avoid any repetition in moods or pitches between the first and the second section. I also think that we knew full well that the real test would be the construction of part three, which we are due to address this week. All in all then, the feedback was entirely useful and can guide us through the next scratch in the very least.

Where to go from here then? Verity had suggested incorporating all three sections into the one structure, that of the cage. I think that this idea has some leverage in that it is our central image, is aesthetically proving its worth and theoretically supports our ideas – with the tomb like shells, the division and yet unity of bodies, a body moving liminally whilst the physical bodies remain static – the list goes on and I think one of the joys is that the audience are free to interpret the structure as they wish as every interpretation inevitably falls back to our ideas and overall concepts. Glorious. However I would have doubts about staging the whole of the piece in the one area. I think the main reason for this is that we have been stuck for some time on the idea of the liminal and of course, of moving bodies. I see it as natural for us to move through the space and to separate, have a period of transit, and reincorporate (after Turner). The counter-argument would include Jen’s reminder about McKenzie’s liminal-norm; perhaps all bodies are in constant states of dynamic equilibrium and so the inbetween state is the normal in modern society. However I think this undoes some of our previous research and would prevent any exploration with the performative lab, in the third reincorporation section, which may involve the audience and therefore us leaving the cage. I think that a compromise between the two is to move from the cage, over the thirty minutes, to the audience. This would give a sense of development to the piece– a performative arc – a narrative (Koob-Sassen) .

So with the structure in place – cage and acts – how to do: several times we have passed over the idea of characters. Whilst I agree that this gives us a good grounding, I am dubious about making these public. I guess that for me, references we keep returning to such as The Trial, Cagebirds, One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest are known to us but not necessarily to an audience. Perhaps the movement between the cage section and the third, performance lab section is marked by learning about a character, implicitly. As an example, I am interested in Cagebirds, where characters possess split personalities. I would enjoy playing with media to somehow show this state. Maybe this is where the puppets come into play, to enact our ‘characters’? I still very much like the idea of the digital hand also; perhaps this could aid us as we exit the cage and begin to walk amongst the audience.

A final idea – the thoughts around the lab section I think are unclear currently. I’m wondering whether having another model would assist us here. Perhaps we could Vincenzi another piece and either play this or physically play this out onstage to help us break free from the cage. Fantasia, however crude, springs to mind, perhaps because of the score and physical score more than anything. And the mops..

THE MEGASTRUCTURE

IMAGES

5 BODIES OF INDIVIDUAL PURPOSE – HELD IN THE CAGE STRUCTURE
5 ELEMENTS/IMAGES OF INTEREST – THE SCIENTIFIC? RECONSIDERING PERFORMANCE LAB –

5 ELEMENTS:
1) KLETZMER – MUSIC – CARABET
2) SOIL
3) TV/DIGITAL/MEDIA/POLTERGEIST
4) PUPPETS/STORYTELLING – HAND/GLOVE/SHADOW WORK/MIME
5) THE INBETWEENS

STRUCTURE

1) SEPARATION – GROUNDED, puppets hanging: LABYRINTH – death and the cemetery. A celebration of life/death

CABARET – DRINKING – SEATING – ARCHIVE INFO
CIRCUS INTRO
MARILYN MUNROE
KLETZMER
MANIPULATING PUPPETS

2) TRANISITION – INTO THE CAGE: LIMINAL play/ground, using life and us as puppets

SOIL – DIGITAL – USE OF MEDIA
HOMO SACER
WE ARE ALL EQUAL IN DEATH
KASPER – LANGUAGE – LINGUSTICS – ENGLISH/WELSH/SPAINISH
CHANTING

3) REINCORPORATION – 5 TYPES OF MADNESS: LAB – mental hospital

THEATRE OF CRUELY – ARTAUD
THE TRIAL
US AS PUPPETS MANIPULATED – DIGITAL
MAKING THE NORMAL ABSURD
CLOWNS