Some axioms

Apparently (for I am no mathematician nor a historian of mathematics) there were two famous British mathematicians, G. F. Hardy and J. E. Littlewood, who famously collaborated on a lot of stuff that would have even Marc crying “Reader’s Digest!” Before they began their collaboration, which they did almost exclusively through written correspondence, they decided to formulate some rules which would protect their “personal freedom,” whatever that means.
I think they bear consideration as we begin our own collaboration in considerably closer quarters.

The first of them said that, when one wrote to the other, …, it was completely indifferent whether what they wrote was right or wrong …

The second axiom was to the effect that, when one received a letter from the other, he was under no obligation whatsoever to read it, let alone to answer it …

The third axiom was to the effect that, although it did not really matter if they both thought about the same detail, still, it was preferable that they should not do so.

And, finally, the fourth, and perhaps most important axiom, stated that it was quite indifferent if one of them had not contributed the least bit to the contents of a paper under their common name …

[From the collected works of Harald Bohr, quoted by Bela Bollobás in the foreword to Littlewood’s Miscellany, Cambridge University Press, 1986. ]

Can we get this on a t-shirt?

Scripting the Unscriptable

I have my own private little sweat lodge in which try sometimes to write plays. Usually I wind up turning the sweat lodge into an outhouse and that’s that. My block has a lot to do with very severe expectations I place upon my efforts (which I think is a sign, ultimately, of shallowness–it doesn’t hurt so much after I accuse myself of it). Samuel Beckett didn’t start writing plays and cause everyone else to give up, obviously. There are a lot of occupied sweat lodges out there. But I am preoccupied with Beckett’s work as a kind of terminus in the drama. Through a meticulous scoring, through both restraining and exercising a facile bardic tongue, he crafted acts which choked the theatre into speaking about what lies at our limits (got to go beyond Godot folks, as great as it is; read the later shorter stuff where the voice begins to leave the body). In my shallowness and awe, I cannot find a way forward. My current idea for a play is a terrifying construction of the nothing that’s not happening and won’t happen any time soon. If you seek release from the pain of life through psychiatric institutionalization, ask me to describe what I want to write about. I won’t be able to tell you, but I’ll drive you nuts with the ways I can not talk about it. Continue reading “Scripting the Unscriptable”

The Vocal Sequence

Please read what follows. I didn’t write it.

“This is designed as a structure for searching with the voice, searching out the possibilities of the voice. The body will be instinctively involved, organically, that is unavoidable, and the voice can originate nowhere else but in the body, propelled by it and propelling. The rapidity with which it should eventually be done and the rhythmic play of it should eliminate interferences that come from wondering which comes first, voice or body, the emphasis is on the voice as body language.

Continue reading “The Vocal Sequence”

The Vocal Sequence, A postlude

I’m pouting. The first time I tried to create this post (ouch, uncorrected typo was “pose”), it was lost (yes, I “saved”). So I’m not inspired to re-write a useful little piece on vocal support and sound production. Suffice to say, to do this work safely, you support and vocalize like a singer. Pavarotti to his students (no lie): “you squeeze and push like with the bowel movement, yes?” I said beautiful things about the lightness and relaxation of the throat, and likened believing that one’s voice comes from the throat to believing in one’s Ego. Stop clutching at that notion. So when I’ve done other things and am no longer grumpy I’ll say more.

In the meantime, talk to a singer. It [the Vocal Sequence] should feel strange and “not me”-ish. We sometimes laugh at the way opera singers “speak” lines not set to music in a performance. But consider, you can hear them. If you want to play with frequency spread and find mixes which “carry,” you vary the speed of the air passing through your column (through pressure) and try bouncing the vector of sound off different surfaces in your sinuses and skull. Any master of stage performing is going to have some instinct for this approach if not a good deal explicit training. The Method and film acting have almost eclipsed the pleasures available within this sonic world (as far as mass consumption goes), but it still works because it involves the rudimentary physics of how to be heard in a space. Yes, I’m one of those who is reluctant to use miking in a production, except when you want to create mindblowing special effects–then I love it. But just to be heard? Please. Whenever you feel like pushing the throat to accomplish something, let that Frankie Goes to Hollywood song play in your head, you know the one, the disco sex manual from the Eighties (not Two Tribes).

Marc’s Repry

I’m reposting this from the email because I don’t want it to get lost in email history. It bears consideration and discussion here on the blog.

Marc says:

Noel knows I don’t know what I’m saying half the time, myself. And yet, I go on (Beckett). I cannot keep counsel (Shakespeare). Noel, you complete me (Cruise). You find the meaning I lack.

So one way for me to begin working on an idea is to propose an image which prompts a question. So these are questions prompted quite a while ago by local places and other such things. So listen, everybody, new work can grow out of seeing images and asking questions:

Why would an architecture student insist on designing nothing but impossible playgrounds? Continue reading “Marc’s Repry”

The original e-mail, once more…

Below is the first idle e-mail I sent to Dale and requested he distribute when I finally realized I had a crush on the Auntie Mame cast. I want to put it on the blog because it contains a very sober and simple expression of desires. It’s what’s real for me. Please remember the first e-mail as we go off on our tangents and to our extremes. For me it’s all sharing and it’s all performance and it’s all attempts to go to the extremes of thought and gesture to see what’s there. It’s how I play. But the seed of the group idea is in the text of the e-mail. That’s very real and realizable and doesn’t contradict anyone’s convictions (I hope). So I wrote this:

Dale knows I have a propensity for writing manic e-mails during my morning witching hour–you know: that period of caffeine fueled euphoria during which we believe our own press and that all things are possible; so I sent this to him first for comment and judicious distribution.

And now, if you are not put off by self-consciously baroque syntax, please continue and read the pitch. Continue reading “The original e-mail, once more…”

Marc’s handbook

In some other comment, Marc has mentioned the handbook he put together for his GHP students. I’ve been reading through it, it’s more like a textbook!, and beginning to work with him to edit it into a web-based document for our use. The more I read, the more excited I get about our potential as a theatre collaborative. Continue reading “Marc’s handbook”

An example of what I hope to get out of Lacuna

I’ve been asked to share an ensemble experience I had as it relates to Lacuna. In 1997, we were doing A Midsummer Night’s Dream. It was the second time I had directed this play, and I wanted to try something very different. I had brainstormed with Marc some ideas about the play that I had, and had settled on doing it in a kind of environmental setting. In fact, we moved the audience around: they started in nice, neat rows for the Athens scenes, but when we moved to the wild and woolly woods, we asked members of the audience to move their chairs out into the woods with us: they could chose where to put their seats anywhere in the oval-shaped playing area.

Before we began working on the script itself, we spent a couple of weeks with Marc trying to teach us some of his weird stuff, some of which sunk in and we were able to use. I taught ways to approach and play Shakespearean text. Everybody participated. We had a large cast, ages nine to 40+, and everyone learned what was being taught, weird or not. Continue reading “An example of what I hope to get out of Lacuna”

Show, Recollect, Recapitulate

In an effort to clog the arteries with even more pretentious pablum, I thought I’d suggest a way to think about both this blog and our meetings. I want to tempt you to think of them both as sites for creative play and performance. At Governor’s Honors we have developed a rehearsal process for creating original work which reflects, in part, my experiences working with experimental groups in Washington, DC, eons ago. And those experiences and methods, to embed footnotes in the text, were inspired by my intellectual mentor Herbert Blau, who simply asserted–and I risk a triteness by encapsulating–the notion of thought and performance being the same thing.

So at GHP we rehearse by both performing what we are thinking and thinking about what we are performing (by then performing it as we are continuing to think it). And those of you familiar with Gödel, Escher, and Bach will detect a use of recursive and imbedded loops leading, we can only hope, to the possibility of beauty and something which smacks of mind and art. And so the thought continues to perform in the turning over and over (and the lacuna is the widening gyre?–sure, why not).

At GHP we meet and we show one another what we want to

  • show (as I hope we will do at our meetings and on this blog),–and showing may just mean telling in many cases–then we take some time to
  • recollect what happened during that span of time while we were showing (after a meeting, in our case, or after reading something in a blog), and then we
  • recapitulate what we remember, to share it and offer it as possible material for future work (rather than one person taking “minutes” or documenting what happens at a meeting, everyone could create accounts of what happened, emphasing what struck them as interesting or important and post those accounts on the blog). This may be a way for the “cross pollinating” to occur without us risking the spread of anything which could compromise our health.

On the seeming looseness of it all

To many of us, it may seem that we’re going down a fuzzy road to nowhere. What is all this “explore x” and “discuss y“? Why doesn’t someone just pick a play and let’s do it?

We lucked up with Mame in pulling together a cast in which there were no weak links and everyone seemed to understand without being told what we were doing. What we’re trying to do here is to take luck out of the equation by forming an ensemble: a group of actors who speak the same language.

That doesn’t mean that we all have to use the same strategies, tools, or preparations in what we do. It doesn’t even mean we all have to agree. What it does mean is that all of us can understand the different ways we all work, and there will be some commonalities of approach, since we will all work together.

It may also be a little scary/frustrating/puzzling that we don’t seem to have a clear path. Relax and trust us: this is one of those “the journey is more fun than the destination” situations. Something good will come of it. We will get somewhere. In fact, we’re going to go lots of places.