Hedda Gabler Response

I was very happy with my final performance of Hedda Gabler. I think adrenaline and nerves worked to my advantage and helped me bring energy, passion and excitement to my portrayal of Hedda.

I believe the strengths of my performance were my stage presence and spacial awareness. I used the space to portray my objectives, especially in my scene with Loveborg. I had to be aware that I was having a passionate moment with my ex lover whilst being completely conscious that my husband is in the next room. Using the space draws the audience in to these ups and downs of this scene, seeing me be drawn towards Eilert and then retracting when I fear my husband will see me and the scandal that would follow; the one thing I fear the most. Using the space like this is also key when performing in the round because you must be able to portray your objectives to the audience, so they can hear your internal monologue, even when you are not speaking. I also felt moving helped me embody Hedda's character. I found a lot of her character traits through milling and therefore believe this was important to transfer to the performance. It kept the piece flowing and experimented with the highs and lows of the beats and objectives. 

Two tools that helped me in the performance was my choice of voice and costume. Hedda Gabler, an aristocratic young lady- it is definite that she would have had a different accent to me. Taking on a posh accent, concentrated on diction and pronunciation, helped me feel like the character. One of my fears was that I wouldn't be able to connect with such an extreme character, yet the accent made me forget that I was portraying a character, instead I was her. I had made a real connection with the character and the voice inspired all my other character choices- such as costume. On the day of the performance, when we're in costume, I felt completely in character. When I put on my costume it is like putting on the skin of the character and literally, stepping in their shoes. It put me in the setting of the play and was the final step of embodying the character. 

After studying Stanislavsky, I made use of his practices, such as circles of attention. Hedda has many levels to her character and therefore circles of attention allowed me to portray the different depths to her character. She is being cold and dismissive, but underneath she is manipulating the situation smugly. To portray her 3D character, I had to employ the method of circles of attention. I was able to interact intimately with the characters on stage and with the audience by balancing my circles of attention and choosing appropriate times to project each one more strongly depending on what I was saying or what I and others were doing on stage.

However there are parts of my performance that need to be improved. For example the pace, or lack of it sometimes allowed there to be breaks in the energy and passion that should've been ever present in the scene. My whole scene with Eilert was a crazy mix of tension and passion which kept the actors and audience on the edge of their seat. However sometimes my pace and timing was badly timed, causing the energy to dip. In such a tense scene, this kind of lose is bad- the foundations of the whole scene, was the presence of tension, so when you lose that, you take away one of the building blocks, which may cause the whole scene to collapse. To improve on this I believe focusing more on beats and thought changes will allow me to establish a natural beat that will both help me maintain a steady, supportive pace which will also appear effective to to the audience.

Another improvement of my performance would be not being afraid of embracing the madness of my character. Hedda is an emotionally and mentally unstable character, and this begins to show throughout the play. She shows it a little in my scene, so at these moments I need to be fully ready to embrace this which, in turn, will help me truly understand my character. No one, not even someone as impulsive as Hedda, goes mad overnight, so the journey of her decent into madness needs to be portrayed to the audience. To do this I must choose bolder objectives to inspire me to make challenging and strange choices on stage.

In conclusion I believe the rehearsal process and the performance were very successful. I have enjoyed embodying such a intricate character. I started by not understanding her at all and have finished by having formed an opinion on her situation and character that I feel does her justice. I believe I was able to portray my intentions through my performance and am glad with the result. 

Konstantin Stanislavsky Response

Konstantin Stanislavsky Response

Konstantin Stanislavsky searched for what a lot of actors strive for; truth.  He wanted to know the what, why, where, when and who of every character he pursued. He searched for this truth his whole life. I believe the system he followed will help me on my own journey to find the same truth he sought.

My first encounter with Stanislavsky’s system was affective memory. This part of his system draws on one’s own experiences in similar situations to the character one is portraying. Many actors prepare for a role in this way and many roles are improved both mentally and physically by an actor attempting to share their characters experience- they are truly making an attempt to become one with the character. As soon as acting becomes a lie, the truth Stanislavsky and all actors search for, is lost. To be a good actor, requires you to not act at all; you have to truly feel and understand your character. By experiencing first-hand what your character experienced, you are adding truth to your performance that makes it much more believable. I believe, by literally putting myself in my characters shoes, I am allowed a personal insight into their journey, for it consequently becomes my journey too.

The given circumstances is a key part of Stanislavsky’s system and a crucial component of any character development process. The given circumstances establishes firstly the basic elements of your characters circumstance that act as a support when you go on to work in more detail. Establishing the location of your character is one of the initial steps of understanding your given circumstance. Knowing the basic who, what, where and when of your character allows you to enter their world, giving you a new found purpose on stage. Being able to work with a given circumstance and being flexible by taking into consideration the given circumstance of others and how it affects mine, requires an awareness of both your own character and the rest of the cast. This part of Stanislavsky’s system will help me because it will allow me to lay the foundations of my character which I will then be able to build on.

Objectives are something I am familiar with and therefore already had an understanding of why they were so important as a part of Stanislavsky’s system. Objectives give an actor a purpose on stage. Without a purpose there is no meaning behind the actions one performs, meaning the whole performance becomes meaningless. The play itself would cease to exist; it will not be alive and will not be actively engaging the audience. However, objectives allow you to have a purpose and a voice without speaking dialogue. You can say so much by the way you move, what you do with your hands, the level you sit or stand and not a single word has to be spoken- objectives help accomplish this. I will always need objectives to help me create an atmospheric performance and know, from experience, that mastering objectives will take a long time, and perhaps I never will. However actively using them already brings me a step closer to creating a character and performance in the moment.

I believe Stanislavsky’s idea of communion is one of most simple ideas, yet crucial and extremely effective. When connecting with your audience, the only way you can do that is to first connect with your other actors. If you do not do this you have no chance of connecting on any level with your audience, leaving them excluded from the action and emotion taking place on stage. Every glance, every breath, every movement, must be in accordance with the other characters on stage. You have to build a connection which consists of a mutual give and take. The connection you have with your fellow actor will speak to the audience as loudly as any dialogue.

When I read about Stanislavsky’s production plan, I was confused. I believed that the truth he seemed to look for, relied heavily on actors making their own artistic choices on their journey of character development. Therefore controlling actors in such a way seemed to destroy everything he stood for. However when he then implemented his idea of inner motive forces I could see the process and style of training that I personally associated with Stanislavsky. Allowing actors to discover for themselves the character they are portraying and how they go about doing it is a vital yet delicate process. You cannot be afraid to fail as both an actor and director. As soon as you let this affect you, the discovery process is no longer truthful, as a process without mistakes is fake. Mistakes are the best teacher; you can reflect on what you did wrong and in doing so, understand what you need to do to overcome a particular obstacle. I believe that his method of inner motive forces is something I would work well with instead of production plan. Although I respect entirely the opinion of my director, they will not understand the process I am undertaking, for it is a unique process for every individual. In the same way, I would not understand their process. Therefore if they start dictating what I must do onstage, my personal take on the character is lost and the truth with it- something I believe Stanislavsky would not encourage. 

In conclusion I believe Stanislavsky’s determination to seek the truth all actors seek is inspiring. As an actor, I want to be able to understand my character, so I can truly see through their eyes. If I do not I am not giving the audience an accurate representation of their thoughts and feeling and am in no way doing the character justice. Stanislavsky’s system is so effective because it involves work in rehearsal, outside the classroom and on stage. He opens up the possibilities that I as a young actor can achieve. My thoughts and feeling become valid on stage and I can put them to good use by channelling them to finally understand that all important truth.

My Hedda Gabler Response

Hedda Gabler Response

‘Hedda Gabler’, a play about a newly married woman in the late nineteenth century, held back by the social expectations of woman in that society, an already intriguing setting for a play and its characters. For a woman to be manipulative in this setting, led me to only imagine the depth of 

Hedda’s character; and my expectations were definitely met.

Split into four acts, the structure of the text supports the development of the characters, especially Hedda. Introduced to us in the first act, we as the audience cannot yet understand the nature of Hedda. We can see she is unconventional and harsh, but these personality traits do not hint to the character development seen throughout the rest of the text.

Throughout the text, the actions on stage are supported by stage directions. In many plays the writer’s direction can either be too vague, not giving the actor any insight at all to the character and therefore giving them no support on or off stage, or too detailed, leaving no room for interpretation or artistic choice on the actors and directors behalf. However, the stage directions given by Richard Eyre, allow the actor to find a balance between the two. When describing how or what the character is doing, he lays solid foundations for the actor, which they can then go on to develop further. I believe this form of direction to be very beneficial and I can see how they will help me when I work with the text actively.

Only having a cast of seven characters allows for a more intimate setting. Being able to understand such complex characters and their relationships with each other, requires the audience to be able to focus on them all, both individually and as a whole, something only a small cast can provide. A play with a large cast has the capability to create a heightened atmosphere, but it can also be too much for an audience to process. The details in the text can sometimes be lost when transferred to the stage. The cast of ‘Hedda Gabler’ allows the details of every character to be explored by both the actors and audience.

A text is only as good as the characters it presents. I believe that without richly detailed characters, a play becomes two dimensional and the action on stage becomes meaningless. The characters in ‘Hedda Gabler’ are captivating because some of them are so diverse, yet they are forced by circumstance to act differently. Some characters are aware of this façade, yet some are not. This scenario makes for an interesting watch for all audience members.

Hedda Gabler is a central figure of the text and its plot, yet far from its heroine. The story is her story, not just because the play is about her life, but because she controls the play in the same way she controls people. Throughout the play, I believed that the next scene would suddenly reveal to me the truth beneath Hedda’s scheming and manipulation. However by the end of the text, even after its surprise ending, I felt parts of Hedda’s identity still seemed secret to me. As an audience member you have a privileged insight to seeing a situation from every angle, being let in on characters secret thoughts and wishes; and I have never wanted to know someone’s thoughts and wishes in the way I wanted to know Hedda’s. After the confusion of still being in the dark, I was finally able to conclude the full extent of Hedda’s manipulation. Even I, as an audience member, had been manipulated by Hedda. I believed that I would be allowed to dissect Hedda’s character as a plays plot normally allows me to do, yet it never happened. I had been given a false sense of security that was only revealed to me long after I had finished reading.  So Hedda’s manipulation is probably the strongest there is; it extended off the page, affecting the only people who thought they were untouchable- the audience.

Hedda surprised me. Such a complex character normally leads you to either form a strong opinion, whether that opinion is positive or negative. However, perhaps because of how bemused I felt after exploring her character, I neither liked nor disliked Hedda. Yet again she surprised me, by not allowing me to form an opinion and in a way guarding herself from judgment. The only conclusion I can draw from Hedda is one that is very obvious, yet probably one that not many would associate with Hedda; she is human. Prone to changing emotions and intricate thoughts and desires, she is unmistakably and completely human.

George Tesman is a strange man. I struggled to grasp Hedda’s character because of how complex it was, yet I struggled to grasp George’s character because of how plain it was. Like Hedda I was waiting for a situation that would reveal George in his true light, but it never came. He is the opposite of Hedda: plain, boring and dull. He is not a cruel man, he may even be described as a nice man. However ‘nice’ is as descriptive it gets with George Tesman. I believe his soul purpose in the text is to represent the life that Hedda loathes and the people she is willing to manipulate to escape her dull surroundings. George Tesman is the accumulation of everything Hedda detests about her life, and as harsh as it seems, I understand why.

I believe Thea Elvsted to be one of the most underestimated characters in the play. Hedda is strong minded and to an extent strong willed, yet I would argue that Thea is more so. In 1890, for a woman to leave her husband takes strength and courage beyond anything I saw demonstrated by Hedda. Hedda is a strong woman, that much is true, but Thea had the courage of her convictions to defy all social expectations of her and leave her husband for the pure reason that she believed it to be the right thing to do.  To an extent it explains Hedda’s strange mix of interest and hatred for Thea because she is intrigued at how Thea can have the courage to do what she does, yet hates her because she realises that the strength Thea has to follow through, is something she herself doesn’t possess.  

Judge Brack is also a surprising character. Introduced to us as a gentlemen, it is soon revealed that Judge Brack has a lot of power. I knew he was a powerful man, with friends with high statuses, yet the true power he has is the same as Hedda; manipulation. If there was one character I believed to have constant power over all the others, it was Hedda, yet it seems that Brack has power over even her, and by the end of the play he is blackmailing her. However his power battle with Hedda is lost when she kills herself. He can no longer ‘own’ her or manipulate her- she makes the ultimate sacrifice to be free of his manipulation. He surprised me because, until the end of the text, similarly to Hedda, he did not reveal his true intentions.

Eilert Loveborg is the odd one out. His life has been filled with scandal and outrage; a life not deemed proper by the rest of society. However, he represents something in a similar way Thea does; he has a life of freedom that Hedda craves. When Hedda kills herself it is similar to the circumstance in which everyone believes Eilert died. When Hedda’s ‘fairytale’ is revealed to be false, it seems that she lives out her fantasy by taking Eilert’s place; like she is fulfilling the role she always wanted to play. As George represents everything Hedda loathes, Eilert represents everything Hedda admires.

Miss Tesman represents the type of woman that Hedda and Thea defy; the woman that nineteenth century society pressured them to be. She looks after Aunt Rina and occasionally visits the Tesman household. She represents the life Hedda would have led if she conformed to societies expectations. She is constantly hinting at Hedda and George having a child, representing yet another expectation as a woman. She maps a timeline of Hedda’s would-be life: get married, have children, look after your family. It explains Hedda’s dislike towards Miss Tesman; she may not dislike her, but what she represents, with that being everything Hedda does not want.

The story and plot line is unusual. Its feminist take on Victorian society is both unusual and refreshing. It could be argued that the story starts with the title ‘Hedda Gabler’. As she is married to George Tesman, it would make sense that the title would therefore be ‘Hedda Tesman’. I think the choice of calling the play ‘Hedda Gabler’ makes a clear statement- Hedda would not be changed by marriage. It was often thought that marriage marked a significant change in a woman’s life, and sometimes, this was true. The change of surname on the woman’s part made this official. The fact that the title of the play does not support this, shows Hedda’s determination not to conform to the life of a married woman- she would not be owned by any man.

I believe the story to be about defiance. Hedda knew that if she carried on with the life she was leading, she would never win. The game she was playing was useless, because it was a game that only men could win. No matter how many people she manipulated, no matter how many secrets she knew, she would not be heard in a world where nobody wanted to listen. Hedda is a dramatic being and her final act on earth lived up to that- her final curtain call as it were. I love how the audience were given all the clues about the ending, yet still I didn’t expect it. Hedda held every character and audience member in the palm of her hand.

In conclusion I feel that the play immerses the audience in a way that I never knew possible. Hedda controls people by allowing them to think she is doing the complete opposite. She is emotional, yet cold, she is desired, yet despised, she is secretive, yet speaks her mind; she is a contradiction in herself. Yet one thing she definitely is- an extraordinary woman. 

9 Character Questions

Uta Hagen, an American actress and director came up with the concept of the 9 character questions based of Stanislavsky's 6 character questions. Being able to question your character will open up doors for you that let you see into your characters unique body and mind.

1.) Who Am I?
I am rather skinny. My features are sharp and my expression cold. My eyes can pierce into your deepest darkest, thoughts and desires. I normally dress in monochrome colours; as if I am in a constant state of morning for my old life. My childhood was quaint, yet not entirely personal. My father was, and still remains, my biggest idol and proudest boast in life. His work normally took him elsewhere, so as a child I had nannies attend to me and later I found comfort in a long line of men that lined the streets hoping for me to pay them the slightest bit of attention. It was a funny game, but games get boring. I never cared for many of them, but they were good company while they lasted. My father taught me some of the most important lessons in life. I believe, as he did, that to succeed in life you must make your enemies believe you are their friend. Manipulating people is the only way to succeed in life. Whatever your opponent is willing to do to win, you must be willing to do two times over.

2.) What time is it?
I am living in 1890 Norway. It is autumn and the leaves on the trees outside my window have started to turn yellow and wither. There is a slight chill in the air, but is quickly turned into a warm breeze by the fire. I can smell the damp of the street cobbles. It send a shiver down my spine. The grandfather clock in our hallway has just chimed 6 o'clock in the evening. I can smell Berthe finishing off our dinner; roast lamb I believe. She has been working since the early hours of the day, whilst I just sit here, keeping warm by the fire, smelling nothing but trodden leaves and pumpkin pies being sold by a street seller, two roads down.

3.) Where am I?
I am in the drawing room of my house. The windows tower over the rest of the room. I am perched on a sofa, between two chairs. Their is a piano in the back corner of the room. A table sits at the centre of the seating arrangement. A drinks cabinet holds bottles of whisky and brandy and fine silver glasses. Their is a bookshelf of George's books and some fantastical novels that I like to lose myself in. The carpet is soft and new, courtesy of George's Aunt I presume. Everything fits perfectly. And vases of flowers- so many vases of flowers; left right and centre.

4.) What surrounds me?

I am surrounded my finely embroided cushions that have been plumped up by our maid. The carpet at my feet is the most exotic feature of my life, telling stories of ancient Persia; beautiful and glorious. The vases on every single surface are sickening. You pay money for fine china painted with intricate flowers that live far longer than the bouquets they hold. They are so fragile, so easily breakable- they are the personification of everything I hate in life. 

5.) What is my relationship to the things and people around me?

Eilert is a strange man, yet I secretly admire him. He has a charm and wit far beyond any man I know. Yet is is despicable. He invites scandal and outrage into his life williningly. How could a man stoop so low? The funiture makes me physically sick. It is not mine, it belongs to my husband and his Aunt. I cannot control it so what's the point in it being here? I want my own life, full of my own things, surrounded by men who can hold a conservation for more than a minute. Everything around me holds a certain beauty; beauty that is trapped in this godforsaken house- like me. My cage is well decorated, but a cage it remains.

6.) What are the given circumstances? 

In the scene previously Hedda has declared her upmost bordem with her life. Her madness is beginning to show, a persona that is carried over into my scene. She has already been harassed by Brack and she has turned him away, just as she turns Eilert away in my scene. Her madness is started to be noticed by those around her. Although still defended and closed, she is letting her well put together facade go slightly- the cracks are starting to show. Immediatley before I enter, she is being faced with the prospect of sitting with a friend that she hasn't seen since he tried to force himself on you. An awkward and delicate given circumstance.

7.) What is my objective?

My specific objective in this scene varies. As is Hedda's nature, she is always changing her action and reaction towards different characters. In my scene her objective is to tease and sometimes to block. She is willing to let Eilert believe he has a hold over her and that she cares, yet when she sees it as going to far she will block his affections and coldly dismiss him. Hedda's overall objective is to manipulate and to play. All she wants is to be less bored and she finds the easiest way to do this, is to manipulate those around her. She is playing a constant game with people, toying with their emotions by always wearing a mask of oxymoronic emotions. 

8.) What's my obstacle? 

My obstacle in the scene is Tesman and Brack in the back room. I have to be constantly aware of their presence as my actions have to be appropriate in accordance to their presence. I am playing to play, yet I cannot play as boldly as I would like because I know I cannot with my husband and Brack in ears shot. My overall obstacle is the society I live. All I want is to have the life that the men in my life have: I want George's kindness, Brack's power and Eilert's freedom. However this is all excluded from my life because I am living in 1890 Norway. As a woman, as often stated in the play, Hedda's vocation is to have children. It is clear she doesn't want to be a mother, yet the society is blocking her from making this choice as an independent woman. The problem may be from Hedda's actions, but she is forced to take these measures because of the society she lives in. 

9.) What am I going to do to get what I want? 

I am going to play the system. I will sacrifice my own future to have a moment of complete control and power. 

I don't care who I manipulate, I don't care who's livelihood I destroy, as long as it benefits me. I am going to pretend to be things I'm not and to care when I do not and hide my deepest darkest desires. I will play people's game as long as I know that at the end of it I will reign victorios. Whatever my future holds I must take any opportunity to control mine and all everyone else's fate.   
 

The Magic If

My original idea for this experiment was changed when I happened upon a wedding outside one of my local churches. When I saw this picturesque scene of pure joy, I knew it would be the perfect fit for this exercise.

As I sat across from them on the wall opposite the church, I felt sick to my stomach. The bride was laughing and smiling as she planted kisses on her new husbands cheek. Everyone was standing there throwing white and pink confetti over them squealing with delight. She looked beautiful; how awful, how untruthful. Marriage is not beautiful, it is a way of caging strong women, tying them to a man so they can not express themselves in the way in which they desire. All I wanted to do in that moment was rush over to this poor woman and pull her away. I would take her to safety, away from a life of conformity and boring rules. To a place where she could be free, where she wasn't pressured by stupid aunts to have children and a place where boring men, who could never understand her needs, stuck to their books instead of pursuing women.

But I didn't. I just sat her on the wall, watching. They ran down the church steps, clutching each others hands, so happy, so assured that this person could fulfil them for the rest of their lives. Is that possible? To love someone in that way? Perhaps not every man is as oblivious as George and maybe some women aren't as bored as me. How lovely. How alien. Could there be a man out there for me, who could truly understand me and make me happy? Perhaps.

I walked over to the church steps after the wedding party had dispersed. I stared down at the confetti on the floor; little hearts blowing in the wind. And it was in this moment I knew that no man could ever make me happy, because no man could ever understand how much I hate the idea of marriage. So I kicked the confetti behind me with my boot and walked home, back to my cage.

Experiencing the situations and emotional journey your character would, allows you to go deeper . into their world, giving you a unique understanding of their thought process. I believe the proof in its effectiveness is the fact that I knew this situation was perfect for my character. I was able to identify something that my own brain would disregard. This depth of character understanding is not yet complete and I need to look for more opportunities to tap back into my characters internal and external thoughts.

Imagining of the play

Being able to imagine your setting and character is the first vital foundation for character development. This exercise allowed us to do this, examining the fine details that we can identify with the setting and character. 

The scene: The large windows are the statement feature of the room, flooding the room with a dim early autumn light. They are draped with heavy, dark green velvet curtains with golden sashes. The windowsills are filled with large and small ornate vases holding a collection of different flowers, some with tags and cards, some without. There is a fire crackling in the corner casting a orange glow on the furniture. The sofa is also green velvet with red cushions, plump; not the sort of cushion for sitting on, just for decorations. The round dark oak table has been polished and there is another vase on this table with a small picture frame in a silver frame. The black and white picture is of a couple on their wedding day, the man looking much happier than the woman. The carpet has been swept and dusted. The piano is tucked in the corner with photo frames of a general and more vases propped on top of it. It looks as if it hasn't been played in a while. The whole room is all in all impressive but does not give of a homely appeal. This room is clearly not used much. 

Character- Thea Elvsted: She is a very small build; everything about her is vulnerable She wears brown buckled shoes, old with scratches on the heel and toe, but still polished. She wears a long green skirt and a white shirt, a little too big for her, but well ironed. She has a light black overcoat with a lavender brooch pinned to the neck. Her earrings are small green drops and she wears a matching necklace.  Her hair is loose and falling over her shoulder. Every golden curl catches the light of the fire. Her eyes are grey and misted, like she is constantly crying. They are wide and alert, like a small animal. Her hands are held in front of her fragile and smooth. She wears no wedding ring on her finger. 

Being able to examine a setting and character like this will familiarise me with my surroundings, so as an actor and a character, I can know how to manipulate these features to create effect. This kind of setting and character breakdown is vital in every character development process. 

An Introduction to Stanislavsky

These are the facts and notes I believed to be most important in our Language of Theatre class focusing on the introduction we were given on the life and times of Konstantin Stanislavsky:

He was born in 1863 in to a wealthy family. He had nine siblings and all of them were brought up in the world of the arts. He had a theatre in his home, so it was a personal and common occurrence for Stanislavsky to be immersed in  the theatrical world. He was able to put on his own plays from a young age- a happy consequence of a privileged childhood.

By age 22 he had already started debating deep theatrical questions that filled his mind for the rest of his life. He started out appearing in family productions. He was performing during a time when theatre was censored by the Tsar which meant only French and German melodramas were performed. None of society's rich culture was conveyed through theatre due to these strict guidelines. Stanislavsky aimed to give his actors theatrical empowerment and imagination. He wanted to bring "the life of the human spirit" to the stage.

Lesson #1

Today was my first introduction to my Performance Workshop lesson. In only a period of 4 hours, I was able to grasp a idea of what I will be learning in this class and the understanding I will have to have of the work I am doing and of my own strengths and weaknesses as a performer to be able to contribute and gain everything I can from this class.

An Introduction to Melodrama
Melodrama is the old way of performing- by overly exaggerating a character, to a point where the reality of the character, story and personality, is lost in the dramatisation. Melodrama was built on: stereotypes, theatrical gestures (ie. hand to the head in times of dramatic climax) and a philosophy that held the actors personality in a higher regard than the character being portrayed. It was built on a social obsession with celebrity culture, which made the actors arrogant and pompous after being put on a pedestal. As actors they didn't become the character, they demonstrated them. Their character was based on facial expressions and hand gestures; the more over dramatic, the better. The plays performed, were palatable. The audience could easily digest them and they did not make them think or necessarily affect them, as this wasn't their main purpose- the most important part of the theatrical world at that time, was maintaining a social and cultural level of finesse. They performed only what they believed their audience wanted to hear. The story lines and themes were black and white and 2D.

Exercise #1
After being introduced to the world of melodrama, we tapped into this by embodying some of the stereotypes that the actors on stage would have themselves, For example, a hero, villain and damsel, three key characters in the melodrama structure. Firstly we walked around the room, finding a physicality and eventually a voice and mannerism for the character. Doing this type of exaggerated acting allows us as contemporary actors, to understand the scale on which emotion can be played and therefore appropriately pick a happy medium on that scale. It also clearly demonstrates, how not to act.

Afterwards, in partners we allocated one person with a hero and a damsel. The hero spoke to the damsel saying:
"My love for you burns with a passion that fills me with fear."
On the stand out words- love, burns, passion and fear- the hero created a gesture to accompany their actions.
Then, we swapped, with the damsel now speaking to the villain saying:
"Your treachery kills my heart you villain."
Again on the stand out words- treachery, kills, heart and villain- the damsel put an action to their words.
Doing this allows us to develop a sense of inspired action. Certain words, in certain sentences, will inspire actions; not necessarily as dramatically as this example, but that fundamental basis of the relationship of body and voice was experimented with then and now.

An Introduction to Naturalism
Due to such fake acting in melodrama, people grew used to copying previous generations, which created a chain of cloned actors. The true art of acting was lost. Naturalism changed this. It is all based on truth. Strangely, being truthful, is harder than faking something as you are opening yourself up to judgement when you are bearing the most stripped back version of your performance. It is the core of basic natural instinct placed under a microscope. The mask that theatre lets you wear appeals to actors, so when you are asked to remove this and be truthful, it can be a hard transition. A psychological depth is introduced as you let your character become you. You draw on your own life experiences; as their is no director more important than life.

Exercise #2
Being relaxed as an actor, frees our body and mind up, enabling us to create better work. In this relaxation exercise we experimented with circles of attention. Opening all our senses, we started by focusing on the room we were in, expanding to the corridor, courtyard, road, street, town, London and finally to our homes. It was an out of body experience that some people enjoyed; however it made me feel sick. Perhaps due to being in my home alone, when I normally associate it with a warm busy household, but I felt sick at the thought of intruding on my own thoughts. It felt odd to be tapping into my thoughts, feelings and memories in this way. However I understand that relaxation is important to loose tension in the body and mind and allow me to be completely focus on my task. Relaxation opens your imagination, drawing on your own memories. This triggers action and reaction, that without, makes a performance dull and flat.

Exercise #3
Solitude in public. An odd concept, but it concerns using different circles of attention to focus attention on stage. We were given the task of standing at a bus stop with either a small or big circle of attention. My circle of attention was not so simple, so as to be categorised into a small or big circle of attention; I had the task of picking up my children, but in the back of my mind I knew that today was the anniversary of my husbands death. Being able to balance your focus of two circles of attention you can in turn focus the attention onto the stage. Being able to portray a characters inner emotions is a sensitive, yet vital process, Like any person, your internal monologue is sometimes the one that speaks the loudest and can be the most important on stage therefore.