Comments on: Mull Theatre Pop-Up Tour

By: Alasdair

Alasdair — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:02:57 +0000

Well I am certain that is correct, and while I am fairly sure that neither actor has studied Laban or indeed much expressionist mime, I think they both manage to bring a degree of subtleness to their interpretations which has engaged many viewers. Your follow-up comments are a fair bit away from the review’s clear suggestion that they needed to move about a bit. And twice in your follow up to use “aware”, imlying that we are not. Perhaps we were unable to turn that awareness into a visible manifestation for you as a watcher, and if that is the case then we have failed in a fairly fundemantal task, although I and many others would disagree in this case. But please do not continue to assume that what you see just happens with little or no thought having gone into it. To paraphrase and twist around your earlier comment, there is something to be said for theatre reviewers having some idea of what actors and directors do in the rehearsal room!

By: Jenny McBain

Jenny McBain — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:59:16 +0000

Thank you for taking time to comment. I think you made some interesting points as to the role of facial expression and the fact that gratuitous movement is impractical and unnecessary. I agree. However, there is something to be said for actors and directors having an awareness of how subtle shifts in posture and in the way two characters physically position themselves in relation to each other can bring a whole new level of expression to the script. You mention body language and I guess that intensive systems of movement- such as those explored in expressionist mime or Laban- give performers the awareness they need to find a neutral posture and then ones which portray sub conscious aspects of a character.

By: Alasdair

Alasdair — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:32:14 +0000

I have never publicly commented on reviews of productions I’m involved with but the nature of the comments in the review of Waterproof about movement and its lack of use in general in “walky, talky” Scottish theatre make this impossible to ignore.
So, one needs to see people moving about a bit more in order to engage one’s attention? OK, maybe we should have inserted a bit of aimless wandering just to keep audiences from nodding off. Or maybe they could move their heads from side to side a bit, or go and see a tennis match instead!
The play is two young guys, involved in direct one-to-one conmversation, just outside a tent, on a riverbank. One of them is depressed. Yes, I agree that the play and this production is fairly static. That is in the nature of the script, the setting and the dynamic between the characters. Sadly we found the opportunities for movement-based theatre to be limited in this context. Yes, we could have attempted a stylised interpretation of the script but I hardly think that would have served the intentions of the writer, or anyone else.
I have seen actors move around stages in many production to little or no effect… moving an actor for moving’s sake just because, well, we’d better move them about a bit, is a dreaded mistake seen in many of the worst am-dram productions. Is this what the reviewer wishes to impose on Scottish theatre?
I have also seen (and I think been involved with) many productions in which dynamic movement has played a key role.
This, a broadly naturalistic piece of drama, was not one of them.
Yes, perhaps it would work on the radio. It would also work on TV where movement is perhaps not so dreadfully important either, because in TV or film the subtle nuances of interpersonal non-verbal communication (or otherwise) can be closely observed. In theatre that is trickier as audiences are generally further away and without the use or opera glasses it’s hard to achieve a close-up. That is indeed why movement and other means of interpretation are often used. However, with a tiny stage and a touring seating bank holding 42 people we rather thought that this wouldn’t be such an issue. In general our audiences are pretty near the action. I honestly believe that the stuff that goes on in this production when two people slightly at odds with each other are thrown into a situation together, the subtle glances, avoidances, the facial expressions, the emotions, etc, are clearly enough conveyed, without any need for the actors to prance around the stage demonstrating them.
The comment that “actors move a few paces, then deliver their lines” is as insulting to the intelligence as it is to the producers of this or any other production. It implies that no thought has gone into the creation of work. I can assure the writer, and readers of this piece, and people who go to see professional theatre in general, that this is very far from the case.
And in any case, both characters go to the toilet during the show… what more could you wish in the way of movement?