The Seeing Place is More Than Theater

 

In 2009, The Seeing Place Theater was born as an artist-driven theater company - selecting plays that accurately reflected the issues facing their community, with an emphasis placed on education, authenticity, and social justice with programming that would be accessible and affordable for all audiences.

Since then, we have presented over 40 full productions of Pulitzer-Prize, Tony, and Olivier Award winning plays, as well as 5 world premieres and countless staged readings, with a particular focus on stories by and about women, LGTBQIA+, BIPOC, immigrant, and disabled communities.

Like you, we believe that theater has the power to change minds and change hearts. You can help us bring powerful theater to the world.

Are you with us? Make a tax-deductible donation here. Every little bit helps make the world a better place.

Thank you from the bottom of our hearts,

The Seeing Place's Board and Ensemble



Web: www.TheSeeingPlace.org
Facebook/Twitter/Instagram: @TheSeeingPlace

Podcast Interview: How to Produce Your Own Work

TSP's Executive Artistic Director, Erin Cronican, was a guest on this wonderful podcast, "I Love Theatre: Now What?" (which was recorded just before the pandemic shut down.)

In this episode, hear Erin and podcast host Steph Newman talk about:

· How nonprofits versus for-profits differ with finances
· What producing your own work is like
· How Erin differs from her co-founder, Producing AD Brandon Walker
· How TSP crafts their seasons
· What producing in NYC is like versus everywhere else
· The 3 questions that are a MUST for choosing plays
· The strong connection Erin has with Margaret Edson’s play, WIT
· How you can get cast or involved at The Seeing Place Theater
· Great advice on how to make a real connection professionally
· How actors can treat themselves like a business
· Characteristics that mean you might be a leader

Take a listen here, and leave a comment to let us know you what you think!

https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/0/episodes/how-to-produce-your-own-work-w-56506444

Master Classes in Speaking Shakespeare, Self-Producing, Monologue Technique (and more!)

We're excited to announce that we're hosting a series of Master Classes February 13-20, 2017! All workshops are $39 are are designed to help and other artists learn valuable skills in the acting craft, the business of acting, and the art of theater-making!

Click here to learn more and to sign up.

You can also get 5 classes by signing up for the VIP Class Pass - it's just $149! Here are the classes you can choose from:

The week then culminates with our famous meet & greet event, the Actor/Industry Scramble, on February 20 for just $59. All proceeds go to benefit the ensemble and programming of The Seeing Place Theater.

See all of the classes being taught, and SIGN UP here: https://squareup.com/store/TheSeeingPlace

We look forward to seeing you there!

How Do We Make Theatre Worth Fighting For?

As we head into the biggest fundraising days of the year, we thought it important to share what we do that sets us apart from many other theatre companies - and why we are worthy of your donation. At the end of this article, we will be making a request for your support, and I hope that you will be inspired to contribute based upon the exciting things (below) we set out to do in the world.



Original Broadway production of Waiting for Lefty.

I want to start by including a picture from our roots in The Group Theatre, which depicts one of the most important and iconic moments of audience engagement that has ever taken place in the theatre. At the end of a performance of Waiting for Lefty, the audience rose up to scream "Strike!" right along with the actors onstage. That is the kind of visceral communication we have with our community.

Many people have asked us why we do what we do over the years. Most tend to assume that we are theatre-makers that self-produce out of some kind of ego-driven need to do everything ourselves. If it were just about doing great plays and playing great roles, there are much easier ways. We are committed to much more than producing plays and building careers. Though these things are side-benefits for all of us, we want to take this opportunity open up to our community and share the many things that The Seeing Place does that are not so apparent upon first glance.

1.) We are passionate about "Organic Theatre." What the heck does that mean? When I was in my early 20's, I saw a theatre company in San Diego that blew me away. To many people I knew in the community, their work was boring and unimpressive. For me, it was the first time I'd ever believed what I was watching onstage, and it was a magical experience. I saw many productions at New Village Arts before I started working with them. I fell so in love with their work that I moved to NYC to study with their teacher, David Gideon. When I got to New York, I thought there would be a lot of ensemble companies that were alive onstage like the work I fell in love with at New Village Arts. Not one. I do see wonderful performances from time to time, but it's rarely a full-ensemble effort - and definitely not the kind of theatre I fell in love with. New York is full of impressive theatre, which tends to be driven by spectacle and stardom - where the actors behave in some kind of superhuman way. That's great for a lot of people. For me, I want to believe and relate to what I'm watching, rather than being amazed by the superhero talent of the performers. I want to see myself in what's happening on the stage and really get to live through the story with the actors. I want to do that kind of work, too. I love directing it. I love acting in it. I love it when the action of the play is malleable, so that we're not trying to hit a certain level of emotion or manufacture moments that just aren't real every night. I'm not suggesting that our work does not have "moments." We do, and some of our moments are very specific, as when an actor is required to hit a certain mark for a lighting effect. We do still deal with pace and timing. Those elements are important. We also believe in trying to keep what we learned in rehearsals and share it. But the night-to-night discoveries are different, and there is freedom in our work that allows for growth. This concept is not new, but when it does happen in most theatre, it's usually only one actor doing it - and that actor tends to be heavily criticized by the community.

2.) We make challenging plays relatable to a modern audience. Really, I think most plays present their own special difficulties, but there are some that have almost been dismissed because of the problems they present. Rhinoceros by Eugene Ionesco, Closer by Patrick Marber, and Macbeth by William Shakespeare are great examples. Obviously, all three plays are popular and attempted frequently - some more than others. But even with Macbeth, many Shakespearean scholars have professed that the play only seems to work as a piece of writing, rather than a lived performance. That's a major hurdle to overcome. We set out to make our production of Macbeth relatable to our audience - which is something we've rarely seen done. We make the same commitment in all of our work. Though many other people do these plays, they tend to be more concerned about revamping them or doing something really cool with them and adding a wild concept. This is true of the production and film of Macbeth, starring Patrick Stewart. The production is set in Nazi Germany, and Macbeth is likened to Hitler. And that's awesome. I get it. It makes sense. It was well done, and I enjoyed it. But all of a sudden, it's a play about Nazis - which allows a separation for the audience to hold themselves at arms length from the characters. As a result, we lose touch with the basic human responses to ambition and stress that the play illuminates, and it becomes exceedingly difficult to relate to the Macbeth's and see ourselves in their struggles. That's what we as a theatre company set out to do.

3.) We are ensemble storytellers. Anyone that has been involved in our work knows that we spend just as much time with the "smaller roles" as we do with the leads. To me, there's nothing more distracting to a wonderful production than the one person that just isn't in the same reality with everyone else. This is very surprising to our actors, sometimes - especially when they dismiss their importance to a scene because they only have one or two lines (or even none). We really believe that every life on the stage needs to be lived. The playwright may only focus on the leads, but that does not make the other characters inconsequential.

4.) We believe in a group effort. We demand that everyone we're working with is an active part of the creation of the project we're working on - from fundraising and marketing to audience development and theater management. It's important that we are all invested in the outcome and have ownership in making each production come to life. Erin Cronican (our Managing Director) and I may have more responsibility and accountability, and as the founders that is to be expected, but there is no one that is "just an actor" in our company. We have a deep commitment to training and mentoring our artists in all aspects of theatre-making, and that is no small task. We set out to have a group of people where everyone has a voice and the agency to be able to contribute.

5.) We give back to our artists and our community. For our group, we hold weekly acting and producing workshops, which teach our actors how to develop themselves as artists and self-producers. All of those skills help them be more well-rounded in our work and in the marketplace. For our audiences, we are committed to making theatre affordable for all. In addition to our low ticket prices, we give away lots of free and discounted tickets to senior centers, low-income housing developments, student groups, artists, and anyone else that can't afford the cost. We believe that theatre should be available to everyone. Additionally, we give our audiences a voice. We have lots of talkbacks, and we all go out in the lobby after shows to engage in discussions about our world. We truly believe in the community-building aspect of theatre.

These are the reasons why we do what we do. Our work extends far beyond our productions. We're a year-round ensemble of theatre-makers, and we are all asking for your help today.

As I mentioned before, we're in the middle of our Annual Fundraising Campaign. Your contribution goes a long way toward making theatre that is worth fighting for at The Seeing Place: the place we come to see ourselves.

You can be part of the charge and donate here:  www.TheSeeingPlace.org

Thank you!

Zounds! Shakespearean Imagery Is A Killer

Imagery seems to be the most difficult thing for the modern actor.  We don't tend to speak in images anymore.  I can say "Grand Canyon" and you know what I mean.  You've seen it in Thelma and Louise or in a calendar or some such thing.  But in Shakespeare's day, people needed imagery to understand things beyond themselves.  Most people also didn't know how to read and write.  Language was primarily heard - and it was in flux.  Shakespeare created over 2000 words.  People had a real love of language.  And so, it is necessary to develop a love for Shakespeare's words - not a masturbatory love, but a real need for the words you are given to express your ideas.

We tend to learn the dictionary definition of Shakespeare's words, get a sense of the lines paraphrased, and call it a day.  But there is so much more.  First of all, the words and thoughts have to hold some kind of personal meaning for you.  None of us can afford to let the lines do our work for us.  The lines don't mean anything on their own.  Words on a page are just that.  It takes the actor to interpret them and infuse them with meaning.  Much as people would like to believe that Shakespeare had no subtext, there is always room for interpretation.  By "interpretation", I do not mean to support Concept-Driven Shakespeare (see below).  All I mean to suggest is that it is quite impossible for any human being to express everything that is going on in every moment.

Does that mean it's necessary to take huge pauses for thought?  Definitely not.  It is suggested that people spoke much more quickly in Shakespeare's day - and they would have to in order for ROMEO AND JULIET to be the two-hours' traffic of anyone's stage.  So, it is necessary in the style of Shakespeare's writing for people to "think on the line" - which basically means that you can't take the time to think about what you're going to say before you say it.  But that's a style, just as much as Chekhov's plays call for a heightened comic realism.

With all of that said, it's important to keep in mind that there is no correct way of saying lines.  The words will necessarily mean different things coming from different actors.  Shakespeare wrote for a specific group of players.  Chances are, you are not 100% what he had in mind.  As such, we cannot get caught up in thinking that there's a right way and a wrong way.  We all have to let our own discretion be our tutor.

Now that we've sussed out the meanings of the words, we need to attend to the Heightened Language.  We have to understand how the language operates in creation of ideas.  If I am speaking metaphorically, I actually need to create the metaphor.  The hidden meaning will not express itself of its own volition.  You can't say something like, "Your mind is tossing on the ocean," without being aware of the ocean.  It's not a colloquial way to say something.  And so you can't say it as though it's just an ordinary way of speaking.  Try it - it will seem silly.  That said, some balance is necessary.  Just because something is poetical does not mean it needs to become poetry - nor do these things need to be acted out or you'll insult your audience.  But you do need to actually create the image.  

It seems that every time I go see a Shakespearean play, I get one of three things.
1.)  A group of people that seem to be channeling Keanu Reeves in an attempt to sound "natural"
2.)  What seems to be the bad-karaoke version of Shakespeare, where people seem to be doing the equivalent of singing along to their favorite Shakespearean character - without allowing it to come from them.
3.)  A mouthful of emoted words in the stylings we would expect to have seen on the renaissance stage.

Rarely, if ever, are any of these actors grounded in the reality of the circumstances of the play or the individual character's intentions.  I think that we can all agree that the first two are just bad acting.  But the third seems to have become an epidemic in our theater.  These actors seem to think that if they speak with gusto, their passion will out.  But in reality, they are "tearing a passion to tatters, to very rags".

No amount of impassioned speaking will create circumstances for us.  We don't need to know how the words make you feel.  Taking our cues from life, only actors try to sound sad or drunk or angry, etc.  Real people try to keep their emotions out of their speech.  In times of great difficulty, real people try their best to communicate.  So should we - especially in Shakespeare.  For some reason, people seem to throw all concepts of acting out the window when it comes to performing in a Shakespearean play - in fact, it applies to classical theatre in general (not to mention musicals), but that's a subject for another day.

I mentioned Concept-Driven Shakespeare earlier.  I'm sure you basically understand the idea.  I've seen things anywhere from HAMLET: 2001, A SPACE ODYSSEY to ROMEO AND JULIET in a mental institution.  But my real meaning applies less to productions than it does to actors.  We play these roles that everyone has seen.  They are standard.  And there is a tendency for people to decide to come up with their take on the role, to do something interesting with it.  I promise you that their is nothing more interesting than your individual humanity.  Shakespeare wrote living people.  And so it is necessary to let these characters resonate with you.

In the last part of this series as we inch closer to opening our productions of HAMLET and R&G ARE DEAD, we'll go into some of the hidden stage directions in Shakespeare's verse, as well as some basic rules that can clear up your communication quickly and easily.  For the first part in this series, please click here:  Shakespeare CAN Be Understood - And How

We'd love to hear your thoughts and questions.  Please don't be silent.  Leave a comment.  Let's get a conversation going!

Shakespeare CAN Be Understood - and How

You know that bad feeling you get deep down in your gut right before you see a Shakespeare play?  Be honest.

Even if you're a Shakespeare lover, there's always a worry that you won't be able to understand what's being said - and even if you DO understand the text, will you be able to understand these actors?

John Barton (a very important Shakespearean dramaturg) claims that he doesn't really listen to what's being said unless the actors MAKE him listen.  Otherwise, he only gets the most general sense of the lines.  I imagine that many of us share the same difficulty.  Personally, I notice that I easily tune out when it comes to seeing one of Shakespeare's plays performed.  I know many people who have given up on his work entirely.

Essentially, our society come to expect that we won't be able to relate to the actors in a Shakespearean play.  It seems standard for Shakespeare to be performed in heightened acting styles of yesteryear and weird Mid-Atlantic dialects - when in fact Shakespeare's own advice to the players argues that we have to speak to "the very age and body of the time".  First, we have a current tradition of conversational life onstage and a different type of audience than in the year 1600 - both of which need to be taken into consideration.  Additionally, JULIUS CAESAR was initially played in Elizabethan Garb with elements of Roman dress; the Danish countryside in HAMLET more closely resembled Warwickshire than Denmark; and in ROMEO AND JULIET, the households were more specific to English life than that of the Italians.  Lastly, the Original Pronunciation of Shakespeare's text was much closer to the American sound than the current English sound.

I'd like to offer one small piece of overlooked wisdom when it comes to performing in one of Shakespeare's plays: he wrote them in English.  So, you don't need to approach them as though they are in a foreign language.  The audience doesn't need big gestures to understand what's going on.  Yes, there are some big words, but for the most part, his plays are written in the basic syntax of naturalistic speech.  No writer writes exactly the way that people talk - and there are so many vernacular variations that it would be impossible to undertake such a task.  There are plenty of modern writers whose plays that are written in a strange and rhythmic manner.  See Mamet, Letts, Lonergan, and just about anyone else you can name.  None of these people sounds just like you.

But what's so crazy about Shakespeare's language?

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." - HENRY VI, Part II
"To be, or not to be: that is the question:" - HAMLET
"What's in a name?  - ROMEO & JULIET

Any of the above quotes could easily be said in a modern-day play.  As wonderful of a writer as he may have been, Shakespeare was the least poetic playwright of his day.  His writing is character driven and full of intention.  It was meant to be acted, not read.  He wrote living people.  As has been stated by many scholars:  Shakespeare was the first naturalistic playwright.  And that essentially means that he created the concept of naturalistic acting.

Shakespeare wrote in three kinds of speech: 

Prose - The most commonly used form in playwrighting today. 

Blank Verse (or Iambic Pentameter) - Still the closest verse form to everyday speech, created by Shakespeare.  Blank verse has ten syllables per line, typically with alternating strong and weak stresses: de DUM de DUM de DUM de DUM de DUM.  You'd be amazed how frequently you speak in this basic pattern.  If you look at many other playwrights of his time and before, their verse structures have either too many or too few syllables per line to represent naturalistic speech.  

Rhymed Verse - This is not that commonly used today - except in poetry and jingles.  But he mostly used this form for an effect of some sort.  Many speeches end in a rhyming couplet.  Some ethereal or particularly majestic characters rhyme with frequency.  But this form is less used in Shakespeare's plays.

It is important to note that Shakespeare did not strictly adhere to his rules all the time.  He wrote intuitively.  And though we want to understand his rules, we must still act intuitively in his plays.  "Let your own discretion be your tutor."  Really, when it comes down to it, if you just make sense out of the lines, not for the audience, but for yourself and your scene partner, then the meanings will come across.  There's no need to go crazy about it.  Just "Speak the speech" easily..."trippingly on the tongue". Focus on communicating, rather than getting it right.

In rehearsals for our current production of HAMLET, we've been trying something that seems to work very well.  We ask our actors to keep their energy moving to the end of their character's thought - so they can't pause (even for a breath) until they hit a period.  I was surprised to learn that Hamlet's "To be or not to be" speech is actually four thoughts.  It's easy to get so bogged down in the commas and colons and semicolons that it's impossible to keep track of the point being made.  But we don't tend to speak with commas and semicolons.  Punctuation is a device of the writer to communicate sense on a page.  In real life, we speak until we've finished making a point.  It's amazing how much clearer Shakespeare's text becomes when you focus on the point you're making and then use the words to make that point. 

This is the first part in a series of posts about Speaking Shakespeare.  Next up, we'll discuss Imagery, and then Hidden Clues in the Text.

We'd love to hear your thoughts and questions.  Please don't be silent.  Leave a comment.  Let's get a conversation going!

How NOT To Be "Actorman In Actorland"

Okay, yes.  The title is gender specific.  Sorry, ladies.  But it applies to all of you Actorwomen, too.  I actually take the phrase from an old friend, who learned it from some teacher at the La Jolla Playhouse Young Actor's program many moons ago - and it actually comes along with a visual of someone walking around onstage like a silent alien or astronaut or deep-sea diver, exploring the air onstage as though there is something there to explore.

Perhaps that seems ridiculous to you.  I know it does to me.  And yet, this is how many actors seem to approach their work in rehearsals.  They show up, ready to get on their feet and explore the world of the play.  How?  They'll get that instruction from their directors.  Hmmm...so, then the director might say a few words, the group may have a conversation or two on the characters or what things stand out, and then they get onstage to work on their feet...and explore NOTHING to infinity and beyond!

Many actors balk at "overthinking" anything - or any kind of extensive discussion of the play, the story, the characters, their objectives (motivations), their journeys, etc.  There seems to be a worry that these kinds of discussions inhibit the actor from exploring.  And yet, these conversations are absolutely necessary if the actor is to be given any kind of freedom to play onstage - so that they have something to explore.

Unfortunately, very few actors bring any ideas to the table.  Therefore, blocking (creating staged moments throughout a production) becomes a necessity.  When afforded the opportunity to work organically, most actors don't know what to do.  So, what ends up happening?  They'll explore their ideas of the lines and the various attitudes they associate with the meanings they hear in their heads.  Or they explore walking around and talking in the way they feel the character would walk and talk.  And they love doing that.  But it doesn't tend to result in any kind of story being told.  You get a bunch of people, walking aimlessly around the stage, talking and gesturing.  Maybe they'll get lucky and happen upon something, but maybe not.  And why leave it up to luck?  If our entire process as actors involves throwing ideas at a wall to see what sticks, then we are lost indeed.

So, what can we do about that?  Well, as The Seeing Place has just begun rehearsals for A Lie of the Mind, we've met, discussed, and ultimately asked all of the actors to come in with a plan.  That plan includes:
1.)  Their character's story as they see it.
2.)  Their character's journey of learning.
3.)  Their objectives for every scene.
4.)  A set of physical tasks to do onstage that make sense to what the character might be doing in every scene.
5.)  And a set of imaginary elements to explore the circumstances and situations given by the playwright - and interpreted by the actors.

And then we get together and rehearse - using both the writer's lines and the actors' improvised thoughts.  In that way, the actors can guide their work logically from moment to moment.  And my job, as the director, is to make sure everyone is actually doing their work and exploring.  Furthermore, I am there to make sure that those explorations are serviceable to the story.  In that way, we can build the production together.  It takes some doing to get used to, but it gets us back to what it was to play when we were kids.  Working this way, many of us have been able to get past the need to be good or to be entertaining, and to simply live through something.  In that way, we become accustomed to discovering the story.

In the final weeks of rehearsal, we'll shape the play that the audience actually sees.  So, we'll only be saying the writer's words at a point, and the technical elements (lights, sound, set, sightlines) will create certain necessary staging.  But we'll have all sorts of things to share that we discovered in rehearsals.

That's how we address it.  It's possible to do most of this alone.  Personally, I find it imperative to walk into any project, having an understanding of the story and an idea of what I can explore during rehearsals.  Most directors welcome that kind of excitement.  And either way, it's important that actors come in having something to say as artists.  After all, that's what theatre is all about. 

What are your thoughts on the subject?  Don't be shy.  Conversation is the best part of a community.

"Organic Theater" - Part 3: Objective

"Competition [in a scene] is healthy. Competition is life. Yet most actors refuse to acknowledge this. They don't want to compete. They want to get along. And they are therefore not first-rate actors."
- Michael Shurtleff

I don't normally find myself quoting Michael Shurtleff, but it rang particularly true when it was brought to my attention by Erin Cronican (our Managing Director), who is directing our upcoming production of John Kolvenbach's LOVE SONG.

There seems to be an epidemic going around our theaters.  I call it playing nice.

We spend our lives learning how to avoid conflict.  In my opinion, that's really the main thing taught in the majority of public schools: socialization.  But we get it from our parents, our peers - literally everywhere we turn, we're taught how to get along.  We learn very early on that Sharing is Caring, that we can't hit people or roar at them when we want something.  We can't just take food off of people's plates.  We learn to bite our lips, watch our mouths, hold our tongues...the sayings go on and on.  And all of these maxims serve us very well in life.  Not so well onstage.

The truth of it is:  we can't afford to behave onstage the same way we do in life.  Many of the great acting teachers have cited a difference between Naturalism and Realism onstage.  I'll go into greater detail on that in another post.  But the long and the short of it is this:  We go to the theater to see ourselves.  It's why we chose The Seeing Place as our name, the literal meaning of the Greek word, "Theatron".  In our minds, the theatre should be a place to express the things that we don't want to admit about ourselves in public.

We can hardly aim for that kind of goal if we insist on behaving in an everyday fashion onstage.  But how do we go about achieving that kind of heightened expression without setting blocking or levels of emotion?  What's to keep the strength of the story intact?  What's to keep us from avoiding conflict and behaving naturally, when that's what we've been taught all our lives?

In every theater around town, actors and directors alike stress the importance of raising the stakes.  But how do we do that? 

To answer that, I think Phil Connors says it best:

"It's the same thing your whole life.  Clean up your room.  Stand up straight.  Pick up your feet.  Take it like a man.  Be nice to your sister.  Don't mix beer and wine - ever!  Oh yeah...don't drive on the railroad tracks.  I don't know, Gus.  Sometimes, you just have to take the big chances.  I'm bettin' he's gonna swerve first.  I'm not gonna live by their rules anymore.  You make choices, and you live with them."
- Groundhog Day

Essentially, we have to change the way we're looking at the world.  David Gideon, my teacher, talks about the importance of recognizing the fact that we get applause onstage for the same things that we'd be thrown in jail for in real life.  But that's not just going to happen of its own volition.  We literally have to give ourselves permission.  Because there are no consequences onstage.  We're there to celebrate the reaches of humanity.  And we all have to play with the same kind of openness that we did when we were kids, playing make-believe. 

That said, there is still one more piece to the puzzle.  Simply acting with abandon doesn't help tell a story.  Though it's tempting, we can't just be free onstage. Why not?  Because that would destroy the reality of the play - unless the character is a psychopath.  We still have to live within some guidelines.

There is a sign posted in our rehearsal space.  It reads "GO AFTER WHAT YOU WANT."  And it really brings the whole thing to the surface.  How many people do you know that say they want to be actors, and yet when you ask them when they went on their last audition, they couldn't even begin to tell you?  I'll bet they have the same problem in their work onstage.

The singularly most difficult thing for an actor to find in a play is:  AN ACTABLE OBJECTIVE.  Many of us are taught to look for some action verbs or what our characters want is.  But in reality, what are our characters aiming for?  How are they going to get it?  Those are big questions.  And we spend a lot of time answering them at The Seeing Place. 

But it's not enough to have it in mind - in life or onstage.  We have to DO something about it.  I can know that I should exercise if I want to slim down until I'm blue in the face.  Nothing's gonna happen if I just think about it, though.  Sometimes, I literally need to force myself to act on my desires.  It can't be a matter of 'when we feel like it'.

Because our characters are at big points in their lives.  They're taking action.  There's a reason that Long Day's Journey Into Night takes place THIS WEEKEND at the Tyrone mansion - not last weekend or next weekend.  This is the time the family DID something.

I learned this from one of the greatest books on playwrighting ever.  On the second page, it says...

Let's begin the process simply, with a one-line definition of a story:
A speaker tells a listener what someone did to get what he wanted and why.
- THE ANATOMY OF STORY by John Truby

One more time, because I think it's important:
A speaker tells a listener what someone DID to get what he wanted and why.


The objectives are our lifelines in the theatre.  If I go head first after what I want, and you do too, then BAM - immediate conflict.  I've been told that the greatest stories happen when two opposing viewpoints on living go into battle.  Just because Torvald loses the at the end of Ibsen's A Doll's House, it doesn't mean that he shouldn't be fighting for his life all along the way.  Otherwise, we'll know what happens in the end before he does.  Our failures onstage are what tend to give us the greatest successes. 

It's in that collaborative competition that the story is told.  We can't afford Kumbaya in the theatre.  I don't want to give my scene partners the benefit of the doubt.  I want to challenge them.  I want them to challenge me back.  It's just like any other game we play.  We should play to win.

There seems to be this idea that in an ensemble theater, everyone should give to everyone else.  We agree.  But we shouldn't make ourselves smaller to do that.  I'll end with Marianne Williamson's overquoted quote that is especially pertinent:

Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate,
but that we are powerful beyond measure.

It is our light, not our darkness, that frightens us.
We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant,
gorgeous, handsome, talented and fabulous?

Actually, who are you not to be?
You are a child of God.

Your playing small does not serve the world.
There is nothing enlightened about shrinking
so that other people won't feel insecure around you.

We were born to make manifest the glory of God within us.
It is not just in some; it is in everyone.

And, as we let our own light shine, we consciously give
other people permission to do the same.
As we are liberated from our fear,
our presence automatically liberates others.

What are your thoughts on the subject?
This is the third post in a series, defining methods The Seeing Place Theater uses in our rehearsal process to create Organic Theater.  

Other posts in this series:     Part One: Speaking Out  |  Part Two: Physical Reality

"Organic Theater" - Part 2: Physical Reality

This is the second post in a series, defining the unusual methods The Seeing Place Theater uses in our rehearsal process to create Organic Theater.

"We don't use blocking."  That used to be our catch-phrase.  You can't imagine how many people have been up in arms over that concept with us over the last three years.  There's always someone there to suggest that it's possible to craft moments, block things out to a 'T', AND live through a play as though it's the first time.  And while I suppose there is some truth to that in that we could easily represent life on the stage and pretend it's the first time, why wouldn't we just live each moment for the first time?

"How do we do that?"  You ask.  And it's an important question.  Many theaters just say they live it for the first time and still use blocking.  Some don't block and just encourage actors to find the story each and every night - and I suppose that if they were especially well trained, then that might work...but most aren't.  What we do is to answer a question, based in what I consider to be Lee Strasberg's greatest insight into the theatre:

What would I be doing if the scene weren't taking place?


When asked, most people seem to want to tell us what they'd like to be doing.  "Oh, I'd be at a bar with some friends."  From my understanding, Strasberg would commonly respond to this kind of remark by saying, "Great.  You go to a bar with some friends, and I'll get an actor who will actually do what he'd be doing here if the scene weren't taking place."  And that's the rub:
What would I be doing IN THIS ROOM if the lines of this scene weren't taking place?

And then we actually DO those things throughout our scenework.  That's our blocking.  That's our physical reality.  By answering this question, The Seeing Place is able to live through something onstage that is unique to each night, rather than setting the actions and their timing in advance. Another way to think of it is this:  If your scene partner had to run off to the bathroom and left you onstage by yourself, what might your character be doing here in your imagined reality?

To illustrate: Let's take the first scene of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof for example.  What would Brick be doing if the scene weren't taking place?  Some things might be...

• Cooling off from the hot day - might include fanning, ice from the drink, etc.
• Drying off from the shower he takes before the play starts and any sweat that accumulates.
• Keeping his sprained ankle elevated.
• Drinking with the energy to fade out or "get that click" and maintain it, rather than to get drunk.
• Getting dressed in silk pajamas...or getting ready for Big Daddy's Birthday Party - even though the lines might suggest otherwise.

At Strasberg's behest (which I constantly hear from my teacher, David Gideon):
Do what you would be doing if the scene weren't taking place, and don't stop doing it unless something happens to interfere.  But if there is an interference, stop and take the time to actually deal with it.  But as soon as you are able, go back to doing what you'd be doing if the scene weren't taking place - even if it doesn't make sense.

That's a very complicated statement - though we've found it to be relatively simple in execution.  Simple does not mean easy.  It requires a change of viewpoint from what we normally find in the theater.  Many actors in our mainstream theater seem to rely on the guidance of directors to be told what to do and where to go.  Even in TSP rehearsals, there is an occasional outburst of, "Just tell me what to do and I'll do it!"  But we don't let our group go through the motions onstage.  I'm not suggesting that there are not actors out there that are organic and alive in their work.  But we are a full company of actors that set out to remain creative in performance.  We have to keep our thinking caps on.  For us, it's not simply a matter of saying lines well or expressing whatever emotional reality is going on.  We're aiming to live fully into an imaginative situation onstage.  The tasks we do keep us concentrated and engaged.  We can't fake them.  That gives us grounding, whether or not we're having a good night at the theater.

The primary thing that The Seeing Place aims to create in our work is the simple reality.  If someone is drinking tea, we want them to actually make it and actually drink it.  If you need to sweep a stage, go ahead and actually sweep it.  That's the easiest part of acting.  As Lee Strasberg had posted over his door at The Lee Strasberg Theater Institute, "It's not about emotion."  That's not to suggest that the emotional reality isn't important.  But at Strasberg's insistence, we can't go for emotions:
"The emotions take care of themselves."

Of course, there will be exceptions and times when the play calls for something slightly different - as was the case in our production of THREE SISTERS, which had some "stand-in" props that were not 100% realistic.  But even then, we were still doing what we'd be doing if the scenes weren't taking place - within the confines of that reality.

Lee Strasberg's insight into this element of human behavior, which The Seeing Place uses in our work, is based in an observation that Strasberg made about people, which is that in life, we don't stop doing what we're doing to have conversations.

David Gideon, my teacher, has given the following example (I'm paraphrasing):  If we're driving to Boston, we don't stop the car to have an argument.  We may begin an argument and respond so intensely that we feel out of control and NEED to stop the car to deal with the situation, but as soon as we've got it back under control and can continue driving, we do.

And that's how The Seeing Place goes about doing something unique to each night.  Sometimes, the emotional reality interrupts in one place or another, sometimes it doesn't.  Sometimes, we're doing one activity in a certain place in a scene, sometimes another.  It's completely based on how things play out that night.  But it's all connected to the logic of the scene, the play, the character, and our own observations about people and our world. 

I've even used this approach in plays that were stringently blocked by a director.  In reality, the director doesn't want to have to block actors that stringently much of the time.  If the actor comes in with a logical life to carry out onstage, most directors are more than willing to work within it. 

All in all, I find it to be much more fun.  After all, it is a play.  :O)

What are your thoughts on all of this?

Other posts in this series:     Part One: Speaking Out

What Is "Organic Theater"? - Part 1: Speaking Out

This is the first post in a series, defining some of the tools we use to make the theater you enjoy on our stages.

For a long time, we've been very hesitant to talk about our process.  It tends to get a bad wrap.  Anytime someone doesn't understand something we do, they blame the way we work - as though there would be no problems if we were to just follow the theatrical norms in our business. 

The biggest mystery seems to revolve around what we call "Speaking Out" (In the past, we've referred to it publicly as "Structured Improvisation", because we felt it needed a layman's term).  Over the last three years that The Seeing Place has been around, people have taken this phrase to mean anything from a lack of textual analysis to a complete disregard for the playwright.  Both could not be further from the truth.

It's hard to describe what we do in terms that people outside of it can understand.  As with bike-riding, there's a lot of jargon representing uncommon experiences - that are best learned in action, rather than words.  Simply put, "Speaking Out" is a means to combine the Actor's thoughts and impulses with the Author's words.

Speaking Out is a practice that we've borrowed from Lee Strasberg's work.  For those unfamiliar, I like to describe it as being similar to Meisner's Repetition Exercise, because it functions to answer the same problem -  helping the actor respond impulsively and get out of his own way.  As far as what we do at The Seeing Place is concerned, it is a rehearsal technique that allows our actors to actively keep their creative juices flowing and address any difficulties that come up.  The main benefit is that it forces actors to really talk and listen to one another.  As Bobby Lewis said, "If it's not talking and listening, it really doesn't matter how much more it is."

We've found that with Speaking Out, we are able to facilitate actors in effectively getting their work into their lines.  There is a common worry that speaking your thoughts will put you in your head.  That is not the aim.  It's not about creating new dialogue.  It's about living in the situation.  In our process, there should be no discrepancy between the actor's spoken thoughts and the author's written lines.  Speaking out is not private subtext.  The other actors can and do hear you.  They respond in the same way as you would to someone screaming "Hello!" at you.  Actors are encouraged to take the same energy of their thoughts into their lines.  This gives them a means of addressing expression - so that their work gets out of their heads and into reality.

Without giving a formal tutorial, what we do basically looks like this:

Let's say that the lines of the scene are:
A:  Hi.  How are you?
B:  I'm fine.  Thanks.  And you?

Speaking Out is loosely structured like this:
A:  [1st actor speaks his impulsive thoughts, then]  Hi.  How are you?
B:  [2nd actor responds, speaking impulsive thoughts, then]  I'm fine.  Thanks.  And you?

In action, let's say that actors A and B are in a lover's quarrel.  Let's say that A stormed out of the house, giving B some time to pack up and leave.  This is an example of how this conversation might manifest, while speaking out.

A:  I can't believe you're still here!  Hi!  How are you?
B:  I'm...really sorry, okay?  I'm fine.  I promise.  Thanks.  And you?

Notice: 
1.)  There is no distinction made between the author's lines and the actor's thoughts. (In the last example, lines are only in bold to provide clarity.  There should be no notable difference between lines and thoughts in either energy or volume.)
2.)  The actors thoughts affect the manner in which the author's lines are said. 
3.)  The actors can choose to speak freely within their own lines, but offer no improvised thoughts after they give the cue.
4.)  B is responding in situation to A's behavior, though not necessarily to the improvised words.  In other words, B does not say "What made you think I was going to leave?" 

It looks very complicated.  And it is at first.  There is a learning curve.  But only because Speaking Out requires actors to be active participants in their work.  They are forced to think on their feet.  They have to get personally involved.  They can't plan how they are going to say their lines.  They have to go with today's reality, right now.  It will be different tomorrow.  In this way, their work is full of life each and every time.  They also bear the full responsibility of communicating with their scene partners - because everyone is accountable to keeping the ball in the air. 

Every actor, I'm sure, can identify with the following experience.  You plan out exactly what you want to do in a scene, you have the creative juices flowing before you enter, you walk into the scene and...say lines without doing what you set out to do.  Oops!  We've all been there.  Speaking out gives you a practical tool in rehearsals to address those kinds of difficulties in the moment.

You may be wondering why anyone would bother with this kind of work.  First of all, it really is fun to live through an imaginary event, rather than represent it.  But the chief reason is this:

The playwright does not and cannot mean anything without the actor's interpretation.  In order for the playwright's words to sing, they have to resonate personally with the actors.

Also, please keep in mind that this is a rehearsal technique.  It's nothing that ever happens on our stages.  In production, you'll only ever hear the author's words, unless there is some unavoidable emergency - which happens in any production from time to time (it's the fun of live theater).  Most audiences comment that there is very personal character work and a lot behavioral nuances in our shows that the actors seem to share.  That's a direct result of Speaking Out.

You may worry that The Seeing Place does not hold writers in the highest esteem.  We absolutely do.  In fact, we do everything we can to dissect the situation, the story, the characters, and our own interpretations.  The playwright wrote way more than the words on the page.  A play is a skeleton.  It is our call as actors to give it life. 

Please comment and ask any questions you may have.  Please also share any experiences you've had in improvisation as a rehearsal technique.  Either way, we'd love to hear your thoughts.