I seem to wait until the day of rehearsal to log in.  Perhaps I like to let things stew or simmer so as to allow the work to be more fully assimilated.  Trusting one’s process versus regular discipline is always one of those conflicts that provoke guilt and remorse in me.  Some things, like physical and vocal work, are more amenable to daily discipline.  Character development, determining tasks and actions, however, foment over time in a less direct way, it seems to me.  I can work on lines every day, but I can’t seem to force my attention to more creative activities in quite the same disciplined fashion.  I suppose that each actor will find their balance in their own ways.  I wouldn’t prescribe some sort of rigid approach to working on a role.  Each role, naturally, will create its own discipline, based on the necessities of the part.  In this case, parts.  And perhaps that is why I need a little extra time to digest what is occurring in rehearsal.  For now, this will do, but as we progress and rehearsals become more regular, than perhaps I will also find a rhythm in my working habits.

So, as I said last time, I was given some pretty strong results by the director for the last read.  We stopped and started, sort of meandering our way through the text.  The director is very “inquiry-based;”  that is, he asks questions, makes open-ended suggestions and engages in a dialogue about what is going on and how we might proceed.  At this stage, I find this an effective way to go about it.  The play is short, so we have the luxury of taking our time to find our way.  That said, one of the strong results–what I called the Chaz Palminteri approach to the role of “Michael” was generally agreed to be NOT the way we will be going.  But by making such a big choice (and mixing in a little Tony Soprano), we did find the outer edges of the role.  What is also not wanted is a sort of fey, cliche of an interior designer (which is what Michael ostensibly is–and I say that provisionally because nothing and no one is quite what they seem in this play).  On the other hand, the role of Leonard (a psychiatrist) seems to be well on his way.  Instead of some imitation of Dr. Strangelove, I really focused on quick CHANGE.  Leonard is highly reactive but also highly unfocused.  If we go in the more realistic realm (which this play definitely is not), we could venture that Leonard is really really tired.  He has (he says) two jobs–a day job in private practice, and a night job at a mental hospital–and he hasn’t slept in months.  Leonard has direct interaction with the Man, while Michael is more a supporting role for “Joan”–who really has the scene with the Man.  Michael’s function appears to be more about creating a concrete relationship with Joan, who then must account for it to the Man.  I’m focusing on how I can most effectively support what is happening between Joan and the Man–thinking about what the scene is about and how it leads to the ultimate scene in the play.

Today, we will finish the read we started and then go back and do the entire thing again.  “Al”–a party-thrower and goer–is to be played in a deadpan, ala Steven Wright.  Based on what happened last time, however, I won’t go all the way with this, but instead use it as a guide.  The text doesn’t support quite that strong an approach (just as it did not really support the approach we tried with Michael).  We are also to bring in a bit of imagined history for each role.  I also find this to be fun, but not as efficacious as it might be.  Yes, we want the characters to be human, but I think that humanity will emerge from moment-to-moment interactions rather than a richly realized backstory.  Living in the imaginary circumstances–very important–but just WHICH circumstances are MOST important in creating the roles remains to be seen.

I’ll let you know.

PK