All 4 entries tagged Medea
March 04, 2005
This image is the culmination of the efforts of many members of our group to plan the execution of our mammoth piece of theatre. I think the image speaks for itself. The gender divide will come out in the script and the fact the genders are divided inside the studio. But whne they leave the sudio, will the divide still exist on some level? Or will they be more aware of it
Container, content. Body, Spirit.
February 24, 2005
Principal Photography. No jacket required, just a hat.
It's hard to talk about this stuff without repeating what's already out there or discussing minor greivances without sounding bitchy.
I'm not really sure what went down at the begining of Thursday's sesh which I think I missed. Because suddenly decisions on style and theme had been irrevocably cemented. Under that cement were any ideas I had contrary to this magic style which God seemed to send down while I blinked. Apparently the camera moving is a really big deal. Can it shake? Noooooooooo. But I'm not bitter.
The maths building filming was really good. We got everything we set out to except my walking away backward tracking shot out of the building because windows reflect light, OOPS! It could've been done somewhere else but there was no need to take the camera somewhere else plus it would've gone on too long. Each shot was basically an expression of distance between gender and isolation with de-personified gender. There's no need to write everything out, its there on film FOREVER (eat that live performance) and pretty straightforward.
The annoying thing about working in an equal group is that your always afraid of seeming like a controlling asshole. I think Owen has said something similar. When I really want a certain idea done or I have an idea I feel apologetic for powering it through. It's so annoying! Because I never think anyone's an asshole for making a suggestion or doing something. Yet when I took over the camera once or twice to get my exact thought on camera and blatantly just told people what to do ("Squeeze the railing!") there is a fear that people will have a sense of being dominated. "A dictatorship would be a alot easier, as long as I'm the dictator." Boo hoo for me.
Burning hat memories may be impeding by positive expression of the work. But rest assured the time was well spent, hardly a moment wasted in our chocolate fueled creative eutopia, also called the maths building.
At one point I thought "Acting, anyone" so I told Zoe to touch herself (on the neck) and wrap her arms around herself so she looked more vulnerable… success! This combined with the bird eye view SHOT to make her seem very little and sympathetic. Then I went and did the same thing. This male female switching occured for most of the other ideas so the initial (Fledging?) Idea of male and female being put into eachothers position might come through… might.
I guess this is what happens when you mix Boogie Nights, being pissed off and blogging. I hope all of it doesn't sound really bitter. Thursday was a creative opus almost on par with the 12 hours responsible for He-Men Part II. PLUG.
The focus off the whole piece seemed to be leaning towards male and female opposition. In the true method style the group split off into lads and lasses and made a list of things they didn't like about the opposite gender. The guys was:
When they assume you can't understand anything they're going through just because you haven't got ovaries.
When they say that we should know what's wrong with them, and what to do, even though the rest of the time they say we can never understand.
Having to explain films, especially at the most innapropriate times
Moody, makes you assume it's your fault and then won't explain what's wrong.
Assume no man can be trusted, but all women can
Saying things that something didn't mean anything, when it clearly did.
Where as every woman is seen as a deep and meaningful person, men are always put into stereotypes.
Bitchiness with other women.
If a blokes in a mood he's an idiot, but if the woman is then the man has to adapt.
A man can move on from an argument after an hour, a woman still hasn't moved on after a week.
They can't understand why explosions are cool.
Talking about the good things about their ex's.
Silent moody blank outs where you have to guess at the problem for about a week.
Saying they'll never drink that much again, but continuing to drink that much again. And again.
They hate all men until they see one they like who turns out wrong. Rinse and repeat.
The girl's list is over on Sophie's blog
The reason we did all this was because Hugh Denard rightly pointed out to us that we had forgotten what response we wanted to evoke from the audience. We decided we wanted to evoke questions about gender opposition how each gender view the other. Challenging the audience to question their own views and maybe judgements of the other gender.
February 19, 2005
So JR Enterprises moves production to Warwick for something serious. A collaborative effort with "the film group", Owen, Sophie, Ricardo, Sarah and Rhyyyysss.
After feeling slightly pressurised by the term "Rothelite's Film" the above team set out to create the greatest piece of silent film since 2001: A Space Odyssey.
We considered the original idea of the film and blew it wide open. It was much easier to discuss ideas in a smaller group than it was in the first session after the loss of the conch, ideas were said that sparked other ideas and by the end we all felt very excited, after two hours of conversation we came up with some nice ideas:-
– Someone is sat in a room doing something like smoking looking depressed and possibly drunk with a dark or sleazy or dirt or sad feel (don't know yet). They could do other things aswell which would compliment the words of the speaker in front on the screen (on stage). The film would end with the killing of the children.
– Hard to explain… Gender issues rose in the opening discussion which led us to this: (Beep beep) The actor (male or female) switches all the time, whats the point? It challenges the audiences perspective of gender in certain situations, for example seeing a man depressed or a woman depressed, and later and more importantly either of them killing kids. It's not gonna switch between the same two people, its about six guys and dolls, this is to depersonify the character and narrow it down to gender (hopefully). The switches would be done in different ways, for example. Woman fully in shot goes to stub out her fag in an ashtray, close up of her hand, stubs it out. Cut to original full shot only its a guy in exactly the same position sutbbing out the same fag. AND when killing the kids, show just the killers head and shoulders and have them lit only with passing headlights from a window outside, each time different headlights pass the person has changed and is doing the same thing. It's a cheap trick but it should be good.
– The live performance is to be more stylised, if the film is realistic then the performance could be more physical, could involve line swapping, could be anything because we really don't know yet.
– My (beep beep) slight plagurism of the sound of trains screeching by and getting louder and louder to show inner turmoil!
– Fast, really fast cuts between different actions, like in Requiem For A Dream when they do it with different drug related actions and TV watching related action.
– "Laughter with knives". A seperate TV screen showing the murder, with headphones attached, the headphones are playing "Wouldn't it be nice" by The Beach Boys, listening to it now it seems to be it about a relationship and how there are hopes for it going on and greater things happening. I think that's irony but I'm never sure.
We need to consider the style of the film, be it film noir or abstract or whatever, I'm not gonna pretend I know all the styles but I have an idea in my head of how its gonna look and we need to share our thoughts on style because thats the starting point.
It seems that with the focus established as perception and opposition, we are able to conceive ideas that are more cogent and possible, with consideration of their place in the wider context of the piece. The piece as a whole is a doosy. Are the different things going on independently without regard for eachother or do they trigger eachother and time somehow? I dont think they do but it seems unclear in the group, its the uneasy reference to "Rothelite's Film" as though it will be something that everyone looks to at once when really its just a supporting element of the live performance, and its not just made by the Rothelite. There is a big issue with sound, how much sound can each thing make? if any? I figured if each is quiet enough it can be heard if you are in range but one element won't have overriding loud sound, like the film. And live performance doesn't have to be theatrically loud and booming, it almost felt like this thought hadn't occured to anyone. It's good to talk, it'll feel more personal, intimate and will draw in the viewer for a more "interactive" experience, that's what theatre is right? What?
February 18, 2005
It started with one question: Who does Euripides want the audience to sympathise with more, Jason or Medea? Following an epic confrontation between the two disagreeing factions, we split into said factions and began the greatest creative journey since J.R.R. Tolkien sat down and thought, "Hobbits?"
First the group split up went to research the library, internet, etc and some people went to interview people in da street. We returned to the fray having learned the myth behind Medea and informaion about productions.
The group discussion commenced and Nick geniously conceived an installation where the audience could walk around the studio and watch different things going on. A central issue that emerged was that the play was comissioned by the Corinthians to bring scared visitors in who believed the myth that it was the Corinthians who killed Medeas kids not Meda herself (Going to somewhere where kids have been killed is unlucky apparently.) We wondered how we play around with myth vs play, NOT myth vs reality or vs reality vs play and we thought it coudlt come to some kind ofdebate on stage. I don't want to blow my own trumpet but, BEEP BEEP, I thought of a film idea, the question that began this creative journey, Jason or Medea, made me think about how you could ask the audience this in an interesting and stimulating and funky way. An art college was thought up which would include newpaper clippings etc which would reflect on issues of gender politics and propoganda, at this point the group discussion broke down because me and Rhyyyyyys got excited about the film idea and people began to discuss the seperate sections of the piece. This was partly due to the sudden lack of a conch, which began as a vital instrument but was abolished due to fear of unconciousness through water bottle impact on the skull. So we left after a (successful) day of CONCEPTUALISING. The different aspects stood at:-
– A chorus tableuax
– An art college (possibly viewed only with torches held by the audience)
– A live piece dealing the issue of myth vs play
– A monologue with film going on behind it.
– Use of recorded sound.
I'm in the film group so I'll say a bit more on that. It's gonna have Medea "performing live" with a video of Jason looking and being shot (oooh cinema) in a very sympathetic way. The point of this is that Medea as a character in the text is trying to engage the audiences sympathy by standing there moaning, by putting Jason on screen behind her, Medea isn't allowed the audiences full attention and they are battling for sympathy and attention.
The reason I don't know much about the first three is because of the nature of our piece. We decided on what it was, chose what we wanted to do and split off.
What's worth finishing on is what the hell links all this stuff together, well here are the ideas for theme. OPPOSITION, the myth is in opposition to the play and Jason and Medea are in opposition to eachother. This grew into (beep beep) PERCEPTION! The audience is given two perspectives in each and can view each one how they percieve it, the people offering the arguments have there own perceptions. Furthermore perception is represented by the fact that the audience can wonder around whereever they want, they can choose to see what they want when they want and when they do they can choose how to see that.
Some of this might not make sense because I wrote it in bits and moved it around. Anyway I hope you get the jiz of it.