Vaudeville - Time To Talk. Part 1.

The show returns to the stage after having a night off. Everybody has been telling me that the show has been getting better and better, so I'm excited to see it again after missing a couple of nights.

The first Tuesday in a season at the Malthouse is “Time To Talk” night. Peter Clarke hosts the session, which is a forum where audiences have the opportunity to speak to the creatives and performers about the show. Thanks must go to Peter for facilitating the discussion; he is so informed about theatre and is such an accomplished communicator that I couldn't imagine anybody doing a better job.

I made some notes on the forum. Some of what came up we have covered already in the blog, but there was plenty of new stuff too. Of course, it's also interesting to hear what questions people have about the show. Because of the sheer volume I’ve decided to break it up into 2 separate posts.

Peter opened up the forum by asking Chris and Lally about the relationship between research and theatre, and what the genesis of the piece was.

As we know, nearly 4 years ago Chris discovered a book called “Act as Known” by Valentyne Napier in a Brunswick Street book shop. Napier’s parents spent their lives in vaudeville and were famous for their Spider and Butterfly act. Their lives, and the lives of the other performers and the theatres they worked in are the subject of Napier’s book. This book sparked Chris’s interest in working on a show inspired by Australian vaudeville.

Chris and Lally then successfully applied for a residency at the State Library of Victoria to research Australian vaudeville acts. The pair were especially interested in the forgotten people of history; the ones who are not celebrated by history. Rather, the ones that fell through the cracks, and can only be found in small newspaper articles or pieces of ephemera.

Lally's research was more hap-hazard. She would get stuck musing on a particular article, or find herself reading unrelated advertisements. Chris was more methodical and would drive Lally towards articles and information of note.

One particular theme that came up a lot in their research was how often drownings in the Yarra River would be reported on. The river gained a monstrous persona that would rise up to absorb people into itself; drowning them and burying them in mud.

They also mentioned the influence on the work of entertainment entrepreneur Harry Rickards. (There's a link to his bio on the right.)

One of the audience members asked how the actors dealt with the form and style of the piece, given the different styles of the two acts, and the quite specific requirements of vaudeville?

Matt responded by saying that for him it was quite a natural extension from the direct style of presentation that is used in circus.

Christen said that her greatest concern was in the ventriloquism. It's a highly skilled art form in its own right, and although she was continually told that her character was not a good ventriloquist, performing something badly is not necessarily any easier than performing it well. She went on to say that the two acts provide two distinct challenges. The first act requires immersion in the world of vaudeville. The second act requires what Christen called 'capital M Magic'- big emotion, big moments, bold commitment. Addressing these two different approaches in a single show was a big challenge.

Julia talked about understanding the world of the piece, and how it only crystalised for her once she was playing on the set and working in the costumes. These things were crucial in her development of the character.

Alex responded that he saw it quite simply; he tries to do what the director tells him to do.

Jim said he had a couple of ways in. One of which was the voice of John Meillon's character in The Picture Show Man.

The discussion moved on to design. Jonathon was roundly applauded for his work on the costume and set. As was Richard, for his lighting.

Richard revealed the way he had approached the contrast between the two acts in respect of the lighting design. He said that the first act was defined to a large degree by the footlights, a traditional feature of the old theatres. Footlights tend to flatten a space, and this became the primary feature of the design. But, in the second act he was working to make the performers and the space more three dimensional. He also wanted to give the performers the impression of being ghosts, that would at times feel as though they were floating in the space.

More from the Time To Talk tomorrow! I've moved the Countdown clock to when the show ends, so if you've not seen it yet get down to the Malthouse. It will close faster than you think!

Vaudeville Day 16 - The Set has left the workshop

The first day of the final week. And the set has left the worshop and is being built in the theatre. I'll try to sneak in and get a shot if I'm allowed:-

There's been some activity over the weekend, but not a lot of activity; a really good sign. Chris and Lally have decided to make a few cuts here and there, but the broad feeling is that the work that needs doing is predominantly on the scenes, not on the script.

It's an interesting balance for new scripts. Established scripts and 'classic' scripts have their own validation. There is an implied onus on the company to make the script work. When it is accepted that the writer has written a great script, it is expected that the script will make great theatre if the artists can make it 'live.' With new scripts there's a different balance. Text can be cut or changed basically at will. There is nothing sacred about the new script yet. The script can be 'developed' in whatever way required to serve the play, to make the play work on stage.

The challenge can be in knowing when to stand by the script, trusting that with hard work the actors will make the text work, and when to find fault with the script, and therefore cut or change it.

This is especially the case after early runs of a new play. There's no question that early runs will be rough. It is one of the great skills of a directors and dramaturgs of new plays to be able to decipher in these early runs when the 'roughness' is in the script and when it is in the performance readiness. Sometimes it can be really hard to tell.

I asked resident Malthouse Dramaturge in Residence Maryanne Lynch how she deciphered from early runs whether issues she saw were problems with the script, or problems stemming from lack of performance readiness. This is some of what she said;

And it's actually even more complicated than that. Actors are so good at getting things to work that sometimes they will make a moment or scene work that really isn't serving the play. This can encourage writers and directors to remain committed to a scene, when perhaps it interrupts the play's momentum or disrupts important 'arcs.'

Chris and the writing team have been making these calls over the weekend. For the most part they're trusting the script; after all, it has been literally years of development to this point.

So, for the company it's back to scene work again. Chris has developed a list of scenes to work on, and the cast make their way through these. Morale is really high today, as all the cast are getting closer and more comfortable with their characters. They are 'inhabiting' their characters more than before, rather than being mid-process of developing who they are. They seem freer today to work on the details of the scenes; thinking less, trusting that their offers are 'in character.'

Chris is directing like the conductor of an orchestra today. He moves into the space, eyes wide and arms outstretched, conducting the movement of the actors in the space. He winds them up, he slows them down, he controls their flow. There is great clarity in the rehearsal room now. They are consciously working on fewer simultaneous issues now because there is a 'living' base, which everybody shares and can evolve with each new direction or scenic idea. Previously, every change or new direction set off a chain of questions about how the direction would effect every other related issue. Now it is like the 'living' base accomodates and shifts for every new direction. It slots in, and the rest of the work shifts and slots into a new place quite naturally. They don't need to discuss it.

Accordingly, they are actually now able to work on more simultaneous issues. Chris is directing the secondary stage action at the same time as the primary dialogue. Before today the secondary, or incidental stage action has been only rudimentarily dealt with. For example Chris will say, “You guys will do so-and-so in the background, but we'll get to that later.” Well, “later” is now. There is headspace for both Chris and the cast to spend time on this level of action. It is incredibly important work. Now that it's there, it's already adding in a lot of detail in respect of the relationships. Some of the character issues and 'relationship' issues that they've been discussing in relation to the scripted scenes is being layered into the secondary action.

It draws my attention back to the limitations of script analysis. By its nature a script analysis will focus heavily on the dialogue, and can encourage consternation about whether certain elements of the play are being properly explored or enacted by the script. Sometimes though, vital elements of a relationship can actually be crystalised with a single, or a sequence of very short dialogue-less encounters in the incidental action. Action that occurs incidentally during another dialogue or song. It is very difficult to analyse the effect of these moments in a script analysis situation.


Tomorrow's list of scenes has already been drawn up, and there is another run tomorrow afternoon. The pattern seems well set; runs separated by focussed work on individual scenes that require detailing.

Vaudeville Rehearsal Day 10 - What does an Assistant Director do, anyway?

Today's video is of a conversation I had with set designer Jonathon Oxlade about his initial points of inspiration. Check it out.

And don't forget to vote in the poll; only a few days left.

Already the end of the second week ! ! We are slightly down on the cast today because Julia has alternate commitments and is not rehearsing today. The focus necessarily moves to the scenes in which Julia does not have a significant part.

During this time I took the opportunity to talk with one of the most mysterious figures in professional theatre; the assistant director. What does an assistant director do?

Well, the experience of assistant directors varies broadly from project to project and director to director as to what responsibilities they are given and what role they take on for a production. There are no hard and fast rules for it. In some cases the role is almost strictly 'observational.' That is to say, you assist with watching rehearsal. In other cases, you might be given scenes to work on after the director has laid down the fundamental approach, or there might be a tour that the assistant director will ultimately take responsibility for.

I wouldn't want to over-generalize, especially on recent experience, but the first of the options mentioned above has been the common 'role' for a lot of assistant directors over the years. Young directors often talk about it in terms of a necessary evil to get introduced to the professional industry. I asked Vaudeville's Assistant Director, Stephen Nicolazzo, what his role is.
His response was that Chris and he have never formally defined what his role is. Nevertheless, he feels that it's pretty clear. Turns out that Stephen is not your usual AD. He has been working on the project for over a year, and has also assisted Chris on other projects. So they have an ongoing working relationship. This means that there is a core of trust between Chris and himself. Also, they share an aesthetic, which means he can make recommendations with confidence.

In the first weeks of the rehearsal period he has played a strong dramaturgical role. He feels he's good with writers, so has been working very closely with Lally on the script inside and outside of the rehearsal room. He offers Chris and Lally an analysis of scenes, discussing what the scene's importance to the play is, whether it's fulfiling its objectives, and how it may be tweaked to better do so.

He discusses how the play's arcs are working, looks at the intentions of the characters, and goes through the play word by word with Lally and Chris. He talks about bringing a different 'reading' of the scenes, which can help elucidate how the scene works, and may be built upon to strengthen or enrich it.

I ask him what his role with the actors in the rehearsal room is. He says that he provides Chris with an extra pair of eyes and ears. Because of his deep knowledge of the play he is in a position to nudge or remind Chris of aspects of scenes they have discussed before the rehearsal. These aspects can then be layered into the scene, or help provide the answer to an issue they're working on.

The crucial issue is one of trust. Stephen says that in a previous production Chris had sent him away with work to do with the performers, and had actively worked to give Stephen a 'voice' in the room. The success of these early attempts taught him not to doubt himself, and helped build his confidence.

Of course there is also the issue of gaining the actors' trust. The stage can be an extraordinarily vulnerable place for actors, and they place enormous faith in directors. Because the majority of the cast of Vaudeville haven't worked with Chris or Stephen before, they are naturally wary of trusting Stephen quite yet. But he's working on gaining that respect, and Chris's empowerment of Stephen is vital to that process. No doubt, as the opening looms ever closer, Stephen's role in assisting Chris on the floor in running and working scenes is going to get larger.

Chris and Stephen were introduced through a professional development program at Melbourne Uni's Union House. Seems to me to be a far better model of assistant director-ship, than simply being seconded onto projects, which is often the case.

Next Monday the choreographer's coming in. Can't wait to see how the cast handle that!

Vaudeville Rehearsal Day 8 - Lally plumbs the "Magical Depths"

SCOOP!! I'VE JUST RECEIVED SOME STOLEN AUDIO IN WHICH SET DESIGNER JONATHON AND DIRECTOR CHRIS TALK ABOUT SETTING UP THE TOP SECRET 'MUDDY MAGIC.' Sure, the quality may be poor, the recording incomplete, the voices difficult to make out, the context obscure...


The rehearsing is well into the second act now. Last week Chris indicated that he wanted to finish a first pass at the whole play by the end of the second week. It's hard to tell whether we will get that far, but you never know. Chris's target of getting through the first act in Week One seemed ambitious, but things were pretty much to schedule.

Speaking of schedules let's do some quick calculations;
A 4 week rehearsal period is standard – that's 160 rehearsal hours.
With a performance time of around 2 hours that's a rough calculation of around 80 minutes of rehearsal for every minute of theatre.
Is this a reasonable amount of time?

Here are some things to consider;-
This time includes warm-ups, reads, theatrical exploration or exercises associated with each moment, design presentations, discussions, vocal and physical detailing, 'setting' to get in and out of running a scene, 'running' to performance readiness, scenes or moments that are worked on and later cut, and everything else the director needs to do on the rehearsal room floor.

Given all that, is 80 minutes of preparation enough for each minute of theatre? Does it depend on the play? Perhaps, perhaps not? Does it makes sense that there's a 'standard' at all? What do you think? I've set up a voting box over on the right. Tell us whether you think 80 minutes preparation for each minute of theatre is enough, not enough, or too much.

Back to the rehearsal.
Compared to the first act the second act contains a higher number of intimate moments. The scenes typically have fewer characters, as might be expected. The style of rehearsing has changed. There are fewer people in the room. It is quieter, and the confidence has risen to work towards more delicate moments. Chris works much more closely to the actors now, in spatial terms. Instead of placing himself always in the 'audience' position and talking from there, he spends much more time inside the playing space. The blocks of action they work in get smaller and smaller. They work very closely on slight moves, eye direction, tone in single words. The vulnerability in the creative process is higher in these intimate moments, as it is in performance. A joke that doesn't get a laugh is embarrassing but can be quickly forgotten. Moments of vulnerability that don't quite work, however, are much more disappointing because these moments are usually so much closer to the 'heart' of the artwork.

As I watch it feels to me that this 'close-in' directing can't be taught. It's about so many of the subtle conditions; instinct, trust, the invisible threads between actor and actor, between actor and director.

I promised I'd get back to Lally to find out how she went with continuing to develop the second act. I started by asking her whether her strategy for the play's continued development had gone to plan. Relieved, she said it basically had done. She was happy with the 're-fleshing' of characters, and Chris had made some suggestions to add some further 'flesh' too. In the process of looking at earlier scripts she had come across some 'floating scenes' that had never made it into the script. They were scenes that she had written quickly one day with nothing particular in mind. These 'floating scenes' had provided some wonderful additions. Lally commented that sometimes it is these kinds of scenes that often end up containing some of her best writing.
Another interesting thing she said was that she had discovered that the play required more 'magical depth.' She had worked hard over the weekend toward generating more of this 'magical depth' in the play. I'll leave you to wonder what 'magical depth' is until I get some more time with Lally later on.

Tomorrow I've a special for you; Jessica from Murrumbeena has sent in a question for Lally Katz. I've video-ed Lally's response and I'll put it up tomorrow!

One word for the day Stephen – trick
On word for the day Richard – sumptuous

Rehearsal Period Day 1.

As the cast and crew assembled for the first morning in the Malthouse foyer Michael Kantor’s welcome speech drew attention to the fact that this was only one of the project’s ‘first mornings.’ When prompted director Chris Kohn revealed that the project had begun back in 2005. Across a series of development periods there had already been a series of ‘first mornings’ before this one. And of course, that’s only in relation to "Goodbye Vaudeville Charlie Mudd." When you take into account the more than half a dozen collaborations between Lally Katz and Chris Kohn, the number of ‘first mornings’ builds into many, many more. We so often think of plays as discrete works, and in some ways they are, but in other ways they can be seen in the context of multiple collaborations between artists over many years.



The morning was spent reading the play. How to start a rehearsal process can be a difficult question; a new play, a new group of performers and creatives, with various existing (or non-existing) relationships. Reading the play can be as much about breaking the ice as it is about putting the play as whole at front and centre. Also, it allows everybody to be present and bear witness as the work begins. After this morning it is possible that all of the creatives won’t be in the room at the same time until the play is into dress rehearsal or even opening night.



After lunch it feels as though the creative work in rehearsal begins for real. Mark Jones, the composer and actor, leads the cast in learning the show’s first song. It’s a group choral number, which allows everybody to work together. Learning songs requires hard, detailed work, but sitting around a piano in a group to sing is a traditional joy that’s hard to resist. It’s work that allows the actors to hear each others’ voices, to work rhythmically together, to start to get in touch with each other. While the actors are singing as characters, and questions of character do emerge, their focus need not be as much on individual understandings of character as when they are rehearsing scenes.



Further, working on a song helps to prioritise the ‘forms’ of theatre at the heart of vaudeville. Before exploring the play about vaudeville, they are practising becoming ‘vaudevillians.’ The mood lightens, the group start being able to joke with each other and get to know each other’s creative energy. At the same time as the actors sing the rest of the group work on their respective responsibilities. Laptops come out and the team of designers continue to work, sneaking pieces of Chris’s time to ask a quick question or clarify a feeling they’ve been working with. Lally has loads of notes and ideas stemming from the reading already. A new script is generally a living document during a rehearsal period. As the text on the page is transformed into the spoken word nuances are continually being yielded up that writers will want to seize upon; advance or remove as it serves the play.



The group singing is broken up by a design presentation. Jonathon Oxlade [set and costume designer] and Chris talk about the visual design elements of the show. The fact that Jonathon is an illustrator as well as a set designer means that the sketches and materials he presents are especially close to what will eventually appear in the show. They are not merely functional design documents, so much as artworks in their own right. The actors feed off the presentation, inspired and excited by the clues the visual design elements present of the characters in Chris and Lally’s combined imaginations.

It will be all I can do not to accidentally fill this site with ‘spoilers.’ Nevertheless, over the next couple of days I’ll try to get some time with Jonathon to ask him a question or two about his process.

The day in a word for Lally - thrilling

The day in a word for Chris- soup