Vaudeville - Time to Talk. Part 2.

This post is a continuation from yesterday's about the Time To Talk on Tuesday night. So, if you've not read yesterday's post yet, it appears directly below this one.

Peter Clarke began the discussion by getting all of the creatives to speak about their contributions. Then he opened the forum to the audience to ask whatever questions they were interested in getting answers to.

This is an approximation of how the discussion unfolded after this point. This is mostly paraphrased; even things that are in quotations are not direct quotes.

“What from the research informed the script the most?”
Chris and Lally fielded this one; they mentioned three things. The stories told to them by Frank Van Stratten; writer, broadcaster and theatre historian. The figure of Hugh D. Mackintosh, entertainment entrepreneur of the era. A video that Chris and Lally watched in which old vaudeville entertainers talked about why vaudeville died. All the old performers had different thoughts for why it had 'died', but ultimately the sense that the pair got from watching the film was that all of these performers found it impossible to move on.

Chris then went on to talk about nostalgia, and that the deeper he researched the vaudeville world, the more he realised that many of the acts just wouldn't be well received today. He came to the understanding that it is far better that piano players in black face, comedians doing racist jokes and the like, are better off left behind. Nostalgia can give these acts a sheen of romantic allure, but this is likely at the expense of seeing these acts for what they really were, and at the expense of allowing artists to move on.


“You've set the play in 1914. Would you have a ventriloquist as raunchy as that in 1914?”
Good question. The answer to this question came from a few different people. It's an interesting and complex question. The first answer was that perhaps you wouldn't find an act as raunchy as this in 1914. However, in the context of the piece, this show is not a typical 1914 vaudeville show. In fact, it is a dismal failure. Their acts are actually turning people away. Secondly, we don't really know how raunchy the acts of that time may have been. We do know that some of these acts were very bawdy, and quite flagrant in providing their audiences with titillation. Certainly there's no shortage of racy puns and inuendo in Shakepeare, which was three centuries prior. It might be a misunderstanding to presume that standards in today's theatres are more liberal than in the past. Having said that, Chris concedes there may be some anachronism in some of the phrases the characters use. The balance is in what serves the work as a piece of theatre for today's audiences, and what is historically correct. After all, it is an artwork first, not an historical document.

The follow up question to this one is; “Are the actors playing to an imagined audience in 1914 or the Beckett Theatre?”
Another interesting question. The cast field this question between them. The actors seemed to have differing views on this. Some discuss that they imagine that they play to a 1914 audience, others that they don't think about the audience because there is not supposed to be one in the first act, still others say that it is impossible to play to anybody BUT the audience that is in the theatre at the time; anything else might sound clever, but it is actually not possible to play.

“How much input did the actors have into the construction of the show?”
Lally says that on this piece she and Chris were determined they would have a 'finished' script that wouldn't change much over the rehearsal period. However, as regular readers of the blog will know, the script was still being worked on right through the rehearsal period and cuts were being made through the preview period. Chris says that while the cast had no specific role in developing the script, their instincts for what was working and what was not was invaluable to the process.

Finally, Peter asked Chris and Lally for any final comments or reflections they had. Lally reflected that she's really happy for the show to be in the hands of the actors now. She was so frantic in the lead-up, that it's real relief that the cast now owns the show. Chris said that he has just begun to watch the show as a spectator rather than a director, but it will not be until next week that he could really enjoy the show.

The forum was well attended, and was a relatively long one; a reflection of how interesting the show is, and also a reflection of the fascination that comes with experiencing how Chris has managed to successfully weave so many extraordinary elements and layers into the piece.

Once again, our thanks to Peter Clarke. If YOU have any questions for any of the team don't hesitate to send them in and I'll see if I can get an answer for you!

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 - The work's not over with the Opening...

We'd welcome any feedback on the show. Shoot us a comment if you feel inclined!!

The Opening Night was roundly considered to be a great success. The energy was strong and the cast put up a really first rate performance. The woman I was sitting next to absolutely adored the show; she laughed her head off, screamed for real during the knife throwing and sighed in the all the right places. At the end of it she applauded with great enthusiasm.

But the Opening Night is not the end of the journey of the show. As mentioned previously, Chris is very aware of the show's development across the journey of the season, and beyond. The show does not suddenly become exactly the same show every single night after it opens. This is particularly the case with a new play. I caught up with Lally and Chris to ask them how they thought the show was progressing:

Being Monday; the play has had 4 runs since I last saw it. Lally, on the other hand, has been to every performance bar one. Her sense is that the play is still developing a solid sense of itself. The actors are doing great work, but she thinks that it will be the end of this week or the beginning of next week before the play matures to a point that brings the work a consistency night on night.

I ask Lally what it is that she thinks is still developing in the work. She says she feels the world of the play is still being filled out, and that there are greater layers of intricacy in the performances every night.

I ask her whether she reads reviews, and what sort of effects they have on her. She tells me that she can't help but read all the reviews as they are released. She sees the reading of reviews as part of the experience of theatre, which can brings either relief or heart break. She can take poor reviews pretty hard.

I ask Chris what he is looking for now when he watches the show after opening night. He says that there are certain 'keys' to the dramatic experience of the play that need to be there night after night for the play to work. At this stage in the process he sees his role as making sure those 'keys' stay in tact. He makes notes for the actors to remind and prompt them to maintain their focus on these keys, and encourage them to keep them working in the way he expects them to. He also looks for when the actors seem to be getting too confident or 'comfortable' in important moments. This can lead to a moment losing its excitement or 'live-ness.'

But it is not all maintenance. Chris makes the point that there are developments in the relationships between the characters, as well as between the cast and tech crew that enrich the show as it runs. There are moments that the audience's reaction validates for the performers and helps them to build their understanding of their role.

On the other hand, there are ways that an audience might respond to a performance that encourages it to develop in a way that works well for a particular scene, but does not serve the play as a whole. The most obvious example of this is in humour; an actor responding to getting 'laughs' from a scene by playing to the comedy, when something slightly more serious in tone may work better overall.

Another thing Chris looks out for is the tendency to play the pace of a scene, rather than every thought. He suggests that sometimes actors can feel good in a scene because the pace of it is right, but in fact they are skipping over the detail of each individual thought. So, he has to remind them to keep the detail in mind.

Finally, he is looking out for how long term trends in the development of the piece are effecting different individual parts. A show is usually a an intricately balanced machine, and growth in one part of it effects the parts surrounding it. By way of a simple example; a fast scene might be balanced against a series of slow scenes. However, if the series of slow scenes starts to work faster, the balancing fast scene might need to be slowed down to make the entire sequence of scenes work.

I ask Chris what place Reviews have in the artistic process. Ideally he says, they part of the fabric of the existence of the show, and should facilitate and frame discussion about the work. I ask more specifically about what effect they have on the artistic process of the show itself, rather than the broad discussion or framing of the show.

He says that he makes it a practice not to discuss reviews with the cast, or to invest too much importance in them. Chris says he thinks the opinions of peers in the industry are probably far more potent, particularly for performers, than the opinions of critics. He sees the potential effects of reviews or peer opinion much the same as the effects of the audience. They can validate good developments, but also validate developments that seem useful in isolation but don't serve the whole.

Having said that, Chris sees that the influence on the process can be much more subtle than that. By example, Chris had a lot of notes to give after the second show. He felt he had many details of the kind above to relate to the actors . The reviews that were published on the Friday were all very positive, which allowed Chris to be as direct as he wanted to be in his notes. If however, the reviews had have been negative, Chris would have felt compromised in the delivery of these notes. He feels that the actors would have been less clear as to whether these notes were brought on by Chris's understanding of the show, or as a reaction to the press.

Tuesday is Q&A day at the Malthouse. I'll be going along to that to report on what the audience asks, and what the creatives have to say in reply!