Vaudeville closes at The Malthouse

Goodbye Vaudeville Charlie Mudd had its final performance of its premiere season last Saturday night. The final show was a really good one. It’s always good to finish a season with a show that everybody feels good about. In companies of artists that work together often the end of one show is not usually a point of exceptional significance. More often than not the next rehearsal or workshop is scheduled into the not too distant future.

When a group is assembled for a specific project, the final performance naturally holds more significance for everybody. The professional theatre in Australia mostly works in the latter model. It is predominately independent theatre companies that work in the former.

The last question I was going to look at in the process of building a work of theatre is how the play developed and evolved throughout the season. I attended the play in each of the weeks that it played to try to get some kind of a sense for this. The thing that perhaps struck me most is just what a complicated question this really is.

For plays in which the artists are highly skilled and experienced, the performances night to night vary incredibly subtly. It seems an obvious thing to say, but at an experiential level it is the audience reaction that seems to vary considerably night on night, while the performance doesn’t change much at all.

Also, it seems to me that perhaps a person needs to go along nightly to fully understand whether subtle changes they see are part of a trend in the development of the performance, or just a subtle shift in a single show.

For me, the most obvious development in the show was the performers’ continued ability to work in finer and finer detail. The responses and offers to each other within the world of the play were getting more and more sophisticated as they were able to live inside it every night. This is particularly clear in the moments when the performers aren’t the centre of focus in a scene; these moments would begin to fill with all kinds of thoughts and moments related to the character and moment that enriched the world of the play.

I spoke to Chris to get his thoughts on how the play developed through the run. Firstly, Chris attended the show through all the previews and first two nights. After that he attended 2 shows a week for the rest of the run. For the shows he didn’t attend he relied on the detailed show reports given by the Stage Manager for how the show was progressing.

His feeling is that the show got better and better through the season. Having said that, Lally reported that two of the early shows she had attended but Chris hadn’t conveyed a heightened feeling of ‘magic.’ They were in agreement that a later show they attended together did not quite create as magical a feeling. So, he thinks it was not necessarily a linear progression.

Chris personally really enjoyed the final performance. Partly this is because of the improvement in the show, but also because he felt that he was in a similar position to any other audience member. With no more shows to do, his responsibility to give notes or work to keep improving the show had ended and he could just watch like everybody else.

One thing that became apparent to Chris through the season was that the second act had a particular running time that worked best for the play. The best shows consistently had a second act running time of 70 minutes.

There were occasions that the second act would get down to 67 minutes. This was too fast. It indicated to Chris that the important change in rhythm that was supposed to happen toward the end of the second act wasn’t happening as it should have been. At this level of practice, 2 minutes worth of time is quite significant. A consistent note from Chris was to make sure that the cast took their time in the second act and didn’t rush through some of the more poignant moments and sequences.

It is a feature of work in this country that very few plays get more than a single season. This is particularly the case for works that premiere at the big theatre companies because of the resources required to remount. Somewhat ironically, it is easier to remount shows that were begun on no budget because having worked on the show for nothing to begin with, people are often happy to continue on that basis if they have faith in the project.

Should Goodbye Vaudeville Charlie Mudd get another season Chris has identified a few key things he would like to work on. Firstly, there are a number of scenes from previous drafts, or scenes that were cut during the rehearsal period, that he now knows have a place in the piece. He’d like the opportunity to work on the play again to replace some of these scenes.

Secondly, Chris talked about working on the piece’s “organising structure.” This is a really interesting concept that Chris uses in his understanding of what makes it theatrically logical for one scene to follow another. What is the larger theatrical structure that gives meaning to how scenes and moments follow one another? Chris says that the organising structure of the first act is clear and powerful; that the performers are doing their show in an empty theatre for an imaginary audience. The organising structure for the second act, however, is more complicated than that. He thinks that he would develop his understanding of the organising structure of the second act further if there was to be another mounting of the show.

The concept of “organising structure” is one that could be very useful to young theatre makers trying to build new work.

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!

Vaudeville - Day of the First Preview.

VAUDEVILLE TWITTER.

Time 1.15pm

I asked some of the creatives to make a quick comment on where they were at before the dress rehearsal-

"It's all going SURPRISINGLY well. I gotta see it as a whole. Very important to get the arc of the lighting design" - Richard.

"There's a lot we haven't tech-ed" - Chris.

"I'm interested in how the tricks go." - Stephen.

"No. Go away!" - Jethro.

"I'm really excited about it, but I had a nightmare we performed it in a big outdoor amphitheatre with grass and the audience started having spontaneous games of soccer, including my brother. I asked them why they didn't like it and they said they did, they were just having a little break." - Lally.

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 12 - Some new strategies, and some repeated challenges.

In yesterday's video Chris held up a book called "Act as known" by Valantyne Napier. This book provided significant inspiration for the show. The video below entitled,

"Quotes from Valantyne Napier."

is a very quick multi-media 'flick through' of the book.




The rehearsals on the floor are well into the back end of the play; huge stakes scenes, scenes that wind up arcs, scenes that reveal important inner workings. It's close-in work again, and Chris is sitting on the floor with the actors doing line-by-line script analysis. They 'beat' these scenes out; identifying actions, intentions, sub-text, key-words for the characters in the scene. This work is more about getting into the psychological reality of the situation than the majority of the previous work. The tools they are using to work with the scenes have changed accordingly.

Lally has presented a 'final' version of these final scenes. Darren hands out the pages to the actors. It's not a completely new scene, just a revised version. The actors have been getting impatient for a 'final' edition of the entire second act. A full version was due to be distributed yesterday, but a computer error has delayed it, and it still hasn't arrived. The cast is being good about it. They know the nature of new plays is that the script won't be absolutely finalised until virtually the last moments. Even so, the delay caused by the computer error hasn't helped anybody.

Everybody sits in a circle and they read new script. They discuss the changes. They are subtle changes, but important. The discussion heads back to one of performance style for the play in general. One of the actors puts forward the thought that the characters and the language seem larger than life, so the actors feel the need to 'heighten' the performance style to match the language. But when they perform it that way it feels like a melodrama. On the other hand, if they play it with a more naturalistic style they feel that it doesn't make dramatic sense, or carry any force. So, where do the actors pitch it?

Chris responds by talking about the importance of the audience caring for the characters and believing in the reality. Lally responds with re-assurance that the scenes she is watching are really chilling and wonderful, and that so-and-so who came in said it seemed really special. They talk about it some more, but ultimately, there's no talking that can provide satisfaction for the questions. In some ways today's discussion echoes last week's about what is 'real' in the play. These are questions that Chris does not like to answer, except in broad, abstract terms. You get the feeling that they're the questions he wants the play itself to generate and be infused with. He doesn't want them answered by discussion.

It's a situation where everybody is wrestling with a new play. The actors feel they're in unfamiliar territory, and are anchored to unfamiliar moorings. It's good to get the issues 'out there' but continuing to work it on the floor is the only way to find where to pitch things. Everybody knows it - they truck on.

We're into the hard work now, moving towards the heart of the play. Moments are taking a long time to explore. Issues are denser and more complex. Answers are harder to find. Beats can't be skated over in this part of the play because the actors feel the deep importance, and need to embody the mystery, rather than grasp for it. Everything is incredibly fragile, delicate.

Tomorrow they will run the whole play for the first time. It seems early for the second act, but sometimes you have to 'zoom out' of a picture to see the whole before you can contextualise the complex detail close up. As Chris often says, it is the rhythm that will be the guide. Tomorrow's going to be a really big day. It's amazing how quickly these milestones stack up one after the other in the rehearsal of a show.

Also, I've spoken to Christen about how she's managing her multiple characters as Maude, the ventriloquist. It was a fascinating talk, and that will be in tomorrow's post too.

Lally word o the day – cyclical
Stephen word o the day - format
Chris word o the day – ontological distress

Vaudeville Rehearsal Day 9 -

We'll start out with answering a question that Jessica from Murrumbeena sent in for Lally over the email. (Which is goodbyevaudeville(at)gmail.com)

It read;
Dear Lally, I know that you have done more than half a dozen collaborations with Chris Kohn. Are the plays you write with Chris different from the other plays you write?

This is Lally's response;

Don't forget to vote in the poll on the right. Remember voting is compulsory, fines may apply!


As promised, I caught up with Julia to ask her about the 'mirror' scene from the other day. As a quick re-cap, Julia is playing a couple of different characters that are similar and overlapping, and in fact one character might be said to 'play' the other at various times.

I was interested in how she was going about it, and caught up with her to talk about her process. Julia says she sees the role as actually playing 3 versions of a single character. At this stage in the process she is looking to be clear about intentions and actions. She says that she has a tendency to play 'states,' and that she is trying to work against this tendency by focusing on the action of every moment.

I ask her about her apparent starting point in voice associated with a physicality. She responds that she is naturally a thinker, and likes to 'think through things.' But, by the same token she also realises that she's not going to be able to 'think' her way through this role because the play isn't built that way. The focus on voice and physicality is part of a strategy to build another process outside of the thought process.

We talk a little bit about 'keys.' I ask her if she thinks there is a 'key' she will discover that will unlock the character(s) she is playing. Julia is not sure if it going to work that way. She says that for one of her characters an early rehearsal moment held an important key. In the rehearsal she had to strangle one of the other characters. The action of this moment provided an exceptionally strong immediate connection for her into a voice and physicality for that character. She sums up by saying that she thinks that if there is a 'key' to her role as a whole, it won't be a logical one. She thinks it could be a musical one.

Julia also makes the point that she is creating the character in collaboration with Chris. He directs her to play a moment in one way or another, and these directions and explorations also develop her sense of who she is playing. There is little point in her committing to decisions about the character if they are at odds with how Chris sees the character evolving. She is also aware that there are times when 'meaning' is made almost entirely from external factors. That is to say, a director might say, 'walk up the stairs, wait 3 beats, look left, then walk half way down again.' Externally this might carry enormous meaning, but she won't necessarily 'feel' it herself.

In today's rehearsal we continue working on the Julia's 'mirror' scene. It is a scene in which Julia's characters dialogue with themselves. To clarify the sense of the dialogue, Lally reads the other character's words. It's an interesting thing to have the writer read lines into the space. It's usually frowned upon to have a director read lines for an actor; it's usually viewed as short circuiting the actor's process. But the writer reading seems a different case. Certainly when Lally reads, Julia responds to it very positively and everybody feels that the result is a strong one.

The afternoon rehearsal is focused on a 'run' of everything we've done to date. We're only part way through the act, but even partial runs are extremely important for keeping everybody in touch with where we're up to. As has been already noted, the atmosphere in the second act is markedly different from the first act, both in the play and in the style of rehearsal. In recognition of this, rules of coming and going from the rehearsal room are modified to assist with concentration and maintaining the mood.

In contrast to first act rehearsals, not all of the performers have been in the room for every rehearsal. It is important that everybody catches up with what everybody else has been doing with Chris. Matt comments before we begin that he is reminded of a film shoot, in which the order of scenes is all of out place and it's hard to retain a sense of the 'whole.'

As they run there is a great deal of negotiation with the space. Over the last couple of days there have been a lot of props and bits of furniture and rostra making their way into the space. Costumes, too; Jim has been wearing a hat since yesterday. The space has begun to take on a new feel and shape that the run is now emphasising. The actors are working to find their way around it as they run the scenes. What do they with new pieces of set that weren't there before?, how do they sit on the new chairs?, where do they look when other scenes are running that they've not been present for previously?, where do they sit when they're offstage? how do you get to the spot to begin your scene, when you ended your last scene somewhere else? They're simple questions, and on one level they're easily solved, but on another level they are part of the entire pattern and experience of the performance for an actor. Every new thing must be assimilated into the actor's 'world.'

The run is understandably rough at this point, but like the run of the first act, the longer it goes the better it gets. When it's over Chris says he is happy with the emerging sense of the shape and flow. He talks about a tightening knot of relationships; it's a resonant image that everybody nods at. He goes on to talk about what each character sees or doesn't see of the other characters' scenes, and how they are going to work through that. He indicates that there is work to be done in filling out the picture with meaningful actions.

The actors talk about needing to plot out the play. They decide to get a big sheet of paper and plot all the characters' journeys on it. Chris talks about plotting a time-frame relative to an important moment in the piece- the sense of a countdown towards that crucial moment.

Overall, the run does what runs often do; it shows everybody just how much work there is to be done across all levels of the play. There's a feeling mild anxiety in the room. It is the end of the day, with only singing practice left to do. But it doesn't feel like the usual 'satisfied' finishing energy; people are more subdued and focused than normal. Even the actors that are leaving leave with the attitude of continued work. You get the impression that they are leaving to continue working.


Chris's word for the day – composition
Jonathon's word for the day – success

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 2 - Things get unreal.

There is a recent tradition in theatre that on a particular given date the cast and creatives will assemble on stage after the performance and field questions. These discussions are usually rewarding and elucidating for audiences. But after today’s script discussion of the cast and crew it seems to me that theatre goers would give a lot to be present at the discussions the artists have in the early stages of rehearsal.

It’s impossible to cover the breadth of discussion as the group revelled in all the issues thrown up by the play, from historical to meta-physical, theatrical, meta-theatrical, practical, psychological, social, musical, anecdotal, and everything else the reading of the play threw up the previous day.

One theme of discussion revolved around locating where the ‘reality’ or ‘realities’ of the play (co)-exist. The actors have very finely tuned antennae to what their characters understand as ‘real’ or ‘pretend,’ and a complex understanding that what is ‘real’ to their particular character may not be ‘real’ to other characters in the piece. Identifying points of realisation and transformation are vital to the actors as they map their journeys. The discussion itself echoed the theme, interchanging seamlessly between ‘real’ history and the ‘pretend’ world of the play, as well as the mythology of vaudeville existing somewhere between the ‘real’ and the ‘pretend.’ Of course this is a fundamental theme of the theatre, but one which is particularly poignant in relation to Goodbye Vaudeville Charlie Mudd.

During lunch the rehearsal room has been set up ready to begin work on the first scene of the piece, including old temporary rigged curtains. The changing set up of the room is a powerful signal that scene work on the script is ready to begin. It’s another level of anticipation, another level of focus; the initial period of acclimatisation is ending and everybody is ready to get working on the floor. We start at the start; simple choices, understanding the spatial set up, feeling the words in the space, the first sketches of character, the first interactions of actor to actor, character to character. Christen works with the ventriloquists dummy for the first time; how does the mouth work, how do the eyes work, how does the neck work. They are technical skills and questions that need exploring. Although the other actors don’t have such direct technical questions to explore, the impression is that they are doing something similar in relation to themselves and their characters in the space.

I had a quick word to Lally to get a sense of what was going through her mind. I asked her what specific questions she was asking herself on Day 2. This was her response;-

“I’m asking myself if I’m going to be able to rewrite some of the script that’s going to make it good enough to honour the possibilities of what it could be. Given the time, the support, the people who’ve given their time, their stories, the history of vaudeville…”

“What’s the best way to tell the truth of the characters and have it be theatrically satisfying?”

“What is the best technique of re-drafting?”

Lally’s words for the day – launching, re-remembering, inviting
Julia’s one word for the day – rejuvenating.

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