back of a spreadsheet; back of the net

I have been to the theatre, twice.

It was the Scottish Community  Drama Association Edinburgh District One-Act Play Festival and Compeittion last week. I went to two of the three nights and saw six of the nine productions. Some were good.

It was an interesting and useful exercise to watch so many pieces of drama so quickly.

On Thursday I saw

A Number by Caryl Churchill - a play about cloning and the nature vs nurture question. It was one of my own drama club's entries and I'd prompted for the play during rehearsals. What happens when a bastard clones his own son and then abandons the original to the care system? How many clones is too many?

The Sociable Plover by Tim Whitnail - a play about a bird watcher meeting a Jack-the-Lad whilst out looking for a rare bird. One of them is a murderer.

Blind Date by Peter Quilter - a play about a pre-date date to a blind date.

On Saturday I saw

First  Class by James Beagon - a play set in a railway carriage in three time periods, post-war Scotland, the mid-nineties and today.

The Ram in the Thicket by Glen Mhor - a play about blood transfusion and Jehovah's Witnesses, my other drama club entry, written by the great-grandfather of the director. Will the stern but loving father break his covenant with God to save his sick child, or will the state intervene and if so, will any of them be in time?

Gino of the Lamp by Paul Bovino - a play about a genie in a lamp in New York. He is looking for someone to make the perfect wish. He finds a young woman who has just broken up with her boyfriend after 13 years.

I really like A Number and the Ram in the Thicket, both good scrips, well directed, well acted, well produced and both plays had something to say. I'm fond of A Number because I helped with the production a little. The Ram in the Thicket's production had a lovely lush quality to it. It was as if it were in Techni-Color.

I also like the Sociable Plover, which was well acted (one of the two cast in particular was superb) and funny. It was almost a play about gender and class and generation but sort of backed out of the option of examing those elements too closely

First Class is a bit of messy script. It's a three hander, where each actor plays the main character in their time period and the other two actors play supporting roles, conductors, passengers, school kids etc. There is also a bit of handing off of lines from one principal character to another. The combination was a little hard to follow. I think the show required stronger directing choices and some more nimble acting than it got.

Blind Date was well done but I'm not sure that the script says anything to me about my life. It didn't draw any conclusion other than Blind Dates can be awkward. I've only been on one blind date but it was with a lesbian who had just been dumped and who spent most of the evening crying on me and drinking vodka. I know blind dates can be awkward.

Gino of the Lamp was similar but with a markedly flawed script. Decent acting but I'm not sure I'm any the wiser. A humorous play but not funny enough to stand not having much of a purpose. The scrip flaws: the script kept jumping from one concept to another and then back again. Characters would talk about, say the contents of the fridge, move of that subject to the view and then move back to the contents of the fridge. I thought at first perhaps someone had missed a line or cue but it happened so often that I think the scrip was to blame. Why are you telling me this becomes why are you telling me this again?

I made the following observations.

I'm not much interested in plays that are the equivalent of Sunday afternoon drama. Either be very, very funny or have something interesting to say. Death in Paradise is always going to be better on my sofa.

In order to have a good play you definately need all the elements to be good but I will forgive less then excellent acting if the script is good.

If you are on stage, either stand still or move deliberately.

All in all an interesting few nights at the theatre.

The result of the competition was that A Number finished First, with our other play, the Ram in the Thicket finishing Third. However, competition rules prevent more than one play from each club going on to the next round.

One of the unexpected things that happened to me whilst I was at the National Theatre of Scotland’s Open Stages Residency was that I had an insight into the mind of an Classical Age infantry soldier and into the leadership of Hannibal Barca of Elephant fame.

As part of a group improvision leading to a a performance of the Prologue from Romeo and Juliet we were doing some movement exercises.  At one point we were placed in groups of three, in a triangle formation, and asked to move around the space avoiding other groups, staying in formation and changing direction. Each time we changed direction the person at the point of the triangle facing forward became the leader. We were encouraged to try and create a link with the leader pro tem so that we could anticipate their movement and try to move as one group. Then we tried the same exercise with a group of six. 

Six is an obvious triangle. As we were forming up I had my first insight into how it would be to be a Classical infantry soldier.  I was standing in the second row on the right and I felt anxious. It is almost Understanding Classical Military Tactics 101 that you would expect a formation to creep to the left and that the mentally strongest infantry are placed on the right of the formation.  Why? On the extreme right you are exposed. You hold your spear in your right hand and your shield in your left. Your shield covers the left half of your body and the right half of the man to your left. If you are on the extreme right of the formation your right hand side is exposed. You try and creep to the left to get more of yourself behind your own shield. This nudges the man to your left to the left and so on down the line until your whole formation is moving crabwise.

So, standing in the formation I could see this clearly but there was something else going on too.

I didn’t feel we were standing close enough to each other. Not for physical protection but for the co-ordination of movement.  I wanted to be sholder to sholder with the other person in the second rank and have the rank behind me right up against my back so that I could feel them move and they could feel me move so we all moved together. That was the aim of the exercise, for us all to move together. I was worried that I would look at the right ear of the leader, see it move, step forward and the people behind me would not see or feel me go and we’d create a gap.  Stepping closer to the rest of the group I think would have just caused them to shuffle along a bit and maintain the gap.

There is a link here to the group exercise where a team of people holding a cane on their outstretched index fingers have to put the cane on the floor.

You can stop or slow this formation creep with rigid discipline. Everyone concentrates on not moving left. Everyone concentrates on staying still relative to a fixed, clearly indentifable leader.

So I learned a bit about what it is like to be in a group of people trying to move in formation with each other and the psychological need to be close to the others to feel safe and to feel that you are in contact with them so you can co-ordinate your movements.

When we started moving in sixes I noticed that it’s harder to spot the new leader as you angle the formations. A quarter turn will open up some ambiguity. Am I at the front? Should I be or am I just here because the formation was a bit loose?  Who’s leading us now?

To solve this people need to be both happy to lead and happy to be lead and happy to sit in a dynamic place switching between the two. The same for being an individual and part of a mass. This takes practise, it takes focus. You need to know how to do it so you can look up and see what’s going on around you and then respond.

There are parallels with improv here. Being and not being the leader. Switching from one to the other. Focus and internalising the skills so you can concentrate on what is going on beyond your own small group.

I know what Hannibal did that made him such an effective general. He  created armies with very flexible formations. This allowed him huge tactical flexibility. He could perform manoeuvres that Classical doctrine said would be impossible because the mass formations of the phalanx or the legion would break up. He also had good use of combined arms, different types of soldiers working with each other. From these two factors, flexibility and combination he was able to win a series of  very heavy victories over the Romans.

I now see how he created that army.  From very small groups of self-leading troops he built larger formations that could break apart and reform very quickly.  Each small group had confidence in its leaders and knew that it could find its own way to where it was needed because it knew how to stay in touch with itself and could concentrate on problem solving.

For think I think he would have needed to drill his soldiers in small groups. Smaller than he would ever deploy on the battlefield. Again, and again, get from here to there in a small group, through obstacles, mainly made up of other soldiers going somewhere else. Practise it again and again, this time not leaving anyone behind.  Stay within arms-reach of each other – or break up and form another group and follow the rest. He would have had to drill them in the practise of handing leadership from one equal to the next. He would have had to give them the confidence that he would always explain to them what he wanted, the effect not the position, so they could trust that they all would know what the sought after outcome was without having to be told.

His leadership was distributed around his army, and then lent and borrowed amongst his soldiers according to their need in the moment.

So, trust, handing over leadership amongst equals, everyone knowing the desired outcome, knowing the basics really well so you don’t have to think about them, fluidity about method.

Hannibal was an improviser.  You can tell. He rehearsed a lot.

I have been taking part in the Open Stages workshops. Open Stages is a Royal Shakespeare Company initiative to connect professional theatre to amateur theatre. 

Then it was time to go home to Edinburgh, to MLW and the Captain who kindly allowed me to play  with him until bath time.

 All through the weekend the folk leading the workshops and the folk running the structure were superbly generous of their time.

 This weekend has been a fabulous opportunity to learn more about theatre, about making theatre and about my experience of theatre.

 It’s also been a great opportunity to be part of the National Theatre of Scotland. I feel proud and joyous about my participation.