An Introduction to the Gazer
When I was first introduced to the play, The Cagebirds by David Campton, I was immediately stuck by the scope that it allowed for the actors playing each role. The simplistic nature of the text and the lack of many stage directions meant that there would be a lot of characterisation work required throughout this process in order to create both an entertaining and coherent piece. This characterisation work would be a combination of my own personal research and opinions on the character and the director, Alicia’s vision for the overall piece.
At the initial read-through, Alicia had prepared a preliminary cast list for the actors and had assigned us each to a role. The character that I was assigned was that of the Gazer, who as a character has certain obvious attributes. On the first read through, I made some notes on my initial impression of my character:
- Self-obsessed
- Obsessed with appearance
- Very proud
- Fishes for compliments
- Likes to think she is better than everyone
- Materialistic
- Shallow
These were very basic notes that had been jotted down as the read through was happening, but I wanted to ensure that my initial impressions were noted so that I could develop these as the rehearsal process went by.
During our initial discussions as a group, it was made clear that a lot of the pressure was on the actor’s portraying the ‘birds’ due to the plays static and at some points boring nature. This meant that a lot of individual research and character development was required. This seemed like quite a daunting task, so I researched actor training and looked at Stanislavski’s An Actor Prepares. It is said that “becoming acquainted with a part is a preparatory period in itself. It begins with one’s very first impressions from the first reading of the play” (Stanislavski, 1961, p. 3). I had made initial notes on my character and used these as a basis as they “are unexpected and direct…unpremeditated and unprejudiced” (Stanislavski, 1961, p. 3). Although this absurdist play perhaps does not allow for such a naturalistic way of preparing for a role, I wanted to dig deeper into my character in order to allow for an authentic portrayal.
We had agreed that the production would have a highly physical element, with all the characters having a particular bird assigned to them. This was a collaboration between the actors, the director and the costume designer. The bird that I was allocated was that of a peacock. I undertook some preliminary research into the behaviour of the bird, as it had been suggested that each actor would take on the ‘walk’ of their particular bird. I used the following video as a reference point:
I noticed that the peacock has a dinstinctive shuffle where it ruffles up its feathers whilst displaying them. I thought that this particular trait would really suit my own initial characterisation of the Gazer, as it comes across as attention-seeking, self important and proud. I trialed this movement during rehearsals, and got positive feedback from the director, Alicia so decided to keep it as part of my physical characterisation.
Whilst watching this video, I also took note of the particular head movements that the peacock makes, as we had been informed that we would all need our own personal head twitch throughout Cagebirds. I took note of how the peacock tends to move with its head first before its body, and attempted to copy this during rehearsals when examining the props surrounding me. This particular process was very difficult, as the non-naturalistic jerky movement was hard to maintain throughout. It required a lot of practice to get the right balance of head twitches, so that the impression of a peacock was given, without it being too much of a caricature.
I found the walk to be the most difficult part of my characterisation as the movement of a peacock is not particularly elegant, sophisticated or attention-seeking, something that I knew my character had to embody. During the rehearsal process, a lot of time was spent perfecting each birds’ individual walk, and many ideas were trialled. We explored the idea of a direct copy of the peacocks walk, but found that it did not give off the correct air of superiority, we also tried a strut, but felt that this was not bird-like enough. In the end, we settled on a slightly swaying totter, with more emphasis on the ‘shuffle’ than the walk. This was not only a character based decision, but a practical one, with my character having to navigate different levels frequently throughout the performance, this walk allowed me to do this quickly and efficiently.
Works Cited
Stanislavski, C. (1961). Creating a Role. New York: Routledge.