Tag: Alicia Ravensdale

David Campton’s text has very little in the way of stage directions, and those that are there are more suggestive than they are definitive. For example “the ladies are all aflutter. They make little nervous movements, sometimes sneaking up behind The Wild One and peeping over her shoulder, sometimes taking a completely aimless turn around the room” (Campton 1976, p. 17). This is a solid example of the stage directions in Campton’s play, there is a lot to play with in the text and this is the main reason I wanted the opportunity to direct the play.

 

From the very beginning of the process I knew that I wanted each of the caged birds to have a ‘nesting’ area, a part of the stage that was their particular area. Then after some careful consideration of character I decided on the placings of these areas.

 

 

The characters were placed according to their obsessions. I positioned Gloom and Guzzle on the floor downstage right and left respectively, because their obsessions are perhaps the least desirable. Centre stage right became the nesting area of Gossip because her obsession with conversation titbits is an undesirable trait, but it is slightly above gluttony and hypochondria. Twitting was placed centre stage left, her inability to make a decision was therefore represented by her position between downstage and upstage, centre stage is a liminal space. It is neither upstage nor downstage, and her position indicated an inability to commit to either area. Gazer and her raised position centre stage right, (originally on a high stool or table but later replaced by the set design team’s suggestion of a chair on top of a rostrum), granted her the highest position on the stage. The character is obsessed with beauty and her own image, and therefore she values herself above the other birds, her raised height allowed a visual representation of this status. Finally, Thump sat on a chair upstage right granted him a slight height advantage over the lesser birds, his knowledge about the outside world being far more developed and his grandfather figure within the group allowing him this. However his bigoted behaviour resulted in his position below Gazer. These areas allowed for the foundations of my blocking.

 

To compliment these nesting areas I decided that I wanted each character to have props that related to their character’s obsession which also enabled the actors to permanently interact with something throughout the very static portions of the play. The amount of props that each character had in their space was also relative to how long I thought they’d been in the cage, for example Twitting only had a set of rosary beads, which she ultimately wore around her wrist as there is a moment where The Mistress asks ‘remember when I first introduced our little Twitting’ (Campton 1976, p. 6). This moment suggests that she is the newest bird to the cage, which perhaps explains her nervous behaviour. At the other end of the scale then, Thump had piles upon piles of hardback books, this not only related to his knowledge but also to the fact that as the oldest bird in the cage, he had also been captive the longest.

 

Once the areas and props had been established I began to work on moving the characters. Of course The Wild One’s blocking was simple, she began to flit about the cage attempting to address the birds in turn and many of these movements were indicated within the text by which character she would receive a response from. However the moments of chaos in which the caged birds become flustered were challenging. I found that I was unable to effectively block these moments without being able to move the actors around in a space and therefore much of this direction was created within rehearsal. I would start a rehearsal trying out an idea that I had and discovering it did not work. Then I would spend time trialling many different ways before ultimately leaving having established something completely different to my original idea, but I found this method to be most useful. I could develop a series of plans outside of rehearsal time and try them all out within the space.

 

Of course, my intentions were to remain true to The Absurdist style of the play, and although much of this was developed within the characterisation it was important that the movement of these birds was also absurd. Once the basic blocking was established I began to encourage the actors to become more absurd in their movements. We spent several sessions trying to develop interesting walks and physical oddities for each of the characters. This instantly relieved some of my initial problems with the static nature of the play. The birds, I decided, should move continually even when they were in their nesting areas. The actors were originally quite uncomfortable in doing this, but it was entirely necessary for the absurdist style. To resolve this problem I incorporated these bird-like movements into a workshop styled rehearsal. We spent some of the time walking in a space recreating bird noises, and then this slowly progressed until the whole body was involved. After this the actors became much more comfortable to behave in this way, they had simply needed reassurance that nobody was going to laugh at them.

 

 

 

Works Cited:

 

Campton, David (1976) The Cagebirds: A Play, London: Samuel French

David Campton’s The Cagebirds is an allegorical one act play which explores the themes of oppression and human behaviour. The characters in the play, are as the title suggests, caged birds. However these birds reflect aspects of human behaviour and it is never clear whether they are actually birds or humans. Blah What is apparent though is that the characters, who I shall refer to as birds hereafter, are in an environment which is not natural to them. They are trapped by their oppressor, The Mistress, and have developed a kind of psychological instability which prevents them from understanding their oppression.

 

Albert Camus states:

A world that can be explained by reasoning, however faulty, is a familiar world. But in a universe that is suddenly deprived of illusions and of light, man feels a stranger. His is an irremediable exile, blah because he is deprived of memories of a lost homeland as much as he lacks the hope of a promised land to come. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, truly constitutes the feeling of Absurdity (1942 cited by Esslin 1974, p. 5).

Camus’s description of The Absurd appears to mirror the situation in which the birds of The Cagebirds are in. They are in a cage, deprived of the outside world and unable to recall the past apart from pieces of information about which they have become obsessed. For example The Gossip relays parts of conversation which she has heard in the outside world ‘You won’t let it go any further? After all a confidence is a confidence’ (Campton 1976, p. 10). These random outbursts by the birds are the only memories which they have of the outside world and their obsession with them is absurd. They have been forced into exile by The Mistress and now experience this ‘divorce’ that Camus describes.

 

The Cagebirds is different from many other absurdist plays blah though, placed on a scale of absurdity it is most definitely at the lower end of the spectrum. There is much less of an experimental feel to The Cagebirds than there is to other plays of the category which is perhaps why Campton’s work has been referred to as comedy of menace, a title which was coined out of another of his works The Lunatic View: A Comedy of Menace. However, Absurdist plays each have a different approach to their form, and while The Cagebirds is on a less absurd level than the works of Samuel Beckett and Eugène Ionesco, it is still absurd.

 

In Retold’s production of The Cagebirds, I wanted to focus on the the elements of absurdism within the behaviour of the birds. It was important for me that our production presented the absurdity of human behaviour in a way that our audience could relate to.

 

 

Works Cited:

Campton, David (1976) The Cagebirds: A Play, London: Samuel French

Esslin, Martin (1974) The Theatre of the Absurd, London: Eyre Methuen

Stephen Unwin suggests that ‘one of the defining characteristics of the really successful director is that he has the freedom to direct pretty much whatever he likes…things are much harder, if just as interesting for exalted directors who run their own companies’ (2004, p. 31). The position of a director within a company is an interesting one. Many companies choose to appoint a director for their production from within the core of the company, avoiding the expense of finding and hiring a freelance director who of course may not share the same vision as the company. In fact many of the decisions of the company are limited by budgeting. The governments spending review of 2010 resulted in funding cuts to the Arts Council England (ACE) and the current economic climate of the arts has placed a financial strain on many companies.

 

Coney is a publicly funded theatre company with a core of ‘five people: three co-directors, an executive director and an administrator’ (Coney 2013). They are a company who appoint their directors internally. When interviewed by Rob Swain, Annette Mees, one of the co-directors of Coney, states that:

Coney works more like a creative agency than a traditional theatre company. We call ourselves runners because we both serve and run the company, and we juggle various roles, including creative producers, as well as being co-directors, making decisions on the direction, artistic and otherwise of the company (2011, p. 219).

One benefit of this internal direction, aside from cutting costs, is that the relationships between the company and the design team will already be strong. Relationships are important in the world of the theatre company, particularly for the director. Unwin suggests of directors that ‘most develop relationships with one or two designers and work with them fairly consistently’ (2004, p. 25). Of course once a director finds a designer with whom they are able to work and one that shares the same artistic values, it is sensible to continue this working relationship for other productions. Braham Murray also explains that ‘a production is going to have to nourish the audience visually and it is the designer who will provide that nourishment’ (2011, p. 19). The director and designer must work closely together to maintain the artistic intentions of the company. In order to collaborate effectively in the production a positive relationship between the two must be established early in the process to ensure that their ‘vision’ is the same.

 

Another important relationship for the director to develop is that with the actors. Lisa Mulcahy explains that the ‘director bears the responsibility for a production’s rehearsal period’ (2002, p. 90). The rehearsal period is perhaps the most important part of putting together a production. It is where the actors become a part of the performance. According to Mulcahy, in a theatre company there is usually a time period of ‘six weeks, from auditions to opening night (although you could do it in four weeks if you had to)’ (2002, p. 89). While this seems like a very short amount of time, everybody involved in the production is typically paid a wage, it is their job, and therefore more time can be spent in rehearsal each day. As the actors and the director spend long periods of time together each day it is important that their relationship is constructed early on. A director must understand how to treat the actors appropriately and vice versa.

 

 

 

 Works Cited:

Coney (2013) ‘About Us’, Online: http://www.youhavefoundconey.net/about-us/ (accessed 23 May 2013)

Mulcahy, Lisa (2002) Building the Successful Theater Company, New York: Allsworth Press

Murray, Braham (2011) How to Direct A Play: A Masterclass in Comedy, Tragedy, Farce, Shakespeare, New Plays, Opera, Musicals, London: Oberon Books

Swain, Rob (2011) Directing: A Handbook For Emerging Theatre Directors, London: Methuen Drama

Unwin, Stephen (2004) So You Want To Be A Theatre Director?, London: Nick Hern Books

Braham Murray suggests ‘Cast a play right and seventy-five percent at least of the job is done. Cast it wrong and the play will never work as it should’ (2011, p. 21). Casting The Cagebirds was not something which I took lightly. Murray’s comment on the importance of casting is a view that I share. Therefore it was with very careful decisions that I compiled the preliminary cast list for Retold. I had already made notes about each of the characters and developed a ‘vision’ for each one:

 

Gloom – A hypochondriac, possibly a ‘germophobe’. A strong accent (probably Northern).

Gazer – Beautiful, proper, refined, long hair, tall, good posture. A softer voice.

Guzzle – Overeater, culinary expert, common.

Gossip – Simple, can only repeat tasks, talkative, loud.

Thump – Old, bit of a pervert, a Conservative. Tries to sound knowledgeable. (Most appropriate role for a male)

Twitting – Social anxiety, possible Asperger’s syndrome, indecisive.

Wild One – Angry, a strong distinctive voice, normal in comparison to others.

Mistress – Sadist, Patronising, well spoken.

 

As much of the play is reliant upon characterisation it was vital that the casting was as good as it could be given the limited amount of actors available. Frank Hauser and Russell Reich explain ‘An important distinction, then, to make at this early stage in the process is not, “Is he convincing as the character?” but “Can he play it?” (2006, p. 18). While I had a mental picture of the superficial qualities I wanted for each character, it was also important to bear in mind the styles and abilities of each cast member. After reading the play and considering the actors available to me I drew up a preliminary cast list. These preliminary casting decisions became the focus for our first rehearsal.

 

I asked each actor to come to rehearsal having thoroughly read the play and gained a loose understanding of each character. I then gave each actor a temporary role from my preliminary cast list and we performed an initial read through. It became clear from this first rehearsal that my casting choices were correct. All of the actors had by the end of the reading gained a sense of their character and even started to experiment with vocal changes. The final castings were as follows:

 

Gloom – Gina Mason

Gazer – Emma Chadaway

Guzzle – Melissa Clarke

Gossip – Victoria Turzanski

Thump – Alex Halsall

Twitting – Philipa Gale

Wild One – Alice Barnett

Mistress (voice of) – Laura Murphy

 

 

 

 

Works Cited:

Hauser, Frank and Russell Reich (2006) Notes on Directing, London: Atlantic Books

Murray, Braham (2011) How to Direct a Play: A Masterclass in Comedy, Tragedy, Farce, Shakespeare, New Plays, Opera, Musicals, London: Oberon Books

My favourite part of theatre is the unraveling of the hidden messages that exist quietly beneath the world of the stage. Upon first reading of The Cagebirds I was immediately excited to start this process and as I did so I became increasingly more passionate about the piece. In Retold’s production I wanted to focus on the behaviour of the birds as a reflection of aspects of humanity. I openly admit that I can relate to many of the traits of the birds in this play, and it was always my intention for it to be that way for others.

Retold’s The Cagebirds is an allegory of society and an exploration of our ability to adapt to change. The play is, essentially, a blank canvas on which I have painted the colours of oppression. While the play has allowed for plenty of interpretation, it does however call for an element of absurdism within the behaviour of the birds. Therefore there are moments of comedy and these are intentional. I invite you to laugh at this unusual behaviour as you perhaps, relate it to your own.

It is with great pleasure that Retold Theatre present to you our debut production, David Campton’s The Cagebirds.