“Thinking Like a Director” Takeaways (p. 69 -94)

• A resonant approach conveys, whether overtly or subtly, why the play is being produced at that time (p. 70); it must take into account the play’s central conflict and have a point of view about its world (p. 72)
• Every production of a play is different because it is directed by a different person (p. 71)
• Production history can often be a guide to those elements of a play that are most malleable... pinpointing them is a way of reminding yourself of where you need to make dynamic choices (p. 74)
• Changing the setting tends to be more difficult in more realistic plays (p. 76)
• Recognizing conventions doesn’t require a director to follow all of them (p. 79)
• No one design can encompass all the ideas and environmental possibilities that a play suggests... overdesigning usually occurs when director and designer don’t trust the play (p. 84)
• Without the juxtaposition of some dissimilar elements, designs can become status and overbearing, confusing the story and encumbering the play with a single time (p. 85)
• Directing is often about sweating the details (p. 88), and the director continues to learn about a play as the production proceeds (p. 90)
• Light creates focus, movement, mood, and variety (p. 93)

Director’s Notebook Draft

Director’s Notebook for “She Kills Monsters” on Google Docs

"Thinking Like A Director" Takeaways (pages 11-66)

Takeaways:

• Theater has no choice but to be contemporary (p. 14)
• The director as artist owes obligation to their aesthetic and to the essence of the play (p. 15)
• Directing requires a reservoir of energy and a sense of urgency and commitment (p. 16)
• Director’s are scavengers (p. 29)
• Begin the interpretive process by breaking the script down into units of action (the characters’ desire and how they physically pursued them) (p. 32)
• A beat marks a change in the actions of all prominent players in the scene (p. 38)
• Articulating actions and obstacles is a matter of both intellect and empathy (p. 43)
• The director should know how a character’s actions add up to create one major desire, the super-objective (p. 46)
• Identify the central conflict before themes, since the latter can be vague and applied to countless plays (p. 47)
• Differentiate between the subject of the play (what it’s about, themtatically) and the central action/event (p. 50)
• Name scenes to better remember what happens in them (p. 55)
• List the play’s potential challenges (p. 64)

Questions:

• Explicit versus subtle (p. 56)

Director’s Notebook: Stage Model

When designing the stage for my production of “She Kills Monsters”, I started by making a list of each scene, noting what props would need to be part of the set and any times where there was a location change without time for a proper scene change. The major examples of the later I found were  scene 15, where things shift between Agnes’ apartment and the D&D world, and the transition between scenes 5 and 6, where Agnes goes from being in Vera’s office to the D&D world in the middle of her sentence. In order to keep these transitions simple, I decided to design the stage to have both the real and fantasy worlds be set up all times. The thing separating them would be two layers of curtains, one a sparkly dark blue, and one orangey-brown in front of it. The brown curtain serves as the backdrop for the scenes in Athens, Ohio; namely Agnes’ apartment, Vera’s office, and a few one-off locations. The blue-black curtain serves as a more mystical-looking divider between the two worlds, and would be the backdrop for two specific scenes that don’t take place fully in either: the intro narration and scene 11.

Before going into more of the stage design, a quick clarification: the kind of stage I’m using for this project is a Processmium stage. In the best case scenario, I would want it to be only about 2 feet off the ground, since I don’t want to distance the audience from the action any more than the fanstasical elements will likely do by default. At the end of the day, I want the audience to get invested in these characters, and see their struggles, even when abstracted in the fantasy realm, as real (or as close to real as theatre can be without going full Brecht).
The back wall of the set is a “painting” of a forest, with the upper center looking like a section of wall from an ancient castle (since that’s where the climax is meant to take place). The window would actually be a hole in the wall, which I imagine would specifically be useful for when Agnes fights the four-headed dragon at the end. The platform just beneath this window would be needed for that, but in general, I wanted to add more levels to the stage, so this platform can be used earlier as well. Actors can get on and off the platform via the ramps on either side.
Beneath the platform, there is a mini curtain showing a small body of water, which, when drawn back, reveals the fiery cave that  serves as the set for scene 4. The scene requires a couch, which I had considered designing to look like it was made from the stone around it, but instead decided to make it a normal red couch (a duller red than the one I used in the model for a real production). I had two reasons for this: first, since this scene takes place early in the show when Agnes hasn’t fully committed to the fantasy, and Orcus, the demon who lives in this cave, is meant to subvert expectations of a seriously threatening villain, having it just be a regular couch fits better; and second, having a regular couch means it could theoretically be used in real world scenes, to give them more than just the table/desk and chairs that are there by default.
Speaking of which, the table/desk and chairs would be on stage right for the scenes in Vera’s office, and on stage left for the scenes in Agnes’ apartment (maybe even with some actual D&D stuff on it to sell that Agnes and Chuck are actually playing the game). The only other major props needed would be a counter for scene 2 in Chuck’s workplace, and some packed boxes for scene 3 in Tilly’s bedroom.

Avant-Garde Theater Theorists (Notes)

1. Peter Brook
1. England, 1925-
2. Worked at Royal Shakespeare company in London 
3. Values simplicity and common sense 
4. Founded International Center of Theater Research in 1974
5. Also a movie director
6. Wrote The Empty Space
7. Four theaters:
1. The Deadly (constructivism)
2. The Holy (Theater of the Absurd)
3. The Rough (Brecht)
4. The Immediate (Clean slate audience reaction)
2. Bertolt Brecht
1. German; Lived through World War II 
2. Wanted to make political theater that made people want to take action in the real world
3. “Alienation effect”: don’t identity/sympathize with the characters (principle inspired by Chinese opera)
3. Theater of the Absurd
1. European existential fiction writers post WWII
2. Find the comedy in tragedy
3. Not much plot; gets you to think
4. Major theorist: Samuel Beckett
1. Irish novelist, playwright, theatre director, poet, and literary translator
2. Spoke French and English
3. Wrote black comedies like “Waiting for Godot” 
4. Jerry Grotowski
1. Born August 1933  died January 1999
2. Polish theater director
3. Went to Stanislavski’s school
4. His permanent company first appeared in Western Europe in 1966
5. Preferred to perform works in regular spaces rather than designated theaters
6. Audience seated around or even in the action
7. Emphasized physical movements, human connections, and vocal training
8. Actors used emotional memory
9. Method: The Poor Theater
1. Small groups of actors, small audience 
2. Simple staging, lighting, costumes, and special affects, putting more weight on the actors’ performances
3. Experiment with physical, spiritual, and ritualistic aspects of theater

Theater Terms and Concepts: A Review

   Doing the silent movies reminded me of the importance of facial expressions, posture, and clear actions when acting, to convey your character, even when you are not the focus of the scene at that moment. Having the videos be set to pre-made music helped teach me the importance of pacing, and gave me ideas about establishing the mood of a scene. There are ways other than music to establish mood on a proper stage, such as lighting, sound effects, and set design, which I will have to keep in mind for the future.
   Doing the tableaus reminded me of being aware of the audience when staging a scene. They don't necessarily have to see every actor at all times, especially if obscuring a character adds to their portrayal as being mysterious and secretive. However, in most cases, you'll want to keep the actors from having their back to the audience, and having the blocking allow as many audience members as possible to see the actor's gestures and expressions. For example, when we did the Sleeping Beauty tableau, the way we staged the first scene had to be tweaked multiple times to make sure that the princess and her parents were not blocked from view by the witch, or that Olivia and I did not have our backs to the audience the whole time.
   When it comes to the more directorial side of things, coming up with plots for the silent movies, and deciding how to stage the tableaus, showed me that simplicity can convey a message to the audience in a way that is not only easier to grasp and follow along with, but in certain instances, more impactful than something with multiple plot turns and complexities. At the same time, I also have to be sure that enough information is conveyed to keep the audience on the same page. This lesson came specifically from the Robin Hood tableau we did, where the transition between scenes two and three threw some people off. In my head, there had been a short confrontation between Robin Hood and the Wolf in between scenes, but all the audience saw was inconsistent staging. Deciding which information to share and which to leave out for the audience to think about for themself is something I am sure will be relevant for the Director's Notebook project. Another aspect which came into play when creating each scene was what genre the scene was going to be, as that affects both how the actors portray their characters, and all of the technical aspects.

Summer Work Assessment (Ideas for “She Kills Monsters” Director’s Notebook)

I chose “She Kills Monsters” by Qui Nguyen for the Director’s Notebook and read it over the summer. The play takes place in the mid-1990s in Athens, Ohio and follows the exceptionally average twenty-something year old Agnes Evans. After her parents and teenage sister Tilly die in a car crash, Agnes Evans finds herself drawn into the world of her geeky younger sister’s favorite pastime, Dungeons and Dragons, playing through a campaign Tilly never finished with help from local Dungeon Master Chuck. Along the way Agnes comes to understand her sister more than she ever did in life, and works through some of her own real-life issues, such as her relationship with her boyfriend Miles. Other major characters in the show include Vera, Agnes’ friend and the guidance counselor at Tilly’s high school; Gabbi and Tina, Tilly’s bullies who appear as evil succubi in her fantasy world; and Tilly’s three D&D companions, Lilith (Lilly IRL), Kaliope (Kelly IRL), and Orcus (Ronnie IRL).

About half of the show takes place within Tilly’s D&D campaign, “The Lost Soul of Athens”, and this affects any production of the show in a major way. People who have never heard of D&D have to be able to follow along well enough to appreciate the show’s story and other aspects; however, you also don’t want to give so much exposition that it comes off as dry and boring. There are multiple monsters that Agnes and the team have to face, such as a Bugbear; Farrah, a one-time fairy boss; Tiamat, the four-headed dragon Agnes has to face alone at the end; and characters Tilly based on people she knew, like Vera the Beholder and the shapeshifting gelatinous blob named Miles. The one performance I saw of this show had the monsters portrayed by puppets, and I feel that offers more creative potential than more people in costumes. The one exception I might make would be Farrah since she has dialogue, but you could have them voiced by the puppeteer or even the play’s Narrator - or, since all the characters in the campaign but Agnes are being played by Chuck in the real world, he could do it. I would like to give Chuck more of a presence in the roleplaying sections, at least early on when Agnes isn’t as receptive to the fantasy, because at one point Chuck and Agnes get into an argument because he feels awkward about her venting her problems to him as if she’s talking to the real Tilly. Having this juxtaposition more present in the show before this point would make the moment hit harder.

When it comes to the set and costumes for the D&D portions of the play, I think it would be cool to have them start off pretty simple, almost looking like something Tilly and her friends could have thrown together. Then, as the story progresses and Agnes becomes more invested in the campaign, they can become more complex and fantastical. The idea comes from the costumes the gods in the recent Broadway revival of Once on This Island have, with varying levels of complexity depending on how into the roles the characters are at that point. I’ve seen images online of productions of this play that had costumes on both sides of this spectrum which I could potentially take some small inspiration from. During the scenes that take place in the real world, the characters should probably be dressed more plainly to form a contrast, though it might be cool to have Anges’ outfits go from having muted colors at the start, when she sees herself as painfully normal, to brighter, more varied colors. In addition, since the play’s setting is Ohio in 1995, the set and props can’t include any items from further in the future, and probably shouldn’t include anything that wouldn’t be common in that area.

There are some character aspects I have in mind for this project as well. Agnes and Miles have the most prominent arcs in the show, so the other characters should have strong stage presence and clear surface-level personalities for the audience to understand and remember them. Of course, when there’s a chance to show subtle character, we want to take advantage of that. Speaking of Agnes and Miles, it’s important that the audience is sold on their relationship, despite the difficulties they face, since it’s meant to be part of the happy ending that the two end up getting married and living happily together (according to the ending monologue). I remember initially finding Miles unlikeable when I wanted a performance of the play, and while it’s fine for this to be the audience’s first reaction, going too far in that direction could lead some audience members to root for Agnes splitting up with him, and thus leave them disappointed with the ending.