Owners by Caryl Churchill: Review UPDATE

Caryl Churchill is one of the UKs greatest female playwrights and even today still garners controversy for her political views and work. Praise follows her and her reputation due to the huge success of 'Top Girls' has been secured in the annals of Theatrical and English history. Today I am looking at the first play Churchill presented at the Royal Court Theatre in 1972 'Owners'. Last week LibraryGirl and I decided to go through our massive play collection and our first stop was Churchill Plays: One. In her description of the development of the piece Churchill describes her inspiration coming from being with an old woman who had a young man turn up at the flat and offering her money to move. This was her catalyst for writing the play and the character Worsely.

Set in 6 very simple locations with a cast of only 9 (two of which can be played by SM's) this is a very simple piece to stage, and with the plot revolving around 4 main characters its a very simple play to follow. The characters are very interesting and whilst they can come across at times as simplistic or just plain crude they hold a lot of interest for me. When we began reading through the piece I felt that the characters came across as a bit hollow and lacking, although as we got further in I came to find certain characters to be extremely interesting. Clegg, a butcher married to Marion, is a grotesque man who conjures up images of the League of Gentlemens Hilary Briss but with an obsession of having a son to continue his business in his image. Alec, husband of Lisa and lover of Marion, holds a lot of interest for me. He is to me the opposite of Osbornes 'Angry Young Man' in that instead of being angry he is passive and morose, he seems to be unaffected by anything that happens around him. Marion is the central character and is a great early example of equal female businesswomen in plays. Marion doesn't just run your stereotypical female business, hairdresser, beauty salon etc no she runs her own property company as an estate agent in many ways. A strong powerful woman she very much cuckolds her husband Clegg, something he accepts yet hates, starts love affairs, pursues property ruthlessly and ultimately buys someone elses child. If this woman wants something she gets it. Then there is my favourite character, Worsley. Worsley is a suicidal estate agent who in my mind is in love with Marion and because he is puts up with her behaviour. Whilst this play is very dark in many places Worsley uses that darkness to produce some very good belly laughs as he talks about his attempts at ending his own life.

The story itself is very simple and it flows really well and doesn't seem too long. Its succinct and to the point. What is so interesting about this piece is that it was written in 1972 but its issues and story could easily have come from the 80s, 90s and even today in our pre and post recession society. This book is an indictment of capitalism and how money is not able to buy you everything in the end but it can open doors to purchasing  desired items. I found myself rereading the play and seeing the direct way you could link this in with todays recession and in many ways this play could be seen as a historical document about how the post Empire UK lost its international wealth and how its credit and housing markets have constantly caused problems with too few people controlling too much money.

Churchill has never been my favourite writer mainly because I marginalised her as a feminist writer. This is something I believe that has been a label put upon her by people who read and studied 'Top Girls'. However I really am looking forward to reading the next play in Churchill Plays: One 'Vinegar Tom' because I really enjoyed 'Owners' and because I know Churchill even today is pushing buttons with her work. Last year a piece she wrote for the Royal Court was condenmed by the Board of Deputies of British Jews as being anti semetic. Despite only being 10 minutes long this play has caused a lot of controversy. How can you not respect a woman who has been writing for 50 years and can still touch a nerve with her work? I look forward to continuing my reading of her work and hope to one day put Owners on myself.

Until then here is my adaptation of Worsleys final monologue in Owners.

UPDATE: Here is my treatment of Owners and how I would go about putting on the show. If you're interested please follow this link here.

Just a Small One: WCTheatre The Theatre of Small Convenience

Small Theatres are like wonderful little oddities, they are a novelty both in the way they are used and the utilisation of space. This tiny theatre which seats only 12, is decorated in the most elaborate and luxurious manner. It is like something from a Victorian fun fair but it is of course a Victorian Gentlemans toilet converted to theatrical use. I recommend you visit the website as it is truly a sight to behold, especially the special panoramic photo tour you can take of the interior.

For more information go here.

Improvisation gone Horribly Wrong... yet in many ways so right. Derek and Clive

Derek and Clive, the evil incarnations of two of my favourite comedians Peter Cook and Dudley Moore. These two characters represent, I am afraid to say, the worst example of improvised comedy I can think of. Foul mouthed, crude, offensive and more than just a little funny. The fact is improvisation is not supposed to be like this, rules for improvisation are generally:

1. You go with the first thing in your head

2. You work together with the other people involved with the improvisation

3. Try and keep it clean

Now this unscripted comedy by the 'Not Only But Also' duo seems to completely defy these rules. Peter Cook seems obsessed to go with how he sees the improvisation to be going and in many ways it feels like he has already worked out his half of the routine before. Maybe this is because he was such a good comedian or because he had worked on ideas beforehand. Although this can be explained by the genesis of these two filthy characters.

Whilst touring America with the live show of their TV series Cook was suffering from his increased alcoholism, the pair of comedians to rehearse hired studios and getting bored of their Dagenham Dialogues started improvising more obscene language and subject matters but still in the Pete and Dud style. In fact the truth is Clive (Pete) and Derek (Dud) were just hugely ramped up versions of the two flat cap wearing bar philosophers from Dagenham. All the typical traits of Pete, his self perceived intellectual superiority and general leadership of this duo and Dud's put upon and subservient behaviour not to mention his annoyance with Film stars (which takes a very nasty tone during a Derek and Clive skit called Joan Crawford) are in Derek and Clive but moreso and the subservience of Dud/Derek has become full on abuse of Derek. Peter Cook should have been ashamed for some of the disgusting things he said to Dudley Moore when they were supposed to be improvising comedy skits. Many people have said that due to their bond as a great comedy duo Dudley felt he needed to work with Peter to help him out when his own career was starting to kick into high gear and Peters were stalling. Now Peter was apparently jealous and with the unscripted no holds barred approach of these recordings they recorded a track called 'Cancer' in which Derek asks Clive how he is going to 'go out' and Clive answers laughing and then launches into a quick quip about Cancer which Dudley Moore pretty much doesn't react to. The reason he probably didn't react too well is his father had only just passed away from Cancer. It is a tragic representation of a relationship that would eventually become strained and broken until the late 1980s and early 90s when Cook and Moore would work together for charity benefits.

Then there is Peter Cooks obsessive control over virtually every skit and sketch, if something doesn't go the way he wants in many of them he will stop co-operating with Moore. A great example of this is the sketch 'Mother' which does have some very disturbingly filthy material but the Mother character that Moore creates is silly and of course the, supposed, driving force of this improvisation. Cooks role is to just follow and fit his character in and he does start off very amiable and co-operative but at a certain point where I believe he realises that Moore is both outshining him and taking the improvisation somewhere he doesn't want it to go he starts breaking character and ruining the sketch. Cook seems to be the sort of performer who has to show off how clever he is, especially during these years when he was battling drinking problems, and validate his talent.

Saying that this type of comedy and the content is not good would be a complete lie on my behalf. Filthy yes, wrong yes, distasteful yes and unfunny... rarely. There are some very clever sketches hidden within the filth and sketches that when cleaned up would be very funny, my favourite of these ones is definately Horse Racing which is a very good piece of radio/audio comedy. It is the commentary of a horse race but all the horses names are parts of the human anatomy and sexual references which does create some very funny situations within the piece and the way Peter and Dudley perform it is spot on as a spoof. Of course despite the utter filth these records hold and their dubious improv style I do have an overall favourite and it is so wrong in many places but its performed so well and the words they use and ideas that come out come across as naughty schoolboys talking and its harmless to me mostly, the piece I am talking about is the 20 minute sketch 'The Horn'. Anyone who doesn't know the meaning of that phrase please don't google it because I don't know what would come up but it won't be good. From talking about dead popes to sending letters to Margaret Thatcher and Norman Tebbit this is a very funny sketch topped off with a beautifully performed dramatic song by Moore.

So were Cook and Moore wrong? Artistically yes, today this would be seen as filth of the kind teenage boys make with microphones and thinking they are making a funny recording. Lets not forget the only reason these recordings were made popular was as bootlegs and sold on the black market before Cook and Moore clocked onto the potential profit, in this day and age it would probably never happen or only make it as some DVD extra on some obscure world region dvd set. Business wise... good business decision they made a good lot of money out of it.

Cook and Moore failed on all 3 rules but still their talent shone through. Its a shame as comedians both needed each other to shine, you just have to watch an abysmaly bloated and tired Peter Cook on the first series of Whose Line Is It Anyway? to see that. Poor Dudley Moore's Hollywood pull faded quickly after the Arthur Movies and 10 but went back to his first talent music. Cook was doing call ins on LBC at the end of his life to perform for his once adoring public but he had faded to a shadow of his former self. Its a shame we never did get a Pete and Dud reunion before both sadly passed away, too young, but its also a blessing we never got a Derek and Clive reunion.

My advice to anyone wishing to hear Cook or Moores work is to look up 'Not Only But Also' and the 'Dagenham Dialogues' and give Derek and Clive a wide berth. This isn't their best work and an insult to improvised comedy and theatre.

RIP Peter Cook and Dudley Moore

For more on Peter Cook's work both with Dudley Moore and as the 20th Centuries best Satirist go here.

Studio Theatre's AKA Black Boxes and why I love them.

I have been incredibly lucky in my Theatre career so far in that I have performed at some very interesting venues with a variety of different stages; The Northbrook Theatre at STAC, The Assembly Hall in Worthing, The Nightingale Theatre in Brighton and many different alternative spaces in the West Sussex area. From your normal proscenium arch setup to Promenade pieces if it can be done with a stage I have generally done it. Now many people who know me and my tastes in the Theatre, which despite rumours to the contrary they have changed over the years, would probably believe that my preference would go hand in hand with the traditional staging that you can see in nearly all the major theatres the good old fashioned Proscenium arch. Sorry to dissapoint those people but after my first experience of the West End, the moment that showed me that I wanted to be an Actor, Starlight Express wasn't just a show it was a spectacle. The staging snaked around the entire auditorium with the rollerskaters racing on it and a huge bridge that descended from what seemed to be the heavens, to a ten year old whose only experience of the theatre was the panto at the good old Connaught Theatre this was mind blowing. It was there that I realised a raised platform with an arch isn't the only way to present theatre. Then when I started learning the ropes of the theatre with the Pilgrims Drama Group in Worthing we had to create our own theatre 'area' in a church hall with no in built staging. Generally this comprised of two folding tables each side of the acting area for the 'wings' with a sheet over each table with a basic backdrop painted on. It was only when the childrens group, of which I was a member, would work with the adults group to produce the yearly pantomime. Then we would borrow a mobile stage from my Middle School as well as their lights, and using members of the church's skills we would build our own set. It was a community and those small blocks of staging were my first taste of 'treading the boards'. Then my whole outlook changed when in 1998 we got the chance to do 'Ernies Incredible Illucinations' by Ayckbourne and Mavis, who ran the drama group, taught us about Alan Ayckbourne and his theatre in the round. I was instantly fascinated by the complexity and discipline required from being seen from all angles by the audience and having to act with every part of your body. I was hooked on this new idea and over the next few years through High School drama classes and productions, Blood Wedding by Lorca in particular, due to us only really having a drama studio I got to do lots of work in that style. What I didn't know was that I was participating in what is known widely as 'Studio Theatre' and how important this would become to my future development.

In 2002 I joined the Northbrook Theatre thinking I would get to be acting in the main theatre which was a classic proscenium arch style theatre which could be turned into a huge black box. Instead I found myself rehearsing and performing in rehearsal studios before getting my first chance at working in a real black box theatre in the play 'The Last Resort' by Chris Owen. The room was tiny and cramped, it seated approx 20 people once any sparce set was placed within it. It was amazing we had to sit to one side, everytime we went onstage the audience could see, everything was stripped back and showing. The lights and speakers were very obvious and you couldn't hide them but what struck me was the versatility of the space. You could do anything in there, as it was just completely black and it opened my imaginative mind. The exploration of the space when we performed 'The Last Resort' was minimal but being on top of the audience for a first year drama student was daunting enough. Working in there cut a lot of my bad habits out quickly, fiddling hands being the crime I was chastised for the most, and by the time our second show in there was put on I was ready. 'Taking Breath' by Sarah Daniels was our piece and for it we had a pretty audacious design considering the size of the space. The stage which was approximately 12 feet across and 8ft deep was split in two with one half being the first part of the story and the second was that of the final part of the story, we had to have a piece of set representing a tree home for enviromental activists and a hospital bed. The tree home was a pallet left in the top corner of the space on which the actors playing the activists had to sit and the bed was for the lead character who falls from the tree. This of course taught me all about the importance of the luxury of space and how constraining the amount of space an actor can use is a positive thing. The last time I performed in the black box space at Northbrook was for our production of 'The Crucible' by Arthur Miller. Now in this production I was very lucky in that I played two characters and in one scene I had to change costumes quickly and re-enter, now this was not just a challenge for me as an actor artistically but also logistically. There needed to be a place I could quickly change my clothes within a packed tiny little space, where the audience would not see me. They constructed next to the actors bench a tiny cubicle I could change in. A challenge met and it really inspired me to find solutions to spacial issues. The other thing that the Crucible taught me was that good design can sometimes alter percieved ideas of space. I remember when we first heard that we would all be in this tiny space doing a show we thought it couldn't work, and then when we were told it would be in the round I wasn't sure it could look clean and tidy, all those bodies in such a small space. However we ended up getting a stage which comprised of rostrum and had a good rectuangular space to play with. What happened was the claustrophobia of the space helped feed into the plays feelings of oppression and the trap that had been thrown up in the community. This was another revelation, if the play called for a small space or for a tight situation if used effectively a black box or small studio theatre can be a real boon.

In 2006 I got my first real chance at directing at the Nightingale Theatre in Brighton. Under the watchful eye of Prodigal Theatre's representative Thor and in conjunction with Lisa Perry my tutor at Northbrook I directed 'Don Juan Comes Back From the War' by Horvath. I won't go into too much detail as to what happened during this period as I have already documented it several times, however I was quite far out of my depth. The luxury however of having a beautiful space, in a luscious building within Brighton was not lost on me. I learnt more in that space about myself and directing/acting than I had done the previous 3 years of college. We used every little aspect of that space, from the bay windows to the fireplace. Every actor was on stage at all times, there were no breaks for them. We had them playing background characters to enhance the main scenes. The work produced was effective and the open to public performance went down well. It was an experience.

From then on I pretty much worked in a way that took the studio and in the round style as my main focus. It holds so many more opportunities to the performer and director who doesn't have or need an expensive set or intricate design. The final year of my BA Hons Course I was given many opportunities to direct and act and I found the studio and black box system simpler for my theatrical eye. I get it, I understood the way the mind works, how the fourth wall not being in place can truly lift a piece and allow the actors to bring the audience on a journey. When audience members can see each other across the acting space, keeping them focused on the performance is imperative and therefore everyone has to work much harder. However another thing I love about studio and black box theatres is the ability to focus on an image. My piece 'Love' which I wrote and directed in 2006 was a very simple idea and I believe verges on the line between installation art and theatre, I therefore dubbed it a piece of installation theatre (I know this is not the greatest phrase due to the lack of logic in the claim but I thought it sounded smart and good at the time) and had strict instructions regarding length of the piece and audience size. The black box and main theatre were not an option so we got a rehearsal studio and I blacked out the windows so there was no light in the room. Then we got our actress, Juline Pethig, to sit on a stepladder, which was covered by the white dress she was wearing and she held a heart shaped chocolate box. In the background there was a sinister heart beat pounding away very loudly and the bass on that track turned up. 10 audience members were brought in at a time, the lights were turned on and they were guided round the ladder and had only 30 seconds to see the piece before the light went off. When the light went off the heart sound stopped also. With no words and no action some people questioned my motives and justifications but if Samuel Beckett, and his avant garde theatre, could put on 'Breath' then my piece which was partly an homage to his artform was perfectly justifiable. It surprised my peers and tutors also who didn't believe I had that type of work in me.

My final performance at Northbrook, and a personal dream come true, was the adaptation of the Tempest that Jenna Stannard and I came up with from the original Shakespearian text and a Restoration version by Dryden. Faced with the opportunity to perform it in the traditional manor in the Northbrook Theatre, our set designer Scott Nimmo decided to put the piece in the round and create an island within the theatre space. We created an island in the Northbrook Theatre using two tonnes of sand... which blew most of our budget but I think it really helped the piece be effective. Judge for yourself.

Pictures courtesy of Kirsty Jeffery. Thanks Kirsty.

The other aspect of this was the great lack of space we had, the piece restricted where certain characters could or would go. My character Prospero would only move in his small corner of the island and it really gave us a bigger challenge. A normal set would have nullified a lot of the action in this piece and being in the round allowed us to really show off our talents.

Since leaving University and forging on with my own career I have been testing and trying my work in the round. Simply put I believe it is the most versatile work place for an actor. If you have never tried to perform in a town square in the round then you haven't had one heck of a funny experience. Last years fptheatreproductions living history piece 'The Worthing Tales' was performed in South Street in Worthing on a busy August Saturday morning. We were heckled, we were ignored, our space was walked through, we had the public come up to us during the performance and we had hundreds of spectators looking at us. It wasn't a typical piece of theatre for the town centre or even for the town but it was amazing having that public forum and was a true throwback to the days of the Medieval mystery play being done on carts in the Market place.

From left to right: Me, LibraryGirl, Charlotte Dunn, Richard Ford

However as much as I loved outside I crave a black box of my own to use and to cherish. After all with a black box you get a blank canvas, and all the basics you need to start painting the eventual masterpiece you want your work to be. That is why I love Studio/Black Box theatres, and it would take a lot to change my mind.

Xtofer