Memorize Deeper, Faster

 

Normally I’d avoid blogging about something as pedantic as how to memorize your lines.  But we’re working on a bloody big play. And a quick internet search for memorization techniques produced an astounding array of crappy suggestions.  Such as this Chicago Tribune article on the topic. And you’d think Backstage magazine would have something helpful to say on the matter; instead they produced this.

So let’s take a poll.  Who here memorizes by studying their lines for fifteen minutes and then taking a nap to let it sink in?  Brilliant.
 

 

Let's get real
Over the years I’ve been lucky enough to work on a number of two and three character plays where you’re tasked with memorizing an hour or more of lines.  Kiss of the Spiderwoman, by Manuel Puig, is one great example: two actors that never leave the stage.  So I’ve built up some techniques for quickly learning lines.

Break it up into sections

Do your script analysis before you try to memorize.  Identify the arc of each scene, your intentions, and when you shift tactics to get what you want.  Don’t let it become one big scene.
  
Review before and after each rehearsal

Hopefully you’ve got a fantastic stage manager (thank you JB!) who tells you the scenes you’ll be working on in advance.  Set aside 40 minutes before each rehearsal for learning lines: spend the first 15 minutes reviewing the scene you worked during the last rehearsal, and the last 25 minutes reviewing the scene you’re about to rehearse.  Working this way you sandwich your rehearsal time with the director and actors with individual study.  This technique alone often gets me 80% memorized by the time the play is blocked.

 

Sometimes it's hard to carve out 40 minutes of focused memorization time. One of the easiest solutions is to arrive 40 minutes before your call.  Sit in your car-- or outside if it's a nice day-- and work your lines.

 

Connect your blocking to the lines

I’ve said it before:  blocking is dialogue.  If the director isn’t giving you clear blocking, give it to yourself.  Make sure that the movement is motivated by the line; that way, your blocking will pull the lines up out of memory.  (Oddly enough, it also helps you remember your blocking better, too....)  Commit to the blocking until your lines are solid and then start exploring new movement on stage.

Walk and talk

That monologue tripping you up?  Take your script and go for a walk.  Research actually supports the idea that physical movement like walking aids memorization. 

Understand the prompt

Getting lost in the dialogue?  You’ve already broken the scene into its smaller actions during your script analysis.  If you're still running into road blocks, spend time looking at your partner’s lines.  What are you reacting to?  Where’s the prompt?  It’s not always the last thing the other character says; you might be dwelling on something they said a page ago.

What doesn’t work

Everybody is different, so I’m sure some actors will object to my “don’t” list.  But these are things I find aren’t helpful in memorizing quickly and thoroughly.  Silently re-reading the script over and over.  Learning isn’t about ingesting information, it’s about regurgitating information.  Don’t just re-read the script, get up and act it out.   SPEAK your lines. Test yourself.  Audio recording your partner’s lines.  You may learn something from recording all those lines, but unless you’ve got a three-hour car ride it’s probably not helping much.  Skip it.  Using mnemonic devices.  Okay, I would never have thought to suggest this because frankly it’s insane, but mnemonics was actually suggested in one of the articles above. Let me be clear: never use mnemonic devices.  They’re good for memorizing license plates but have nothing to do with your character or the play.

 

There's a lot of working expertise out there-- what works for you?  Any technique you use as an actor that I haven't mentioned?  Anything I've said that you disagree with?  Chime in.  Make it your own.

 

 



Blocking: From Abstract to Visible

Between Ashes to Ashes and St. Nicholas, the process of blocking has been a fairly intense workout. At the beginning of Ashes Pinter indicates and Devlin is standing and Rebecca is sitting; at the end of Ashes Pinter indicates that Devlin is standing and Rebecca is sitting—and that’s about all you get. They don’t engage in any physical activity, and what we discovered is that they don’t even touch until the end. Nicholas posed a similar problem: it’s a one-man play where the character is supposed to tell us a story rather than show us the story. Neither play offers much in terms of obvious movement.

A play, in some respects, is a challenge to make the abstract visible. Athol Fugard described it as creating “truths the hand can touch.” For me, blocking is dialogue. Movement, whether a threatening approach or simply leaning back in a chair, is a “reply.” Ultimately, you should be able to cut the sound and still understand the play in all its nuances. There’s no wandering about the stage or lounging in a chair.

For Ashes, I employed a couple of techniques to “reveal” the blocking—much of this past week has been about blocking the show. The first technique was with the help of the set designer. In addition to the “two chairs” that Pinter describes as the set, we added a chaise lounge. Because they don’t have a back, chaises are very flexible in terms of how you can sit and move on them. They also create a third level (lying in addition to standing and sitting). They're flexible, which is why they appear more often on stage than in real life. The characters drink during the course of the play, so we situated the bar cabinet in the thrust where they would have to cross to it. We placed the chairs at an inconvenient distance from the coffee table—though frankly I think this will change; it hasn’t been that useful and it’s awkward as hell.

With just two characters (and no physical activity as a part of the plot), the question of whether they are moving away or towards each other becomes important, and also closer or farther from the object of their discussion. Are they trying to connect or avoid? Is the immediate conversation soothing or fearful? For a small section of the play I did an exercise with the actors. In the scene, Rebecca is talking about her lover, but also digging through her hazy memory to a terrifying truth about him. I had the actors sit facing each other on a bench and gave her an object. If she felt her words were advancing towards the truth, she was to move it towards him—making it a shared object; if his questions or her words made her retreat, she was to move the object away from him and closer to her. She had to move the object once for each sentence she spoke. The result was something like this:

REBECCA: Did I ever tell you about that place ... about the time he took me to that place? [TOWARD]

DEVLIN: What place?

REBECCA: I’m sure I told you. [TOWARD]

DEVLIN: No. You never told me.

REBECCA: How funny. I could swear I had. Told you. [AWAY]

DEVLIN: You haven’t told me anything. You’ve never spoken about him before. You haven’t told me anything. What place?

REBECCA: Oh, it was a kind of factory, I suppose. [AWAY]

DEVLIN: What do you mean, a kind of factory? Was it a factory or wasn’t it? And if it was a factory, what kind of factory was it?

REBECCA: Well, they were making things --- just like any other factory. But it wasn’t the usual kind of factory. [TOWARD]

DEVLIN: Why not?

REBECCA: They were all wearing caps ... the workpeople ... soft caps ... and they took them off when he came in leading me, when he led me down the alleys between the rows of workpeople. [TOWARD]

DEVLIN: They took their caps off? You mean they doffed them?

REBECCA: Yes. [TOWARD]

DEVLIN: Why did they do that?

REBECCA: He told me afterwards it was because they had such great respect for him. [AWAY]

DEVLIN: Why?

REBECCA: Because he ran a really tight ship, he said. They had total faith in him. They respected his ... purity, his ... conviction. They would follow him over a cliff and into the sea… [TOWARD]

The exercise helped identify when she was retreating and when advancing; we then simplified and translated that to movement on her feet. I like this exercise because when you move on your feet it can feel awkward, obscuring the impulses. By starting with an object, the impulses remain clean.

Impulses, of course, are the key. Finding and acting upon the impulses. Acting upon them and then honing them. One can sit on a chair in retreat, but one can also curl up on a chair in retreat. There are, we discovered, dozens of ways to half-ignore someone onstage. We played with knitting, testing the perfume sample in a magazine, lying down, and rattling the ice in one’s drink.

Edward Albee said, "Every line has two purposes — one, to delineate character, and two, to advance the plot." If every line advances the plot, then every line is an action, every action has an impulse. It’s delineated by being honing down to the right expression of that action for the character.

Starting a Visual-Emotional Palette

I don’t think I asked a single one of the questions from my first post during the read-thru rehearsal. Just goes to show how useful my prep was. To be fair, we did cover all of those questions in the second rehearsal. After the first read, we talked for quite a while about the origins of Ashes to Ashes. It’s one of the few plays that Pinter actually attributes source material: he wrote it after reading Sereny’s biography on Hitler’s architect, Albert Speer. Perhaps he felt safe in revealing his source because the play has nothing to do with Speer on the surface. But that’s just the surface. Albert Speer was a part Hitler’s inner circle; he was tried at Nuremberg and sentenced to 20 years. He is the only one of Hitler’s inner circle who claimed that what the Nazi’s did was a horrific crime, and they should be held responsible. He also claims—and there is some reason to believe it—that he was unaware of most of those crimes. He was deeply moved by the testimony of victims at the trial, deeply repentant for their wrongs, and adamant that despite his contacts and duties he had no knowledge. Sereny was fascinated by how the mechanism of denial could keep Speer truly in the dark, what subconscious monsters must have been nibbling at the edge of his thoughts, and how truth and penitence came hand in hand to Speer. In that respect, Ashes to Ashes can been seen as the inner dialogue between these elemental forces in Speer’s head. If so, then the common interpretation that Rebecca’s mind “decomposes” at the end is incorrect. Lisa-Marie and I agree that there is something else at happening, and she had an idea what it was; to find out what you’ll just have to come see the show.

We’ve had three rehearsals so far, but before I get into that, I wanted to talk about one aspect of the director’s prep—specifically the visual/emotional palette. I think it’s especially important with Pinter because he deals so thoroughly in the subconscious. Before meeting with designers and actors, I spend time trying to find images that connect on some level with the play. Pinter said that Rebecca is like a woman drowning, so I immediately gravitated towards water images. I look for matches in tone, color, and subject. Saying: “The play is like…” is a good starting point, and then free-associating through image connections. These become helpful in talking with the designers and communicating the feel of the world to the actors. As a result, are walls are going to be fabric, reminiscent of a sail. The color palette for the set and the costumes is built from this standpoint. And the sounds of water, being underwater, will become part of the sound design. I’ve put together a short montage of some of those images. The second half of the short video are some shots of our read-thru and a few exercises.

For those interested in another aspect of the production, you can see the step-by-step development of the postcard for Ashes to Ashes on the 2nd Wind Website here: www.secondwind.8m.com/Behindscene.html