– As far as you can remember, what did you think of the text on first reading? You may want to consider…
- Literary ‘style’
I found that the composition of the text allowed for associations to be made freely and narrative to be created through these associations. The style reminded me of Martin Crimp actually! Though even more stream of consciousness. I know that I made connections immediately from reading it and felt that there was a huge amount of scope for interpretation and possibility for performance.
– Having introduced the text as ‘Open’, how ‘Open’ do you personally think it was, particularly in terms of narrative interpretation?
I think that it was very open, there were many possible routes that we as performance makers could have explored, we chose a particular route that developed naturally and had it’s own process. However, that was not prescribed and we could have ventured down many alternative paths in whatever way we pleased! There were some parts that had a more obvious connection perhaps but that didn’t necessarily mean that that should be pursued.
– How did having so much freedom with how you used a text affect the way you worked? Was this an advantage, or a disadvantage (or neither?!)
At first, i must admit, it looked quite daunting as it was a rather large text, however, when we looked at it critically we found those connections or parts that resonated with us individually and the freedom available in regard to the use of the text became very freeing. Once we had made some definite decisions as to what to use, or not use certain parts or threads, we could make some headway into creating a coherent (as far as possible!) piece of performance. I suppose it was an advantage as it’s often the starting point that is the most difficult in devised work but having that text as completely flexible meant that we were not tied to follow it religiously.
– Did anything in the structure/formatting of the text influence your reading?
Definitely. The layout, for me, suggested times when a dialogue was happening, when two people were talking at once, whether the text was spoken in a certain way eg: as an aside and occasionally I feel that it suggested even the physicality of the text or perhaps where people were standing in relation to others. Even though ‘characters’ were not defined the layout of the text gave hints as to who was on stage (as it were) and how they possibly related.
– How did you respond to the various other interpretations of the text (i.e. performance, film, sound, design and script)?
I really liked the other interpretations of the text. I felt that they each captured the multiplicity of the work and its layers. I found it interesting what they had responded to as creative people and how it differed from and enhanced our interpretation. It showed that the text is a stimulus that a variety of disciplines can create from and also be used as starting points in their own right, eg: Poppy’s script.
– If you were to return to the text again, do you think you could find another narrative or artistic/expressive vein to explore?
Absolutely, although I personally would need some time distance from the text in order to not recreate the previous interpretation! I think I would also need to collaborate with different people in order to take fresh look at the text. Perhaps combining performers with designers would lead to a new outcome.
Thankyou, Lisa, for the very kind words!
(Lisa Castle, Performer, Aleastory)