I said in my previous blog there was some amazing books I find myself turning to again and again for character work. To be honest these books are the ones I find myself coming back to for most of my consultations. But there all have some particular highlights for character. The books are Into the Woods by John Yorke, Different Every Night by Mike Alfreds and The Actor and the Target by Declan Donnellan (go out now and buy all of them!).

Into the Woods is not specifically about theatre, but about the art of storytelling and takes in novels, TV and (in particularl) film and it is fantastic! I can highly recommend it for anyone working in storytelling, there are so many gems in this book and well worth the £8.99. ‘Act IV – The Road Back, Night’ is basically all about character and can be read in isolation for some really useful advice but I can strongly recommend the whole book! There’s some interesting stuff on the psychology of character, Jung and Freud and ego defence mechanisms. But a couple of quotes to whet your appetite:

Good dialogue, then, is a manifestation of behaviour, not an explanation of it. Great dialogue shows us who our characters are. Telling is showing – it reveals character.

P.150 Into the Woods John Yorke

and – he is in fact quoting Jed Mercurio, the creator of Cardiac Arrest, Bodies and Line of Duty in this next quote – but he does a lot of pointing you towards good work of others, something I value…

‘Dialogue is the least important element of my writing. A lot of writers spend an inordinate amount of time polishing dialogue to try to fix problems, when the problem is much more likely to lie in structure or character’

P.162 Into the Woods John York (quoting Jed Mercruio)

Mike Alfreds book Different Every Night is another staple, I’ve worked with lots of people who love his writings and his teaching and I use a lot of it in my work. This book is a handbook to his method and although I take inspiration from a lot of it I don’t use it religiously. It is also worth saying it is about directing theatre, not writing a play. However, this is something that actors will be doing when interrogating your work so your plays had better stand up to that rigour! He has some lists that he suggests all actors should do for their character before embarking on a part (and the director should do these for all the characters in the play!) they are:

To discover what information the play actually gives us about a character, make the following lists:

1. Facts about the character
2. What the character says about him- or herself
3. What the character says about other people – including those mentioned but not seen in the play
4. What other people say about the character
5. Imagery used by the character or by others to describe the character (optional)

Work through the text separately for each list. (If nothing else, this ensures that an actor has read the whole play four times at least before the start of rehearsal.)

P. 206 Different Every Night Mike Alfreds

Now as you can tell, Mike Alfreds is pretty work intensive and he likes to ensure that there is a lot of brain work done when putting on a show. I’m not sure I would necessarily want my actors to sit down and study in this way – although I know lots of actors who find it very useful – however I think it can be revealing for writers to do this sort of work as it can highlight what you have actually written, not what you think you have.

The other lists that Mike Alfreds clarifies for me are Objectives. Now say what you want about these and I certainly don’t go as all in as Mike Alfreds in my work, however, this I find useful information:

RECAPITULATION OF OBJECTIVIES

The super-objective is the character’s overarching purpose in life; the through-line is the character’s purpose through the context of the play; the scene objective is the character’s purpose from situation to situation. Super-objectives motivate through-lines that motivate scene objectives. The counter-objective is a strong character drive in conflict with the super-objective.

P. 64 Different Every Night Mike Alfreds

Now I think there is a full discussion to be had about whether a character can have one super-objective or if that is decided by the actor/director/production’s interpretation, but regardless of that, I think the writer should have a very good idea of their interpretation. The counter-objectives and the conflicts these imply can also be very useful, particularly with the help of Declan Donnellan.

I love The Actor and the Target (by Declan Donnellan) it’s beautifully simple and very eloquently explained. It’s not about writing, it’s about acting but inevitably it highlights that good writing is required for good acting. There is one section in particular I would like to mention it’s about dualities.

The Split Reaction

If I always have something to win and something to lose, then presumably what I am doing must also split in two. For I must always be trying to bring about what I want to happen. And at the same time, I must always be trying to prevent what I don’t want to happen.

P.71

Thinking in doubles

[…]

It is not true that the actor cannot play two things at once. We are always playing two things at once. But these two things are highly specific and precisely opposed. We must play in doubles because there is always something to be lost and something to be won.

P.73 The Actor and the Target Declan Donnellan

I think all of the above can be vastly useful when thinking, or struggling with a character, they all combine together to really bring a character to life, with specific, precise consideration. This is when you get your Post-Its and big pieces of paper out and have a play, see how it affects the story if they have different objectives. See if they have objectives in certain scenes, because if not they’re dead and shouldn’t be in the scene in the first place!

This is very much a brief mention and reading the whole of these books will really change your approach (at least each of them did for me) not that any of it is rocket science, but reading these books often feel like a kind of magic to me.

Like the Clappers was back in April – hosted kindly by The Arcola we had a great evening up in Dalston. The focus of the workshop was looking at Character – what this means and how to write better characters.

When working with character I think there are two ways in. One is to think about what that character wants, probably the most important thing about them, if they don’t have wants and desires they are dead weight. There is some really useful literature about this that I will post in my next blog. The other way in, that I will focus on in this blog is what seem like arbitrary provocations that somehow unpick what that character’s essence is. And the two ‘games’ below are ways I like to scratch deeper into what a character is about.

We began with a simple exercise, and one that you can do now. Choose your favourite song. Got it? Now pick three words to describe that song. According to some team builder I once did a training session with, and one that had nothing to do with theatre, these three words are a good description of you. I don’t necessarily believe it, but it’s a fun provocation and one that can be done with any character your writing. What would their favourite song be? How would they describe it? Incidentally the first time I did it my words were ‘Lively, Intense and A bit weird.’ So you make your own mind up how accurate it is. What I think it does prove is that I play fast and loose when given instructions and don’t quite understand the concept of one word descriptions.

For the next game I asked everyone to think about a character they are currently writing, possibly one they are struggling with. Then I asked a series of questions that the writers  answered about their chosen character. Again, this is a task you can easily do now if you have a character to interrogate. It’s important to say that the answers have to be what this person is, not what their favourite thing is, the questions I asked were as follows:

What time of year are they?
What musical instrument?
What colour?
What kitchen utensil?
What part of London?
What country?
What mode of transport/vehicle are they?
What drink?
What food?
What plant are they?
What animal?
What era are they?
What song?
What religion?
What item of clothing?
What feeling/emotion?

Once you’ve answered these questions – in reasonably quick succession. Then the next part of the exercise is to delete half of your answers, the ones that aren’t quite right, or aren’t as bob on as the others. This should leave you with 8 words that describe your character. You then have to delete half again, leaving yourself with the 4 most accurate. Finally, delete one last word, the one of the four that you are least happy with, ending with three things that your character is – and its surprising how revealing it can be to realise your character is a ‘blue, whisk, french horn’. But as with all of these things, the endeavour is just as important. Why are they a ‘whisk’ not a ‘soup spoon’? Why is that a better description than ‘Easter’?

The questions are reasonably arbitrary, the ones listed above are by no means the only ones you can use. But they’re not a bad starting point. Obviously you can add or remove them as you like – it’s useful to choose questions with lots of answers with quite evocative meanings. It can be useful to have a list set away somewhere to ask yourself when you want to find out a bit more about your character rather than making them up on the spot, particularly if you already have a character in mind. This is an exercise that I first did while assistant directing, and was nothing about writing the characters – it was to help the actors to understand these people better, but I think it can also be really useful to help writers understand their characters better too!

The last blog I wrote talked about what I do when I first read a draft of a play as a dramaturg (read my Dramaturgy Checklist here) but there was one area I didn’t mention. It’s a huge part of being a dramaturg and although is maybe not quite as sexy as telling someone to butcher their play it is still nevertheless an integral part of the process.

It’s basically making sure everything makes sense. This sounds simple and obvious but it’s crucial to get that outside eye to double check and make sure that things haven’t got confused in redrafts or had their meanings mangled. Below are some examples of specifics that need checking, they are by no means exhaustive but I think illustrate my point.

The first is my favourite example. Helen offers Martin a cup of tea – milk, one sugar naturally. Helen leaves to make the brew, Martin opens a draw and Helen returns to catch him in the act. Drama ensues. My question is – how long does it take to make a cup of tea? Has the kettle just boiled? Do they have an urn in the kitchen? If Martin knows how long it’s going to take why does he go rooting around? The practicalities of tea-making should also be applied to making someone a sandwich, getting changed, reading a letter in silence, the examples are endless. Time is a real factor in each of these things and needs to be considered and they should not be simply a function to get someone out of the room!

Family trees are also great fun. Regardless of whether they appear in the play or not, I expect the writer to know how old the parents of each of the characters are (were), did they have siblings? Older/younger? Genders? What were their names? Where are they now? Actors (and directors) might make different decisions (and if they’re not mentioned in the play then they have every right to) but the playwright needs to know how all of this affected the characters they are writing.

Timelines also tie into family trees. The number of times I’ve read about two people who were at school together have a 15 year age gap, different accents and don’t know any of the same people. This is where diagrams and drawing out complicated timelines can be really useful, complete with the years and dates of all the events mentioned, or implied in the script. If you’re not rigorous, directors, actors and eventually audiences will find you out so do the work.

Respect and cultural greetings/traditions are also an interesting one. I don’t always think the dramaturg has to know the correct way a Roman solider from 4th century AD would greet another, but they should be aware there are rituals that follow everything and test the writer on their research. Religions and different peoples should be carefully researched otherwise why are you writing about them?

To finish us off with a happy ending – I will mention references. It is important to be aware of what linguistic, cultural and historical references you are making – and are they the ones you are intending to convey. If someone is being tortured, to use an example from a play I was working on recently, what does the method of torture say about the background and previous experiences of the torturer? Waterboarding brings with it the controversy of the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques scandal and being handcuffed to a radiator feels like a direct reference to John McCarthy. Both of these things are perfectly acceptable to reference but as a dramaturg it can be useful to highlight them to the writer as occasionally there is a reference that the writer had not intended and completely changes the intended meaning.

As I said at the top, these rarely take up large amounts of discussion time, unlike the order of scenes, or which character to cut, but this work is no less necessary. It is mainly about challenging the writer and making sure they have done the work that they have to have done before giving their play to a creative team and ultimately an audience. If they haven’t they will become unstuck and it’s amazing how much a great play (and writer) can be undermined by the younger sister being a different age in act 2.

I am so excited about the new theatre that is opening in Chester later this year. It is a rarity in the current climate for theatres to be opening, it is more common to hear about cuts and downsizing – but here in Chester they are bucking the trend.

As a proud Cestrian theatre-maker and once again a resident of Chester, this is particularly exciting times for me both professionally and personally. I grew up in Chester and as I was reaching my formative years, and deciding to pursue a career in this industry, the Gateway – Chester’s previous theatre – was closing. Now there is an opportunity to give Chester the new cultural space it has been craving.

Since the closure of the Gateway the theatre scene in Chester has far from stagnated. A number of companies have continued to create work in Chester and beyond. Most notably Theatre in The Quarter, who provide their own unique combination of professional new musicals and youth theatre projects, and Chester Performs – the company who established the Open Air Season in the Grosvenor Park and are building the new theatre.

Rebranded now as Storyhouse, Chester Performs opens the new theatre later this year. It is a combination of 800 seat main house, 150 seat studio, independent cinema, library and I assume bars and cafes too. Converting the old Odeon cinema into this exciting new venue it couldn’t have a better location – situated right at the heart of the town centre, a short walk from the new bus station and with parking just near by.

Storyhouse will be a combination of touring productions and 50% in house producing and will be watched very closely I’m sure by all North West theatre makers and companies. I look forward to the unveiling of the first seasons and can’t wait for Chester to have a building to put it back on the cultural map, but most importantly I can’t wait to have a theatre to go to in Chester.