Restarting the Machine

Today we used group juggling technique to look at several themes that will be important to the machine: patterns, rhythm, interactions, and sound.  We used a group movement excersise to start working with complicite and also to start to play with the different types and styles of movement that the group can create.  We also began to look at whether there is an optimum number of people to create our machine, through free impro.

Group juggling - our first machine

Free Improvisation - pic 1

In a circle, we began to throw juggling balls to each other.  First, one ball, and clockwise around the circle, to the person standing on our left.  Once the ball had gone round a few times, and we felt a rhythm forming, Another ball was added.  We passed the two balls around the circle, once again, waiting for a rhythm to form itself.  Another ball was added.  In total, we ended up with 6 balls going round the circle of 8 people.  We needed to focus.  As soon as we had thrown a ball to the person on our right, we had to return our attention to the person on our left, so that they could throw a ball to us.  The rhythm worked on 3 levels, and was not perfectly regular, as people dropped the ball from time to time.  When this happened, a ball jam occured, as one person could not pass their ball, and thus could not be passed to ( I introduced a rule that people could not have 2 balls, to prevent balls being thrown without a recipient.)  Once the jam had cleared, the machine was once again working. and the rhythm returned.  We talked about how enjoyable it was when the machine worked, something very satisfying about a repeating rhythm, and a coherent whole made up of several interacting parts.  We added sound to the movements, accentuating the rhythm, vocal and body sounds, beeping, whistling, stamping feet and so on.  Once we had mastered this technique with the ball going round one person at a time, we repeated the excersise with people throwing the ball to people in different places in the circle, still repeating a sequence, but the sequence being variable.  Once the rhythm had been emphasised with sound, we realised that we had formed quite a complex structure.  As time went on, the passing of the balls became smoother, people became more relaxed, and the sounds more interesting and lively.  This was our first machine, appearing complex but with simple rules.

Movement skills and creativity development.

Free Improvisation - Pic 2

The group moved around the space.  Like atoms, moving to fill the available space.  They were in high spirits and automatically doing casually silly walks.  After a while I told the group to watch one member - they stopped.  For a moment they watched Billie, she froze and looked back, startled.  Then, in response to an unspoken expectation, she began to make sharp, nervous little movements, like a meercat, (or a badger kettle).  The group, after a little hesitation, responded, making similar movements.  We moved around together, sniffing the air, on toes.  "Everyone go back to your original walk"  I said.  They did.  They focussed on their breathing.  I wanted this to be a relaxing experience, in preparation for the group impro, and to warm up people in their bodies, to prepare the bodies for sensitive, playful, interactions and different levels.

One by one, each person's walk was reflected by the group.  In between I instructed members to be aware of their breathing, after about the 3rd person, when they were getting really warmed up, I instructed them to be aware of their beating hearts.  Later I drew their attention to the heat of their bodies.  Once everyone had been reflected by the group, people were starting to get quite out of breath.  I had wanted the group to be focussed on their body's signs of being physically warmed up, because at the end came the relaxing part.  I instructed the group to slowly, like a big steam train, come to a halt.  They did.  They got into a comfortable position and spent some time listening to and feeling the changes occuring in their bodies - their breathing became less deep, their heart started to beat more slowly again.  Gradually the tingling in the warm palms faded.

They reflected upon the experience that they had just had.  This was a time of rest and a bit of a time to relax and gain familiarity with the sense of a creative body.  They thought about the machine, and what form it might ultimately take.

From: http://www.sandraandwoo.com/2011/09/17/artwork-steampunk-larisa/

When they were ready, people rejoined the group in a loosely knit circle and discussed what form the machine might take.  We talked about steampunk, the notion of history meets science fiction in ridiculously beautiful artifacts.  We talked about a machine that might sometimes break down but would be very resilient, and fix itself, getting back into action just as people thought it's end had come.

In the last section of the session, the free improvisation, we began to ask, is there an optimum number of persons for a machine? in terms of complicite, as found in bouffon work, the magic number is 5.  Our experience in Konnektiv would so far suggest that this is the best number for what we are devising.  However this would mean splitting the group into two, and make rehearsals difficult, so for practical reasons, I am hoping that this is not the case.  Time will tell.  If 5 it must be, then 5 it will be.

The group sat in the audience chairs looking into the performance space.  They looked at the empty space for some time.  One person walked into the space.  They looked around, exploring imaginary objects, creating a scene through their responses to these creations.  A second person entered the space.  With a slightly different plot in mind.  The two entered a negotiation, a new scenario developed.  A third person.  Jogging.  Jogging?  In a gallery?  At once the scene was thrown.  Later we talked about how in drama anything is possible, of course you could go jogging in an art gallery!  We are testing our grip on our schemas in these improvisations.  One by one, each member of the group enters the space.  The new members are keen, and enter early, the older members holding back, waiting for their moment.  One member doesn't want to enter the space, another persuades her to, through the improvisation.  Moods, themes, responses, offers, rejections, sadness, play, hope, requests - all are played out.  I freeze the action and ask the group members to name the character they are playing.  then they carry on.  Eventually the whole group congregate, and a rhythm is formed.  We love rhythm in this group.  Rhythm is the beating heart, the lungs, working like bellows, the stamping feet, the drops of tears.  The pumping and whistling and whirring of the machine, the creaking of an old forgotten tree, snow falling silently on a starlit landscape.  Rhythm is infinate, of nature and of machine.  Even when, whistling through space, the earth crashes into the sun causing billions of tons of explosion,he final screams of her burning up in the sun's fiery belly echo through space.

The group form a rhythm, palms of hands on wooden floor.  As each person joins in it becomes more complex and exciting.  After a while I ask them to find an ending.  The rhythm is slowed.  People withdraw from the group, Eventually it stops as the movement freezes and the rhythm stops altogether.

I have made a video of the ending of the improvisation - hopefully I've uploaded it correctly - if not, I will try again tomorrow.

In a circle, we discuss each persons experience of the impro.  The new people have joined in very well, more experienced members share their ideas of how to create optimum fluidity and dramatic interaction in the impro - we talked about the importance of thinking with body, and sound.  We talked about not clinging to notions or characters, or intentions, but offering, and accepting the offer, of negotiation, awareness of other.  Ideas necessarily become fuzzy in the improvisation space.  The individual tends to disappear and the group takes on it's own identity.

In this impro the action tended to be a little disparate.  Small groups were formed as they group failed to agree on themes until the very end.  The question is, does this suggest that there were too many?  Would 5 have been better?  Or was it just due to the fact that half the group are not really experienced at this sort of thing, and the rest of the group are maybe a little rusty after our break from Konnektiv workshops.

Needless to say we will explore the matter further!