Pr22t 096 by Carmina Infante Güell

August 12, 2012 Hi Brian: So I’ve been thinking a great deal about my upcoming experiment/research and I have have made a few changes. My research question has become clearer which I’m finding very useful as I craft the structure of the two or three days. My question now is “Does the actor’s experience of story change with different audience types, and if yes, how?” My original question about investigating the unconscious and conscious adjustments actors make with the different audience permutations is a secondary question I believe, and can be part of my follow-up observations. Perhaps this can be phrased as: “Are there observable conscious and unconscious changes that happen to the actors in relationship to different audiences?” I’m considering altering the original model and have two possible plans for executing the research, both of which I would love your hear your opinion on. The parts of the research that remain consistent are as follows: - Four audience versions in front of which each actor will perform a 4-7 minute piece. The versions are: a) A Full House live audience (ideally 30-40 people); b) A Camera with director and crew; c) An audience of one person; and d) Just the camera. - the first two a) Full house and b) Camera with director and crew, are attempting to replicate as much as possible the professional performance scenarios, while recognizing the limits of time/budgets. In fact, the circumstances only reflect a fragment of the professional experience - ie: the actors only perform a fragment of the play, experience a fragment of the story, the time for shooting is only a fragment of what might exist on set. - the second two, c) One person audience and d) Just camera, are attempting to be distillations of the differences between the forms - the human watcher and the machine watcher as a way further investigating those relationships for the actor - Use of the Visual Analogue Scale as measurement of the subjective experience *What I am considering changing is the quantity of participants and depth of the exchange. I have two options simmering in my head right now:

PLAN A: Hire five actors for two days and integrate them beyond just the audience trials by engaging them in a larger in-depth discussion around the research question. They would all still participate in the proposed measurements with the blood pressure, heart rate and VAS, but I would also open the discussion up to a more dialogic dynamic, moving beyond the straight measurements to hearing and exchanging of ideas. The experiment would probably play out as follows: Day 1: Baseline measurements, Performances for: a) Full Audience and b) Camera Crew with re-directs and re-frames; End of Day Discussions Day 2: Baseline measurements, Performances for: c) One Person audience and d) Just Camera; Discussions Budget:

Each Actor $300-$350 = $1750 Rentals/camera equipment = $600 Other Players ie: Director/DOP = $200 Miscellaneous = $100 Salary for me = $350

This plan requires the graduate students as “audience” for a two hour chunk of time on Day 1, as well as 3-5 volunteers from the graduates who would participate as “crew” etc. for Day 1 as well. I would ask the actors to all work with a similar type of text ie: a Shakespeare Monologue Pros for this Plan: Small Intimate Group, Insight and collaboration with invested participants, In-depth Discussion. Cons: Small sample group, participants will no doubt have a great deal of influence over each other’s experiences and may not bring a clean “first response” to the table, the performance material is limited in scope OR PLAN B: Hire up to 20 actors over two days and have everyone proceed through the different audience permutations. The experiment would play out as follows: Day 1: 8-10 actors. Baseline measurements using only VAS, but perhaps blood pressure time permitting. All actors proceed through all four audience permutations. Some discussion at end of day, but limited in scope and only occurring after other measurements are concluded. Perhaps at the end of the VAS there is a chance for a more narrative-type of response. Day 2: Repeat with 8-10 new actors. Budget:

Each Actor $100 = $1800-2000 Rentals = $600 Other ‘Players” = $200 Salary for me = $200

Pros for this Plan: Much larger sample. Becomes a larger community experience. Can include a range of material ie: scenes, monologues, perhaps a movement piece. Allows for comparison of days. Cons: Limits my salary potential. Less time for in-depth discussion. Greater time restraints which may mean eliminating one of the physiological measurements (probably heart rate). Demands the “FULL Audience” (ie: the graduate program) commits to being there for up to 2 hours on 2 different days. I’m leaning towards the 2nd option. I really like the idea of including more actors and extending this conversation into the community. I also think this option will perhaps reveal possible trends, possible usefulness of these measurements in this type of work. Do you have time for a coffee maybe next week to take apart these ideas in person? Or could we have a phone chat? When I firm up which plan I intend to follow, I can then begin to solidify dates with actors, put together a firm timetable etc. Let me know when you have some time.

VISUAL ANALOGUE SCALE DRAFT QUESTIONS

“Stories have a capacity to act in ways their tellers did not anticipate....King recognizes that once a story has been put into play, it will have effect that neither he as storyteller not they as listeners can control”. Arthur W. Frank, Letting Stories Breath “Those who tell and receive stories respond to each other as well as to the content of the story as well as to the content of the story that is told. Stories are literally responsible.” Frank, Letting Stories Breath

If indeed, I want to investigate an actor’s relationship to story, the key will be to develop questions which help guide and illuminate that particular relationship. This is tricky. The vocabulary surrounding an actor’s expression of this can be equivocal and imprecise. Perhaps there is some sort of mystery that actors intentionally like to uphold and hence our use of huge generalities such as “truth” or “connection”? Or again, maybe because we simply don’t fully understand what happens in this “connection”, these generalities are our best attempt at articulating something incomprehensible.

I know for myself, when performing there is a range of feelings that happen that contribute to my experience of the story. If it’s a good night, I feel like I am very close to that character - that I have complete authority over that character and story. That the story is there for me and carries me. There is a symbiosis of energy and belief. It is easy, it is pleasurable. I make discoveries. Even deep into a long run, the story can surprise me. In an attempt to articulate some of this murk, some potential launch pad questions for this particular VAS are: Did you feel connected to the story/character? Did you feel self-conscious? Did you have pleasure telling the story? Did you hear your story differently? Did you discover something new about your story? Relative to your prior experience or even your expectation, did you feel this performance was delivering your story you wanted it to? In terms of taking these questions and putting them into a Visual Analogue Scale in order to collect some form of measurable data, it seems most useful to think in terms of LEAST or MOST, or BEST or WORST. The following VAS questions are simply a draft. I am sending it to you for comments, but I will also send to my friend and colleague, Dr. Tyndale, for her feedback. I suspect there is lots of adjustments that can be made to how the list of descriptors happens (strategy). Here’s the draft of what the actor’s might receive.

In your performance of X with the ______________audience, please rate your experience of performing the story on the following scale:

Ease