22 March 2015

4. Reticence & Intimacy



In my early days I acquired a reputation of being a bit wild and way-out, perhaps too much so for the world of TV. So, I was quite surprised when I was asked to direct a staid chamber piece, that took place entirely in a country house, and revolved around four characters from the privileged end of society. It occurred to me that it was, perhaps, just because the piece would potentially be seen as rather old-fashioned that I was asked to do it. The play, A Private Matter, by Ronald Mavor, had started of life as a stage play, and it was indicated to me that, working with the author, I would, more or less, have a free hand in bringing it to the screen.

My first inspiration was that I would shoot it in a set that was decorated entirely in red — a colour that was studiously avoided in TV in those early days of colour. I got this idea from Ingmar Bergman’s Cries and Whispers, but, of course, it would have done me no good to tell anyone that at the time. Against the red walls I would have the cast dressed entirely in monochrome — black, white, and various shades of grey. For the two older roles, a distinguished general’s widow and an Oxford academic, I was able to cast two of my favourite actors of that age-group, Rachel Kempson and Stephen Murray. For the general’s two sons I cast Barry Justice, who seemed perfect for the pompous elder one, and Ian Charleson (in his first major screen role) as the rebellious younger son.

Rachel Kempson in A Private Matter
Each day of the rehearsal the cast all turned up on time, neatly and, by today’s standards, rather formally dressed. Indeed, they were as polite and well-mannered off as their characters in the play. Until that is one day there was an intrusion from actress Kika Markham (daughter of prominent Marxist actor, David Markham) who had brazened her way into the Oval Rehearsal Rooms, a pile of news sheets over her arm, on a drive for recruits to The Workers’ Revolutionary Party. On turning and seeing her, Rachel suddenly boiled over and flew at her, crying that she and her cohorts had torn her family apart and ruined her life. In a state of shock, the would-be revolutionary, Kika Markham, burst into tears and fled with Rachel behind, screaming recriminations at her all the way to the outside doors.

Stephen Murray in A Private Matter
This outburst had been so extraordinary that it took us all a good fifteen minutes over tea and coffee to recover. Though no-one had previously mentioned it, everyone present knew of Rachel’s story. In her private life she was Lady Redgrave, wife of Sir Michael Redgrave, and mother to Vanessa and Corin who were both prime movers in that fanatical far-left party that had been subject to numerous accusations in the press. What was of interest to me was the relationship of Rachel’s real life story to that of her character in the play, though, in this case, the usual order of things was reversed and Rachel’s real life was more extreme than that of the drama. The play revolved around a family disgrace about which one-one spoke. In the play the dark secret was that the old general had one day stripped and marched out on the parade ground to review his troops stark naked. In real life Rachel knew that her husband was, in his own words, “to say the least of it, bisexual”. In fact for a great many years he lead a double life but, this was never publicly acknowledged during his lifetime, with a resulting constant discord in the family.


Barry Justice in A Private Matter
In a similar vein, at the time of our rehearsals, Ian Charleson had never publicly admitted that he was homosexual, though he had suggested to me that this might be at the base of the rebellion of his character in the play, and the reason why he was so irked by the others resolute silence.  In fact in later years Ian become the first well-known person to announce publicly that he was dying of aids and in this he was supported by the Redgrave family. But that was all to come ... After that brief interlude in our rehearsals when these intimate matters were spoken off quite openly, we returned to work.  Everyone continued with the same tact and politeness as before, and they were never discussed again. They really did not need to be. It was understood that all this would be fed into the work.

I once worked with a writer new to drama who turned up at the read-through with a sheath of backstories for all the main characters. She was obviously trying to be helpful but ended up a hurt by how little interest these aroused. After a cursory glance from the actors they were put aside to be forgotten. Character backstories are as much the province of the actor as camera directions are that of the director. Writers may have to go through the process of creating fictional histories for their characters but to issue these to the actors is actually blocking their process. Similarly, directors who want to work on backstory are intruding into this private realm of the actor. Confessionals and emotive sharing are an unnecessary indulgence that, I believe, stands in the way of the work. Clearly, to have depth and resonance a performance must connect with the actors own life experience but that is something that can only be discovered by them. This is what actors often refer to as feeling their way into the part. Once that bridge of analogies between actor and character, real and fictional, has been crossed it must be allowed to fall away.


Ingrid Thulin, Harriert Andersson, Kari Sylwan, and Liv Ullmann in 
Ingmar Bergman’s Cries and Whispers

As one of the stars of Cries and Whispers put it:

"There are two ways of crying: one is that you allow your character to cry; but the other is that you get so moved by yourself that you cry. And then you are in deep trouble, because then you are into self-involvement. That's a danger for a lot of actors — their work becomes too much feeling — they cry their own tears and that isn't art." (4)

Liv Ullmann



References

4. Bates, Brian: The Way of the Actor: a path to knowledge and power, Shambala Publications, Boston, 1987

27. Morris, Eric, Acting From the Ultimate Consciousness: a dynamic exploration of the actor’s inner resources, Ermor Enterprises, Los Angeles,1988

2 comments:

  1. Although everyone else is probably familiar with the background to this - could you explain why, exactly, the colour red was avoided?

    ReplyDelete
  2. In the early days of colour TV a vivid red tended to cause visual "noise" on screen and also had a tendency to bleed on camera pans. In actual fact by the time I came to shoot A Private Matter the problem had more or less been solved — but not to the satisfaction of the engineers who spent all their time watching needles fluctuating on dials. The engineers in those days were notoriously conservative and steered well away from anything involving artistic experimentation. On one occasion I kept on demanding that the lighting level be lowered. Finally the lighting supervisor lost his temper, said "Have the bloody lot off!" And then threw the master switch and walked out. There were however some floor lights that remained on and for my purposes (which was someone creeping down an unlit corridor at night) it was perfect. I shot it like that and then we all went and had tea.

    ReplyDelete

Blog Archive




follow by email