Fencing, Fisticuffs & Furniture

Posted on by RoseIW

What better way to spend an evening than sword-fighting, goblet-wrestling and being smacked about with a chair in front of an entire Royal Court, I hear you cry?

Alright, so nobody is likely to be posing that question outside of ‘Hamlet’ rehearsals…

Fight calls for a stage production are great fun, but there are so many elements to consider, so with that in mind I thought it might be worth spending a couple of posts talking about the process behind the choreography of the fight and its subsequent rehearsal process.

After all, the fight that takes place in Act V Scene II of ‘Hamlet’ is really quite important!

First and foremost, a little background on Hamlet and Laertes, or rather the actors playing them. Hamlet, as you’ll have gathered if you read my ‘Finding Hamlet’ post, is played by me. Laertes, meanwhile, is played by my very dear friend Patrick Barry – affectionately known as Patch.

The (I think unrealised at the time of casting!) cherry on the cake of this pairing is that Patch is actually the one who trained me in stage combat, ten long years ago now, but whilst he trained me and has choreographed and supervised several fights that I have been a participant in since then, he and I have not actually come face to face as combatants in about 7 years!

Without spoiling anything major – not necessarily in terms of plot points, as frankly if you think ‘Hamlet’ has a happy ending then I would have to ask which rock you’ve been living under, but in terms of not spoiling all the little ‘extras’ – our rehearsals thus far have looked as follows.

Rehearsal 1: A slot at the end of a script rehearsal, with us working out simply the ‘finishing blow’ for each bout of the fight, with the nod of approval to each one from Si, our director. Si then places complete trust in us to ‘fill in the rest’, now we have his overall vision in mind.

Rehearsal 2: Just Patch and I, in a hall, doing two and a half intensive hours of fight training. We choreograph each section, minus the big scuffle at the end as at the time there was talk of involving more people and ducking around the courtiers. We spend ages working on each move, making sure every one of them has a reason or a story, making sure the way we execute them and react to them is as Hamlet and Laertes rather than Emily and Patch. We’re finding their styles, finding their voices, and it’s exciting.

Rehearsal 3: A ‘final scene call’ for the whole cast…except, for one reason or another, we only have Claudius, Horatio, Laertes, Hamlet and Fortinbras. Here’s the thing about a fight like this – it needs practice. It has to look natural, raw, realistic. It has to become second nature. And it also has to be safe, not just for the fighters but for those around them. So if you want to involve others, even in something so simple as a chase, for the sake of safety they have to be there when it’s choreographed, to be spaced, and to learn how to recognise when a move has gone right and when it is going wrong so that they can, if needed, get out of the way. Out of the window, promptly, goes the idea of including others in the fight (with the exception of Horatio and Claudius, of course), but ultimately whilst at the time we were frustrated at the shift in vision, it turned out to be a blessing in disguise…

Rehearsal 4: …Because rehearsal four was electric. Utterly electric. Patch and I returned with renewed vigor and a clearer picture of how the final ‘scuffle’ needed to play out. We arrived at rehearsal early and, alongside Si, worked out exactly what we all wanted, and merged our ideas together. On the arrival of Horatio and Claudius we incorporated their respective sections, and now we have a fully fledged fight scene that just needs to be repeated, time and again, to sharpen and polish it.

Rehearsal 5: Just Patch and I, for a quick meeting to commit the choreography to paper for reference. During this rehearsal, we also realised we were repeatedly getting stuck on one of the moves, and it became apparent that the reason was that it made no sense for either character, but in particular Laertes, for it to play out the way we had it. So we made one tiny tweak, as simple as adjusting the type of parry used, and the whole sequence fell into place.

Rehearsal 6: This time, we met in a local park and ran the fight a number of times…and made a further tweak, quite by accident! We were running one of the bouts at mark speed (each move done at a steady pace, usually about half speed) and instinctively whilst disarming him I added a blow and he reacted to it. We stopped, grinned, and realised that actually what we’d just inadvertently added made the whole disarm more effective, and cleaner.

From now on, we will be running the fight on at least a weekly basis, twice weekly if we can, so that it is as polished as it can be, and so that it becomes as instinctive as every other element of the scene.

There are so many important elements to a fight like this one, which remains arguably one of the most iconic fictional duels in history. The plot is, obviously, critical – there are moments of action and dialogue outside of the fight itself, which are the lynchpins of that final scene.

The characters, too, are vitally important: there is absolutely zero point in putting a move in a fight that doesn’t fit the moment, the characters or the style you’re going for…all it will do is pull the audience out of the moment, and most likely the actors too. And for anyone who knows the final scene of ‘Hamlet’ and how physically and emotionally intense it is for the performers…yanking them out of character by forcing them to do something out-of-character is definitely best avoided!

But the most important element, for me personally, is trust.

There is a different level of trust required in your friends, to trust one of them to swing a chair at your head at exactly the right angle, and to trust the other to intercept the second swing before it can hit you in the back of the head while you’re still floored from Swing One.

I will say this many times over the coming months, I’m sure, but I am so deeply privileged to be working opposite two of my dearest friends in Patch and Ches (Horatio); that level of trust needed no work, because it was there already.

Trust between combatants takes a fight to a whole new level, especially when it’s mutual. It also increases the safety of the sight, by removing the element of fear: if something goes wrong, as can sometimes happen and sometimes through no fault of either fighter, if you trust the person you’re fighting against then you know they’ll notice. If you trip, they’ll slow their next blow. If they notice the sun is in your eyes, they’ll shift their position to rotate the fight. If they notice you’ve forgotten a parry, they’ll pull the blow.

It’s exciting, to be able to fight without those fears, because it means you have a lot more energy and headspace that you can dedicate to the character you’re portraying.

Don’t get me wrong, you still have to have your own wits about you, and they need to be sharp, for your own safety as well as for that of your castmates and the audience, but you can afford to allow yourself – or rather your character – a lot more freedom. This makes the whole fight – the whole story of the fight – more believable.

Using Hamlet and Laertes – specifically our Hamlet and Laertes – as an example, the story of the moves is equally as important as the moves themselves, if not more important.

At the start of our first bout, Laertes performs an elaborate, skilled fencing salute and falls into an en-guarde position. Hamlet follows suit, but his salute is laced with cockiness, and he turns to Horatio as if to say ‘can you believe this guy?’ as the bout begins. That’s nut-shelling it in a big way, but in the space of four to five moves you know exactly how both characters are approaching the fight.

Fast forward to a favourite move of mine in the third bout, when Hamlet and Laertes are in a bind (when the foils are locked together and neither can move without giving the other combatant the advantage), and we’ve added a line, three simple words: “Come on, Laertes.”

It’s Hamlet taunting Laertes, mocking him for the fact that he is supposed to be a master swordsman, and here’s Hamlet holding his own against him in a duel that, at least as far as Hamlet knows, has higher emotional stakes for Laerties than it does to Hamlet. To Hamlet, up until this moment, it has been a game. He doesn’t know that Laertes has a sharp and poisoned blade, and so far Laertes has been warring with himself over whether or not to try to strike the fatal blow so he has been holding back some of his speed and strength. This moment, in bout three, is when that changes.

In our fight, this is the moment Laertes makes his decision: he pushes against Hamlet’s blade, pommel to pommel, with such force that Hamlet is sent stumbling, and when he rises he finds Laertes’ blade pointed at his throat.

The balance of the fight has shifted, in one simple move.

It’s clear in the faces of Hamlet and Laertes, in their stances, in the utter silence that follows the move itself, and it’s thrilling for the fighters, the onlookers and the audience alike.

From that moment on, chaos reigns, and the characters are careening towards the end of the play at such a speed that the audience can’t

There are several ‘set pieces’ in this particular play, scenes and moments everyone knows and is waiting for, and the fight is undoubtedly one of them.

For us, putting it together has been a joy, and we can’t wait to see and hear the reaction of the audiences. We really, truly hope it excites them as much as it has excited us…

Finding Hamlet

Posted on by RoseIW

Hamlet is one of those characters about whom everyone who is familiar with the play will hold an opinion. For centuries now, the Prince of Denmark’s dialogue and actions, and his supposed thought process (although, granted, not a lot is left to be supposed once he’s hit his fifth soliloquy and still hasn’t run out of things to say!), have been analysed time and again by actors, directors, scholars, audiences, students and no doubt many others.

Personally, when I first read Hamlet as a teenager, I couldn’t summon an ounce of care for Hamlet himself. I thought he was moody, dramatic, indecisive, over-talkative and frankly a bit of a know-it-all!

My attention fell on Laertes, a character I later had the fortune to play with Origins Theatre. At that time, and for many years, there was no other character in the play I would have considered playing, not even the ‘main man’ himself.

In part, because I always had a thing about flawed hero types, and Hamlet – whilst flawed – was certainly not a hero!

But also perhaps it is partly because I never expected to be given the opportunity. The production I have been cast in was actually planned for 2020, and I was not Hamlet. In fact, I’m pretty sure I was not first in line as Hamlet when the production was first restarted with June 2022 in mind either, so it is safe to say this isn’t a character I ever thought would come my way, and generally when I read plays I tend to hone in on the characters I would like to, or could, play…so, again, Hamlet never really caught my attention!

And, without question, it is also partly because for all the times I had previously encountered the play, I had (to my shame) treated Hamlet himself like ‘white noise’. I had skimmed over his many, many, many soliloquies in favour of reading, listening to and watching those around him, in favour of focusing on the fighting, on the costumes and staging, on the ‘famous bits’.

“To be or not to be: that is the question.”

“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

“Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio…”

We all know those lines, but how many people can honestly recall in any detail the words that follow?

When I was offered the part – after a few moments wondering a) if I’d misread the message and then b) if it had been sent to the right person – I accepted with a genuine mix of emotions. Elation at the opportunity, nerves at the scale of it, and a verging-on-unhealthy panic that I would somehow mess it up.

I met with the director, we chatted through his over-arching vision for the play (which is, quite frankly, fabulous!) and its characters, and he placed in me a level of trust that was both exciting and terrifying. And so, I set about finding ‘my’ Hamlet…

Except I didn’t.

The read-throughs went well, very well, but Hamlet and I were merely rubbing along – we weren’t connected. Looking back, I was trying too hard to be the Hamlet I thought everyone wanted to see; I was so focused on not letting anyone down that I was seeing Hamlet’s words on the page, hearing them come out of my mouth, but that’s all they were: ‘words, words, words…’

Our first full rehearsal came, and something clicked – almost. Surrounded by the other cast members, on our feet, moving the play and finding the chemistry between the characters, Hamlet and I fell into step. I even found myself defending some (not all, I hasten to add!) of his actions because I could ‘see where he was coming from’…but there was still a disconnect, not between him and me necessarily but between the way in which I was connecting internally to Hamlet and the way I was actually playing him. It was as though I was filtering something out between my mind and my mouth.

Fast forward to our second rehearsal, Act III, Scene I.

“Are we doing this scene?” I asked. “We haven’t got Ophelia tonight…”

“We’ll do the beginning bit. I want to hear you do ‘To be or not to be,’” replied the director.

In a panic, my instinctive reply was: “But I haven’t decided how to do it yet!”

“What’re you torn between?” He asked.

I hesitated.

Because the honest answer was that I wasn’t torn at all. I hadn’t decided how to deliver it simply because I didn’t want to actively decide how to deliver it. I knew that, in my head, I had locked into Hamlet’s mind-set, or where I felt it was in any case, and had found where he and I were the same, found the moments in which I understood him rather than wanted to slap him, and I wanted this speech to come from there. I wanted all his speeches to come from there.

I just wasn’t sure if that was the ‘right answer’ or not.

So I rambled for a bit at the director, assistant director and at my fellow cast-mates, buying time by asking questions about the staging, talking about the scene that would follow, cracking a couple of jokes, and basically just delaying the inevitable moment when I would have to actually do something important and risk failing miserably.

The irony of that was not lost on me!

I can’t remember how I delivered the speech, not a bit of it, but I do remember – vividly – the moment after, when in a room of people who really do know their Shakespeare, one simply said:

“Emily, that was brilliant.”

And there it was – or rather, there he was.

My Hamlet.

What’s in a name?

Posted on by RoseIW

This morning, I visited a local primary school – along with a fellow performer – to run a workshop on William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet, one of the most done-to-death tragedies in the theatrical world.

We had been called in as representatives of a Shakespeare company to watch excerpts from the pupils’ abridged production of the play, to give feedback, to perform an excerpt ourselves and to run a few workshop games.

Romeoandjuliet1597We were under no illusions: if these children had suffered the endless analysis of metaphors, the constant drilling down to what Shakespeare might have ‘meant’ by every single line, then we were walking into a battle already lost.

Thank goodness, then, that their inspirational teacher – who I shall, for the purpose of this blog, reference only as ‘Mr C’ – whose job it was to teach these children about the bard had hit the mark with his performance-over-reading approach, and showed such belief in the talents of his class that each one’s voice rang out clear and confident as they delivered some of Shakespeare’s most challenging scenes of love, loss and sacrifice.

In a round of character hot-seating, in which the children asked my colleague and I questions and we had to answer as Romeo and Juliet, some of the questions were so deep, so unexpected, that we were almost caught off-guard.

“Describe Romeo in three words,” one said.

“How did you feel when you found out that Romeo had killed Tybalt?” asked another.

And from a third: “Don’t you think it’s weird that if Balthazar had got the message to Romeo on time, the ending could have been different? Do you blame him?”

Wow.

These young minds of just 9 and 10 years old were delving deep into the story, asking ‘why?’ and ‘how?’ and ‘what if?’ of the bard’s beloved play, rather than fixating on the technicalities of its language and structure.

This was a class that had been taught well. Shakespeare, as Mr C so rightly said, is for watching and performing, not reading and analysing.

Sit a 9-year-old in a classroom and tell them to read a play and tell you what it means and what will they learn apart from how to resent both the man responsible for writing it and the teacher responsible for inflicting it upon them?

Sit a 9-year-old in a theatre, or stand them on a stage, and tell them to watch, to speak, to feel, and they will learn confidence, they will ask questions and their faces will light up at the name of ‘Shakespeare’.

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet. 

Juliet herself summed it up, really, when she gazed from her balcony into the night, lamenting the impact of a name on public or personal opinion. Romeo was a Montague, but she saw past that to the sweet, gentle soul of the man with whom she was to fall so desperately in love.

And so, in that vein, we must encourage the next generation to see past those who would have them believe that ‘Shakespeare’ is a synonym for ‘boring’, ‘complicated’ or ‘outdated’, and instead see his plays for what they are: pieces of theatre to be performed, felt and – above all else – loved.

What’s in a name?

Well, it’s all about how you say it.