Last night was my first night working with the double action problem. There is a lot to unpack regarding how I think it went, but overall I was pleased with the work I did when I was doing the double action problem. I got tripped up, though, on the Independent Activity.
I was partnered with Joseph. For our first exercise, he was doing the IA and I had the DAP. The shared facts were that we were roommates, it was early morning on Christmas morning, and our neighbor across the street had just been killed. I chose as my circumstances that I had just killed the neighbor, and I had to plant the knife I used and exchange the shirt I wore with one of Joseph’s in order to save myself. I was having a difficult time embracing my circumstances outside the room due to a very loud singing rehearsal going on in the Basile. I think going forward if this is happening I will try to find a quieter place to focus, such as the bathroom. The other thing that kind of threw me was that there was nothing in the room aside from a table and two chairs. I feel like I recovered from this fairly quickly, though, and came up with a plan to hide the knife under the table and to try to get Joseph to change shirts with me. I know that at least for the first few minutes I was in my head and not really picking up and dealing with Joseph’s behavior. Hiding the knife was awkward because I needed to find a reason to sit on a chair so that I could get the knife under the table, and I didn’t really deal with that well. Once I tried to get Joseph to try to exchange shirts with me, though, the exercise took off. I think he and I both were trusting ourselves, each other, as well as the exercise. Even though I was unable to complete my action problem, I felt good about the exercise. Feedback was generally positive, and a couple of people came up to me while we were on break to tell me that they enjoyed the exercise.
Where I got tripped up was with the exercise when I was doing the IA. Circumstances: two cops staking out a drug dealer in the East Village in the summer of 1978. My trigger was that I just found out my wife is on her way to the hospital to give birth, so I had to pack up my things in order to celebrate because I am happy. My Hot Who seemed to be the issue. I chose to make Joseph a Constantly Late Narcissist. This set me off on the wrong path…instead of being involved with the trigger event, I became focused on my annoyance with Joseph being late. I tried to recover but Joseph finished his AP quickly and got out (he forgot to prepare a double action problem). I knew at the critique what the problem was on my part. I had created the Hot Who from my relationship with Joseph rather than the trigger. That seems to be a trap when the trigger is not related to the scene partner, although I think it could be fixed with crafting. I could have made Joseph the “In-the-Dark Cheerleader,” or “By-the-Book Rule-Follower” and it might have worked better.
We finished class with an interesting discussion on whether or not we need to be sneaky when we are carrying out our DAPs. There was some confusion between “concealing our actions” vs. “concealing our emotions.” While I understood the point that sometimes concealing actions can result in concealing emotions, the exercises (the way I understand them) are there to help us craft the circumstances that might necessitate being sneaky about our actions. By playing the action of “I have to do something without letting my partner see me do it,” it opens the possibility of potentially hiding my intentions, or feelings, or whatever. All of that is dependent on observing the behavior of my partner and then responding truthfully off of them.
I see this confusion with actors and directors who I have worked with, usually because there is a lack of training/experience, an inability to communicate in a way that encourages exploration of the circumstances, or a focus on emotions rather than actions. I get it…theater should make us feel. And emotions are interesting – they arise as the result of the circumstances, but they also fuel the action, at least initially. This is why I think the crafting is stated “I have to do this in order to accomplish that BECAUSE I am happy/sad/frightened.” It’s only a jumping off point. The wild card then becomes the partner, because I have no idea what they are bringing in terms of behavior or point of view. The important thing is that I have something to do BECAUSE of some circumstance. In this regard, Meisner is very similar to the training I went through at HB. The focus was never on the emotions, only on creating circumstances and actions.