What drew you towards doing an immersive piece?
​I was originally approached by members of TBC to see if I’d be interested. I’d literally just seen a number of immersive shows overseas, some had worked and some hadn’t which gave me a clear indication of what I liked and what I didn’t like in immersive theatre. When done right it has a unique way of allowing an audience member to choose their own path; in a sense create their own story.  It made me reminisce about the ‘Choose your own adventure books’ - which I loved as a child, so that’s the thing that excited me.  Most of the immersive works I had seen which worked had no words and could be timed musically.  This show was to have no music and dialogue which created a whole new set of problems when it comes to timing scenes which all had to happen in different places at the same time. The challenge of this is what drew me to the piece. It was something I hadn’t done before – which was quite exciting.
​

What was your process in the development of the show?
 
As there was no script in the beginning we had to work backwards to develop the show. The original story that was presented focused on a central storyline. With an immersive piece multiple storyline have to be happening at once. Clare and I worked together to expand on what she had already written to include more characters and to raise the stakes. Drawing from the large amount of research Clare had done on the period of the 1890’s a background story was created for each character. I then told actors they were not to share any of the details of their history or secrets to anyone else unless information directly related to that other character. It was up to them to discover this information during the rehearsals through the improvisations. This helped provide true responses and excitement in the actors and helped them learn how to manipulate and trick each other into revealing information. This would also help Clare in deciding how and when to reveal information in the scenes.
 
I worked a lot with Laban in the initial stages to help the actors find how the physical can influence character and the way one reacts in different situations as opposed to having them improvise as themselves. As we discovered the characters more we learnt how they would respond to each other which ultimately led to scenes in the play.
 
In the back of my mind all the time was how all these scenes were going to fit in with each other and how they would move in the space knowing that there would be multiple scenes happening at once. Many of the exercises I gave the actors was used to help them make discoveries, putting them into scenarios which forced information to be revealed, but also to help me know if the order of scenes would work in the timeline that Clare and I had created.

What’s been the most exciting part for you in putting this production together?
 
Seeing it come together.  I’ve spent a lot of time thinking  ‘Have I made the right choices here?  Is this actually working?’  Because it wasn’t actually until the first run whether I had any idea if it was all going to work – and so that was very exciting when it did.  Also seeing what the actors came up with during their improvisations in rehearsals. There were always surprises and things you weren’t expecting which added and helped develop the story– so that was great.
​

You mentioned working in your head, then coming together in the building – did you find your theatrical instincts useful for an immersive work?  Or is putting something like this together a different skill?
 
This is the first time I have directed an immersive piece before so yes I drew on much of my theatrical experience to pull it together but there was a lot to learn for all of us. There was a lot of trial and error. But I knew from the beginning how I wanted the piece to work so it was just a case of finding ways to make that happen.
 
Immersive theatre works best in my mind when there is intimacy where the audience feels like they are getting a personal story or engagement, so you need to have interaction. However, with the immersive side of this show you are reliant on timing. You can’t engage too much with an audience member otherwise you can’t move the story forward and you throw the timing out. But you still need to make an audience member feel part of it and to encourage them to explore. This was the challenge I gave to the actors; to find ways to invite the audience to follow them or to investigate a room without doing so with words? 

You’ve been given a lot of praise about the timing of the show throughout the house – how did you manage to get that right?
 
A lot of planning.  So,  Clare (the writer) and I worked quite hard and had a lot of discussions over the timeline of things,  so we literally,  Clare in particular,  had sheets everywhere ,  most of mine was in my head. Clare came from story point of view and I came from performance point of view, and we had to work together to marry everything.  But it is about knowing where everyone is at any one time. While there is a scene happening in one room, there is generally another happening somewhere else. If one is a short scene and the other is a long one, something else then had to happen to make sure following scenes were in time.
 
After that it was a case of experimentation.  So when we got to the venue we literally started from the beginning and played.  And say ‘yep, that fits’ then no that didn’t – so go back to the beginning and we’d start again and keep running forward until something went awry and then go back to the beginning,  run it again and eventually it got to a point where everything just seemed to slot in.
 
In some cases the actors have cues that allow them to know when they can move to the next section. This is important as, depending on how audiences react, scenes can speed up or slow down so everything has to be flexible. 
 
If one section goes out too much it can really throw the show – fortunately, the actors know what needs to go where. There are a lot of back up plans – plan B,  plan C,  plan D – to make things work.
​

Do you have any favourite moments in the show?
 
I have many. One of my favourite scenes is when Hugh and Mary are talking to each other in the dining room where Hugh flirts with Mary and reads the whole moment completely wrong.  Also the scene between Mary and Naismith outside is a beautiful scene; the awkward dinner scene always makes me laugh and I like the play between Agnes and Abercrombie and how they come from the same worlds but have totally different ways to manipulate. There are so many, but they are the ones that come to mind…

It’s called Mr Naismith’s Secret…but do you think there are many secrets that the audience haven’t found yet?
 
There isn’t a single protagonist because everyone is one, depending on what path the audience takes and every character has their secrets. It’s impossible to find them all in one viewing. Many people have discovered the secret of the central story by the end of the play but only one I know of has worked out what I consider the ultimate secret and that is actually finding out and understanding why the other secrets exist in the first place. There are the surface secrets but there are also the underlying secrets which are far more interesting.
​

So…what’s next for you?
 
I’m not sure yet, I have been approached about doing another immersive piece – so I’ll have to check that out.  There’s also my own play that I’ve been writing for some time now,  which needs to get up on  it’s feet,  so that’s got to go back into development.  And there’s also a kids TV pilot which we’ve done the pilot, we’re just looking where that goes next. 

It's bump-in time for TBC, and so we felt it was time to answer a few questions about our process. Or even more specifically for the especially confused, what the hell is a bump in? Here we answer all your questions and even a few you didn't think to ask.

1. Bump-ins have nothing to do with 70s disco trends.
Okay, so in the 70s people were doing craaaazy dance moves, like bumping their hips together. Oh, those crazy kids. There was even a song about it (Kenny, 'The Bump', check it out if you must, but it's awful. Check out this instead; it's much more entertaining. Disclaimer: TBC does not endorse the dance partner prejudices of 1970s disco stars ).

Bumping in has a whole lot less dancing, unless you count the 'where-is-the-gaffa-tape' shuffle.

2. Nobody knows why moving a show into a theatre space is called a bump-in.
Much as with many theatre terms, the origins are unknown for this particular name for moving all the set, lights, costumes and general ephemera into a venue.


Also like many theatre terms, the name can change from region to region. Apparently the Brits call it a 'get-in', which makes more sense but is also a bit close to 'get with' for comfort. Although one can lead to the other, of course.


3. Nobody knows why moving a show out of a theatre space is called a bump-out.
See above. Apart from the Brit bit, whence it is called a 'get-out'. Which is a bit harsh, honestly, especially when you're feeling all emotional from finishing up a season.

4. Gaffa tape can solve anything.
Need to secure a cable? Gaffa tape. Parts of the set falling apart? Gaffa tape. Lost a costume? Gaffa tape. (Seriously, TBC is associated with at least one person who owns a gaffa fedora.)

Gaffa tape is the miracle cure for everything. The only thing you can't do with the stuff is eat it. This is why you will see rolls of it being carefully guarded during bump-in, where everyone from the lighting techs to the front of house guys will be after it to fix something.

Gaffa: the material holding the universe together. It's official. Mythbusters have proved it.


5. If you search the term 'Bump In' on Flickr, you get a whole lot of pictures of heavily pregnant women.

So. There's that.

Flickr seems to be a lot more literal in its interpretation of search terms than other search engines. Yes, Flickr, technically those women have a bump in.

Okay, so we've all heard of hysteria? The whole 'wandering womb' theory, the hysterectomies, the 'you're crazy because you've got too much sperm' thing...

Wait. What? Yep, part of the hysteria epidemic involved having too much sperm.

First, a word on female hysteria.

It's often believed that we have the otherwise excellent thinker Plato to thank for hysteria, but belief in the condition dates back to the ancient Egyptians. Early thinkers thought that the womb was a living creature, wandering the female body and wreaking havoc (picture the Blob, and if you can't picture the Blob, look it up on IMDB and welcome to the wonderful world of pre-2000 cinema, guys!).

Some of the other thoughts on hysteria included the idea that the womb could be lured back to its proper place by putting bad-smelling things near a woman's mouth and luring the womb back down with perfume near her vagina. Another, much more fun-sounding theory, was that the problem was caused by lack of orgasms.

Interesting etymological fact: the Greek word for uterus was hystera. You do the math.

Sigmund Freud was a fan of the latter theory, although his thoughts on the topic were wrapped up with his ideas on how everyone's parents ultimately scar them for life.

Fun fact: hysteria wasn't erased from the Bumper Book of Legit Psychological Disorders (otherwise known as the DSM III) until 1980.

Spermatorrhoea: the male hysteria.

So, if lack of orgasm in females is a cause of female hysteria, the male hysteria is also a lack of...

If you said 'orgasm', you're wrong. Spermatorrhoea, the male hysteria, is linked with excessive semen discharge. Folks thought that an involuntary leakage of semen was caused by, among other things, too much masturbation.

The cure? Stop being such a pansy. Get up at 5am, sponge yourself down with cold salt water, lift some weights and go for a jog.

Yep, that'd put most people off a quiet moment alone in the shower. 

The cure is worse than the cause.

In both cases, the ultimate cure for chronic conditions was much worse than the cause. Females had to submit to invasive surgeries, while men had to submit to needles in their most beloved parts.

Yes. Needles. And worse. (Worse? Read the resources below.)


Hooray for medicine!


Want to read more? Check out these resources:


*This psych paper explores the history of female hysteria: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3480686/
*This article from The Conversation is an excellent read on spermatorrhoea: http://theconversation.com/spermatorrhoea-the-lesser-known-male-version-of-hysteria-9996

CC pictures courtesy of:
1. Quelle Horreur by Paul Stumpr
2.Uterus by Hey Paul Studios
3. Sperm race by Mike Goren
4. Ouch by Bark

Then we thought: what better way to saturate your screens with TBC than to present our extremely serious research in that most lauded and well-respected of journalistic modes: The Listicle.

So, may TBC proudly present:

1. Tennesee Isn’t Tennessee’s Real Name.

What?! His parents didn’t name this -

- after this?

Apparently not! Unlike modern celebrities (I’m looking at you, Dakota Fanning), Williams had to change his name to ride on Nashville’s coat-tails. (After all, where would Fanning be without Mt. Rushmore? Orlando Bloom without Disney World? George Washington without…wait…)
 
The son of Cornelius and Edwina Williams, Tennessee was born Thomas Lanier Williams III in 1911. It wasn’t until 1939 that the name Tennessee Williams was first printed.


2. Tennessee Williams was Pals with Jackson Pollock.
​
The Abstract Expressionist bad boy, responsible for this -

- knew the crown prince of Southern gentility? How? Where?! When?!?

Before the runaway success of The Glass Menagerie in late 1944, Williams was doing what any artsy type of the time would do: hanging round Cape Cod.

Really – the 19 dune shacks of Cape Cod provided a haven for artists and bohemians as early as the 1920s. Pollock and Williams would be introduced by Lee Krasner, whom Pollock would marry in 1945.

Fleeting though the meeting may have been, it seems to have had an effect on Tennessee – the short play The Day on Which a Man Dies, which depicts an artist committing suicide, was written in the year following Pollock’s fatal car crash.
 
There is also much conjecture about the influence of Pollock on Streetcar’s Stanley Kowalski – some saying Stanley was modelled on Pollock, others suggesting different players from Tennessee’s life. Some even suggest that Pollock’s public persona, and in particular the iconic images of him, were influenced by Marlon Brando’s portrayal of Stanley. The short play that Streetcar would grow out of, Interior: Panic, names Blanche’s brother-in-law as Jack. Coincidence? I think not! (probably)

3. Tennessee’s Sister Rose was Lobotomised.

Sorry guys, no jokes on this one. In 1943, after 6 years of failed treatments for paranoid schizophrenia, Rose Williams was given a bilateral prefrontal lobotomy. Tennessee would only learn about it after the fact, having not seen her since 1939. She formed the basis of Laura, the owner of the titular Glass Menagerie, completed in 1944. Tennessee’s successes allowed him to assign a portion of the royalties of his plays to her care. His estate was left to the University of the South in Sewanee, Tennessee, who were entrusted with her care. She would survive him by 17 years.

4. Tennessee Blamed Hysteria for His Family’s Maladies.

Hysteria, you say?  I hear there is a wonderful performance at Poppy Seed with that title! Whatever could hysteria be? Well, doctors used to cure it with this:

To be more accurate, Tennessee blamed his mother’s mania and his sister’s schizophrenia on sexual repression: “They were both victims of excessive propriety.” He would wage war on that propriety, both with his own hedonism and with his writing – Blanche’s solicitations would eventually make her into some kind of Lady (sexual) Liberty.

And that’s all we learned. All of it! We know nothing else at all about him…

But if YOU want to know more about him, seeing Project: Hysteria from the 10th of November at the Trades Hall Ballroom would help a lot.  Just sayin’… (BOOK NOW! BOOK HERE!)

(all images, facts, quotes, jokes, thoughts, words, breaths, heartbeats sourced by the google machine)

EXCLUSIVE OPENING NIGHT GALA TICKETS - $50.00
Includes a ticket to the opening night performance of 'Project: Hysteria' plus a ticket to the Gala Party - complete with live entertainment, drinks and light refreshments.
Hosted by: Nadine Garner
Entertainment including: Mikelangelo with Cave. Waits. Cohen  

TBC Theatre ensemble member Myles Tankle has taken on the challenging role of AD and Fight Director for our upcoming production of 'Made in China'.  
Without giving too much away, we can certainly say that the text itself packs a punch - it's full of witty, dirty, fast-paced dialogue, definitely a challenge in itself for our 3 actors.  Add on top of that a fight scent that needs to happen in a roughly 4x4 metre 'apartment' with some rather creative weapons (you may have noticed the prosthetic leg on our posters?) - and you've got yourself one hefty piece of theatre.  
We asked Myles to give us a bit of an insight into his experience working on 'Made in China' - so here it is...


A fight director is a person who has mastered the art of staged violence, and it is very much an art form. I am not a ‘fight director’. This title takes years of study and practice to achieve this title. So with respects to qualified fight directors out there, I’d like to give my point of view of what it is to collaboratively create a fight scene.

I remember my teacher saying once that the choreography itself doesn’t actually matter. It must tell a story. We should actually aim not to notice the fight. The actors should take the choreography and breathe into it the living reality of being pushed so far that words no longer suffice to deal with a problem. Violence is a last resort and the audience should see and feel this.

Much of staged combat relies on distance, timing, some form of physical contact and an intense awareness and focus on the actor playing opposite you. We are always working for the other person, whether aggressor or victim. These roles must be clearly defined as oddly enough, it’s the victim that must be in control, so that the perceived violence can remain totally safe. Then there are the many tricks to play with. The Audience’s viewing angles, inventive uses of space and movement technique to name just a few. Throw in some actors and that’s where the fun really begins.

It’s been joy to work collaboratively and steadily to create a series of moments that add up to what is an effective and exciting bit of staged violence between three Irish blokes in a living room somewhere in Dublin. Some of us have trained in some form of martial art and/or stage combat whilst some have not had any martial training. Interestingly enough this is not a hindrance as it has given us a unique set of skills as a foundation to work with and the chance to learn and consolidate that learning.

Our challenges have been many. Our space is not a regular theatre space. Our seating layout meant that a lot of simple stage combat angles instantly became more complex, the text jumps between violence to descriptive rhetoric back to violence, and in fact, it never settles. The characters use of weapons adds yet another layer and on top of that and the space is much smaller than one would like to believe it is. 

Despite these challenges, I believe we have crafted a dynamic scene that looks realistic and clearly furthers the action of the text. It’s the story that’s important, and the playwright Mark O’Rowe has written a brilliant one. After all, what’s a bit of good old Irish craic without a bit of a fight for good measure?



Made in China


July 8th to 25th 2015.
Wed, Thur, Fri, Sat - at 7.30pm.

"Hughie's apartment"
Q44 Theatre,  1st Floor, 550 Swan St Richmond.

Ticket prices - Full $30  /  Concession $25