The Reunion revisited

Sometimes in the theatre, at least in the legitimate theatre right after the opening night when the notices are viewed the production team may decide a rewrite is required. During a pre-season tour the rewrites are developed before the big opening "up West".

Well clearly this assignment won't run and run and needs a radical rewrite if it is to keep it's audience's attention. There are two images that remain untouched and one of those may be culled before I finish the review of this work, such as it is.

These photographs were taken over 2 nights at an amateur theatre production of The Reunion, a comedy by Peter Gordon. I have followed the production from it’s first rehearsal, through the set building, the technical set-up and dress rehearsals leading up the opening 2 nights of performance, from where these photographers were taken.

I had a number of shots that I wanted to capture to describe the event, as if to a relative outsider to the process of a production of a performance. I was successful in some areas and less than successful in other areas. Where I failed was in obtaining a more than just competent “make-up” shot, those that I did obtain are included in my learning log and I think I could have done better with the “final bow”.

I was very pleased with some of the other shots, especially those that deal with the stress of an opening night, how actors cope with adoption of their roles as well as some of the “moments” in and around these people on a common cause. Some of these “moments” are personal, some are social, but the motif I have used to assemble this series is that of conversation. Theatre and acting are, in their simplest form, a means of communicating through visual and verbal means. Communicating to an audience and, at its limit, it is about communicating to “a” person, an individual member of the audience, in such a way as to engage that person and their fellow audience members to convey a story. It is a conversation, it relies, especially in comedy, on two way communication as the actors strive to engage their viewers. I did take some shots of the audience during the performance, but decided not to put them up here; rather this set is about the conversations prior to the performance, whether intensely personal or public.

Titles are for ease of recognition, though the photographs should be in the order as written about. I don’t normally title photographs.

Karen.

Opening night. Tense. More than half an hour to go as this shot was taken before the players move into the “green room” (so called because it is green). I think the composition works on this shot, right of frame with the rhythmic struts moving away from her. The focus is strong, centred on her eyes, her whole frame, exposed in this frame is in sharp focus, with the underlying thought that all of her is tense. Clutching her single prop, the handbag and holding her head as if to stop it exploding and staring as if to maintain focus on her entrance (third, after Verity and Ken) there appears to be an internal conversation with Karen and herself. I like this shot a lot – it seems to say a lot about the angst a player goes through before show time. I’m not sure how I would improve it. I felt instinctively that a portrait version would have been too static, although looking at it now, cropping at the first strut to Karen’s right would pictorially hem her in and maybe add to the tension. I have included a cropped version for comparison.

It was thought that this shot might work better in colour, I had already considered the portrait crop and this was also felt to express the tension more than the landscape version. I am not convinced as yet and will have to consider it for a while. I think there is a greater focus in the portrait version, but the soft pastel colours of Karen's costume tends to militate against an anxious persona, maybe if the colour of the background were also more dynamic and less bland it might have helped to convince me more.

The “Lucky Programme” Prize

I suspect most amateur groups struggle for funds, this one is better off than most – due mainly to having members who write original work and don’t charge royalties (the second biggest cost of any production). So, apart from ticket sales, a raffle and a bar there is the “lucky programme prize”. Each charged for programme is numbered and the winner is drawn, as a lottery during the interval. This shot has Emma handing the winners prize to a member of the audience. The triangular construct (Emma, winner, bottle of wine) works well and is nicely balanced in the frame. However what amplifies its effect is another audience member looking up at the winner with a clear thought in his mind. Emma, is focused on the winner, who reciprocates, there is a clear conversation going on, both verbally and visually; but those other eyes add a complication to the conversation, as if they want to enter the conversation. It could be a challenge, it could be a need to congratulate – they certainly don’t look ill-willed toward the winner. Again I can’t think of a different crop, maybe a slight vignetting would help close the focus in on the area between Emma and the winner, though I think the reveal works better a little slower.

There were a couple of areas that this shot could have been improved, firstly if the shot had been composed more to my left and therefore captured more of the face of the "winner" - though I am concerned that the sub-text of the extra pair of eyes in the audience may get lost and also a tighter crop might have helped; I had recognised this in my write up and include the tighter shot here in the absence of a shot to the left.

Kevin.

Opening night. I wasn’t aware that he wanted to speak to me. I was convinced he was in a moments pause, I also didn’t notice the bottle of wine in his hand. It was his gaze, his focus which seemed to detach him from the rest of the people in the Hall. The light was very strong, the west facing windows in the Hall can play havoc with stage lighting in late spring and summer shows and whilst most of the curtains had been drawn one had been left open providing a very strong contrast for Kevin, the soft “barn door effect” of the window edge cuts Emma off in a natural “toning down” of the left hand side and it’s effect can been seen coming into play on the right hand side. So, other than converting to monochrome, I didn’t need to do anything to separate Kevin from the world. There is a nice link between the two Directors and that is the “show-board” of photographs that almost connects them directly. The sharp focus of Kevin works very well. I have looked at a portrait crop and don’t think that it would improve the underlying sub text.

In fact Kevin was about to pay me for a commission he had given me after I had delivered some prints to him two days earlier, the wine was an additional gift. I had not noticed that the conversation was with me, not the viewer as I had imagined when I took the photograph.

Kevin was deemed one of the weakest shots, so I have not tried to replace him with a different version, rather I have brought in another photograph altogether:

Pat and Jean

I had cut this in the previous round of downselect, though for this rework I have rotated the image to level the line that appears between the two sets of eyes that connect the to ladies in conversation. I am aware that the third person has his back to the camera, but I feel that he is superfluous to the conversation and has little impact. I have worked the area to the left of the image to remove any visual distractions. 

Mugsy and Dave.

Mugsy (played by Jeff) and Dave who plays Mal’ (Malcolm). I phrased it this way as Mugsy is in role (costume) here, whilst Dave hasn’t donned the garb of Mal’ yet. I composed this shot through the mirror. The characters in the mirror are in focus, whilst out of the mirror the characters are out of focus. Mirrors have long been used in photography to develop narrative and this is no exception. There are three conversations going on here if we count the one of the three ladies reflected in the mirror. I shall focus on the two other ones. The real life conversation i.e. outside of the mirror is out of focus, could it be that they are role-playing? The in-focus is the reflected image, almost as if the surface of the mirror is the fourth wall that exists between actor and audience. There is a stage set in the mirror, a proscenium arch and tabs framing the action extremely well. Which life is real – the imaginary or the one in our zone? There are two expressions that we can see, neither is benign, Mugsy in the real world looks concerned, worried about what might be happening next, whilst Dave’s reflection looks almost angry, looking down on Mugsy. Mugsy is looked down on through most of the play, an army veteran with many references to Wesker’s character Smiler in “Chips with Everything” which is another play on class and pretension, though with a very different ending. I could have straightened the shot, but decided to leave with the edge of the imaginary proscenium arch anchoring the image, most everything else is “out of kilter”.

This shot doesn't have a direct replacement, it was felt that there were too many backs in the series as a whole and in this shot in particular. However, whilst I have some contention with that view I agree that the image may be too complex and that I have looked for imagery that only I can make out. My thoughts behind the image as I took it were: Whilst we see two backs, we also see their fronts, we see two different conversations between two separate people, overlaying this the two sets of people (characters and real-life) are distinguished by being fully in focus and out of focus - a real conversation and a fictional conversation. The resolution is left to the viewer. I'll leave it where it is for a time and perhaps come back to it later.

Jeff.

I had taken a few of Jeff as he struggled to adopt the role on opening night. Where this shot worked better than the previous shots is the internal struggle is mirrored in the lighting of the shot. In the “green-room” there is only one light on – an angle poise lamp pointing generally into the room captures the left hand side of Jeff’s face (his right); when I looked at the image later it seemed to sum up that internal conversation Jeff was having with his fear, struggling to compose himself, to adopt the role. It is interesting that he always had his costume on long before anyone else, perhaps this also helped him to adopt the role. The very shallow depth of focus (which starts to run out just below his mouth) helps to isolate the “thinking” of Jeff. Monochrome is also a help I this shot. Not really sure how I would better this particular photograph with a different approach.

Jeff was felt to be another weak shot and it didn't present itself to the viewer as I thought I had depicted him - I have therefore decided to reject this image as well.

Mobile communication

I had seen this shot as a potential contender and I have included a "slightly worked" version. I was intrigued by the counter play of the two heads in the picture. The one fully focussed on the mobile 'phone and the other looking on. The "out of focus" head representing - to me at any rate - an older generation that hasn't come to terms with the need of younger people to be in communication seemingly at all times. I have cropped the shot a little tighter and rotated it a little to try and add some tension.

Three boys.

The Stage Manager sharing a moment with two customers at the bar; It could be a perfectly innocent moment or it could be a ribald remark. The centre of the image has the two men laughing heartedly at something. A moment in time, caught after a moment caused them to laugh. A moment later they would disperse. I saw the moment and took the image, I didn’t consider the leveling of the image at the time of taking and in this case I don’t think it detracts from the image, but I could try and shift the horizontal woodwork to level the image, but I think this crop helps in this case.

Three boys was felt to be another weak shot and again didn't fulfill the brief. I can see why this was so and because I knew that one of the "boys" was the stage manager it made sense to me. This of course doesn't help the viewer who has no back knowledge. I have decided to reject this image.

Another shot that nearly made the final cut last time through is a moment when this lady seems to express herself quite dramatically. The original crop had more space around this lady and not much more around the person she was addressing herself to. I have cropped in tighter to amplify her expression.

Emma.

In focus. Opening night. Less than an hour before curtain up. This is a shot about focus, Emma appears to be concentrating as if mentally reviewing a check list of the things that should be done and seeing if they have the green light. Off centre and to the left, other shots around this time had included Kevin, who, in clear concentration also, tended to be looking in another direction and visually confusing the “tightness” these two had generated in the preparation of their first production. I have thought about a portrait crop, but this looked very static, allowing this “off-centre” crop (as it was composed in camera) adds a bite of tension I feel. The eyes are very intense, much as Kevin’s were, albeit for different reasons.

The same shot closer, cropped and tilted to add some drama. I can see that I got lost in the moment of the first shot, though I did think that editing was cheating! The replacement shot is more direct, more focussed, emphasising her intent for the evening and the production. I also worked on some of the local contrast as recommended.

Mal’ getting dressed.

This is the costume changing shot, in fact adopting the robes before curtain up (there are no costume changes to speak of in this show). The conversation between Mal’(Dave) and Lorraine (Alex) some time before curtain–up on opening night. Alex has already gotten into costume as Lorraine. I took a couple of this costume moment and this one has the most of Alex in shot which helps the viewer resolve Dave’s gaze and the focus of his conversation. There is a strong diagonal in the composition, helped by the fact that Dave was actually leaning to his right when I took the shot. Whilst the shirt is part of his costume, it isn’t necessarily strong enough as a costume shot, but it is a nice moment between the protagonists of the on-stage kiss before they assume their roles completely and adopt the personae of Mal’ and Lorraine.

The Laugh.

I anguished about this shot for the longest out of all the shots for the assignment. The reason for the hesitation is that there is another shot, taken just before this one where Karen – who we see out of focus here, is in sharp focus and is telling the story that now we see Sharon bursting out laughing about. I chose this because there is a line of travel in the image. The viewer naturally starts with Karen’s face, which is out of focus, but sees it is inclined to her right, the viewers left and this takes us to Sharon who is in sharp focusing and who is laughing like a drain. It is this effect of capturing this event, which, whilst it is a moment carries with it it’s own narrative. The laugh as a result of something that has happened (in this case a story of some sort) between these two people. The bodies are leaning in apparent opposition though strangely seem in sync; with each other. I’m not sure again, whether another crop would help this, though the bright “blob” top right is a bit of a visual encumbrance.

This shot was mostly acceptable although the suggested crop above was thought to perhaps convey the moment better. I'm still not sure but will live with it for a while to see how it works for me. Another comment was made about both ladies being in focus, which is the shot that I intentionally moved away from when I made this final selection - something to think about going forward.

Mirror four, a nightmare.

This shot is one of my favourites. Shot into a set of wall mirrors, this picture has a rich set of metaphors that I noticed as I took it. The two characters that have lost some of their head are players due to go on stage shortly. The two characters in the foreground, whilst out of focus are back stage support who are relied upon to be absolutely reliable. And Emma, a director, who is central to the picture is only slightly visually aberrated – almost as if she has nearly got it all together. Verity, whose face has left her, seems almost as if she is waiting for her mask to be put on before going on stage, Ken’s head, his memory, his lines seem to have deserted him, both recurring nightmares for actors. The stage is back to front, another recurring incubus for actors is where the set changes overnight and the visual props reappear somewhere else destroying some of the continuity of repetition – and the support staff gaily carry on, not realising anything is untoward.

I appreciate that some of these metaphors may be lost outside of the world of stage and I also have to say that this dystopian view of the play didn’t materialise and not only were both Verity and Kevin very good the whole cast performed brilliantly.

Too complex, too many illusions/allusions, too many backs. Firstly the backs are fronts as the ladies are reflected, but that doesn't matter, if the viewer doesn't get it, it has failed. It needs to go.

I have thought about something that my tutor said about the connection between the players and the audience, about trying to depict that conversation. I did take a number of shots during the performance and have decided to put this up to see how I feel about things for a while.

Here I have made use of the mirror again, this time to place the production in the middle of the audience. I am conscious of two things: firstly the number of backs in the picture, my tutor suggests it is symptomatic of timidity to have people's backs rather than fronts on view, however it would be a brave man to get in front of an paying member of the audience during a production and start snapping away! Secondly, It is a complex picture, so it may fall away after I have looked at it for a while.

The final bow.

Well not quite, as the show continued after this for another night. But I wanted to have a closing shot and what better way than to have the entire cast receive their plaudits from an enthusiastic audience. There is an audible conversation when the cast receives an ovation from an appreciative audience. The cast communing as one as they bow in unison, the hands from the audience as one, applauding the performers. I think these players deserved their accolades and the audience appreciated their investment in the evening’s entertainment. I could have composed this shot better; there isn’t enough of the audience clapping. The viewer can see the hands but I don’t think nearly enough, though the framing of the players on stage is about right – the play is set in the back room of a pub and they are framed by the twin tables full of bottles and empty glasses.

I have only offered one shot in colour, I may change that as I develop some credible vernacular moving forward. I do feel this whole piece is now quite complex but I felt I needed to get this moving, and then come back to it. If I had left it much longer some of the energy I had worked up on the assignment may well have dissipated. I know I can't re-submit. I also know now that it is a weak assignment and will ultimately affect my assessment should I decide to carry on that far.

Mea Culpa

A bit naïve I suppose, either that or a bit simple – maybe a bit of both. There were so many areas where I missed out on assignment two. It seems that I have missed the point on some of the assignment photographs, I had also lacked confidence – with too many shots of people’s backs and had overcomplicated the theme; on the positive side there was one photograph where an alternate perspective wasn’t suggested.

A part of the naivety surrounds my assumption that any editing/manipulation wouldn’t be acceptable, well at least I know now that as long as it isn’t obvious then it is ok. Of course the fact that I had shot in digital and therefore had to convert to monochrome should have made it obvious to me that I had already manipulated the images - mea culpa. There was a suggestion that at least one of the images could have been in colour, well I had been told from another tutor some time ago to keep some consistency with the assignment so I kept them consistent; monochrome. Another mistake - mea culpa.

Where I made the biggest error was in not assuming that capturing the moment meant any moment, even ones that I had constructed by posing the people to be in “a moment”. I had thought that these moments needed to be sought and then captured – naïve or simple, either way, not a result.

There were a couple of suggestions that were made that would have been impossible, not that my tutor would have known as I didn’t explain. I couldn’t for example, go on-stage at the end of the show and take pictures of the players taking their ovations – there simply wasn’t enough room the way the set was built, and anyway I wouldn’t want to “take” away their applause.

The conversation motif was a bit "one-sided", not enough of the audience and, as I tried to depict it, all far too complex.

I have asked about what to do next, I can apparently tweak/edit the set and set out my responses to the feedback. However I feel as if I have missed the point by so much the likely ability to steer the ship back to a sensible course isn’t very likely. I wonder whether I will ever be able to get out of this photographic trench that I’ve dug for myself for the past twenty years or so, or whether I should plough on with what I was doing before.

Assignment 2 - The last conversation. The submission

These photographs were taken over 2 nights at an amateur theatre production of The Reunion, a comedy by Peter Gordon. I have followed the production from it’s first rehearsal, through the set building, the technical set-up and dress rehearsals leading up the opening 2 nights of performance, from where these photographers were taken.

I had a number of shots that I wanted to capture to describe the event, as if to a relative outsider to the process of a production of a performance. I was successful in some areas and less than successful in other areas. Where I failed was in obtaining a more than just competent “make-up” shot, those that I did obtain are included in my learning log and I think I could have done better with the “final bow”.

I was very pleased with some of the other shots, especially those that deal with the stress of an opening night, how actors cope with adoption of their roles as well as some of the “moments” in and around these people on a common cause. Some of these “moments” are personal, some are social, but the motif I have used to assemble this series is that of conversation. Theatre and acting are, in their simplest form, a means of communicating through visual and verbal means. Communicating to an audience and, at its limit, it is about communicating to “a” person, an individual member of the audience, in such a way as to engage that person and their fellow audience members to convey a story. It is a conversation, it relies, especially in comedy, on two way communication as the actors strive to engage their viewers. I did take some shots of the audience during the performance, but decided not to put them up here; rather this set is about the conversations prior to the performance, whether intensely personal or public.

Titles are for ease of recognition, though the photographs should be in the order as written about. I don’t normally title photographs.

Karen.

Opening night. Tense. More than half an hour to go as this shot was taken before the players move into the “green room” (so called because it is green). I think the composition works on this shot, right of frame with the rhythmic struts moving away from her. The focus is strong, centred on her eyes, her whole frame, exposed in this frame is in sharp focus, with the underlying thought that all of her is tense. Clutching her single prop, the handbag and holding her head as if to stop it exploding and staring as if to maintain focus on her entrance (third, after Verity and Ken) there appears to be an internal conversation with Karen and herself. I like this shot a lot – it seems to say a lot about the angst a player goes through before show time. I’m not sure how I would improve it. I felt instinctively that a portrait version would have been too static, although looking at it now, cropping at the first strut to Karen’s right would pictorially hem her in and maybe add to the tension. I have included a cropped version for comparison.

The “Lucky Programme” Prize

I suspect most amateur groups struggle for funds, this one is better off than most – due mainly to having members who write original work and don’t charge royalties (the second biggest cost of any production). So, apart from ticket sales, a raffle and a bar there is the “lucky programme prize”. Each charged for programme is numbered and the winner is drawn, as a lottery during the interval. This shot has Emma handing the winners prize to a member of the audience. The triangular construct (Emma, winner, bottle of wine) works well and is nicely balanced in the frame. However what amplifies its effect is another audience member looking up at the winner with a clear thought in his mind. Emma, is focused on the winner, who reciprocates, there is a clear conversation going on, both verbally and visually; but those other eyes add a complication to the conversation, as if they want to enter the conversation. It could be a challenge, it could be a need to congratulate – they certainly don’t look ill-willed toward the winner. Again I can’t think of a different crop, maybe a slight vignetting would help close the focus in on the area between Emma and the winner, though I think the reveal works better a little slower.

Kevin.

Opening night. I wasn’t aware that he wanted to speak to me. I was convinced he was in a moments pause, I also didn’t notice the bottle of wine in his hand. It was his gaze, his focus which seemed to detach him from the rest of the people in the Hall. The light was very strong, the west facing windows in the Hall can play havoc with stage lighting in late spring and summer shows and whilst most of the curtains had been drawn one had been left open providing a very strong contrast for Kevin, the soft “barn door effect” of the window edge cuts Emma off in a natural “toning down” of the left hand side and it’s effect can been seen coming into play on the right hand side. So, other than converting to monochrome, I didn’t need to do anything to separate Kevin from the world. There is a nice link between the two Directors and that is the “show-board” of photographs that almost connects them directly. The sharp focus of Kevin works very well. I have looked at a portrait crop and don’t think that it would improve the underlying sub text.

In fact Kevin was about to pay me for a commission he had given me after I had delivered some prints to him two days earlier, the wine was an additional gift. I had not noticed that the conversation was with me, not the viewer as I had imagined when I took the photograph.

Mugsy and Dave.

Mugsy (played by Jeff) and Dave who plays Mal’ (Malcolm). I phrased it this way as Mugsy is in role (costume) here, whilst Dave hasn’t donned the garb of Mal’ yet. I composed this shot through the mirror. The characters in the mirror are in focus, whilst out of the mirror the characters are out of focus. Mirrors have long been used in photography to develop narrative and this is no exception. There are three conversations going on here if we count the one of the three ladies reflected in the mirror. I shall focus on the two other ones. The real life conversation i.e. outside of the mirror is out of focus, could it be that they are role-playing? The in-focus is the reflected image, almost as if the surface of the mirror is the fourth wall that exists between actor and audience. There is a stage set in the mirror, a proscenium arch and tabs framing the action extremely well. Which life is real – the imaginary or the one in our zone? There are two expressions that we can see, neither is benign, Mugsy in the real world looks concerned, worried about what might be happening next, whilst Dave’s reflection looks almost angry, looking down on Mugsy. Mugsy is looked down on through most of the play, an army veteran with many references to Wesker’s character Smiler in “Chips with Everything” which is another play on class and pretension, though with a very different ending. I could have straightened the shot, but decided to leave with the edge of the imaginary proscenium arch anchoring the image, most everything else is “out of kilter”

Jeff.

I had taken a few of Jeff as he struggled to adopt the role on opening night. Where this shot worked better than the previous shots is the internal struggle is mirrored in the lighting of the shot. In the “green-room” there is only one light on – an angle poise lamp pointing generally into the room captures the left hand side of Jeff’s face (his right); when I looked at the image later it seemed to sum up that internal conversation Jeff was having with his fear, struggling to compose himself, to adopt the role. It is interesting that he always had his costume on long before anyone else, perhaps this also helped him to adopt the role. The very shallow depth of focus (which starts to run out just below his mouth) helps to isolate the “thinking” of Jeff. Monochrome is also a help I this shot. Not really sure how I would better this particular photograph with a different approach.

Three boys.

The Stage Manager sharing a moment with two customers at the bar; It could be a perfectly innocent moment or it could be a ribald remark. The centre of the image has the two men laughing heartedly at something. A moment in time, caught after a moment caused them to laugh. A moment later they would disperse. I saw the moment and took the image, I didn’t consider the leveling of the image at the time of taking and in this case I don’t think it detracts from the image, but I could try and shift the horizontal woodwork to level the image, but I think this crop helps in this case.

Emma.

In focus. Opening night. Less than an hour before curtain up. This is a shot about focus, Emma appears to be concentrating as if mentally reviewing a check list of the things that should be done and seeing if they have the green light. Off centre and to the left, other shots around this time had included Kevin, who, in clear concentration also, tended to be looking in another direction and visually confusing the “tightness” these two had generated in the preparation of their first production. I have thought about a portrait crop, but this looked very static, allowing this “off-centre” crop (as it was composed in camera) adds a bite of tension I feel. The eyes are very intense, much as Kevin’s were, albeit for different reasons.

Mal’ getting dressed.

This is the costume changing shot, in fact adopting the robes before curtain up (there are no costume changes to speak of in this show). The conversation between Mal’(Dave) and Lorraine (Alex) some time before curtain–up on opening night. Alex has already gotten into costume as Lorraine. I took a couple of this costume moment and this one has the most of Alex in shot which helps the viewer resolve Dave’s gaze and the focus of his conversation. There is a strong diagonal in the composition, helped by the fact that Dave was actually leaning to his right when I took the shot. Whilst the shirt is part of his costume, it isn’t necessarily strong enough as a costume shot, but it is a nice moment between the protagonists of the on-stage kiss before they assume their roles completely and adopt the personae of Mal’ and Lorraine.

The Laugh.

I anguished about this shot for the longest out of all the shots for the assignment. The reason for the hesitation is that there is another shot, taken just before this one where Karen – who we see out of focus here, is in sharp focus and is telling the story that now we see Sharon bursting out laughing about. I chose this because there is a line of travel in the image. The viewer naturally starts with Karen’s face, which is out of focus, but sees it is inclined to her right, the viewers left and this takes us to Sharon who is in sharp focusing and who is laughing like a drain. It is this effect of capturing this event, which, whilst it is a moment carries with it it’s own narrative. The laugh as a result of something that has happened (in this case a story of some sort) between these two people. The bodies are leaning in apparent opposition though strangely seem in sync; with each other. I’m not sure again, whether another crop would help this, though the bright “blob” top right is a bit of a visual encumbrance.

Mirror four, a nightmare.

This shot is one of my favourites. Shot into a set of wall mirrors, this picture has a rich set of metaphors that I noticed as I took it. The two characters that have lost some of their head are players due to go on stage shortly. The two characters in the foreground, whilst out of focus are back stage support who are relied upon to be absolutely reliable. And Emma, a director, who is central to the picture is only slightly visually aberrated – almost as if she has nearly got it all together. Verity, whose face has left her, seems almost as if she is waiting for her mask to be put on before going on stage, Ken’s head, his memory, his lines seem to have deserted him, both recurring nightmares for actors. The stage is back to front, another recurring incubus for actors is where the set changes overnight and the visual props reappear somewhere else destroying some of the continuity of repetition – and the support staff gaily carry on, not realising anything is untoward.

I appreciate that some of these metaphors may be lost outside of the world of stage and I also have to say that this dystopian view of the play didn’t materialise and not only were both Verity and Kevin very good the whole cast performed brilliantly.

The final bow.

Well not quite, as the show continued after this for another night. But I wanted to have a closing shot and what better way than to have the entire cast receive their plaudits from an enthusiastic audience. There is an audible conversation when the cast receives an ovation from an appreciative audience. The cast communing as one as they bow in unison, the hands from the audience as one, applauding the performers. I think these players deserved their accolades and the audience appreciated their investment in the evening’s entertainment. I could have composed this shot better; there isn’t enough of the audience clapping. The viewer can see the hands but I don’t think nearly enough, though the framing of the players on stage is about right – the play is set in the back room of a pub and they are framed by the twin tables full of bottles and empty glasses.

Karen, alternate crop. Not considered as part of the assignment entry

The Second Conversation

Assignment 2 : People and Place

Down - select stages two and three:

Stage two:

Spending time studying a diminishing number of photographs is not something I’ve done a lot of and there is something that I would like to say about each of these photographs that didn’t get to the next and subsequent final round. I’ll limit the comments to a selection and attempt to explain the process I’ve gone through.

As I said in my previous entry the constant narrative that I searched for in the selection process was that of “conversation”; I searched in the original set for conversations of varying types, literal, metaphorical, private and internal. I was also aware that I needed to bring as much to the final selection as the assignment required, which included activity explanations as well as “telling moments”.

The second round cut starts with one of the final shots of the whole series, the “curtain call”. As the players take their place and bow to the applause of the audience we can see (or not, as the case may be) different conversations taking place. This first shot, taken with a flash attachment, on the left has two conversation taking place in the row of players and a third one with the audience and the players. Some of the players are “in position” whilst the others are “poised”. The audience is at one with themselves applauding the stage. The reason it was culled is that to better depict the final bow it would be more appropriate to have the actors as one with the audience. The other curtain call misses the applause as this shot was taken without a flash and the audience is in the dark, though some detail is present in the blurred hand-clapping, it isn’t strong enough (and the cast seem a bit disorganized as well). I hadn’t used flash for any of the performance or the rehearsal period, using it only at the last moment on the last performance I went to.

Jean and Pat in conversation – connected at eye level by the visual contrivance behind them works well I think, Jean’s expression and Pat’s attentive regard also helps. I had deliberately included Pat’s reflection in the mirror behind (I have used the mirrors a few times in this assignment as devices in composition), but I think on this occasion it detracts. I also think that the foreground figure would have made this photograph more telling if it had been inclined to Jean’s expressive profile. Mike, who was "technical" (lights and sound) along with Bradley, for this show enjoying both a pre-show drink of bubbly (a group tradition on opening night) and a conversation with someone; it is the fact that it is a “someone” that it has failed at this stage – the image is unresolved. It must go.

Conversation's that are either ill-defined from a compositional perspective or where the conversation appears unresolved and therefore not really amplifying the assignment call as well as photographs that, well, simply don't make the grade compared to later ones.

A complex conversation, the females intent on each other, whilst the male is portraying an "informant" to the viewer. This could be taken as two differing humours, I don't know what either set is smiling about, but there definitely seems to be two conversations at two levels going on here. On the right we can see clearly the conversation on view. This greeting an "embrace" between old friends, intimate and private, it could possibly be a word from the one on the right of the picture to the other, it is almost certainly a kiss. If the "kissee" had been more in shot then maybe it might have moved forward!

Getting changed. There isn't a changing room as such, the players get changed when and where they can. This show has a minimal set of costume changes, so there is little room for embarrassing moments, though in other shows decorum and tact need to play a significant part in the proceedings... I wanted to have some costume moments in the series. This one with Dave and Ken pre-show has them in conversation whilst donning the role. The shot on the right has a young person in one conversation via the mobile 'phone and as a mute correspondent in another conversation as the older person looks down on her. If there had been more tension in the photograph it might had made it further forward.

These two are in an animated conversation, ignorant of the rest of the world; but the shot is relatively placid and without a great deal of energy. Whereas there is a lot of energy in Jeff's profile as he prepares for his first entrance on opening night. I did two shots here - see later, and this one is worse in terms of blurring. There is motion blur around his head as he gets himself in the right state of mind for his entrance. Different players have different routines to get themselves across the boundary. I decided to talk about this particular shot as there is a nice allegorical statement about focus and blur, state of mind and approach to the entrance. The notes that surround him are the Stage Manager's notes. I think it portrays a good sense of tension, but this didn't make the cut as I think a better one did.

Third round cut before moving to the final phase I realised I needed to cut more to make the assignment number requirement.

I was torn with this image on the left. Karen and Sharon involved in a private conversation. Karen graphically telling some part of the story and appearing to demonstrate with her hands under her bust; I think the link at this point with the production is helpful as Sharon holds the script towards the viewer. There is an intensity in Karen’s eyes and Sharon doesn’t need to be in focus, I feel there is enough of her in view (although out of focus in the main) to know that it is a conversation and between two people. There is a shot that I took moments after that I have chosen which is why this shot flounders at this stage. Another attempt at a make-up shot. This time the action is even more intimate, the application of lipstick with both the player and the make-up artist in focus and both caught in a reasonable composition. Hands on faces, hands close to lips, the player’s eyes on the process in front of her. Not many people get this close.

These two were the last to go. I was reluctant to chop the Make-up shot as I had reviewed the photographs from the first night and vowed to make an improvement. I decided to move in closer for these shots, to capture the intimacy and the connection better. This viewpoint make it difficult to get a visual connection between the faces of the two, but this one - discarded after it's twin shot below - seemed to offer most. There is a steady focus on Ken's face allowing the movement of the powder brush to do it's work, so there is physical connection, but maybe because the eyes are closed (for very good reason) it didn't make enough of a connection with the viewer and so failed at the last. This is disappointing as I wanted a make-up shot in the final down select and failed. The other last minute rejection has Pat and Jean in conversation. Pat in flow, engaged at eye level and fully in focus - on safe ground as it were, whilst Pat, out of focus is in abeyance in this shot.

Which leaves the final assignment selection