Initial Response
“The Rimers of Eldritch” is an American play set in 1960s Missouri, written by Lanford Wilson. Published in 1967, it follows the journey of the occupants in a town entitled ‘Eldritch’ through the event of a murder and the subsequent court trial. Initially, I found the jumps between timelines hard to follow as I am used to reading plays in chronological order, therefore I read each scene twice to realize its place in the structural timeline. This deepened my knowledge, sparking ideas I could offer in the first rehearsal. I came to enjoy Lanford Wilson’s use of anachronism, which excited me as I wondered how our director would bring this to life naturalistically. Upon reaching the final scenes, I was perturbed by the events and intrigued how they would be approached, as I believe this subject matter needs to be tackled consciously and maturely. I was attracted to Wilson’s subtextual writing, connecting all characters through unspoken/hidden words and rumours. We formulated a ‘character connections’ diagram, furthering my excitement as I was interested in finding character nuances within this ensemble of two-faced secrets and lies.
Research/World of the play
Lanford Wilson wrote mainly from past experience, scribing about the ‘losers and lost of society’. His writing is best described as ‘lyrical realism’ – combining emotionally authentic realist drama with heightened, poetic language. We found that Rimers of Eldritch was based on his teenage years in Ozark in the 1950s; he wished to give a voice to the people he knew, depicting rural characters as intelligent, complicated humans. Rimers explores the darker side of small-town life as Wilson believed secrets and violence lurked beneath the surface, which I believe is prevalent throughout the play.
To formulate the world of the play, we researched character relationships, connections and the town itself. We created a family tree and a mind-map of names and lines between each character, connecting them via relationship, friend or sleeping-with. This helped me understand where I sit in the hierarchal town community, aiding me in forming detailed character choices. The town map helped us visualize our environment, grounding me in the space. I researched religious views at the time, as Missouri’s placement in the Bible Belt meant any news on religion would’ve been highly important to their culture. This helped me better understand the time-period of the play and the characters’ worlds, aiding in my connection to character.
Toxic Masculinity was a major conversation throughout this process. We found that in the 1960s, there were many stereotypes you had to follow to ‘be a man’, such as being non-emotional, in-control, ‘dominant’, and beating your wife seen as doing no wrong. Therefore, my character, Josh, and the other men would have grown up in a world that encouraged these stereotypes, most likely driven by their fathers and older male counterparts. Knowing that I had to play someone who held these viewpoints made it harder for me to connect to the character, as I’m not at all similar to Josh and therefore his actions and language made me struggle to enter his mindset, pushing me out of my comfort zone.
Josh
Josh is in his early 20s and the son of one of the ‘wealthier’ families of the town. When reading through the play I perceived Josh to be a violent character, mainly interested in himself and his desires. I found that this behaviour stems not only from male influence through generations, yet also from societal pressure and stereotypes on men at the time. I tried to see Josh from an impacted point-of-view, inflicted with these ideas and views from a young age. Yet, I couldn’t shake the thought that he knew this, and continued projecting a cruel nature. I found this hard to embody, as I don’t have experience of being raised in this environment with these beliefs. Throughout the process I found many techniques that helped me obtain this mindset, such as Animal Links. I found in violent moments with a character called Skelly, he could’ve fatally damaged him but chose not to. This began to generate character ideas of emasculation, societal pressure and ‘all bark no bite’ – strength and violence was strongly linked to masculinity in the 1960s. This impacted my analysis of how he wishes to be perceived as a strong, masculine male, yet is being internally suppressed by his inability of living up to that image. I believe he is secretly trying to prove this ideology to himself as well as society, building an image to match the one that has already been created for him.
Process/Scene Work
Applying my process to a character for the first time was interesting, as I was able to experiment and discover what worked, and what didn’t. The first few days of the process was table work and research; we read through the play and discussed each major theme, unit-ed the text and talked about our character/scene findings. This helped further my understanding of the play, and how we would approach each theme and present it to an audience. Furthermore, I believe it ensured we were all on the same page. This put me at ease knowing each decision I made wouldn’t be out-of-line, therefore I tailored my character work and research to Jess’s image. This helped me construct an initial image of Josh, giving me a physical base to begin experimenting with.
After being cast, we began rehearsing using call times. I would enter the space early each day to vocally and physically warm-up. This helped me loosen my body and vocal muscles so that I could create the image required for my character, as his movement is vastly different to mine. I found articulation difficult within the accent, therefore I tailored my vocal warm-up to include tongue twisters in the accent, ensuring I could be properly understood. We began working with costumes halfway through the process, which I found useful as I don’t fully feel like the character until I am wearing their clothes. It helped me discover and position my character’s physicality, as the vest and flannel gave me a loose posture and air of freedom and confidence.
I enjoyed the utilisation of call times, as it gave me a chance to offer my thoughts in a welcoming environment and freely explore my character. We began with broad brush strokes, which helped me further understand who my character is, and what he desires from the scene. We then went into longer, more detailed rehearsals, allowing me to apply my research and revised objectives to more in-depth, analytical work. Upon reflection, I enjoyed working with broader strokes, before taming it down. I often worried about being ‘wrong’, as notes I received would differ from the character image I had formulated in my mind. These broader sessions gave me the freedom to explore differing variations of my character, as I felt safe to try new versions without the thought of being ‘wrong’.
I used Stanislavski’s intentions and objectives throughout this process. I feel this aided my sense of direction in a scene, as sometimes I entered scenes without a clear objective and I felt I didn’t have a purpose being there. Jess would discuss objectives with us before each scene which I then added to my script, encouraging us to follow our impulses. This helped me to pinpoint what I wanted and bring this into the scene. We would sometimes change the objective to see what a different thought might bring. I found this exciting, as it kept the scene vibrant and beating and I felt I had the freedom to explore new intentions. I felt this exploration helped me connect to Josh’s impulsive personality.
I found animal links and Laban useful in finding physicality and intention. I chose a Gorilla due to their confident, strong image. This helped find a new energy in Josh, as I found it helped me move with purpose and bring the instinctive nature into the work, making him a confident yet unpredictable character to watch. Laban also aided my process; I chose a Punch, as I felt it gave me the sense of anger and malice that Josh carries. I enjoy how Laban can impact both vocal and physical work, so I utilised it to explore various ways of delivering emotion. I discovered I sometimes carry only one main emotion with me throughout a scene, yet as humans we feel many things at once. In a scene with Bernadette, I was playing anger from the start, even though I realised Josh hasn’t been given the ‘cue’ to be angry yet. Therefore, I utilised a Float at the beginning to introduce a new energy, which then developed into anger. I felt a lot more present in the scene as it felt more humane – I had something to build to, meaning I could portray the emotional rise. I felt this brought greater horror to the events of the scene.
We completed many games and exercises to build ensemble connection. One of these was an improvisation wherein we are all in church. I have always seen improvisation as being ‘funny’, and I worry that I am unable to produce humour on the spot. This exercise dispelled this for me, as beforehand I told myself I wouldn’t try to be funny or force anything, just be true to the character. I felt free in the space, able to make choices without worrying about being ‘wrong’. I felt connected with other characters as we were all active in the moment. I thought this helped me access that playful, unpredictable energy present within Josh. It also helped me connect to Josh’s intentions, discovering his emotion instinctively instead of analytically.
Script Work
Breakthrough Moments/Challenges
One of my biggest challenges was the Intimacy scene. I hadn’t undertaken this kind of work before, and was anxious about it appearing naturalistic. We began by checking-in with each other through body-mapping, and then marking out where the moments of intimacy occur by using a hi-five and the word ‘kiss’ as placeholders. We tried it at 50%, 75% and 100%, and then slowly put the intimacy in, working each moment multiple times to ensure comfortability. This gave me stability in each moment. After a few run-throughs with Jess, Bernadette and Myself in the space, I felt a lot more confident with the flow and action of the scene. I was worried about fully committing to the scene because of the horrible nature of what Josh does, yet found that checking-in with Bern each time helped me understand I am not impacting her in this way, easing my mind. A breakthrough moment came during a full run. I committed to the actions of the scene and felt the anger course through my body, allowing me to be vulnerable and bring this to the surface. I had struggled to reveal this emotion in the scene before as I was worried it would be ‘too much’, but instead I found it fuelled the character’s intentions. After this moment, I felt increasingly comfortable to explore these emotions in front of others and trust my instincts and impulses. We made sure to check-out each time, which I found useful and grounding.
Another one of my biggest challenges was committing to the character. At first, I struggled to bring myself to fully commit 100% to being this character due to his malicious nature. I was worried about being judged for actioning the violent events he performs, but by reminding myself that the company would never do that, I felt more contented. I feel part of this was because of my uncertainty on who Josh was and how I was playing the role. I discovered that I overthink about how my portrayal of a character is reading, which decreases my presence in the space. I didn’t have a detailed understanding of his motivations or objectives at first, making it harder to commit to the role. I felt I was holding myself back for fear of revealing his true nature, yet a breakthrough moment came in a fight call with Skelly, wherein Josh ambushes and beats him. I had been holding back until Ruben gave me feedback to just ‘go for it’. Having this reassurance made me feel comfortable enough to try it, and after the scene finished I realised I had found that final push, giving me the confidence to truly commit to the role. I found it’s in this moment I shared an understanding with the audience; we both learned the true nature of who Josh is, and that there’s nothing we can do about it.
Evaluation
This process has taught me much about myself as an actor. I worry about my portrayal of emotion, yet can adapt, finding new ways of delivering text truthfully. I have learned to trust my instincts instead of overthinking my work. I am so proud of my group, what we have achieved, and am grateful for their unwavering generosity and kindness. Producing uncomfortable work has opened my eyes to the impact it truly has on an audience, and I can’t wait to carry what I have learnt into future projects.
