We spent the next term deepening our work on Uta Hagen with Alex. We began working on Hagen’s Object Exercises, detailed in her book Respect for Acting (Hagen and Frankel, 1973). We workshopped techniques like Endowment (fig. 4), Substitution, and Sense Memory to create a fully realised performance with depth. I found this to be the most challenging class of the year because it was so technical. I especially struggled with the “Moment to Moment” searching task as I struggled to put expectations out of my mind while repeating the exact same actions. However, this proved to be one of the areas I grew the most as an actor since it greatly expanded my technical understanding, allowing me to create performances that were not only more believable but read as such to an audience. Hagen’s Fourth Side exercise, the idea that “whatever object you wish to see must be anchored to something which you can see is really there” (Hagen and Frankel, 1973), completely revolutionised how I go about “setting a scene”.

We then returned to working with Tom, as we looked at the play Ruffian on the Stair (Orton, 1967). We worked towards creating a 5-minute non-verbal piece in our character’s life. Outside of class, I researched the playwright Joe Orton by watching Prick Up Your Ears (1987), which helped me understand both the period setting of the play and the context in which it was written. This assessment was where the work with Tom and Alex combined to really pay off. I felt I was able to synthesize the Stanislavski techniques, like thinking about Given Circumstances and the Uta Hagen techniques (especially the Object Exercises) to create a believable, well-realised scene and stay “in it.” My feelings were validated by my feedback, achieving a final grade of 70. My next step is to make even bolder choices, for which I want to explore heightened states of emotion to raise the stakes.

One of the times I was best able to access this was when working on a scene from Frances Ha (2012). The script specified the characters eating and talking, and since I found it impossible to control how the eating would affect the scene, the result was a lot more natural and unpredictable, with some lovely moments of connection (fig. 5).  As we went on with more takes, we were able to try different angles, and I found trying something new that didn’t work just as valuable because it highlighted the things that did. This is where the recorded nature of the unit was most useful for me, since it let me look back on my choices and understand how they read.

Going into next year, I am excited to move out of the studio and into screen acting in different spaces. My most important takeaway is this idea of letting go of the script, trusting that as an actor, I know the lines and the impulses of the scene will take me through them in the most naturalistic way.

I have always believed that good vocal technique is a hugely important part of acting that is often underutilised, so it was one of the areas I was most excited about coming into this training. Through our work with Jo, we studied voice from a technical standpoint. This meant developing an understanding of our voices and creating an in-depth, personalised warm-up. While I knew I had lots to learn, I felt ready to tackle this due to previous training with Hannah Benjamin, a voice teacher who greatly helped me before. My main feedback on this unit was to be more confident in my technique. I realised if I’m holding back during warming up, I won’t actually warm my voice, so this was a big turning point for me. Jo commended me on my use of sighing, something I’d worked on prior, and I was able to synthesise this with her work on vocal muscularity.

Working with Chris taught us how to implement vocal technique while looking at text. We did this through our work on “I” poems and modern sonnets. We developed these performances through exercises detailed in The Need for Words (Rodenburg, 1993). This work helped me a lot with understanding the drive of what I was saying, to avoid losing power when speaking. The playful nature of exercises like the “I Don’t Believe You” exercise (fig. 7) and “The Stressing Game” allowed me to bring variety that made my delivery sound more lively and natural. I realised a big part of working on poetry for me is finding a personal connection and letting that inform my choices.

We then began work on our assessment, where we had to present two pieces of text – a narrative and a sonnet. Looking at character voices with Lily, we focused on finding range in our voice and different ways of using it. I found this harder as I was performing a naturalistic piece, Norwegian Wood (Murakami, 2000). I was, however, able to implement my accent work with Jess to create the twang of an older female character and suggest a different background to the other characters, since I was working with translated text, which is the kind of bold choice I want to make more of. Jo helped me go bolder and lighter with the younger female character, which I found the most challenging. My feedback reflected this – I was very happy with my score of 70, but my main area for improvement is developing the same confidence in my higher register as in my lower. Perhaps a children’s story would have made my work easier, as I could have been more heightened.

Looking at sonnets with Jo was our first time working on Shakespeare at LCON. The earlier work on pentameter with Chris helped, and we used a lot of similar exercises to the Rodenburg work. The delivery came quite naturally to me, but a lot of the hard work was in personalising the text to convey the meaning through my delivery. I learned I needed to understand the language inside out to do this, and Jo showed me how I needed to make considered choices to make similar sounds (e.g., the phrase “eye I eyed”) distinct and understandable, by varying pace and tone.

In contrast to Spoken Voice, which I feel I had a decent amount of experience with coming into this course, Sung Voice was a much more nerve-wracking experience for me. Through ensemble singing with Craig, we were able to work on developing our voices as a class in a judgment-free space. I appreciated the warmup work, where the focus for me was on identifying my comfortable range and working on strengthening then pushing that, rather than immediately aiming for notes out of my comfort zone.

Solo singing is where I struggled the most this year. Due to the unfortunately inconsistent schedule of my lessons, it was hard to track my progress without feedback, and a lot of the time, I was unsure if I was working in a positive or negative direction. This made me petrified of singing my solo (fig. 9) in ensemble singing, as I felt unprepared in the work I was doing. My proudest moments in this unit were when I got up and sang regardless – it may seem like the smallest amount of progress, but it was a very significant hurdle for me to jump.

Through Craig’s feedback, I have established I have a nice tone, but going forward in training, my work will be to use the voice warm-ups we use on things like fricatives to make achieving a variety of sounds easier, and the overall sound more confident. Working with Jacob again, I am focusing on better understanding the notation to achieve accurate character and vocal phrasing in my work, so I can have the level of musical knowledge needed to perform in a play-with-song, for example.

Donald’s lessons focused on teaching us different styles of dance and how to implement dance as actors. The first unit involved devising our own dance solos. I found this intimidating because I don’t have much experience in this and struggled with creating a varied performance, but I was proud of how I engaged with the task of making a piece that was personal to me, with weight and emotional connection behind it.

Our next project would lead into our movement assessment – learning a Speakeasy-inspired Dance (fig. 15). This was challenging due to the more technical choreography, which we had to develop a lot. I felt I rose to the challenge, however. A moment of pride for me was getting all the steps down accurately, as I often struggle with coordination, and this required a lot of it. In the assessment, even when I slipped up, I was able to recover, maintaining character throughout and resuming the correct moves without letting it slip.

Going forward, I want to work on developing specificity while also showing character through all elements of my physicality. I was happy with my assessment feedback and felt proud that the tutors had seen me develop in confidence over the year. In second year, I want to strengthen this so I can feel prepared when a show calls for some dancing skills.

Animal Studies seemed like a drama school “rite-of-passage” and I couldn’t wait to get stuck in. Our work with Tilda began by researching animals, watching footage, and observing them in person. I took a trip to West Yorkshire Wildlife Park to see animals up close, and it was through this observation that I decided on the red panda (fig. 16).

The observation-oriented approach got me thinking about movement in ways I never had before. For example, we did a lot of detailed work on our animals’ spines and how that affects their movement. I rarely think about my spine while acting, but this allowed me to implement the work with Zoe and Carly to effect a physical transformation.

Trying long-form physical improv for the first time was intimidating (and tiring) but hugely rewarding. I discovered that giving the time to just “exist” as my animal helped me become immersed in the reality of it and let me understand their inner workings better, which had a positive effect on my physicality.

I was grateful to be working on the same animal as Mae – red pandas are not pack animals, so our small moments of interaction held more weight, which helped me in the sharing. It also meant I had someone to share the “nerdy moments” and breakthroughs Tilda encouraged us to have. I was fortunate enough to watch Tatty Hennessy’s production of Animal Farm (2025) during this module (fig. 17). The way the actors implemented their physicality to evoke the animals they were playing both showed me how I can apply this work in my acting, and emboldened me to take more risks during the project, especially as we moved towards anthropomorphising our animals.

If I were to continue with this, I would make sure to keep going back to my references to ensure my work stayed as accurate as possible. I will try to carry this specificity of movement through to my work in second year.

In our first unit, we looked at Greek Theatre, with my group focusing on Eros and Aphrodite: Love in the Western World. I researched various takes on the same Greek story, from Hippolytus (Euripides, 428 BC) to Phaedra’s Love (Kane, 1996). This project was one of the hardest, largely because I think I misinterpreted the brief. We approached this as a devising project in response to a concept (a modern take on the Symposium (Plato, trans. 1999)), when the focus was actually on the research and implementing those concepts in our approach to work. In a way, during this first project, I learned the most by failing, as it gave me a better idea of what to focus on next.

Next, we examined the “Death of Tragedy”, with my group looking at Neoclassicism vs Romanticism. We focused on Jean Racine’s performance style and how it contrasted with a romantic approach to theatre. Understanding the ideological core of Neoclassicism proved crucial to performing in this style, and to better understand this, I read The Idea of A Theatre (Fergusson, 1949). Fergusson’s analysis of Berenice (Racine, 1700) helped me see Neoclassicism as the “theatre of reason”. I believe we then conveyed the style and intent of Racine’s work in our final performance (fig. 19). It was hard not to move about the stage or gesture naturally, but it made me consider how intent influences characters, and allowed us to implement our work on proxemics and status.

We then moved into “Reactions to Realism”, with my group examining the Theatre of the Absurd. We initially read a variety of later “absurdist-influenced” plays, such as Accidental Death of an Anarchist (Fo and Richards, 1980), before deciding to look at the “root” by performing a section of Waiting for Godot (Beckett, 1952). (Fig. 20) Here, the theory really started to influence the work for me, through the philosophical work The Myth of Sisyphus (Camus, 1942), helping me make sense of what the absurd is about. I had attempted scenes from Godot while studying at school, and it was interesting to return years later with a more informed understanding of Camus’ absurdist view that “life has no meaning, but we search for one anyway”. I feel we conveyed this ideology well, though I want to lean more into the abrupt changes in character to apply absurdist theory to my acting style.

Finally, we began our assessment project, presenting a “Theatre of the Absurd for the 21st Century”. We decided to research postmodernist theatre through the works of playwrights like Martin Crimp and Caryl Churchill. Using The Death of Character (Fuchs, 1996) as a reference point, we wanted to explore how the breakdown of traditional character in postmodern theatre reflects the breakdown of 21st-century identity. To make our work relevant, we researched the effects of social media on identity and implemented postmodernist techniques to convey this disconnect. We presented our research in a presentation (figs. 21 and 22), and performed an original staging of a scene from Attempts on Her Life (Crimp, 1997) influenced by the research.

Talking to Ben after the project, our feedback showed our concept was strong, but there needed to be a little more evidence on how we got to our idea of character and identity from absurdism. In contrast, Ben said the work on Elinor Fuchs and the practitioners she highlighted felt clearer, which I am proud of, as that is the area I researched. Overall, we had a solid background understanding, but could push further with the performance – Ben suggested more extreme changes in character would make the work more dramatically dynamic and support our argument more.

Next, we examined different creative practices, best emphasised by visiting artists (fig. 23). We worked with various creatives and companies to gain an understanding of their style of work. Dark Horse’s workshop especially resonated with me – as a theatre company that trains actors with learning disabilities, their approach to accessibility in the rehearsal room was something I’d never properly considered, but realised is important to me. Rehearsing with minimal chat helped me maintain focus and is something I want to incorporate into my process. I also found Next Door But One’s crash course on Playback theatre a useful tool for devising. I’m often wary of misrepresenting other people’s stories, so learning alternative ways to interpret and create from them taught me you can make respectful work that doesn’t just replicate what you’ve been told. I plan to use these workshops as a reference point when rehearsing devised work in the future.

We finished the unit with a new work festival, where I achieved my long-time dream of directing a short film (fig. 24).

Coming into this year, I was excited, yet uncertain. As it comes to a close, I feel I am growing into a more assured creative with an idea of the kind of actor I want to be. My goal this year was to strengthen my technique, and our skills work has helped me achieve this. I am more confident when it comes to voice, movement, and acting techniques, but most importantly, I believe I can use them healthily and effectively. That’s not to say I’ve stopped learning – throughout next year I want to further develop these skills by applying them to my work on text.

As I approach second year, I’m excited to begin work on projects. I greatly enjoyed the current second years’ American Theatre projects, and I feel ready to delve into an area of theatre history I’m less familiar with. I also want to continue my professional development in my free time – Matt taught me the importance of exposing yourself to new work and getting familiar with the people who make it, so I will make it my goal to see and read as many plays as I can.

One recurring area of feedback for me across the board was to make bolder choices, so next year I want to make as many bold offers as possible, even if they’re wrong. I want to make use of the skills I’ve learned this year to inform these choices in the rehearsal room  – utilising proxemics, viewpoints, object exercises, and more. I am proud of my growth as an actor this year. I believe this year of skills training has helped me approach acting in a way that feels more informed by technique, but less inhibited by overthinking. It’s been a challenge moving to a new city and supporting myself through this new chapter, but it’s been one of the most rewarding years of my life. I have found new acting heroes in practitioners like Uta Hagen and Patsy Rodenburg, and used their work to tangibly elevate my performance ability. Thanks to my time at Leeds Conservatoire this year, I was able to land my first paid theatre gig (fig. 25) at Leeds Playhouse (Please Right Back, 2024) and even secured summer work with other students after successful self-tapes utilising our training. Most importantly, I have found an environment where I feel supported to continue growing, and made friendships that I hope will endure throughout my career.