Download Written by Ben Woolf Edited by Sam Maynard and Katherine Igoe

Written by Ben Woolf
Edited by Sam Maynard and Katherine Igoe-Ewer
Rehearsal and Production Photography by Johan Persson
R
R
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
Contents
Introduction3
Section 1:
Background to CLOSER4
CLOSER: An introduction
5
Characters6
Section 2:
CLOSER in Context
10
The Donmar’s Production
15
Cast and Creative Team
16
Rehearsal Diaries
17
An Interview with Playwright Patrick Marber
21
An Interview with the Cast of CLOSER26
Section 3:
Resources30
Spotlight on Deborah Andrews, Costume Supervisor
31
Workshop Exercises 35
Bibliography39
2
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
Introduction
Welcome to this Behind the Scenes Guide to the Donmar Warehouse production of Patrick
Marber’s CLOSER, directed by David Leveaux.
The following pages contain an exclusive insight into the process of bringing this production
from page to stage.
Written by playwright and director Patrick Marber, CLOSER was critically acclaimed when it
premiered at the National Theatre in 1997, winning Olivier, Evening Standard and New York
Drama Critic’s Circle Awards. It has since been produced in the West End, Broadway, around
the world and adapted into an international movie. This is its first major London revival.
This guide aims to set the play and the production in context. It includes conversations with
Patrick Marber and the cast who bring the characters to life. There are also extracts from
Resident Assistant Director Zoé Ford’s rehearsal diary and practical exercises designed for use
in the classroom.
The guide has a particular focus on costume and includes a conversation with Deborah
Andrews, the production’s costume supervisor, whose role is crucial in finding the right look for
each character.
We hope you find this guide interesting and informative. To view the Behind the Scenes Guides
for other productions please visit www.donmarwarehouse.com/discover/resources
The cast of CLOSER and
Director, David Leveaux
3
Section 1:
Background to CLOSER
Nancy Carroll
4
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
CLOSER: An introduction
‘I believe a play should be whatever someone makes of it on
the night. It is ephemeral. I’m always nervous about making
pronouncements as a playwright because what I have to say about
the play is the play. I can tell you when I wrote it. But I can’t tell you
why. It’s mysterious to me. And I quite like that.’
Patrick Marber
CLOSER follows four characters in contemporary London as their romantic lives intertwine.
Each of the characters pursues their own desires, and discovers what happens when these
wants come into contact with those of the other characters.
The play is set in London over a period of four years. It dramatically explores complex themes
of sexual desire, jealousy and betrayal. More than anything, though, CLOSER is a play about its
characters – Dan, Alice, Larry and Anna – and what they do to each other. We learn their most
intimate thoughts and secrets but at the same time, almost nothing about their lives beyond
the time we spend with them. What little biographical information there is lies scattered
throughout the play, with truth and lies often imperceptible from one another.
CLOSER is not an academic or polemic text. It’s a tightly written story about these characters
and their specific experiences – told from their unique perspectives.
Director, David
Leveaux
5
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
Characters
ALICE – Rachel Redford
‘Men want a girl who looks like a boy. They want to protect
her but she must be a survivor. And she must come... like a
train... but with... elegance.’
Alice Ayres – Act 1, Scene 1
Alice meets Dan on Blackfriars Bridge after she is hit by a taxi. She has been out clubbing and
carries, it seems, all her worldly possessions with her in a rucksack. She is, she says, ‘a waif’.
Alice gives us a few tantalising – and conflicting – facts about her life. She has been working
as a stripper in New York. Her parents apparently died in a car accident. And, on her leg, she
carries a distinctive scar, shaped like a question mark.
Zoé Ford,
nt
Resident Assista
Director
‘As an audience, we are never quite sure if Alice has in fact told
the truth about anything with regards to the events in her life.
Her character is constantly evolving throughout the play; her only
fixed characteristic being the scar on her leg. It is interesting to
note, however, that even this becomes a symbol of reinvention,
as she provides several different explanations of how and when
she received it. The explanation given is always that which will
have the greatest effect on that specific listener, in that specific
situation. She uses it at different moments to provoke either
sympathy, interest or desire; it is a tool used to intensify her
relationship with other people.’
Although Alice might be seen to be passive – she says to Dan, ‘I never look where I’m going.’
– she is not, perhaps, always to be taken at face value. It’s interesting to consider the degree to
which she is skillful at manipulating perceptions of her.
‘I hope people at my age will relate to Alice. Because 24 is a strange, kind of annoying,
age. You’re not young enough to be young. But you’re not old enough to be older. You’re
only partly an adult. You’re kind of caught in the middle.’
Rachel Redford
POST SHOW
DISCUSSION
POINT
‘She seems very open to me…
That’s how she wants to seem.’
Anna and Larry on Alice
We learn some important biographical information about Alice
in the final scene. Should this retrospectively change the way
we think of her character in the previous scenes? When is she
at her most truthful?
6
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
DAN – Oliver Chris
‘I’m a... sort of journalist.’
Dan – Act 1, Scene 1
Of all four characters we can glean the most categorical backstory about Dan. We learn that he
is from the suburbs, that his mother is dead and his father is in a care home. At the beginning
of the play he is in a relationship with Ruth, a linguist, who we never meet.
Dan works as an obituary columnist. He says, ‘I had dreams of being a writer but I had no
voice. What am I saying? I had no talent.’
Zoé Ford,
nt
Resident Assista
Director
‘Dan is a complex, dichotomous character – he waxes lyrical
about beauty, love and life but in the end love ‘disappoints’ him.
He wants to be a writer but ‘doesn’t have a subject.’ He writes
a novel, but it is about Alice’s life, not from his own inspired
imagination. Even Alice questions: ‘do you have a single original
thought in your head?’ He has a lot of ‘grand artistic feelings’ but
they always fall short. He is constantly disappointed because he
refuses to concede his imagined life for reality.’
Dan’s pursuit of romantic fulfillment propels the plot of CLOSER. He meets and, in turn,
seduces each of the characters. It is Dan who, inadvertently, brings them to each other.
‘Dan is just a terrible romantic. He’s completely in the sway of love and jealousy and
self-destruction. He can’t get the better of his inability not to love people and it leads him
towards disaster.’
Oliver Chris
POST SHOW
DISCUSSION
POINT
‘Dan’s life is a compromise.’
Oliver Chris
What do you think Oliver means by this? How does this change
as the play unfolds?
Oliver Chris
7
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
LARRY – Rufus Sewell
‘What d’you have to do to get a bit of intimacy around here?’
Larry – Act 2, Scene 7
Larry is a doctor – a dermatologist. Unlike the other characters, Larry’s background is workingclass. When we meet Larry he is working for the NHS. As the play progresses, he takes a job
at a private practice and wonders whether this might make him a ‘sell-out’.
‘Larry’s journey through the play is nicely represented in the
discussion about his jumper in the Gallery scene: ‘I’ve never
worn cashmere before, I feel like Cinderella at the Ball.’ He has
Zoé Ford,
worked exceptionally hard to become a doctor but still, perhaps,
nt
ta
is
Resident Ass
feels a little uncertain of the status this job affords him. He is
Director
from a working class background and comes full circle through
the play moving from the NHS, to private medicine and back to
the NHS again – a journey triggered by falling in love with Anna
and wanting to give her the life he believes she deserves. He is a
wonderful doctor and subsequently has the observance to make him the most astute
of the characters – there are many moments throughout the play where he throws
startlingly sharp insight onto situations.’
Larry is often portrayed as older than the other characters. He was, he says, in flares when
Alice was in nappies. He also seems to be more capable of controlling his feelings and
ruthlessly competent in manipulating events – and people – to suit his purpose.
‘I think a strong part of Larry’s identity is that he doesn’t come from a background that
doctors usually come from. He’s aware of his identity. He’s proud. But it comes with a
certain complexity.’
Rufus Sewell
POST SHOW
DISCUSSION
POINT
‘You forget you’re dealing with a clinical
observer of the human carnival.’
Larry
As Dan and Anna’s relationship collapses, Dan says that Larry
truly ‘understands’. Later, Larry taunts Dan, saying ‘You don’t
know the first thing about love because you don’t understand
compromise.’
What is that Larry understands? How does this affect his
attitudes and behaviour?
8
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
ANNA – Nancy Carroll
‘They love the way we make them feel but not ‘us’. They love
dreams.’
Anna - Act 2, Scene 9
Anna is a photographer. She takes expensive portraits – first of strangers, then of derelict
buildings – to exhibit and sell to an apparent cosmopolitan elite.
Alice, at least, isn’t impressed, describing Anna’s work as a ‘Big Fat Lie’. Anna also takes
corporate jobs, leading her to meet Dan – photographing him for his book jacket.
Zoé Ford,
nt
Resident Assista
Director
‘Anna’s choice of photography is very telling; this is a solitary
career and she seems fascinated by desolation. First there are her
portraits which Alice describes as ‘just a bunch of sad strangers
photographed beautifully’ and then towards the end of the play
she is photographing derelict buildings. This seems indicative of
her emotional states at the time.’
When we meet Anna, we learn that she was married to a man who made money in the City
but has left her for a younger woman.
‘In my understanding of Anna, when we meet her she’s going through a rather messy
divorce. There’s a sense of separation and not quite knowing where she is. Certainly, she
isn’t ready to meet someone else.’
Nancy Carroll
POST SHOW
DISCUSSION
POINT
‘It’s not a competition.’
Anna, to Alice
Anna seems at first glance to carry a maturity and depth of
understanding in her dealings with the other characters. Given
her behaviour throughout the play, how real – or honest – is
this?
Rufus Sewell and
Nancy Carroll
9
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
CLOSER in Context
‘The production is set in the present day. But it’s not fetishistically present. It’s the
theatrical present, which is slightly different. They’re not using old style phones and old
style computers. It feels like it’s now.
The play never existed exactly now, anyway. It was always a heightened reality. It’s not a
naturalistic play.’
Patrick Marber
The Donmar’s CLOSER is not a period piece – it’s set in contemporary London, but outside of
a specific time. David Leveaux has cleverly constructed a production in which characters type
on the newest models of mac books, but still smoke inside public buildings. Nevertheless, it
is interesting to consider how this play relates to its original context – the 1990s – culturally,
socially and technologically.
Rachel Redford
10
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
Rufus Sewell
CULTURAL CONTEXT
The 90s were preceded by a period of deep cuts to the arts, overseen by Margaret Thatcher’s
government. In the West End, the 80s were the decade of the mega-musical; Phantom of the
Opera, Miss Saigon, Les Misérables and Cats all premiered in the 80s. By the decade’s end all
of these shows were running simultaneously in London.
These shows were huge hits with the British public. But it is noticeable that they were set,
respectively, beneath a Parisian opera house, in the Vietnam War, in 19th Century France and in
a magical world of singing cats. None seemed to speak with a particular urgency to young Brits
in their twenties and thirties.
Michael Billington points out,
‘It is no accident that the Thatcherite decade coincided with the dominance of the musical:
a form that combines celebration of individualism with sentimental uplift… individuals
triumph over circumstance leading to a transcendent apotheosis.’
Michael Billington in The Guardian – 3 August 2006
The 90s, though, saw young writers such as Patrick Marber, Sarah Kane, Mark Ravenhill,
Anthony Neilson and Jez Butterworth begin to write plays set in a recognizable contemporary
Britain with characters drawn from modern life.
Some journalists and critics grouped the plays of these writers as ‘In Yer Face’ theatre. The
name is a semi-humorous reference to the apparently antagonistic, confrontational sensibility at
the heart of these plays. Aleks Sierz, who popularized the expression, considers CLOSER:
‘Arguably the decade’s key play about relationships, and certainly one of the most
successful.’
Aleks Sierz (2001: 187), as quoted by Graham Saunders in Closer, Modern Theatre Guide
11
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
But whilst the In Yer Face plays – and their writers – are still sometimes lumped together, it’s
a condescending term that is better understood against what had gone before. Each of these
writers went on to produce a body of work completely different from the others. The plays
themselves, whilst sharing some superficial similarities, now appear radically different.
‘Patrick Marber’s CLOSER [and others of this generation of new plays] were seen and
discussed by people who ten years previously wouldn’t have bothered to go to see a new
play. In the wake of such successes, scores of young writers emerged and contributed to
the renaissance in new writing.’
Aleks Sierz, Introduction to In-Yer-Face Theatre: British Theatre Today
Nancy Carroll and
Oliver Chris
12
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
SOCIAL CONTEXT
‘The 90s were a jagged and violent decade. Day after day, the media brought news of
war and killing: terrorist bombs, ethnic cleansing and mass graves left indelible images on
the public imagination. The murder of a toddler by two ten-year-old boys in February 1993
became one of the key events of 90s Britain…’
Aleks Sierz, In-Yer-Face Theatre: British Theatre Today
Britain in the 90s was strange. For all that these negatives were real, it was also a time of
renewed confidence in Britain’s relevance to the world. It was the period of Trainspotting, the
Spice Girls, Britpop, Madchester, the dawn of New Labour and the election victory of Tony Blair.
British fashion led the world with an androgynous, grungy heroin-chic. This renaissance was
branded ‘Cool Britannia’ – a tag that immediately felt embarrassing.
Socially, it was a period that saw some slippage in the way some traditional identities were held
together. Conservative/Labour, gay/straight, woman/man. It’s interesting to consider how the
characters of CLOSER are grappling with the implications of this greater fluidity.
Nancy Carroll
13
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
TECHNOLOGICAL CONTEXT
‘The play is written in the summer of ‘96 in a nonline world. I had to go to an internet café
to research the possibility of Scene 3 [set in a sex chatroom]. I wasn’t online myself – I
didn’t have an email address.’
Patrick Marber
A pivotal – and memorable – scene in CLOSER takes place in an internet sex chatroom. Dan
seduces Larry, pretending to be a woman and adopting Anna’s name. Arguably, CLOSER was
the world’s first major play to explore the dramatic possibilities of the internet.
When the play first opened, audiences were astonished – and baffled – by what was unfolding
before them. As Patrick Marber recalls:
‘When the play was first presented in May ‘97 and we got to the internet scene, I would
say two thirds of the audience had no idea what they were watching. They had no
comprehension. Just… ‘Why are we reading rude things on a screen? What… Why are
they typing? What’s going on?’
And they watched it in fascinated, appalled silence – no laughs. Then the reviews came
out. And it was a time I was very conscious that the critics helped the play. The critics
wrote reviews saying, ‘And there’s a very funny scene set on the internet’. Then audiences
started laughing, for some reason. Not because they’d all read the reviews but it just
became permissible that this might be a funny scene. But at first it was very haunting and
disturbing – quite good. I quite liked it.’
Patrick Marber
It’s intriguing to think about what the play reveals about pre-internet romance and human
relationships. Contemporary mainstream media is awash with stories about the impact of the
online world on our capacity to make and maintain human relationships. Yet CLOSER certainly
seems to depict – in a pre-digital era – an alienation, sexual cynicism and fluidity of identity.
‘When this first came out, people really picked up on the internet scene. I think, perhaps,
in our production this scene won’t stand out in the same way [because audiences are
now more aware of the internet]. But perhaps that’s better. Perhaps that always just
pulled focus away from what the scene is about – which was two men being unbelievably,
mesmerically obscene to each other! So maybe time has balanced it for the better.’
Oliver Chris
14
Section 2:
The Donmar’s Production
Rufus Sewell
15
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
P
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
Cast and Creative Team
Cast (in order of speaking)
Alice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RACHEL REDFORD
Dan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OLIVER CHRIS
Larry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RUFUS SEWELL
Anna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NANCY CARROLL
Production
Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DAVID LEVEAUX
Designer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BUNNY CHRISTIE
Lighting Designer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HUGH VANSTONE
Sound Designer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FERGUS O’HARE
Video Designer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FINN ROSS
Composer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORIN BUCKERIDGE
Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WAYNE MCGREGOR
Casting Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ALASTAIR COOMER CDG
Production Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KATE WEST
Company Stage Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLAIRE SIBLEY
Deputy Stage Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MARY O’HANLON
Assistant Stage Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CATHERINE PEWSEY
Resident Assistant Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ZOÉ FORD
Costume Supervisor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DEBORAH ANDREWS
Video Programmer and Interactive Content . . . . . . . . . JONATHON LYLE
Production and Rehearsal Photographer . . . . . . . . . . . JOHAN PERSSON
16
Resident Assistant Director Zoé Ford’s Rehearsal
Diary
WEEK
ONE
W
eek 1 of rehearsals for CLOSER began with a warm
and welcoming meet and greet. The full Donmar
contingent was present to welcome and introduce
the CLOSER team, a wonderful meeting of all the different
components that will create this exciting production.
After everyone has been
introduced, we pop down to the
rehearsal room and begin a first
read of the script. It is immediately
evident that Rufus, Nancy,
Oliver and Rachel have a natural
chemistry; scenes are already
beginning to crackle.
After the read through, there is a
flurry of excitement as David starts
to describe his vision for the piece.
Although CLOSER is a well-known
play (and subsequent film), this
will be a new interpretation with
innovative and exciting staging and
projection.
Days two and three consist of
table work on the scenes; we were
blessed to have Patrick Marber with
us, offering humorous and moving
insight into the emotional world
of the play. CLOSER is extremely
emotionally complex and David
guides the actors through the
scenes, highlighting the emotional
poignancy and universality of many
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
Rehearsal
Diary
of the events that occur between
these characters. Unavoidably,
the nature of the piece results
in the team delving deep into
their own personal experiences
of relationship’s and it seems
that everyone in the team has
experience of most of the events
in the story. This is a play about
the heart and therefore sharing
experiences of love and loss is
endlessly beneficial. Very quickly
there is an air of trust and shared
understanding within the team.
On our fourth rehearsal day and
for the remainder of the week,
David gets scenes one to six up
on their feet – this is a play which
benefits from diving right in and
the cast fearlessly approach the
task. It is an exciting couple of
days with innumerable discoveries
and challenges which are tackled
with both moments of intense
discussion, and a lot of laughter.
We close the week feeling excited
and amazed at the progress made
in six days, and hungry for next
week’s rehearsal.
Designer Bunny
ely
CLOSER is extrem
Christie presents
lex
emotionally comp
her model box,
e
th
which is punctuated
and David guides
the
by gasps of
actors through
ng the
excitement from the
scenes, highlighti
team – it is no mean
cy and
emotional poignan
feat to design a play
ny
universality of ma
where the action
at
of the events th
takes place in offices,
these
occur between
aquariums, hotels,
restaurants and an
characters.
art gallery! David and
Bunny have created a
world that is fluid (without lacking
specificity), allowing the actors to
glide balletically from place to place.
Oliver Chris
17
TWO
W
e start week two where we left off on Saturday,
roughly staging the remainder of the play. The actors
are eager to participate in this process, excited to be
creating a sketch of their character’s entire journey this early
on in the rehearsal process. David has created a relaxed and
warm environment for the actors, which really frees them up.
As the week progresses, bits and bobs of rehearsal furniture
start to appear. Desks, swivelling chairs, a ‘bed’ and several
incarnations of chaise lounge.
Mid-week we were pleased to be
joined by Patrick again, who sat
in to watch one of the scenes as
it was developing. There’s always
that slight trepidation in a rehearsal
room when the writer pops in, but
Patrick is a wonderfully supportive
aspect of this process and seemed
thrilled by the progress being
made!
By Thursday, David had finished
directing the actors through every
scene in the play – a physical first
draft. We then begin the play from
the top. It is at this point that David
starts to include more detail by
gently guiding the actors through
the rhythm and emotional heart of
each scene. We all start realising
just how subtle and nuanced the
writing really is – there are links
between speech and thought
patterns of the characters after
interacting with each other;
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
WEEK
distorted memories, clues to the
characters past lives… it’s all
subtly in there, breathing life into
the story. Our one real obstacle of
the week was scene three. This
is a technical scene, in which two
of the characters communicate
via an adult chat room on a split
stage, where they cannot see each
other nor the screen on which their
messages appear to the audience.
How is a scene, in which the actors
are so blindsided, rehearsed? After
much discussion it was decided
that until the scene could be fully
technically realised, Rufus and
Oliver would mark through the
scene vocalising as they were
typing, to get a feel for their
characters intentions and reactions.
Needless to say, with the nature of
the chatroom, it was an afternoon
filled with hilarity! The team
approach the end of the week with
a clear grasp on the broad strokes
of the play and looking forward to
delving deeper next week.
Nancy Carroll
18
THREE
W
e start the week working on scenes five and six
respectively. Scene five, set at the opening of
Anna’s art exhibition, is the first scene in which
all four characters appear, although not all of them speak
to each other. David discusses with the actors the roles
that insecurity and jealousy play in this scene as each of
the characters vent in their own individual way. The cracks
created in this scene feed directly into scene six, when the
two couples subsequently split up.
These scenes provide an emotional
drain on the actors, which they
valiantly overcome as they battle
through the challenges they come
up against. What starts to emerge
is a beautiful synchronicity of
movement, especially in scene
six; the two couples both onstage
but inhabiting two different living
spaces. There are many vivid
and poignant moments in which
characters pass through another’s
physical space although in different
‘worlds’.
As the week progresses, many
thematic elements crop up and
David discusses the intricacies of
what is happening in the characters’
conversations. One of the key
elements of these conversations
is the way that what one character
hears/sees, is not necessarily what
the other character is saying or
doing. As in life, the characters’
ability to understand other people
and behaviours is tainted by past
events and experiences, affecting
how they digest information and
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
WEEK
subsequently respond to it. This
discussion enlivens the actors and
the scenes become instantly more
vivid and powerful. We reach an
exciting and new development on
Thursday as we approached the
hotel room scene. One of the tricky
aspects when staging CLOSER is
that the scenes are presented as a
type of montage, jumping through
time and travelling to different
spaces. David was always clear
that his vision was to achieve this
through a surreal mix of minimal set
move by the cast, abstract project
and freshly composed music. Three
weeks in we attempt the first
imaginings of this scene transition
language, seeing how it propels
the story forward through time. It is
perfectly timed because the actors
now have a clear grasp of the
play’s narrative and respond to the
physicality of the transitions with
a depth of character which makes
them feel alive, instead of merely
functional.
A wonderful week, full of amazing
progress!
Rufus Sewell and
Nancy Carroll
19
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
together, allowing the actors to
start considering the jumps through
time between scenes.
It is a steady and gentle
of
process which throws up
The evolution
questions and revelations
ters in
eek four begins with the amazing
individual charac
which add to the richness
s
s ha
choreographer Wayne McGregor
certain moment
of the individual scenes.
popping in to have a look at
on
a domino effect
scene seven, which is set in a strip club.
We close the week
they
all the actors,
Although we find out in scene one that
with David inviting the
e
are acutely awar
Alice was stripping in New York, this is the
creatives in for a stagger
of the slightest
play’s first foray into that world. Wayne has
through of the play.
ich
a wonderful chat with Rachel and David
dynamic shift wh
For the first time since
cites
about circles of energy and ‘tells’, which
day one of rehearsals
simultaneously ex
.
all
are little gestures that may creep in through
em
th
s
the entire creative
and inspire
Alice’s poise as an exotic dancer – it adds an
body are together to
exciting new texture to the performance.
watch and contribute
to
the
performance.
The actors,
As the week progresses, David
in certain moments has a domino
understandably
anxious,
attack the
and the actors discuss the
effect on all the actors, they are
stagger with gusto, giving the team
shared feeling that they are at a
acutely aware of the slightest
breakthrough stage in the rehearsal dynamic shift which simultaneously a full and rounded image of the
play.
process, where the unnecessary/
excites and inspires them all.
WEEK
FOUR
W
superficial starts to fall away and
new things come through. The
evolution of individual characters
David slowly works and reworks
throughout the week, running
scenes in sets of twos and threes
David spends time perfecting the
scene transitions and on Thursday
runs the play in its entirety,
discussing it after with the actors.
WEEK
FIVE
D
avid begins week five with a debrief from last week’s
stagger through watched by the creative team;
they discuss the speed at which the characters turn
emotional corners in the play. The actors feel that they are
at a stage where, whilst they are making steady decisions to
act with their heads, their characters would be making these
decisions with the lightning speed of gut reactions. This
assertion is part of the joy of working with these four actors
– they are in continual pursuit of realism. They want ‘to leave
their skin at the door’, a phrase David introduced on day one
as the only way to approach this play as a performer.
We crack on with the week,
bolstering strong moments and
needle working out any tricky
moments that need attention. David
has no fear and boldly re-stages any
moments he feels require it.
Around mid-week the wardrobe
department start to instigate
physical change in the actor’s
A breakthrough week filled with
conquered challenges!
appearance; the most dramatic
change of which is Rachel’s. She
has her hair cropped and shaved in
at the sides – this instantly gives
her a fairy, lost boy-esque feel,
giving a whole new personal spin to
her line ‘Men want a girl, who looks
like a boy...’
On Friday Jonathan pops in and
sets up the system for scene three
in which Larry and Dan meet in
the online adult chat room. He
has created a wonderful system
by which the text, which will be
projected onto a screen for the
audience to read, is triggered by
the Assistant Stage Manager, who
in turn takes visual ques from the
actors typing in real time. Although
tricky to get a handle on, it is the
first time the actors get to rehearse
the scene, as it will be performed. It
is a hilarious morning!
On our final day in the rehearsal
room before moving to the theatre,
we run the play a final time for the
creative and the Donmar team.
The cast perform beautifully and
everyone is left feeling positive and
excited for our move to the stage!
20
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
in conversation
An Interview with Playwright Patrick Marber
Patrick Marber is a writer, director and comedian who has worked extensively in theatre,
film and television. His plays include Dealer’s Choice, After Miss Julie, and Don Juan in
Soho. CLOSER is perhaps his best known work and the first production of CLOSER in
1997, which is directed, was met with widespread critical acclaim. His writing for film
includes Notes on a Scandal and the screen adaptation of CLOSER. His new play, The
Red Lion, will premiere at the National Theatre in 2015.
What’s it like seeing the play in rehearsals?
The strange thing is, I really don’t know the play very well.
I knew it exceptionally well in the late 90s when I wrote it and was directing it. I was so heavily
involved in the life of CLOSER that, since then, I’ve rather excommunicated with the play. I see
it occasionally in foreign productions. But I’m not familiar with the material.
And when we arrived [at the Donmar] for the first day of rehearsals, I realized I hadn’t read the
play for over fifteen years. The read-through was really the first time I’d heard the full play since
1999.
So I’m a bit of a stranger to my own play.
I think, perhaps, it’s because the play cost me four years of my life. I’m grateful, of course. But
also resentful. Because it was a success and I was the director, instead of writing other things,
or doing other things, my life was just… devoted to it.
I think, in a way, I got too close.
Oliver Chris and Nancy
Carroll
21
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
Rufus Sewell and Nancy
Carroll
The play hasn’t had a major revival since then. Given that you directed its previous
incarnation, how is it watching David Leveaux working on it with the new cast?
This is the first major London revival. I didn’t want the play to be done again for a long time. I
wanted to write some more plays.
I think there was a degree of fear, because it was such a hit. When you come back to a play all
these years later will it stand up? Will it still work? The film had gone out there so that kept the
piece somewhat present, although the film is very different [from the play].
I so don’t want to direct CLOSER that it’s an absolute pleasure watching David shoulder
the load! But we’ve had lots of conversations. And, truthfully, he’s a director who really
understands the play as well as I do. He is intimately engaged.
Really from the moment I saw David’s production of THE REAL THING at the Donmar in 1999,
I thought: ‘This is the guy who I would love to direct CLOSER.’ I’ve watched his work over the
intervening years – he did a really good Betrayal on Broadway. He’s a director I follow.
It’s lovely to see the characters re-embodied.
How did you come to write CLOSER? Do you have a particular writing process?
It varies from play to play. I really have no set pattern.
I do always have one mysterious situation that I don’t fully comprehend but I know has to be in
the play. With this play it was the lapdance scene, which is right in the middle. I had a man and
a woman. I didn’t know who they were or what they were called.
That was the first scene I wrote – a dialogue between ‘man’/’woman’ in a club. Some of the
dialogue I wrote in the summer of ‘96 is still in the play.
I worked backwards and forwards from that scene. Originally, I thought it might be the first
scene of a play. Then I realized, at a certain point, that it was in the centre.
22
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
I think the second scene I wrote was scene one with Alice and Dan. I wanted to know who the
girl from the club was. But I knew she wasn’t interacting [in this scene] with the guy who was
in the lapdance club.
At one time the play had six characters. There was another couple in the play, who were rather
content. They were a stable couple commenting on their friends who were getting into all kinds
of romantic scrapes. They were called Jake and Natalie. I didn’t write much for them. They
were just there as comic relief from the agony.
This may sound like a pretentious thing to say – it probably is – but at a certain point, a play
assumes its own life. You become a channel for it rather than its creator. It just seems to have
its own heart and you have to respond to that.
So Jake and Natalie had to go. I had to accept that I was writing a somewhat bleak, austere
play. Reducing it to four characters made it more difficult to write. But it became more classical
in its shape. And that was quite a breakthrough – eliminating two characters. Recognising you
could do it with four.
Do you feel that audiences always understand the show as you intended it?
The thing to say about the play that isn’t immediately apparent – but is so obvious – is that
really all you’re seeing is the beginning and the ending of all the possible permutations in
relationships between the four characters. You see how they meet. And you see how they end.
And there’s not that much in the middle.
That was always part of my thinking with the play – the beginning of relationships are terribly
interesting. We all want to know – ‘How did you meet? How did you fall in love?’ Then we all
want to know – ‘How did it end?’ Nobody wants to know how about the middle, where it was
just up-and-down and there were good times and bad times.
So I thought: can you do this? Can you write a play that has the exciting bits without the boring
bits?
I think of it as a romantic play. For all its language. And for all its aggression at times, it’s a play
with a soft heart… And a hard heart!
The internet scene in CLOSER is celebrated as an astonishing piece of prescience – you
saw the internet coming…
I wasn’t visionary, I was lucky. I had this idea for a fun scene. But it’s a Shakespearean idea –
man disguised as woman, playing around. In Twelfth Night, woman disguises as man, finds
love. It’s the oldest idea in the world – by being in disguise you might find yourself. Or find
someone else.
And I thought this was a pleasing modern variant. But I was in no way commenting on
anything, really. Because back in ’96, nobody quite knew what was going to happen. I certainly
didn’t – I just thought it was a fun scene. With dramatic potential. To be incredibly rude but
incredibly distant in some odd way. I suppose I thought: ‘Well, it might go like this.’
I don’t buy the idea that people are different because of the internet. Life is a bit different. But
it’s the same. If you write a love story, and you write one that catches some kind of fire, they
generally survive – if they’re good. Because people love a love story, we all do. We need to
understand about relationships and love. And one of the ways we do that is films, books and
plays.
So I don’t think CLOSER has survived because of its internet scene. I think it survives because
actors want to play it, directors want to direct it. And its subject matter is universal. CLOSER is
by far the most universally produced of my plays. I think that’s because of its subject.
23
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
There’s some argument in the UK press about whether text-based, new writing theatre
is under threat. What do you think?
I’ve been working in the theatre since the mid-90s and this conversation has been recurring.
I’m a playwright. I write plays. I hope I that will always write plays and people will want to do
them. I like that you can take an old play off a shelf and find out about how people lived three
hundred years ago. Or how a playwright said they did. I like plays. I like plays that are written
by people. And I think there’s a difference if you see a play – I like a person’s vision of a thing.
This is what the playwright wrote and here we are, doing this thing. But I would say that: I’m a
playwright!
I think it’s good to have the debate, but I don’t feel that playwriting is under threat. I think this is
a fantastic era of playwriting. I’m rather optimistic about theatre.
Rachel Redford
24
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
Because I think the more online we are, the more we crave live, communal activity. Sport
and theatre seem to me to be thriving. People need to get together and watch people doing
things. It’s a human need, I believe. And that’s what theatre does and I love it. It won’t happen
again. This is it, this one night. You will see this. We are gathered here together. There it is. It’s
beautiful.
This is your fourth time working at the Donmar – do you feel it’s a space that particularly
suits your writing?
I’ve been coming to the Donmar [as an audience member] since the 80s – when it was called
The Warehouse.
So I’ve always loved the building and the location. I’ve always wanted to have work on in this
space. Because it’s a chance for the audience to be close and for the actors not to have to
shout. For the subtleties and nuances to be appreciated. It’s fantastic. It’s not the only space
I’m interested in, but I do love it.
It feels right to be at the Donmar.
Nancy Carroll
25
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
in conversation
An Interview with the Cast of CLOSER
In Week 3 of rehearsals at Donmar Dryden Street, we sat down with the cast on their lunch
break for an exclusive insight into the actors’ rehearsal processes.
How are rehearsals going?
Rufus Sewell:Well, in about a week we go into the theatre. So we did our first run a few
days ago. It went quite well. Today we’ve been picking it apart a bit and then
we’ll do another run in a couple of days. Then we’ll be doing a run every
day or every other day. And then twice a day. And then we’ll be doing the
show…
Oliver Chris:We’re at the stage now where you’ve glimpsed how it might work. Now it’s
about bringing those discoveries forwards and honing it as a show.
Rachel Redford and
Oliver Chris
26
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
Rufus Sewell
Do you have any specific processes that you use?
Nancy Carroll:I think this rehearsal process has been about connecting with the other
actors really. Particularly with such an intensely, emotional, intimate play – it
would be quite hard to rehearse it in any [externally focused] theatrical way.
You have to just find the muscles to do it as honestly as you possibly can.
Basically, having had the play for a while before we got into the room, it was
– for me – just about doing it with everyone. Trying to find the voice of the
four of us together and what that sounds like.
Rufus Sewell:The process for me is the process of trying to find out what my process is.
It always is. I don’t really know and I can’t really explain it. I struggle to talk
about it, to be honest, because once you start talking about it, you start to
make certain decisions.
Rachel Redford:I think as well what’s great with this show – with any show – is that your
process is shared. It’s a living thing.
Nancy Carroll:
It’s a chaotic thing!
Rufus Sewell:I have certain things that I do. But they’re just things I do to make myself
feel better. I buy a yellow marker. I highlight things! And sometimes I don’t
even do that!
27
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
ES
R
P
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
How important is costume to you?
Rufus Sewell:
The interesting thing from my perspective about Larry is how his background
is in tension with his [professional] position. When we first see him, I don’t
think he’s gone all the way to posh-doctors-ville. I wanted him to have DM
shoes – shoes that you could stub out a cigarette on because I think that at
one point he was a punk. His aspiration wasn’t to be a posh boy.
Nancy Carroll:
Rufus just wants a biker jacket!
Rufus Sewell:I do not! It’s important! It’s not going to be a biker jacket or a Barbour. It’s
not going to be anything aspirational. It’s going to be a workmanlike jacket
that a bloke would wear. I think that’s important.
Then he kind of gravitates towards private medicine and after a while he
starts to don that uniform. Actually, funnily enough, when he’s most in the
depths of self-hatred and despair, he gets flasher.
Then towards the end, I think he’s kind of found a medium between what
he used to be and the flasher side.
I like the idea of having a nice, sharp, well-made suit! That could be
dangerously tempting!
Oliver Chris:Count yourself lucky. I’m just going to have some old black jacket from a
charity shop. I’ll just wear that the whole way through. Start depressed.
Get slightly happier. End suicidal. One jacket does it. And a pair of Y-fronts,
actually.
Nancy Carroll: So much of it is instinct. You just have an instinct about things.
Rufus Sewell:On a previous show I was trying stuff on with the costume designer. I put
on a jacket and she said ‘Oh! There he is!’. And it was true. It was a great
way of putting it.
Nancy Carroll:Equally you can feel it with the wrong costume. It’s quite alarming. To try to
continue the work that you’re doing. When you feel like you are, literally, in
the wrong trousers or the wrong shoes.
Rufus Sewell:
The wrong feather boa…
Nancy Carroll:
That is a nightmare.
How conscious have you been, during rehearsals, of the unique demands of the Donmar
space?
Nancy Carroll: We all went to see the last production at the Donmar.
Rachel Redford: Yeah! That’s when it got scary…
Rufus Sewell:Especially sitting high up. I’ve never played there [the Donmar] before. I’ve
always thought of it as incredibly intimate. Until I get in there I don’t really
know. I was very curious to see a musical there. Because my tendency is
always to be intimate – as if it were actually happening. I’ve always found it
a real stretch to bring it up to some level where people at the back can hear
it. It doesn’t come naturally to me. It’s always felt very awkward.
I think even at the Donmar there will be an element of that [need to lift a
performance to fill the space]. Because it goes up [to the circle] and vocally
it still needs support.
So that’s certainly something that I’m looking out for. Because it’s so
cosseting, this little underground space we’re in [the Donmar rehearsal
room]. It’s so tempting to just be incredibly intimate all the time – which is
my favourite thing!
28
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
Oliver Chris: For me, what always strikes me in any theatre – whether it’s the Donmar
or the West End or the National Theatre – is that they carry with them
such history – industry, cultural, personal history. I’ve never worked at the
Donmar before. But I remember seeing Alan Cumming’s 1993 CABARET
there and Tom Hollander’s THREEPENNY OPERA in 1994.
I’ve not walked on the stage. I’m really thrilled about that moment when we
step on it for the first time. Because it carries a real responsibility but also
a real sense of pride and excitement. Just stepping onto the stage will feel
like you’re entering a little part of history.
For me – as a person and as a professional – that’s a really thrilling and
wonderful thing.
Nancy Carroll:It’s a buzzy space. But it is deceptive: it feels incredibly intimate but you do
have to remain conscious of the circle or they feel left out.
Rufus Sewell:I think you have to be vocally present. Diction is important. It would be quite
easy to let the noise come out but for audiences not quite to catch it.
Nancy Carroll:
Perhaps… subtitles?
Rufus Sewrel and
Nancy Carroll
29
Section 3:
Resources
Rachel Redford
30
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
Sp tlight
Interview with Deborah Andrews, Costume
Supervisor
‘This is a play in twelve scenes in twelve different locations. That’s a given of the piece.
And that was always of its conception was that we would be somewhere different, every
scene. We never return.
Therefore you have to have very minimal set. I’ve seen the play performed in theatres all
over the world and there is always a limited amount of furniture. So costume is extremely
important to define where we are and what’s happening. It’s a difficult to design but quite a
pleasing challenge, I think.’
Patrick Marber
Deborah Andrews is the Costume Supervisor for CLOSER. Working closely with Designer
Bunny Christie and the actors, it is Deborah’s job to find exactly the right clothes for each
character and to make sure that they not only look right, but also work practically. We
sat down with Deborah to learn more about her role.
Can you talk me through how the process actually works?
We start with the actors. But slowly. There’s always a bit of getting to know the character.
That’s as much for us as it is for the actors and the director. Sometimes you start at the very
beginning [of the rehearsal process] but usually not.
Instead, you have the first ‘costume chat’ after a week or so. On a bigger show you might have
to be more decisive and have the chats earlier – simply because you have to start making things.
The costume chat is between me [the Costume Supervisor], the designer [in this production,
Bunny Christie] and the actor. The actor will say what they think and we’ll say what we think.
Hopefully they’ll be similar!
For example, Rufus mentioned that he liked the idea of Larry wearing a specific jacket.
Yes – very often actors come to the meeting with a backstory of how they see their character.
So you incorporate their ideas.
We might show what we buy to Rufus and he might say, for example, ‘Actually, it shouldn’t be
a Barbour jacket because that makes him a certain type of person. It needs to be more like the
kind of jacket you might wear on a motorbike.’
Costume is just another way of making and revealing a character. In the same way that when
we see someone [in real life] we look at them and make judgements [on their appearances].
So it has to be a collaboration between the actor and the designer. You’re all just helping the
audience recognise who the character is.
The next step is to have a fitting. We tell stage management we need to see someone and
they’ll give you a slot when it works for their rehearsal schedule. You get all the costume you
think they need on a rail in the order [scene by scene] that you think they need it. Then you just
work your way through [with the actor].
But the actor might say, ‘No. I don’t like that. No, I don’t think that’s right for him. Or he would
wear cufflinks – his shirt would have double cuffs.’
31
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
Or you’ll simply have practical things. Nancy might say, ‘Ollie’s really tall – I need to wear higher
heels than I would normally wear.’ But, equally, most of her costume isn’t very dressy. So it’s a
question of finding, for example, boots. Because she wears jeans quite a lot you might see that
outfit with a slightly lower heel. So you’ve got to find a slightly higher heel that still looks like an
everyday boot.
It’s about experimentation. And nuance – which is what costume’s all about. For example,
yesterday we bought shoes for Rufus. They looked beautiful off. But when he put them on
they looked completely wrong. They were too flat. The toe was the wrong shape. They were
a lovely, traditional English make so they should have been perfect but they simply didn’t have
the right nuance.
Rachel Redford
32
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
The play was written in 1996. Is this referenced in your costume design?
The costume is very much contemporary – not specific to a period. I think, anyway, it’s hard to
do comparatively recent stuff. Because people just look at it and think it looks a bit… odd!
So you probably think you were wearing the same clothes twenty years ago [as today]. But
when you look at pictures all the proportions are slightly different.
In this case, anyway, it’s just about what’s right for these characters.
How does CLOSER, specifically, use costume to help tell the story and reveal the
characters?
Dan’s costume is in blues and browns. It’s softer – tweed or corduroy. His shirts are, perhaps,
brushed cotton. He’s got quite traditional brown shoes – almost brogues.
Larry is much more urban. He’s grey or navy blue. It’s sharper. His character changes more –
when he starts off he’s a bit chippy. But then he does well for himself. He’s not flashy but he’s
certainly well-dressed by the end.
Nancy Carroll
33
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
Alice is the youngest and the flightiest. When we first see her, she’s just been out clubbing. So
she probably shows more flesh. She’s more girly. She would go to Topshop, perhaps, or vintage
shops.
Anna is more refined. She’s more grown up, but she’s not boring, she’s elegant. And, to use
an old-fashioned term, everything’s very well turned out. But she works hard to look cool and
effortless.
Is working at the Donmar different from other theatres?
If you work on a musical, for example, you have a much bigger budget. But there are lots of
characters and you also have lots of understudies [all of whom need duplicates]. So suddenly
that bigger budget doesn’t go far.
So working on a play with four people is a delight. But then, having said that, probably
everyone’s got six – eight – outfits. So you’ve got to squeeze all that out of not a large amount
of money.
More than the theatre, the big question is whether it’s a period show or something modern. If
you’re doing a period piece you need to have things made – you need to choose the fabric, find
the makers. It all takes much longer to come together.
I suppose the other thing is, when you work in a theatre such as this and on a short run, that
the theatre can’t afford to go dark [have nothing showing] for long. So the previous show
finishes on Saturday night, we build the set to get on stage for Tuesday and then we only have
Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday before we start previewing on Thursday night.
So if you want to make any design changes – anything major – it’s very hard. So you have to, to
some extent, plan ahead and treat your preview period as an extension of rehearsals.
How did you come to be a costume supervisor?
Completely by mistake! I studied fashion. I went to what is now Central St. Martin’s – it was
then just St. Martin’s – and did fashion design.
I worked for John Galliano [a famous British fashion designer] – because they put second year
students with a final year students. Through him I got to know people who’d worked at ENO
[English National Opera] and the National.
So I went to work at ENO for a couple of weeks doing a spot of buying and that was that,
really. I can’t imagine doing anything else now.
I’ve done both ever since. I’ve gone back into the fashion industry – done some fashion stuff.
I’ve worked for ENO, I’ve done operas, I’ve done plays. I’ve done stuff in the West End.
It’s not really been a masterplan. It’s more just been seeing an interesting side road and
thinking, ‘I’ll try that for a bit!’
Any advice for people interested in working in costume?
That boring old thing of doing work experience!
When I was studying, I don’t think people realized what their job prospects were or how they
went about it [building a career]. Everyone thought they were going to be a designer. But not
everyone can be a designer and not everyone wants to be a designer. Some people are much
better at being the team behind the designer. And that’s as important. Because otherwise it
wouldn’t happen.
34
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
Workshop exercises –
CLOSER
Anna’s photos
ALICE:The people in the photos are sad and alone but the pictures
make the world seem beautiful. So, the exhibition is
reassuring, which makes it a lie, and everyone loves a Big
Fat Lie.
The object of this exercise is to explore what the effect of photography is on performance – whether
it naturally/automatically reveals a truth about the internal feelings of a character and to explore
how the act of taking photos changes the relationship between two characters.
Divide into groups of three. Each group should have access to a digital camera/camera phone. In
your group, choose someone to be the Photographer, someone the Subject, and someone to be an
Observer.
The Subject should think of a real, personal memory that is extremely happy, extremely sad or
extremely boring. They mustn’t tell the rest of their group what they are feeling. And they shouldn’t
try to actively perform anything. They should just try to connect with the memory as if it happened
recently but that it isn’t what the photoshoot is for. Try to remember the details of the event as
specifically and clearly as you can. Keep this memory in the forefront of your mind.
The Photographer should now take photos of the first member. Try to make the photos as
aesthetically pleasing as you can, without worrying about how the Subject is feeling. Make the
pictures cool. Show off.
The Observer is not involved in the action. But should try to notice what is taking place in the
act of taking the photo. Observe how the act of taking the photos is making the Subject and
Photographer feel. Notice what the Photographer is missing/not revealing.
Take photos for about two-three minutes. The Subject should try to follow the directions of the
Photographer.
Then switch roles without talking about what you’ve done (don’t let the Subject reveal what they
were remembering/feeling). Have the Photographer now be the Subject, the Observer be the
Photographer and the Subject be the Observer.
Do the process again – take more photos.
Join back together with the full workshop group. Show some of the photos and let the Subjects talk
about what they were remembering/feeling at the time. Think about how the photos reveal/don’t
reveal this. Discuss how the process of taking the photos changed the relationships in the room –
how it altered the balance of power between the participants.
35
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
Scene work
Divide into groups of three.
Below is an extract of CLOSER. Read the lines aloud quickly – someone reading the part of Dan and
someone else as Alice.
The remaining participant will be the director/observer – they are to be the outside eye on how
each exercise affects the performers.
Alice You’ll be late for work.
Dan Are you saying you want me to go?
Alice I’m saying you’ll be late for work.
Beat.
Dan Why were you at Blackfriars Bridge?
Alice I’d been to a club near the meat market ... Smithfield. Do you
go clubbing?
Dan No, I’m too old.
Alice How old?
Dan Thirty-five.
Alice Half-time?
Dan Thank you very much. So, you were clubbing ...
Alice Then I went for a walk, I went to see the meat being
unloaded.
Dan The carcasses, why?
Alice Because they’re repulsive.
Then I found this tiny park ... it’s
a graveyard too.
Postman’s Park. Do you know it?
Dan No.
Alice There’s a memorial to ordinary people who died saving the
lives of others. It’s most curious.
Then I decided to go to Borough - so I went to Blackfriars
Bridge to cross the river.
Dan That park ... it’s near here?
Alice Yes.
Dan Is there a ... statue?
Alice A Minotaur.
Dan I do know it. We sat there ... (my mother’s dead) my father
and I sat there the afternoon she died.
She died here, actually. She was a smoker.
(Remembering.) My father ... ate ... an egg sandwich ... his
hands shook with grief ... pieces of egg fell on the grass ...
butter on his top lip.
But I don’t remember a memorial.
36
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
Make sure, as a wider group, that everyone understands all the language/words/places in the
scene.
You’re now going to quickly explore different approaches to playing this short scene. Run the
scenes each time after each short exercise. Have the director make short notes each time – observe
how each short exercise changes the way the scene works as a piece of theatre.
A)Block the scene – sketch through the scene working out what/if might happen physically
during the dialogue. Don’t take too long – it can be extremely simple.
Run the scene.
B)Memories – each of the characters recalls memories during this scene – the club, the
meat market, Postman’s Park. Spend a couple of minutes alone trying to imagine these
memories as concretely as possible. Run the scene – see if it changes.
Run the scene.
C)Listening – having talked about what the characters are doing, try now to focus each
performers’ attention on listening to the other character. Don’t act listening, actually
listen. Try to watch and follow what the other character is doing.
This is extremely difficult – especially you’ll need to use the written script. Don’t worry if
it means that there are pauses between the lines as the performers refocus to look at the
text.
Run the scene.
Come back together and show each other the scenes as you think they are best performed.
Talk about what you thought was effective, what worked for you – it’s absolutely right that different
performers will respond to different approaches. Have the observer/directors talk about what was
difficult and what yielded the best results.
Oliver Chris
37
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
I’d hate anyone to think: ‘Oh God, this is all
we’ve got to look forward to as we enter our
twenties and thirties?’ It’s not a prescriptive
play. It’s not aggressively saying, ‘This is how
it is! And this is how it always will be.’ This is
how it is in this specific situation with these four
people I made up. It’s not a diatribe about the
nature of love and the human heart. It was just
how I felt at the time.
Patrick Marber
The Cast of CLOSER
38
ES
O
U
R
C
ES
TI
O
N
R
R
O
D
U
C
O
U
N
D
P
G
R
K
A
C
B
O
N
TE
N
TS
C
BIBLIOGRAPHY
‘In-yer-face Theatre: British Drama Today’ by Aleks Sierz– 5 Mar 2001 – Faber & Faber
Modern British Playwriting: The 1990s: Voices, Documents, New Interpretations by Aleks Sierz
– 30 May 2012 – Methuen Drama
Modern British Drama: The Twentieth Century – 2nd Edition – 28 Nov. 2002 – Cambridge
University Press
Patrick Marber’s “Closer” (Modern Theatre Guides) – 28 Feb. 2008
– Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd.
Thatcher’s Theatre: British Theatre and Drama in the Eighties by D. Keith Peacock – 30 Mar.
1999 – Praeger Publishers
All Our Yesterdays – article by Michael Billington, Samuel Adamson and Stella Duffy – 3 August
2006 – The Guardian
Rufus Sewell
39
About the Donmar Warehouse
The Donmar Warehouse is an intimate
not for profit 251 seat theatre located
in the heart of London’s West End.
Since 1992, under the Artistic Direction
of Sam Mendes, Michael Grandage,
and now Josie Rourke, the theatre
has presented some of London’s most
memorable theatrical experiences and
has garnered critical acclaim at home
and abroad. With a diverse artistic
policy that includes new writing,
contemporary reappraising of European
classics, British and American drama
and musical theatre, the Donmar
has created a reputation for artistic
excellence over the last 21 years and
has won 43 Olivier Awards, 26 Critics’
Circle Awards, 28 Evening Standard
Awards, two South Bank Awards and
20 Tony Awards from ten Broadway
productions. Alongside the Donmar’s
productions, we offer a programme
of Education events, which includes
subsidised tickets, introductory
workshops and post show discussions,
as well as special projects which give
young people an opportunity to involve
themselves more closely in the work of
the theatre.
For more information about the Donmar’s
education activities, please contact:
Education Department
Donmar Warehouse
41 Earlham Street
London WC2H 9LX
T: 020 7845 5820
F: 020 7240 4878
W: www.donmarwarehouse.com/discover