Richard Maxwell Project

I'm not ready to make the decisions yet. I think it would be helpful to know who wrote which texts that we looked at this morning. Could I ask that you email me at d.rebellato@rhul.ac.uk and let me know which bit you did? Please do so in the next 24 hours if possible.

Dan

Well…writing Maxwell style lines is more exciting then reading Maxwell lines.

However, the difficulties I have faced on my quest to create Maxwell authenticity (in song and script) are:

·       Visualising your actors as close to inanimate objects as you write, or even writing naturalistic lines, but remembering that is not how they will end up.

·       Accepting the writing of lyrics, which crush any source of artistic licence.
·       Repeating and illustrating pointless information, without creating something that seems too detached from the story line.

·       Including the ideology of citizenship around the irrelevant blabbering.

On Monday I hope to bring down my guitar and play you guys my masterpiece, a sample of the lyrics are:

                Why is it raining today?

Because it often rains on farms

                This place here is a farm

Need I say any more?  If anyone else has tried to or wants to write some music feel free to get in touch and we can make a mini-orchestral supermaxwellesqueuberband.  Writing this kind of music is quite fun, you can set a mood and tempo for the song and then write the lyrics separately.  As long as you have enough syllables it seems to work, and if you don’t you can just squash or stretch words to fit.  As far as rhyme goes, the more basic the pattern the better!  Rhyming farm with farm is pretty original…..

Simon

The title I've given my blog (of jumbled thoughts)refers to a couple of things, so in true Richard Maxwell Style they probably don't all make sense.

1. I too like Jenny spoke to an annoying person who also repeated everything I said, mainly the ends of my sentences, which was really annoying as I did not realise that I said the word 'like' a lot when rushing my words. (I think Jenny we must have spoken to the same person...that or there are a lot of annoying people on campus). However even though I did find his repeating me rather annoying and his highlighting of my repetitiveness, my friend who was sidelined in the conversation, observed that it was incredibly funny to watch. So I think this would be an excellent Maxwellian style thing to put into our play and I've tried to incorporate this into my half a page script as well.

2. Jumbled thoughts point number two: My blog last week didn't appear on the page and this was either a fatal error of sending on my part or the fact that the internet doesn't like me, but I'm going to add and embellish on the point I made last week.

THINKING TOO MUCH?

My point last week was all about how, after reading the article by Sarah Gorman on Richard Maxwell's "Deadpan" style, maybe we are thinking just too much about the acting style we are used to, what we think we should be doing, how we think we should perform a richard maxwell script. Maybe we are just thinking too much about it all. Maybe just reading and doing the lines without thinking about it could be a helpful start... if only we could stop thinking about not thinking, and stop feeling that we shouldn't be feeling.

In light of my comment last week I do think that this is actually helpful when writing and thinking about the script, if you just write and don't think too much about why you're writing it and what/who you're trying to portray, it becomes more more Maxwellian. Just thinking of a person you know or a phrase or line you heard from a funny person can be all the things you need. This may not be how Richard Maxwell writes his characters but I found it really helpful.

Anyhoo, hope you aren't now lost in my mass of jumbled thoughts. See you tomorrow for some more crazy script writing fun! Yay! =)

Heather D.

xxx

---

Hotmail is evolving - be one of the first to try the Windows Live� Mail Beta

Hi again guys.
Well... what a week of Maxwell discovery it's been! Like others, I
found watching the video of Boxing 2000 a thought-provoking and
interesting exercise. I would have to agree about the dancing; a scene
that I thought perfectly demonstrated the energy behind Maxwell's
theatre. Although the actions of the actors on stage were in many ways
static, you certainly could not describe the scene as robotic. The
human emotion was definitely there, acting as the fuel for those two
magnificent dancers! **a-hem. I did have a few issues with the Boxing
Ring scene itself, however. I didn't feel as though Maxwell's intention
was quite so explicit once the actual ring had been brought on. The
actors seemed to lose their direction a little, once presented with
such a functional set. This may have had something to do with the fact
that there was a little 'stage business' going on in the opposite
corner of the ring, when our attention was supposed to be drawn to the
corner where the woman was begging Freddie not to fight (rocky-esque).
Anyway, I didn't think this scene worked so well. I got pretty bored at
this point, in fact, which seems unlikely seeing as this was an actual
conscious attempt to add some action!
See you all on Monday, complete with whacky scripts. Can't wait. I've
really enjoyed playing around with mine!
Sophs xx

Well, on Wednesday afternoon I sat down with some others in the dressing room of the Drama department, armed with two chocolate bars, ready to watch Boxing 2000. Now maybe it was the immense amount of sugar I consumed in a short space of time, but I seemed to pick up quite a lot from what I watched. Before when I had attempted to act in the style of Richard Maxwell, I had found it hard not to roboticise my posture and movements. I found when watching particularly the dancing scene between the man and lady (names are not my strong point - especially seeing as my copy of the plays has STILL not arrived…grrr aphrohead), they seemed to more simplify their movements, rather than de-humanise them. It reminded me a lot of that awkward dancing 12 year-olds do at their first school disco when they don’t know quite how to approach the opposite sex, they seem to do some strange kind of shuffle, without actually moving a great deal…it was as if Maxwell had taken this idea and simplified the movements even further with the effect of exaggerating the foolishness of them. This theory seemed to also fit for the speech. In normal speech, people do stutter sometimes and say “er” and “um”, not to mention talk about completely mundane and often dull things. Richard Maxwell seems to have taken this normal stuttering and simplified it to just the repetition of “er er er” which seems to exaggerate their behaviour , which is funny! Maybe this is why he resents the term dead-pan - with dead-pan acting I always find that the humour comes out of the lack of emotion in circumstances, even the emotional ones. Maxwell seems not to eliminate emotions, just to focus on one and present that one in a simple and unconfused way. However, I must say honestly that by the end of the film I did start to get a little tired of the style. Maybe it was because I was watching a rather dodgy recording and wasn’t experiencing it live…but I did feel that these ideas which I have just mentioned did seem to be repeated throughout the play and the alternative acting style which I at first found humorous because of their absurdity, I by the end found much less funny, almost boring.
 
Anyway I’m going to toodle off and write my scene…and maybe my writing and performance essay…funfunfun! See you party people on Monday!
 
x x x naomi x x x

---

Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.

---

Fed up with spam in your inbox? Find out how to deal with junk e-mail here!

Dear All,

Hope you are well. I watched Boxing 2000 yesterday which was interesting. I epecially loved the 'dance' scene-my god the dynamism! I really like the fight scene, with the cool boxing ring appearing from the garage door! I'm having a lot of fun writing a scene of our AMAZING play. I can really see it coming together. Mondays lesson was so fun, coming up with completely random scenes! I still think we shoudld have kept the macarana scene in-comedy genius! We need to be careful that we don't over look the citizenship theme with the excitement of veganism/ice cream fights/parachuting/yetties.

But I'm sure we'll come up with something really really brilliant. I'm looking forward to seeing the live NYC Players show, i just think we're losing something watching the films.

Hey Ho,

See you soon fellow bloggers and theatre makers

Laura xxx

p.s. BRING BACK THE YETTI!!
_________________________________________________________________
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d

Just ten minutes after our lesson on Monday, I was accosted by the most
irritating person on the planet. While engaging me in conversation, he
proceeded to repeat everything I said to him, outlining the fact that I
wasn't speaking particularly coherently. For example, when asked what I
was up to, I replied, 'Oh, you know, shopping and all that crap'. What
on earth does that mean?! As irritating as this person was, he had a
point, I wasn't making a huge amount of sense. When quizzed on what I
was doing that evening, I said, 'Oh, I'm going to that club thing with
the coach and stuff, you know, have you...?' and I trailed off. I'm not
sure whether I'm being influenced by all the Richard Maxwell or if I'm
just beginning to realise how ridiculous I sound on a day to day basis.
I'm really looking forward to writing this week, although I still don't
have the blasted book, which would be nice.

Hope I'm not the only one who realises how much rubbish I speak!

j xx

Hi gang,

So...have just shut my file after a valiant (if I do say so myself) first attempt at writing a dialogue to accompany our, let's face it, slightly crazy play. What a challenge it actually proves to be! But you'll have to wait until next week to sample those delights!

Thought I'd share with you guys some very quotable snippets from a website I found talking about Maxwell. (http://channel.creative_capital.org/project_41.html) He describes his plays as 'funny and interesting small things' and, interestingly, I think, remarks that 'If [his] style or approach becomes a formula, then [he's] not going to be interested in it anymore, so [he] needs to be challenged.' I think this gives us an insight into the understanding behind Maxwell's intention for his work. Presumably, therefore, his work is always evolving, which would certainly support the differences many of us noted between HOUSE and some of the other plays we have discussed.

Just some food for thought.

Blog well.

Sophs xxx

---

Windows Live� Messenger has arrived. Click here to download it for free!

---

Hotmail is evolving - be one of the first to try out the Windows Live� Mail Beta

I really liked the point made about what Citizenship means to US as British citizens. Perhaps our piece could include the British Citizen's perspecitive as well as the foreign one?

I was a lot happier about Maxwell's acting style after this lesson. Saying our own stage directions aloud really hepled me to concentrate on blocking the action as opposed to emotionally reacting to it."Caveman" reminded me just how much intonation was used, and how blank the actors faces are. Perhaps another key to not emoting is to keep your facial muscles that relaxed. We also need a song in our piece! As was said in the lesson the songs in Maxwell's pieces seem to fit more naturally with the action, since it too is surreal!

I particularly liked the part where the actor corrected his friend and said his name was actually Anthony (at least i think that's right!)I think lack of human compassion is shown through many of Maxwell's plays. For example in "Flight Courier Service" even the stewardess plots against the main character. In "Billings" it appears that the couple who are moving are not listening to what each other are saying, their choices of topics are completely unrelated to each other. Maybe through the lack of emotion Maxwell is communicating a lack of general human feeling in the modern world towards life and towards each other? Just a thought

Hannah E x

Hello chaps,

Just thought I would blog some brief responses to yesterday's performances of maxwell's work. I (like Laura) am still finding Maxwell's style challenging for the simple reason that, as an audience member, I found myself feeling bored and uninspired at certain points when watching 'Caveman'. Perhaps seeing it performed live would have had a different effect. However, I did find moments of comedy and intrigue in both Maxwell's 'Caveman' and our own responses to his work. The use of pauses was particularly effective as a comedic device, as was the use of an un-emotive response to a drastic or dramatic situation - ie when characters are markedly under whelmed by events such as (in my groups case) a murder.

I also liked Dan's point about under whelmed, subdued reactions appearing similar to the 'british' way of reacting to things - we don't like to make a fuss or draw attention to ourselves (at least that is the stereotype). Maybe we could use this to our advantage in keeping with the theme of citizenship - so far we have looked at foreign nationals who hope to become british citizens but have not really looked at what citizenship means to those who are born british.

Hope that's given you some food for thought.
TTFN xxLottyxx

Lotty

I really enjoyed yesterday's lesson purely for the reason that I feel that I have a slightly better grip on Maxwell's style of acting (although i do still find it hard!). Like most people, in the first few lessons i was finding it extremely difficult to perform characters without speaking in a monotone voice and thus sounding like a robot!

I found it useful to watch Caveman because when reading Maxwell's plays, i find it hard to imagine how they would be performed. I discovered that pauses seemed to be important within the play, often creating comedy. For example, when the two men were sat eating at the table for several minutes with a blank expression on their face.

I agree with Laura about the individual work being effective, as it really helped us to experiment with Maxwell's idea of showing emotion rather than actually inhabiting it.

Lauren :)

Caveman was a good example of how emotion is used in Maxwell’s theatre, for example, the raised voices, cries, songs of emotion and the gestures used in interaction between the actors.  However, we must be careful to distinguish ‘emotion’ with ‘emoting’. 

There is an organic, emotional preposition embedded in the text and direction.  An exclamation mark indicates an aggressive emotional response, thus the actor shouts or grunts, this is an indication of emotion.  Also, an act of standing up, with a firm posture, from a sitting position indicates distress and anger, again an indication of emotion.

To emote a character is to give if it another layer of emotion above that of the character.  In the exercise today, where we took ‘emotional’ lines then presented them in pairs, firstly as naturalistic interaction, then ‘third party’ narrations and finally a Maxwell-esque presentation of the two lines.  In the naturalistic presentation my line, ‘I will always be in your heart,’ carried a catalogue of different movements, breaths, tones of voice and vocal qualities that could lead to the audience grasping a whole range of different responses that could be read rather ambiguously. 

However, by using the third party method we placed our actions exactly as we said them ‘he bends down on one knee, hesitantly, and leans forward to grab her arm’.  When this was done it was clear that I was communicating a certain, desired emotion to the audience.  The emotion was clearly pointed out by the attention to the movement in a seemingly unemotional way; this is seen in Maxwell’s Caveman:

A: You’re showing a bit of leg there.

W: Anthony, don’t.

A: Did you notice!

W: Yes, I noticed.

        They Kiss

A mixture of lines and action such as above is enough to illustrate the emotional state.  To emote the characters would be complicating the ‘authentic’ nature of the lines.  This way of telling the ‘truth’ of the character could be loosely compare to Method Acting, there aims being very similar.  However, Sarah Gorman argues, ‘this approach, appears out of kilter, either anachronistic or ahead of its time,’ in her essay, suggesting that Maxwell is either not up to date with the rest of North American theatrical theory or way ahead.  Did we show a more real projection of emotion in the naturalistic acting we did today, or the ‘deadpan’ acting?

Simon

Dear all,

Well todays lesson was jolly difficult! I have to say, I wasn't convinced by the play we watched, this may be because the sound was a bit 'iffy' and theatre always seems a little suspect on film! The individual work, however, was really interesting. I thought that it was SO effective using the 3rd person descriptions of the actions. I just thought it was so helpful to really plot out a template for the situation. I started to think that Maxwell is merely providing us a template, or generic signposts about the way human nature works. He flags up the accepted response to situations rather than actually recreating them.

Still, I find it difficult when watching Maxwell's work to actually connect or engage with a scene. But I really like how his work raises questions and demands thought from the audience about speech patterns, communication and physical expression. It's really good to be studying something so different from our preconceived ideas of 'theatre', and challenging why we expect certain things from drama. Who creates the rules that guide the way we judge theatre? Hmm.

Anyway I'm just off to do a bit of research to unpuzzle my head!

Have a nice week guys

Laura xxx

For me it's a process of removing the things that are encouraging the person to be a performer as opposed to a person

In creating the style of performance in this week's lesson I am going to try and concentrate on what is actually connected to emotion, as many people have said we do not want to have a performance lead by robots but it will be interesting to understand and adopt the traits that are not rooted in emotion, such as intonation of the voice?

Emma Cooper x

heya
Technically right now i should not be in this country, but instead making way for somebody who knows what "quangos" are. However i have never committed a crime so just like the rest of you, i do not feel i need to know the ins and outs of the legal system to live here.

I was very guilty in mondays lesson of speaking like a robot as i too found the difference between emotion and intonation hard to grasp. However i had a glimpse of how it could work when i saw "Billings" performed. I felt Lauren read her lines almost as if she were a primary school child trying to read a script. Since children don't automatically add emotion to what they read perhaps this is what we all should do, contact our "inner child" , read it just as blankly as we would of at 5 years old.

Hannah E xxx

I know I’m not alone when I say I found Mondays lesson hard (well, at least I sincerely hope I‘m not). But reading the comments below from Naomi, Soph and Simon has helped quite a bit in my understanding of what other angles we can try coming from in order to achieve this “style” of “acting”.

Even so, this is still my problem; these air quotes I find myself having to use to correctly describe what we are trying to do. I find Richard Maxwell’s plays interesting and funny yet I cannot get to grips with his (what I find) contradictory “directing style”.

My major problem comes from some things Richard Maxwell has said in comparison with what we have learnt and seen so far of the NYC players performances.He says:

My feeling is it’s already real because you’re doing it. It’s not another reality that you’re trying to create. You’re seeing what happens in the moment, which is, for me, the highest reality.

The reason I’m finding this a difficult statement to get my head around is because when I talk, when I’m “doing something real”, I’m pretty sure I don’t sound monotone, that I use emotion in my voice and as far as I can remember I move quite a bit too. To me, this style he is going for isn’t “real”. I do understand he wants to take away “the performance” actors instinctively try to create in trying to sound like real people, but surely stripping away emotion is in no way reality and definitely does not make the actors sound like real people...

This is where I can’t wait till we can see a performance of the NYC players in action so we can hopefully get the hang of this technique ourselves. I hope the confusion will lift and we will be able to see the reality that was in the words all along and not in what we try to “act”.

Heather D

One particular performance of the citizenship text, where the citizenship seeker was speaking into the microphone away from the panel really made an impact on me. I personally find Maxwells style of 'acting' rather hard to comprehend at this stage however making the staging of that short piece so unrealistically formal really made the text speak out for itself. Although it was void of emotional performance, I think that in this particular small scene, there was not that feeling of 'dead-pan' acting, and as a result was quite amusing. Hope this is an ok blog!

Darea Ellis

Monday was certainly a challenge, it is certainly much harder than it seems to stop emotion creeping into your voice, but equally still sound like a real person and not completely take away the intonation. The best example I've seen of this kind of acting outside or Richard Maxwell's work has been in the film Napoleon Dynamite. There is a character called Pedro who comes across as almost completely emotionless, but he does not sound like a robot and you even find
yourself identifying with the character and rooting for him in his quest to become class president. If anyone wants to borrow the film and see what I'm talking about, I would be happy to lend it out.

Jennie

In reply to Sheila's comment below, I also did the 14 questions to see whether i would pass the citizenship test. Granted, i haven't studied the 'handbook', but nethertheless, i should get more than 6 shouldn't I?!!! I, like Naomi, am sure I have never broken the law, and believe myself to be a decent British citizen - so why is it that we are all failing the general knowledge of our country? I've also noticed that many of the questions are 'law' based... for those of us who really aren't that interested, or haven't studied law, it is definately going to be tricky. How does knowing where Father Christmas comes from show the British Empire that you are a good citizen?!

I found the practical work on Monday really interesting - I didn't realise how difficult it was going to be! We've all spent so much time doing physical work and getting to the 'meaning' behind each line, that this is a bit of a shock! Maxwell wants his characters to sound like real people. When we are speaking in everyday conversation, we don't necessarily think about what emotions our words are going to evoke... and I think this is what Maxwell is getting at? The emotion sometimes isn't there to start with? Just some ideas

Helen

Today we tried to find the ‘style’ of acting that we can place onto Maxwell’s theatre.  These are a few Maxwell quotes lifted from a New York Times article I thought could be useful in doing this……(I also noticed Heather mentioned the article before men so the link is three blogs below mine):

“When I ask somebody to read a piece of what I’ve written, typically the first reaction is to make it into something that is ‘real’.”  Mr Maxwell said.  “My feeling is, it’s already real because you’re doing it.  It’s not another reality that you’re trying to create.  You’re seeing what happens in the moment, which is, for me, the highest reality.”

“There’s not a specific quality that I’m going for.” Mr Maxwell said. “For me it’s a process of removing the person to be a performer as opposed to a person.”

“If there were a style, I don’t think it would have the life that it has under the surface.” He added.  “Even though they’re standing still, these people are always working, they’re always looking for moments together.”

The last quote suggests there is no style!  As bizarre as this sounds I think that that is the best way to describe Maxwell’s theatre.  When we did the ‘phone thing’ from the reciting end, this may have been the closest to true ‘Maxwellism’ we have achieved.  The reason for this is that we were not trying to create anything, just recite the lines in fashion so that the listener understood lines.  Not robotically, not making the lines any more or less than they were.

Today I found it hard to fall in between the gap of a robot and a ‘person’.  Maxwell wants us to remove the person to be a performer which means we must not be ourselves, yet not ‘be’ another character.

The nature of the lines compiled from the interviews made the three parts played slightly disjointed but all assertions were ‘real’ as they were real lines.  This was a useful demonstration of how Maxwell believes things are already real, simply because the lines are real.  No character needs to be superimposed over it.  As a result, although specific characters were defined in our initial interviews, all signs of character were erased when they were mixed together.

In conclusion, I believe that to create a Maxwell-esque feel, we must create real situations and dialogue but ‘alientate’ the situation in which it is said.  So that it is just pure dialogue, nothing added, nothing taken away.  A rendition of the original text with no disrupting overtone, that we normally call ‘acting’.

Simon

Hi chaps... some reflections on our task today...

I found, like a lot of you, that an accurate portrayal of the Maxwell
style, was not as easy as one might assume. To assume that because the
actors don't appear to be delivering a complex characterisation, the
parts must be easy to play, is as we've all discovered, somewhat
misguided. Indeed, having been taught in the past to spend time
'getting to know my character' it is a rather backwards approach, and I
have to say Im finding it a real challenge.
My group and I, having stripped away the emotion from the scene in
question (our very own Citizenship Interview script) found ourselves
asking -"well, how do we stop ourselves from sounding so damn
mechanical?!?! This looks rubbish!"
Personally, I felt that tackling a chunkier piece of text a la Richard
Maxwell, was slightly easier than the one-line questions that made up a
large part of our Citizenship script. For example, 1st Interviewer's
line that reads 'okay because okay... nothing to be nervous about.'
seemed to fit the Maxwell style, due to its repetition and
higgledy-piggledy format. However, simple questions such as 2nd
Interviewer's line 'Can a judge challenge the legality of the law?'
were more difficult to deliver in the 'dead-pan' way; its basic nature
sounding extremely robotic, once the emotion has been withdrawn.
I think this is something we will need to consider carefully when
devising our own piece of theatre on this topic... in order to make
sure that any writing is geared towards the Maxwell style.
Indeed, I would very much like to see some more examples of Maxwell in
action, so if anyone's interested in getting a group together to watch
some of the videoed plays in the library - if Dan is successful in
sorting out the formatting problem - then I'm in!

See you all next week...

Sophs xx

I was thinking about how bizarre Richard Maxwell's directing style and the performance style of the NYC players was at first to us and thought I would look up some reviews of their work to see how others have reacted to it, and also to find out any explanations for this unique style.The best review I found is a few years old but it clearly defines what Richard Maxwell is aiming for with his work and I think it'd be really useful for everyone to have a look at. He describes what he "encourages" his actors to do rather than what he tells them to do.

My favourite thing said in this article is something that I thought was quite relevant to our first lesson:

"When I ask somebody to read a piece of what I've written, typically the first reaction is to make it into something that is 'real'"

Which is exactly what we all tried to do =) his explanation for why this isn't necessary is understandably simple and, well, understandable.

Link :  http://www.nycplayers.org/00_NYT_092500.html

Heather Drewett

<<NYCP.Article.jpg>>

Naomi

---

Hear about latest news and freebies first when you join The Insider Club.

Just found an interesting page on the net about Richard Maxwell, an intriguing anecdote:

• http://www.foundationforcontemporaryarts.org/grant_recipients/cityplayers.html

This anecdote as well as the recording of 'boxing 2000' and the theme of citizenship has definitely got me thinking. The way Maxwell has his actors communicate in such a loud manner, devoid of emotion gives the spectator the sense that the actors are very far away from one another, maybe this idea could be used to make a point about society and how people are growing further apart - more people now live alone, more people get divorced, having looked at the content of citizenship lessons the government clearly feel the traditional family model is not functioning properly, Jennie's research demonstrates how the government seeks to instill a sense of patriotism, pride and belonging into new citizens - is this something those of us born and bred in the UK lack?

Just some ideas, I hope they're useful!

Lotty xx

Lotty

I've been doing a little research into what people actually have to say at these citizenship ceremonies. They can choose whether or not to pledge to God, but HAVE to pledge allegiance to the Queen.

I (name) do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that on becoming a British citizen I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors according to law

I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen.

Out of curiosity, I checked what oath people had to take when they joined the British army.

I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me.

Others replace the words "swear by Almighty God" with "solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm".

Any similarities, anyone? Thought that was a little bit weird. Also, is an anti-royalist any less of a citizen? I certainly wouldn't pledge allegiance to the Queen, but my British citizenship has never been questioned. Do we expect more of people coming into our country than we do of ourselves?

Just some musings of mine. I'd be interested to see what other people thought.

Jennie xx

I have found a website that people can visit, which they may find interesting during the course.

• http://www.nycplayers.org/

It has pictures of some of Maxwell's productions and also has interesting reviews of his work.

Enjoy!

Lauren Drew