Trouble in Mind.

Reflections

SOUL WORK IN THE REHEARSAL PROCESS

​

Developed by Progress Theatre founder Dr. Cristal Chanelle Truscott from generations-old African American performance traditions, Soul Work trains artists to engage the fullness of their identities to cultivate creative power through inclusive, culturally-responsive, socially-conscious studio practice. The methodology offers training and engagement from qualified practitioners, as well as opportunities for artists to connect and collaborate as a community that centers on equity, inclusion, culture, and social consciousness.

​

For this production of Alice Childress’ Trouble in Mind, director Tiana Kaye Blair, a Soul Work master teacher and fellow member of the Resident Acting Company at Dallas Theater Center, approached the rehearsal process in the framework of this training. The piece is an emotional and racially charged one, depicting a company of black actors rehearsing what was, at that time, considered a progressive play rooted in racial conflict. In reality, the “play within the play” is actually saturated with racial stereotype and cliché in order to make it palatable for a white audience. When the lead actor begins to push back against this in rehearsal, the process implodes, bitter truths are revealed, and emotions run high.

It is hard to believe that the play was written in the 1950’s, as its themes and language seem very bold for a work from that period. The piece was indeed controversial and, perhaps, ahead of its time, and Childress gave up a Broadway run at the time because she would not rewrite parts of the play to make it more accessible to a white audience. Given the nature of the material, director Blair made the choice to incorporate Soul Work into the rehearsal process, since, at its core, the methodology seeks to elicit deep, spontaneous, organic responses from the actor. The director felt this was vital in telling this story.

​

Soul Work, for one thing, relies on ritual and repetition, and I had never worked in such an environment before. Initially, I did not quite know what to make of the work, as it made the rehearsal feel like an acting class rather than a rehearsal for a play. I eventually had to surrender to the fact that we were INDEED creating an energy, atmosphere, and community within the room. Only the cast, director, and stage management team had access to the space for the first three weeks. There were no drop-in visits from the producer, costumer, set designer, etc. that one might typically experience. Each rehearsal began with “circle” discussions where everyone could share where they were both personally and in the artistic process. Exercises themselves often dealt the repetition of a call-response pair of lines--for example, song lyrics (CALL: “This little light of mine…” RESPONSE: “I’m gonna let it shine.”), with an exploration of deeper and deeper levels of a particular requested emotion with each delivery. Similar to what my Meisner training demanded, the actor was to avoid “thinking too much” or “performing” and just respond in the moment with increasing levels of depth. One of the director’s key instructions was, “I go deeper. You go deeper. We go deeper.” It was, at times, needless to say, an intense and emotional room.

​

The work was utterly transformative for most of the cast. Later in the process, the lead female (who felt that this was the most difficult role she had ever undertaken) remarked to me that she could not have given the extraordinary performance she gave without this work. I think most echoed the sentiment. So the contribution of Soul Work to the project was extremely valuable for the company in creating an atmosphere of emotional freedom and “no limits” (another phrase that was used frequently in rehearsal). 

​

As an actor who considers myself to be someone with a pretty deep emotional reservoir (which I can call forth if the play demands it), I felt more like I was in a grad school acting class for the majority of time as opposed to a rehearsal. The hours of talking about personal matters (often just about experiences regarding race in America) felt a bit more like a group therapy session and took up a great deal of time, and we wound up with the majority of the cast not off book by the design run. Nevertheless, the company seemed to be benefiting TREMENDOUSLY from the work, so I realized it was critical that I commit to it with energy and a positive attitude, as well, for the sake of the artistic synergy of the piece. One actor, however, actually had so much difficulty with what she labeled “extremity of emotion outside of the context of the play” that she eventually was replaced. It was a rehearsal experience that differed from any other I had had as an actor, going all the way back to my undergraduate years.

​

The role I played in the show (which does not enter until Act Two) was a bit different than any other in the play in that he is a bit of an outsider. In my research, I discovered an early version of the piece in which my character was not even present. This forced me to consider the historical reality of why Childress had eventually added him, and I came to believe that he represented a subset of people that was not already present in the play—the “white ally” who, though well-meaning, is actually not an ally at all. I do indeed believe that lens is needed in the piece. It had me spouting things like, “There’s not a racist bone in my body,” with an audience groaning (some in recognition, perhaps?) in response.

​

Realizing this opened up the role for me drastically, and it became a real challenge, because it seemed like the character existed less for the storytelling and more to make a sociological point. An important point, for sure. Nevertheless, I had to look for some way to make this fellow at least interesting (since he was not particularly likable). Act Two (an excerpt of that from the production is included here) begins with a very long monologue (intentionally badly written and riddled with cliché) that is part of the “play within a play.” The audience does not really know this—the act just launches into the monologue, and I could feel them wondering, “What is this garbage?” I had to take steps, as I delivered it, to make it clear that he was IN REHEARSAL for a play that, according to the actor discussions in Act One, was, indeed, riddled with racial stereotype so that a white audience would come see it. Again, it was hard to believe this was written in the 50’s! It sounded more like something Lynn Nottage would write today. Our talkback audiences were also very surprised with the original production date.

​

Regardless of the challenge of the process and the piece itself, the responses in talkbacks often left me speechless, as audience members were VERY emotionally affected by the play, finding much of the content quite triggering. It was, as a white individual, a time that demanded LISTENING on my part more than speaking. Much like the production of Our Town / Nuestro Pueblo that I had done earlier that year, many commented that they felt “seen” for the first time. The play contains a disturbing monologue where an elderly black man recalls seeing a lynching as a child. In a talkback one night, an elderly man in the audience raised his hand and quietly told us that he, too, had witnessed a lynching as a child. He related the story as the room seemed to stop breathing. By the time he was done, most were in tears. I have never encountered something so powerful in an audience exchange in my life. 

​

This underscores the main reason I am an artist. We tell stories that change people. This was absolutely one of those experiences. I would eagerly do this show again.