Rehearsing  S C I E N C E   F R I C T I O N

Click here for more information on this show

Once again we've got one of our Roughshod companies here at Friargate Theatre to devise and rehearse a new touring production. This one, SCIENCE FRICTION, will look at the relationship between scientific discovery, faith and moral responsibility. Quite how it will do that is still a complete mystery, but watch this space for the next month, and you'll find out... It's now January 4th - the first day of rehearsal, and the first performance of SCIENCE FRICTION will be at Friargate Theatre, York, on Monday 4 February.

These are the people who will be talking you through it:

LIZ BROWN - Actor, devising
PAUL BURBRIDGE - Director (and Artistic Director of Riding Lights)
ALISTAIR EDWARDS - Actor, devising
BRIDGET FOREMAN - Script, devising
SUZI FOWLER - Education Officer, running SCIENCE FRICTION Education Projects
ANNA HEALEY - Actor, devising
CAT WILSON - Actor, devising

and GCSE and A-Level students from All Saints' School, Fulford School and Huntington School, York.

TUESDAY 5 FEBRUARY - ANTONY DUNN (MARKETING OFFICER)

Well, the cast are obviously too busy to write anything today, but the office staff took enormous pride and pleasure in sticking an ALL-PERFORMANCES-SOLD-OUT sign across the posters outside the theatre.

Wa-hoo!

Oh, and the nice reviewer from The Stage is in tonight. Oh, and so's the nice reviewer from the Yorkshire Evening Press. Oh, and we haven't mentioned that to the cast yet…

MONDAY 4 FEBRUARY - ALISTAIR

Frankly, a very difficult day. Tuesday night, the evening of our first performance - tomorrow - seems faraway, so close. Not so much a mountain to climb as a whole range. We've all got that rabbit-in-the-headlights look and nothing seems to be clicking. Paul, the Director, has stopped writing notes - an ominous sign - and an air of despair is, well, in the air. However, to go all holy for a wee minute, God is answering our desperate prayers. It's amazing how much progress can be made in that short, highly-pressured time just before a show goes up. By the end of the night, a glimmer of hope has returned to everybody's eyes, and there's still a whole day before we have to perform in front of real live people. So start playing those rainbow-strapped guitars because, ladies and gentlemen, there is hope...

FRIDAY 1 FEBRUARY - YORKSHIRE EVENING PRESS

IT'S ALL A WORK OF FICTION

This is The Year of Science, so there couldn't be a better time for Riding Lights Roughshod Theatre Company to premiere Science Friction.

"What people fear is the potential for science to harm," says Paul Burbridge, Artistic Director of Riding Lights, whose new production will be launched at their York headquarters next week. The play is then on tour until July in tandem with Reality Strikes Twice.

About 18 months ago, we decided that at some point we should do a play on a scientific theme and then, for the last couple of months, every time you open a newspaper or turn on the television you find this explosion at the coal face of science.

"With the BBC2 series How To Build A Human and Bitter Experience, it's all bubbled up for us at just the right time."

In Science Friction, Riding Lights examines a world where scientists are accused of playing God. In the face of Dolly the arthritic sheep, keyhole surgery, 'star wars', GM foods and the human genome project, Bridget Foreman's devised play asks the question: "How can we combine the volatile elements of scientific discovery, faith and moral responsibility?"

"Our motivation behind Science Friction is to say, 'Look, science is a fantastic area of human endeavour, able to deliver extraordinary things on which we are dependent, and yet there is a problem: the more we, as lay people, are able to understand what science can do, the more the red light goes up and we worry about the motives of big companies."

The Church and the world of science have often been deeply opposed, unable
to speak a common language amid mutual suspicion rather than respect. Science Friction seeks common ground, where the need for scientific development is married to moral and social responsibility.

"My personal view is that we should encourage scientific research but my caution goes alongside that: knowledge shouldn't be pursued for knowledge's sake as, so often, scientific break-throughs have been seized upon by people with dangerous motives that will damage the world," says Paul.

He believes that moral and religious implications should contribute to any scientific debate in order to keep pace with science.

"Most of us in the world just watch the headlines; we don't know who is in control or what the motives are, and the truth is that science is ahead of restrictive legislation. We have to ask the question whether any scientific research should be restricted before it is completed or whether legislation should be put in place with hindsight."

Science Friction ponders whether the wonder of scientific discovery can be recaptured, or whether we have been misled by the media into seeing all scientists as dangerous Dr Frankensteins, who create ever more terrifying monsters with no thought to the consequences.

To undertake that study, the play turns the microscope on Galileo, the great 16th and 17th century scientist, and his investigation into the universe.

"Look at the brilliance of what he did, and yet there was the tragedy of his personal life. There was such conflict with the authorities of the day who felt they had to gag him as he was shaking the foundation of every political and social structure: the very fabric of society," says Paul.

Science Friction also draws a parallel between the biogenetic pursuit of out-ward, bodily perfection and the religious pursuit of inner perfection of the soul through devotion to God and prayer. "It's a pursuit that most of us don't understand," Paul suggests.

"Ultimately what we're doing with Science Friction is encouraging people faced with this massive issue to sit where the scientist might sit; the journalist might sit, the philosopher might sit; the person of faith; and the individ-ual with concerns for the right to the glory of being individual rather than part of a pursuit of the perfect human being."

Paul believes the key to inspiring trust and respect for science is generosity of spirit and concern for welfare. "Ultimately, it's not politics that makes the world go round but generosity, but for a lot of people that's a very nebulous concept."

Science versus nature, Creation versus Evolution, commercial greed versus human need, the debate will go on and on.


by Charles Hutchinson, Yorkshire Evening Press

TUESDAY 29 JANUARY - CAT

Today was a very hard day. Tomorrow will be a very hard day.

MONDAY 28 JANUARY - ALISTAIR

Scripts in hand, lines to learn, more lines to learn, moves to remember. Like returning to a familiar place after a long absence, Science Friction has become like a 'normal' play experience, the only difference being the not-entirely-comforting thought that next week we'll be performing on a real stage in front of real people! It's very good, though, to see it all come together, and to know that several cooks a good broth can make, or something.

MONDAY 28 JANUARY - ANTONY DUNN (MARKETING OFFICER)

Anna's stranded in her sickbed in London, too ill to travel, so the rest of the cast are rehearsing without her. Only eight days away from opening night, too…

Bridget has spent the weekend writing furiously (and she's also going to bed at 4.00am every day at the moment) - shaping the work from the devising rehearsals into a coherent script. It's always frantic when we're pulling together a new devised show, and this one seems as testing as ever.

There are eleven scenes finished, though, from a likely total of thirteen or fourteen - and we've had a photoshoot for press pictures. The shots look great - except for the one where the cast have donned Eric Morecambe glasses and are goofing around. Sigh… Still if you're a Member of Riding Lights, you can see for yourself in the Embarrassing Archive page of the BackStage section of the website. Don't worry, though, that particular scene doesn't appear in the play. Or so I'm told.

THURSDAY 24 JANUARY - LIZ

Working on the 'contemporary' strand today. Started by revisiting previous improvisations that have become Scene One. We've decided on the main elements of this strand, and the protagonist's journey starts with the acceptance of a new job.

Scene One (a) - Marion (scientist) tells her friend Louise (nurse) about her new job
Scene One (b) - Marion tells her husband

The idea was to clarify exactly what issues were relevant to the scenes, both for those playing them out and for those debating at the table.

It was interesting to see the development of the characters since the last time these scenes were done, as it added more levels of intimacy in the relationships. It also invited those at the table to seek different avenues of debate. We also went over a section of the 'cicada story' that would be shown in the school's workshop after lunch.

The workshop went well, starting with games and some feedback on the work the students have been doing at their school since we last saw them. It's progressing rapidly! Next, a bit of storytelling. getting them used to some new techniques - like using sound and movement to evoke an atmosphere. After discussing the 'cicada story' we split up, each group taking a section. The idea was for each group to dramatise its section of the story using sound. I was v. impressed with the results! There were some brilliant ideas (which could be v. useful in our own storytelling!)

For the last part of the workshop, Paul explained some of the design ideas for Science Friction, and we went up to the theatre to show the students a rough version of the set. Enjoyed listening to their responses as they tied in with what we're trying to communicate. We wanted them to get a taste of our process in rehearsal, so we showed them our improvisation of Scene One. We were then given brand spanking new SCRIPTS of the same scenes, and performed them again, and asked the students to compare the two versions. They thought the scripted version was more coherent. Not sure what that says about our impro skills…

Also took a small section of this scene, and acted it out with Paul directing - a kind of peek into the real rehearsal process.

I enjoyed today and will miss this group. Can't believe it's already our last workshop with them. I hope we've managed to engage them with new ideas, new ways of working, new techniques and - above all - an ickle bit of inspiration.

WEDNESDAY 23 JANUARY - PAUL

We have reached a key moment in this devising process. The lump of clay on the potter's wheel, which we have kneaded and squeezed and prodded this way and that for several days, is definitely beginning to look like an interesting vessel of some sort. Exactly what sort will become clear over the coming weekend as Bridget scripts each scene (she hopes to have a draft script finished by Monday!). From then on the work we do to turn the words into a performance will become both delicate and detailed. To continue the potting analogy, we will concentrate on smoothing out the bumps, decorating with various slips and glazes and above all ensuring that the vessel will hold water, combining both beauty and practical use. Art and craft. Art and graft.

Today has a number of ingredients:
* Two scripted scenes from the modern (foreground) story have arrived; another one emerges before lunch. Actors pleased and relieved... the kind of relief experienced by passengers from The Titanic surprised by a piece of driftwood bobbing about in the Atlantic.
* We develop two other scenes for use in the afternoon's workshop with students from All Saints. Suzi has rejigged the workshop so that we do not run out of time (as happened on Tuesday) and a highlight of this is the careful and imaginative work which comes from working as a whole group on Galileo's story of the 'Man who collected Sounds'. I store away a few excellent ideas which come out of this. More useful driftwood.
* My evening is spent pouring over the scripted scenes and in lengthy (of course) telephone conversations with Sean (designer). He e-mails some wonderful images of stars and planets which he is proposing to mount on the 'floor' of the set and we ramble verbally over the ground of costumes, particularly trying to solve the way we can move nimbly between the modern day and seventeenth century stories without recourse to terracotta tights!
* My wife Bernadette returns from spending a stimulating day with Lawrence Olivier's son Richard on a management course he runs based on Henry V. I note silently that he has given up directing plays... Ponder any personal implications of this fact as I drift off to sleep....!

TUESDAY 22 JANUARY - CAT

Still buzzing from the encouraging and enlightening Medical Ethics debate last night, there was a sense of excitement and achievement which enveloped the rehearsal room this morning. After some brief but enthusiastic discussion about the debate, we immediately got stuck into Galileo's parable of The Song of the Cicada. I felt as though Paul were leading us through a crash-course in story-telling - an essential skill for every actor. I found this stimulating in a variety of ways, and a refreshing alternative style of theatre to naturalistic improvisation.

By looking at The Song of the Cicada we embarked upon the third strand of our DNA-shaped plot. Though the three strands presently appear disjointed ins tyle, it's clear that they connect effectively through content and plot.

After rebuilding our Roughshod muscles, for Sean's no-doubt-vein-poppingly heavy set, by building a mock set, we gathered our strength for Fulford School's final workshop. As well as retaining their reputation for delivering humorous Ham-Horror-meets-Docusoap sketches, the workshop explored set design, story-telling and development of script. The latter involved the cast performing an improvised sketch from Science Friction, followed by the same scene, but scripted. The catch was that, to keep it 'live and impulsive,' the cast was given the script nay but 30 seconds before the performance. This resulted in an atmosphere of anticipation and excitement from everyone.

The reponses to the set and the hot-off-the-press script were encouraging. One particular student was heard whispering to her friend, 'That was brilliant!' And who am I to argue with that?

MONDAY 21 JANUARY - BRIDGET

The start of week three of rehearsal. Everyone returns from the weekend with the feeling that we're teetering on the edge of a precipice. Jump or wait to be pushed, but we're going over! We spend the morning immersing ourselves further in the Galileo story. Improvisation is hard, and we keep stumbling over obstacles that separate us from the experience of these characters. How did people talk to one another in 17th century Italy? What was it like to live in a convent? We 'play' with exaggerated Italian accents, which frees things up a little…though they're unlikely to appear in performance.

There's an additional member of the company today in the shape of a lost kitten who waits for the RSPCA in our rehearsal room. We name him Galileo, but he doesn't turn out to be much help, though he dispalys admirable willingness to join in with improvisations.

In the afternoon, the actors re-cap their path through the story of our modern-day Geneticist, re-working improvisations and clarifying their characters. Paul and I spend an hour or so hammering through the storyline, and giving each section clear objectives and developments. The scripting starts tonight.

Several of us go to a lecture in a local church in the evening, on Recent Developments in Medical Ethics. The speaker, Andrew George, is a biologist & expert in ethics. He raises very interesting issues, talks directly out of his own experience, and encourages us by homing in on the very issues that our play is addressing.

I'm home at about 10pm, and start scripting a key scene for tomorrow's rehearsal. The loneliness of the long-distance writer starts here. Everyone else in the house is asleep. Tap tap tap…

FRIDAY 18 JANUARY - ANNA

After reading chapters of Dava Sobel's book, Galileo's Daughter, we discussed bits that stuck out for us - any parts that had dramatic potential for us. We discovered several links with our modern story, either with characters, plot or imagery. It was now time to try and unpack our historical story. We picked out a few scenes from - or suggested by - the book, and started improvising.

The world of our historical story, although further removed from us, was fuller. More colourful. Mainly because we had the book's background and detail. The book contains lots of letters written by Galileo's daughter, Sister Maria Celeste.

We found it much easier to flow in improvisations when the situation was clear, there were no complicated details or science involved, and we just let the emotions of the characters be expressed. We kept our structure of four chairs facing in at opposite points, like four points on a compass.

We did scenes from the childhood of Maria Celeste and her younger sister, Arrangela, wondering all along if any of this would be useful to us. Sometimes it's hard to know!

What started off an exciting day of relatively fluid impro turned out to be very difficult. Particular scenarios involving Galileo and his science are very hard - for example, we actors get very self-conscious when we're playing a scientist and feel we have to be convincingly expert in the scientist's field, when it's far better to let our imaginations run wild and have conviction in what we're saying.

All in all, though, a very productive day, exploring the world of Galileo. Not sure yet how it's all going to fit together. Anxious about the next couple of weeks, which have to clarify so much.

THURSDAY 17 JANUARY - ALISTAIR

Devising a play is both frustrating and rewarding. Some days it feels like trumpling through sludge, others like walking on air. Today was a walking on air day. Paul introduced the idea of having we four actors sitting on chairs round a square space. Actors in the middle of the square improvised scenes from the modern story, and those left in the chairs would interject with debate-style comments about the issues underlying the story. This meant that the story-led scenes didn't become overladen with scientific arguments, but neither were they neglected. We demonstrated this new idea at the school's workshop, where it went down well. All in all, a good day. Nice to have a significant breakthrough…

WEDNESDAY 16 JANUARY - SEAN

(SEAN CAVANAGH, DESIGNER)

Having attended the first day of rehearsal, (as a result of which I felt really confused by the complexity of the issues) I left York, planning to return this week to see how the company managed to sort out some form of structure and aim for our new play. From a designer’s point of view, I find it helpful to keep a bit of a distance from the heart of the improvising process, so that when I return I can try to contribute from a relatively detached viewpoint. Interestingly, this need to be detached, or perhaps more accurately, objective, seems to me to be a crucial aspect of the best way to approach the dilemma of how science and everyday life go together in today’s world. If the whole issue is faced in an emotional and personal manner, I think that there may be a risk that we’ll only deal with a small number of contentious and immediately scary issues, rather than helping to understand how we might equip ourselves to deal with all the issues that the future may throw at us.

So coming back to York this week, I find that a lot of new ideas have developed and the project seems to be starting to focus on some specific ways in to explore some core issues. Galileo, who I had only previously encountered in Brecht’s play (as a kind of failed idealist), has started to become a useful vehicle for looking at the relationship between an objective piece of research and the way in which it can conflict with the needs and circumstances of a specific culture – both religious and social – despite it being, objectively, the product of logical and accurate research. In a modern context, the dilemmas presented to a contemporary mix of people facing issues to do with inherited conditions and clinical research are starting to put the historical Galileo into a modern perspective.

Watching rehearsals, there seems to be a problem with us reducing the modern issues down to a “soap opera” form of theatre. There seems to be a risk that the play could be forced into taking either a very fixed or confrontationally “cop-out” view about the issues. Somehow we need to find a form of staging that will help to give us the opportunity to be quite specific and human about the issues and at the same time to consider as objectively as possible the broad and fundamental ethical challenges, without being too confusing. I think that the way we position the actors and the audience and also the “soap opera” and the Galileo story in relation to each other will be crucial in helping us give the audience the opportunity to really consider how they approach these difficult issues in real life. So the question for me is, what is the best way for the staging to do this?… especially as we need to start building the set next week!

TUESDAY 15 JANUARY - SUZI

Today brought two of the school groups back for their 2nd workshop. One group shared with us some results of their work in school, which picked up the question discussed last week on What makes a perfect human being? and explored it through some humorous scenes on human cloning. It was challenging to see the very different ways in which this topic was dramatised and to be reminded that it’s possible to find moments of comedy within this subject. We then went on to share the main areas of development for our rehearsal process over the last week. A challenging exercise on developing a story line around a scientific structure threw up some ideas with real dramatic potential which would be interesting to see developed over the next few weeks. Questions fired at characters on the “hot-seat” forced the actors into new areas of discovery and demanding improvisation situations presented new possibilities for the development of our story. At the end of the day, though temporarily shattered after 4 hours intensive workshop, it was clear that the process of sharing our rough workings with young drama students ultimately energises our work and sparks ideas and questions which we would never think of.

MONDAY 14 JANUARY - PAUL

The excitements of the weekend, which had taken the actors far and wide throughout the country (Glasgow, Wakefield, London etc.), were over and we were back together in our rehearsal room... over for most of us that is: a phonecall from Anna revealed that she would be spending the day in the close vicinity of a sick bowl in London. Obviously, the science or the character research or the diet or something over the weekend had not agreed with her. Praying that she will make it back tomorrow.

Spent the morning listening to the character outlines which the remaining members of our cast had been dreaming up since Friday. Between them they had worked on two versions of four characters from the modern storyline, filling out their background, personality, pet hates, hobbies, lines of work, friendships and, in some cases, religious convictions. Remarkable level of overlap between the A and B versions of each character. Decided to break the ice and start SOME ACTING!! WOW!

Strangely nervous moment as we tried to dip our toes into the freezing water and make these people walk and talk. The more we did the easier it became and by mid-afternoon the chill was beginning to wear off - we began to get glimpses of how certain scenes / confrontations might go.

Rounded off the day trying to map in greater detail the plot of the modern story concerning a woman who is a genetic research scientist, her husband (who might turn out to be a furniture restorer!), his feisty journalist of a younger sister and the woman's friend - a capable and cheery nurse. Then I left to cook tea for various relatives while the company bent their rapidly expanding brains to the question of how to structure TOMORROW'S WORKSHOP…

FRIDAY 11 JANUARY - LIZ

We started the day with an enlightening but intense lesson on how to develop a story. Bridget had been on a course that was full of good ideas that would be extremely useful to us. We started by unpacking a script, and analysing its four components: THEME, CHARACTER, PLOT and STRUCTURE. We explored how these elements combine and help to develop each other. The main points were:

THEME: The overall idea running through the script. What interests you?
CHARACTER: Who are your main & minor characters? Who is your protagonist?
PLOT: What are the events? Have them clearly in chronological order.
STRUCTURE: How does the significant meaning of events unfold? Controlled release of information through character and plot.

The main thing we learned was not to close your ideas on any of these four elements because, as you explore one you learn about the others. Also, if you are having difficulties with one area it may be because you are lacking in another. For example, if you're stuck with your plot, it may be useful to go back to your characters and try to develop them more fully. If you have a clear idea of your characters' history, motives and relationship to one another, it may give you a clue as to what their actions should be.

The most important thing I learned was how much you need to explore your characters. The more you know them, the more you can play about with them in different situations. After discussing these four elements, we started working on our own ideas for characters. We began by saying which ones from our rough storylines we were drawn to.

We then created a world around them in order to work out who they are. For example: their relationships to one another, their status and profession, how they function within the plot.

A week into the project, with more of an idea of plot, characters and the overall theme, we turned to the structure. We played more with the suggestion of a double-helix and the possibility of a second strand of story based in a historical time. We also entertained a third possibility of having some more abstract scenes inserted throughout the play to highlight certain points or explore issues not so easily dealt with in a naturalistic manner.

By the end of the full and brainbusting day, I think we felt we were getting closer. We had eight possible characters, a rough sketch of a plot and a very good idea of our structure.

Oh, and some homework…

We each took two or three characters to develop more fully over the weekend - the idea being that we come back on Monday with some characters to work with in some improvisational exercises. Hmm.

THURSDAY 10 JANUARY - CAT

Over the past week, my only certainty has been that my opinions on cloning, gene therapy, abortion, perfection, suffering and numerous other 'minor' issues shall be challenged, deconstructed and altered from the time I enter through the Friargate Theatre doors to the time I exit them.

We started off this morning by interrogating Sue Collier (Riding Lights chaplain). She gave us a professional and personal insight of a doctor's view on the value of life etc… Having had our noses firmly placed in books and our brains thrust into gear through numerous intense discussions, her comments were most valuable. She gave us a much-needed first hand understanding of the issue, which sparked off new ideas.

The afternoon was filled with entertainment (an array of sketches by the Year-10s) and intrigue (stimulating discussions and personal stories on What is the point of suffering? and What is perfection?) delivered by the students from All Saints School. Our third workshop gave both parties lots of food for thought. We rounded off the day by cementing some more thoughts into themes, and exploring the idea of the plot paralleling the double-helix of DNA.

As I predicted, my opinions had experienced another roller-coaster ride.

WEDNESDAY 9 JANUARY - BRIDGET

Exhausted by the encounter with so many young people yesterday afternoon, we oldies spent the morning recovering. I mean, researching. We then spent the afternoon taking the reckless leap into outing possible scenarios. In two groups, we brainstormed ideas, characters and situations that might be good ingredients for our show. When we shared our rough outlines, there were striking similarities - the central figure of a female scientist appeared in both - as well as fundamental differences. Add it all together, and we have about four plays. It's encouraging to find that out of all the information we're digesting, dramatic ideas and emerging, but we're going to need to be ferocious editors of our own work. Left rehearsal with our brains spinning… like planets…

TUESDAY 8 JANUARY - ANNA

Preparing for workshops with GCSE Drama students from Fulford & Huntington Schools. Wanted to use exercises that challenged and provoked ideas so that we could begin to grapple with possibilities for the subject of our play.

Fulford's workshop was first - they arrived 1.45pm. Paul introduced everyone. Got warmed up quite quickly with lots of running around. Then we compared ideas on the subject of science - and, more specifically, on the subject of genes. The students performed some short improvisations. We discussed their potential, and other possibilities. We performed an extract from the play An Experiment with an Airpump by Shelagh Stevenson, which brought up issues of suffering, genetic perfection and the value of human life. The students, in groups, then created short improvisations on positive and negative views of the future, where genetic therapy was the norm.

This stimulated discussion of various questions: What is perfection? And what is the point of suffering? We discovered that these are not black and white issues. Personal stories of the suffering of friends and family made it harder ot argue.

The ideas keep on coming… endless possibilities… the mind boggles.

MONDAY 7 JANUARY - ALISTAIR

Distant memories of school science lessons: bunsen burners, tricky theories, fancying the teacher and now, after many years of being interested in science but never studying it, doing a play about it! Suddenly I'm steeped in the world of DNA, the code for making life, and at the other end of the spectrum, the Cosmos.

Questions abound: how are we made? What are our origins? Should we tamper with our DNA? Is it right to clone human beings? Was the universe designed or is it just something that happened?

Science, and the questions it asks, are exciting, controversial, meaningful, perplexing. How can we explore all this dramatically - and do the subject justice? Right now I really don't know - but it's fun doing lots of reading, discussing... and thinking so much that my brain hurts!

But I'm sure we'll crack it. Move over Mulder and Scully - here comes Riding Lights.