Drama Journal 2020

Director’s Notebook (14/10/2020)

The director’s notebook was the most fun I had had with an assignment ever since I decided to join drama in 2016. I love directing, because it is one of the most gratifying experiences knowing that your ideas have inspired others towards an idea and collaborating with others to grasp a vision that you have made together. As a result, I wanted to select a project that I thought would be very interesting to me. I discovered Copenhagen by Michael Frayn, where the abstract nature of the play proved lucrative to the possibilities that I had for ideas. I also wanted to make up for the production being cancelled earlier this year as I thought that would be my opportunity to direct properly. I think because of this I was motivated to work harder to make up for these unseen deficiencies.

While choosing a play to direct, I was drawn to Michael Frayn’s Copenhagen. Copenhagen first premiered in May of 1998 at the Royal National Theatre in London, England, opening to commercial and critical acclaim as it has been adapted numerous times and won the Tony Award for Best Play in 2000. It is based on the actual meeting between the European physicists Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr in 1941 as Heisenberg went to see Bohr in Copenhagen. The production takes place in the afterlife, where Heisenberg, Bohr, and Bohr’s wife discuss various topics that revolve around the different retellings of the visit and what exactly occurred that day. Because the meeting took place during World War II and Bohr was Jewish, most of the conflict stems from the ideologies between the two scientists as they converse. The two act drama ends with the three characters deciding that although there are many things that are uncertain in the world, the past is fixed by their choices which determine how their futures play out.

My artistic objective for the play is to be able to deliver Frayn’s original intentions of Copenhagen to the audience while being able to create an immersive experience that expands upon Frayn’s script. The setting of the play provides the perfect backdrop for creating content that is timeless to viewers, such as the themes of the production. Like the setting, I want this version of Copenhagen to be shown to all demographics, as the many ideas that Frayn has for this play can be understood by most people. The best forms of theatre are often those that are not aimed towards a specific population, as they have aspects that everybody can relate to which draws them into the show more. The intended effects of Copenhagen should then have a larger effect because more people are watching who can associate their own lives with the play they watch. I want the play to be an event that is not just immersive in nature, but one that causes the audience to reflect upon their own actions after the production is done. I like the idea that a good actor is separated from a great actor by how well the great actor manages to make you believe that they are the character and not simply playing one. I would like to adapt that principal to this performance, where one can view it as a piece of entertainment, although it could be so much more than that if they choose to look between the lines.

If these emotions were to be captured properly, it would further add to the impact I would like the audience to feel from reflecting upon their own journeys after watching Copenhagen. I chose these two scenes to demonstrate how the differences in acts can invoke an important effect, which would make the viewer appreciate the play for what it may teach them. With the first scene, one can see how being told very little exposition about the setting of the play at the beginning leads the audience to be initially confused about what exactly they are watching. This ranges from the set, which at first should feel almost alien to spectators, to the costumes and the make up which are clearly not of the present day. This initial precariousness in the atmosphere that the audience feels acts as an incentive for them to keep watching as they want to seek an answer from the play as to why it is the way it is. On the other hand, the concluding scene will have either achieved one of two effects. One is that the audience’s first questions about the play have been answered, which causes them to reflect about the production and themselves, developing a deeper connection to the play and what it aims to make the audience feel. The other is that their questions have not been answered and they are still baffled as to what exactly Copenhagen is supposed to be about. I have faith that people who watch that find themselves in this position can still discern that the performance is supposed to help them reflect on themselves in some manner. This is because by the end, many of the themes of Copenhagen have been either explored or mentioned. Even if the audience does not fully understand the play, I believe that at least on a surface level they would still be able to recognise what these themes are and how they are supposed to feel based upon these themes. The power of Frayn’s admittedly abstract script combined with my design choices should create a memorable event that fulfils my original intentions by entertaining the viewer while making them reflect on their own lives. Lives wherein their future is uncertain and the only things that are absolute are the past and the present. This motivates the audience to perhaps better themselves as these are absolute events that may be irrelevant now, but can be immortalised in the years to come, and forever more.