Your paper should be 2-3 pages in length, double spaced, 12pt Times New Roman or similar. It can look like a conventional essay structure (an introductory paragraph, transitions between ideas throughout, and a concluding paragraph) or it can look like literally putting each of these questions in the document and responding to them. Either is fine; what matters is that you're thinking about the work in the context of what we've done in class.
Since people who were acting in the show likely had a very different experience of the work's connection to our classwork, there are two sets of guidelines below.
Response Paper Guidelines for People Who Were Not Acting in Spitfire
1) What were your overall impressions of the show? How would you describe the acting style required for this kind of production? (3 points)
2) In our Stanislavski deep dive, part of what we played with was learning to be informed by a production's context (social, historical, etc.). This show was set in Wisconsin in 1992. How do you think the production's context informed the acting choices in the production? What might have shifted if the play was set in, say, the 1970s or the 2010s? (7 points)
3) Much of our work has been about leaning harder into the basic acting best practices of really wanting something from your scene partner, playing hard in order to get it, and being deeply invested in that scene partner. What is a specific moment or two in the show where you saw actors connecting deeply with their scene partners and fighting hard for a goal? (Remember that that doesn't always look like conflict.) Are there moments where you perceived a disconnection between scene partners, or felt that someone was playing general emotion/mood rather than really trying to do something? (10 points)
4) Acting isn't just about talking; as we've explored both with Chekhov and our Linklater warm-ups, it's a full-body activity. What were moments you noticed that actors' physicality supported your understanding of them as their character? Were there moments that you noticed physical disconnection, where the character went away and the actor popped back out? (10 points)
Response Guidelines for People who Acted in Spitfire
1) In our Stanislavski deep dive, part of what we played with was learning to be informed by a production's context (social, historical, etc.). This show was set in Wisconsin in 1992. How do you think the production's context informed your acting choices in the production? What might have shifted if the play was set in, say, the 1970s or the 2010s? (7 points)
2) Much of our work has been about leaning harder into the basic acting best practices of really wanting something from your scene partner, playing hard in order to get it, and being deeply invested in that scene partner. In class we've been practicing it on single scenes, but your task was to manage it over the course of a musical. Were there scenes where this work felt easy? Scenes where it felt harder? Why? (8 ponts)
3) Acting isn't just about talking; as we've explored both with Chekhov and our Linklater warm-ups, it's a full-body activity. How/did you think about your physicality shaping your character? (6)
4) As we discussed at the beginning of the term, much of the goal of this class was to give you tools to move towards crafting your own technique. You'll have a chance to reflect on that in a class context in your final reflection paper, but what did you learn about your personal technique during Spitfire? What did you discover along the way that you want to incorporate in future productions, or what do you wish you'd been able to try? (9)