The Murderer – Final Report by Clown Funeral

The Murderer by Clown Funeral is a show that, having travelled to the Edinburgh Fringe with the kind support of awards like the IATL Festival Fund and the Clive Barker Award, has developed into a thoughtful, funny and unusual piece of theatre ready for the professional stage. It was described by critics as ‘a joy to watch… Clown Funeral [are] a company to watch in the future’ (David Doyle thereviewshub.com), ‘subtle yet ambitious… poetic take on rehabilitation’ (Nick Awde The Stage) and as having ‘this kind of timeless NF Simpson/Pinter/Stoppard/Beckett surrealist essentialism’ (Andrew Haydon Postcards From The Gods). The run at Edinburgh has allowed us to tap into the strengths of thoughtfulness, humour, and absurdity, developing the show beyond what we have achieved in previous outings and given us confidence, and plenty of feedback, to work from as we develop the show and company with an eye to tour the show in the near future.

The rehearsal process was especially successful in its development of the central relationship between the Carer and the Murderer, as well as the unusual style of the piece. From when we originally found the poem in October 2015 (Luke Kennard “The Murderer”), our fascination was always with the peculiar dark humour of the poem, and the relationship between the Carer and Murderer characters, as it set the narrative in the realm of ‘speculative fiction’, not quite science fiction, but nor far divorced from the world we live in now. The rehearsal process explored this by treating the two main characters as complex, emotive humans who learn from each other. We began by exploring them physically, with the Murderer coming across as a shy, ponderous figure, and the Carer as a character that tries too hard to show that they are confident and assured, before throwing them into scripted scenes and improvisations that helped us find their voices, their relationship and how they behave in normal, human interaction. Their vulnerable personalities and fluctuating relationship was therefore developed organically, in contrast to the forced, ‘customer service’-esque character that we termed ‘Everyone Else’. This character was designed to enhance the absurd aspects of the performance, as one actor would play everybody in the narrative except the Carer and Murderer, from a sandwich shop assistant, to a psychiatrist, to a taxi driver, as exactly the same person, highlighting by contrast the complex, human relationship between the two main characters.

When we got to Edinburgh, it was clear that the work we’d put into this relationship had paid off, and the unusual style of the piece worked well to highlight this. We approached devising material with a very particular methodology that worked well with this style:

1. Discussion – What scenes would we like to see if we were audience members? How can the narrative progress? Are there any missing links?

2. Writing – One member of the team would write the scene on their own.

3. Workshopping – Playing around with the aesthetics of the scene, digging out what it means to the characters etc.

4. Editing – It would be passed around the team until we were happy with a final version of the scene.

5. ‘Breaking the rules’ – How can we make this scene ‘unnatural’? Does time move strangely? Are the characters standing or moving in ways that don’t correspond to what they say?

6. Staging – Taking into account the exploration of the scene, we would finalise how to perform it onstage.

This allowed us not only to avoid plain, naturalistic staging, but to derive our rejection of naturalism from the meaning of the scene. For instance, one scene that involves a tense argument between Carer and Murderer is performed with the two looking past each other, until a moment that the Murderer realises that the Carer has been spying on them, when both, having reached an understanding, suddenly become aware of each other in the space. This unnatural style was compounded by the set, which was comprised of three doorframes of differing sizes, being moved around the stage to create and delineate space. The way this created the absurd world of the performance was remarked on by audience, and was extremely effective in creating a strange environment to isolate the relationship of the Carer and the Murderer.

However, we have a number of areas that the Edinburgh run, and subsequent one-off performance at the New Diorama theatre in London (with whom we as a theatre company are now official affiliates), have shown us that we still need to develop. The rehearsal process enabled us to create a distinctive and entertaining performance, but because we were isolated during the bulk of the rehearsal process, creating roughly 40 minutes of the 60 minute show and staging it without referring to an outside eye with a preview performance or anything similar, the structure became a little uneven, with some of the humorous or expositional scenes becoming overlong or occasionally indulgent. Furthermore, we used a rotating cast system in Edinburgh which, although it served a practical purpose in allowing performers to learn from each other and not exhaust themselves, has significant artistic limitations. As a company with a larger ensemble than the three-hander of The Murderer, we sometimes prioritised balancing cast numbers or giving performers a break, rather than giving cast combinations enough time to build up momentum. In particular, the relationship between the Carer and the Murderer sometimes became unfocused due to the performers switching out, and as we look to tour the show, it will be important to work on the strongest combination or combinations in order to develop the relationship between the characters fully. Finally, although the style was interesting, unusual and entertaining, the build of the style was not always as effective as it could be. Particularly in the second half, we missed the chance to explore the breakdown of the relationship between Murderer and Carer through the set, as we rehashed locations from the first half, ignoring opportunities such as creating more jagged or fractured environments for the Carer and Murderer to explore.

The Edinburgh run therefore was an excellent opportunity if viewed as the first chance to gain experience and feedback on our show, although it was often too intense to make the changes we needed to make at the time. The show has real potential to develop into an unusual, thoughtful, funny full-length performance, and the support from IATL has enabled Clown Funeral to take more risks with the design, freeing up money for us to use on set, a feature that has been remarked on by many reviewers and audience members. Next, we plan to develop the show into a 70-minute performance, hoping to fully realise the relationship between the main characters, and the extent to which the design can be utilised, and tour it to theatres across the UK. We are hoping to establish links with theatres that specialise in supporting new writing, devising and emerging companies, as well as innovative theatrical styles. We have thoroughly enjoyed the support IATL has provided us in this project, giving us rehearsal space and financial support, and would relish the opportunity to keep working with them in the future, whether in developing/performing The Murderer, or in our future work.

Works Cited

Awde, Nick. “The Murderer review at ZOO Southside, Edinburgh”. The Stage. The Stage Media Company Limited, 10 August 2016. Web. 27 September 2016.

Doyle, David. “The Murderer – ZOO Southside, Edinburgh”. Thereviewshub.com. n.p., 23 August 2016. Web. 27 September 2016.

Haydon, Andrew. “The Murderer – ZOO Southside, Edinburgh”. Postcards From The Gods. Palpable Hits, 19 August 2016. Web. 27 September 2016.

Kennard, Luke. “The Murderer”. Poetryinternationalweb.net. Salt Publishing, 2007.