610016288 DRA1010

21/11/11

Drawing on examples from the process leading up to the presentation and/or the presentation itself, provide a critical reflection on your pair presentation.
The focus of our pair presentation was an analysis of the acting and actoraudience relationship in Henry V which was performed at the Bikeshed Theatre by Company Boudin. The main theoretical approaches we used in our analysis were Kowzans classification of sign systems, Peirces classification of signs, and Pavis questionnaire (referencing the section on audience-actor relationship). Overall, our presentation went well, but there were some areas in which I could improve, for example my presentation skills. Our work in the process leading up to the presentation could have been far more effective, allowing us more preparation and development time. The initial stages of developing our presentation were well organised: we saw a variety of performances and selected Henry V because we enjoyed the performance and felt that it lent itself well to semiotic analysis. We started this process early, to allow ourselves time to develop our ideas about the performance, and start thinking about the theories we would use to support them. We agreed that the areas in which our ideas had most depth were acting and actor-audience relationship, and this led us to Pavis, Kowzan and Peirces semiotics. The acting style was engaging and presented some challenges to semiotics, there was also an interesting actoraudience dynamic which had not been present in other performances we had seen. Initially we also found the impact of the performance space to be an area for analysis, however we chose not to focus on this after feedback in the practice presentation. We felt that the focus was too broad, which didnt allow for the depth of analysis we needed. Although the first steps in putting our presentation together were effective, our level of productivity dropped in the week before the practice presentation. I found that this lack of preparation affected the depth of my understanding of the theory we had chosen to use in support of our ideas- we found it hard to link our analysis of Henry V to the theory we had selected as relevant to it. For example we knew Pavis theories were relevant but were unsure how to use it within our presentation.
1

610016288 DRA1010

21/11/11

This also created a lack of critical evaluation of the theory, and its effectiveness with regard to our semiotic analysis. The lack of detail and theoretical referencing in our practice presentation affected our ability to present our ideas effectively because we were not confident in our knowledge of the task. The feedback from our practice presentation showed that we needed to build on our confidence in our presentation skills, in order to interest the audience and convey our ideas in a more engaging way. We also needed to develop the structure of our presentation, as the audience felt they were left confused about the progression of our ideas. While there were some considerable problems with our preparation process and our practice presentation, we showed the ability to adapt our ideas and use criticism effectively to improve our work. I felt that throughout the process I learned about my ability to develop and present my ideas about theoretical approaches to theatre analysis. While my research skills were good, I felt that I needed to improve upon my ability to structure my ideas gained from this research and then to evaluate its usefulness in creating the presentation. In order to do this I found it useful to create summaries of a range of semiotic theories, for example Kowzan and Peirces classifications, then assess from these summaries their usefulness to my ideas about

Henry V. This has enabled me to use these theories clearly and appropriately in
research. During the final presentation I felt that my confidence was much higher, due to having prepared my analysis and evaluation sufficiently. I felt that there was a logical progression in my ideas which enabled the audience to understand the theory and analysis I was presenting. My presentation style was more relaxed and engaged with the material, and I felt happy with my ability to present well. However I could have improved my presentation skills by utilising my time more effectively- I did not cover all the material I had prepared and would have benefitted from a rehearsal before the presentation in order to determine the pace of my material. Overall, I feel that throughout the process I developed my skills and was able to adapt based upon problems that we came across as a pair. My presentation skills were generally good, and my analytical skills have improved while I have been researching different theoretical approaches. In order to improve for future
2

610016288 DRA1010

21/11/11

presentations, I will manage my time more effectively, both in the presentation and throughout the preparation period in order to ensure I present my ideas confidently.

Word Count: 786