The Actor’s Rehearsal:

Error Correction in Scenes from a Play

Jackson Grove
Boston Conservatory at Berklee College of Music

Abstract and Introduction:

This paper will show how ‘blocking’ errors are detected and corrected in play-
script read-through rehearsal. Conversation analysis (CA) in play rehearsal is
used to analyze the following: how progressivity is halted due to the need for
error correction, how the errors are corrected and made understood to all parties
involved, and how progressivity is rekindled by the continuation of the scene that
was stopped. The rehearsal is all about progressivity: pushing on with the flow of
action and stopping only to fix order of events. What can be learned from these
rehearsals by looking at error detection and correction is how the director
intervenes to get the job done. The two studies used in this analysis are Spenzer
Hazel, (2018), "Discovering Interactional Authenticity: Tracking Theatre
Practitioners Across Rehearsals" and Axel Schmidt, (2018), "Prefiguring the
future: Projections and preparations within theatrical rehearsals", In Time in
Embodied Interaction: Synchronicity and sequentiality of multimodal resources
(Arnulf Deppermann, Jürgen Streeck, eds.). Hazel’s report compared how a the
play changed from the first rehearsal through the dress rehearsals to a total of 13
days. The study with Schmidt took into account how physicality plays a role in
correction during rehearsal process including preparation, situational agreement,
and project-by-arrangement. The issue that has not been yet explored is how
and why a scene is paused in an acting rehearsal, and how actors and directors
work hand-in-hand to acknowledge the error, correct the error, and efficiently
return to the rehearsal. This will be solved by looking at a series of clips, all in
which include a scene being started, stopped, and restarted. This research is
important because, in the world of CA, it can be used to predict errors in a
rehearsal setting and discover methods to prevent errors and improve
progressivity. This play rehearsal is full of error corrections, what is to be
discovered is how the error corrections are gone about correcting, and how
progressivity is maintained.
I am interested in this topic because I am an actor myself and want to
discover ways to maintain the progressivity of a rehearsal room. Schmidt
describes rehearsals as means to make different performances recognizable as
belonging to the same play (Schmidt, 2018). The rehearsal in this study is used
similarly is to ensure that each time the actors perform the given scene they are
rehearsing, it would be recognizable as the same scene from the same play
when performed. In this study, the participants are not ‘fine tuning’ the work. On
the contrary, they are merely receiving the ‘blocking’ - the physicalization
associated with lines in the script - for the scene. If the participants were further
along in the process, this would not be the case; being the first time they are
working on the scene, this rehearsal is simply an introduction, or passing of
information, from the director to the actors. There is evidence of this in the third
extract, where the director reiterates the tasks: to align what is said in the script
with the order of activities (the blocking). Also in the third extract, the importance
of the script is demonstrated.
There are three methods that the participants use to solve the problems
that arise in the script: intervening in the progressively of the play-script
rehearsal, identifying and correcting the error, and resuming the play-script
rehearsal. The fragments show how the default of continuation is broken by the
director’s speech - and it’s this point of deviation from the default ongoing reading
that is treated as a correction. Furthermore, Schmidt states that “they have to set
a starting point for performing a play scene which requires initial temporal
coordination of all necessary resources”, which essentially means that each
piece of the puzzle has to be working together in order for the scene to start,
which is something that is accounted for in this study. Object-preparations and
self-preparations are also an aspect of the study, as they help inform participants
as to when the scene will begin (Schmidt, ibid). Lastly, this research will provide
information that can inform how collaboration and common understanding is
essential to have a joint entry into the play that takes the least amount of work.
This is a series of video clips from a play rehearsal at the Boston
Conservatory at Berklee. This is a student directed work, meaning that the roles
of the Director and Stage Manager, normally filled by adults, are filled by
students. The director is essentially responsible for leading the rehearsal and
sharing their vision with the rest of the group. The Stage Manager in the
rehearsal setting is responsible for keeping the group on time, writing down
staging, and giving line readings to actors when necessary. Actors are
responsible for writing down blocking and doing the work. Tori is the director and
is a senior at the Conservatory. Jack is the Stage Manager and is a freshman.
Calley is an actress and a senior. Tanner is an actor and a freshman. One
limitation in the data is the area microphone was stopped working, so the only
audio comes from the body microphones on Tori and Jack, so an occasional line
is dropped from the transcriptions. Prior to the data collection, the actors,
Director, and Stage Manager gathered for a top-of-rehearsal meeting. They
continued by talking about their characters and about the play. Finally, the
director gave them their blocking to write down before having them get on their
feet and do the scene. The actors then had the responsibility of writing down the
things the director told them and apply them to scene. The scene is from the play
Childhood by Thornton Wilder, and would be done a dozen times within this one
rehearsal for familiarity and comfortability. There are many errors that occur
during the rehearsal that are seen by the director as correctable. It is then the
actors responsibility to take the correct and apply it so further errors aren’t made.
It is important to note that the goal of the rehearsal is to have one scene of the
play blocked and rehearsed, so that from now on only minor corrections will need
to be made. In the last fragment, for example, we will see Tanner initiate a
correction is the exception and proves that this is the purpose of the rehearsal.
Then, Tori will have to deal with it and keep the rehearsal moving.
This analysis draws on conversation analysis (Sidnell 2010) and
ethnomethodological video analysis (Heath, Hindmarsh and Luff 2010). In
addition, the transcription process was used with Jefferson (2004) and Hepburn
& Bolden (2012).

In the following fragments, we see Tori (director), Jack (SM), Calley (actress) and
Tanner (actor) working on a scene.

Fragment 1: (0:03 - 0:53)

Director acknowledge error and correct error
1 *TAN: Jerry drove me to the co::rner, (0.3) >picked up a little< fla:sk for the weekend.
2 *CAL: Well (.) I wish you wouldn’t open your little fla::sk around the children. (.)
3 *TOR: ((looking at actors)) oh:. okay. (.) u::h[mm ]
4 *CAL: [°Children] are aroun-°
5 *TOR: On picked up a little flask (.) can you take out
6 the flask and °(then) take a little sip of it° (1.4)((TYL takes sip)) U:hm, an=you can be on a
7 >littlebit of uh<, ((TOR points)) You don’t have to be completely (0.6)((TOR stands))
8 *TAN: Away from [er]
9 *TOR: [^th]is way maybe like (.)
9 ((TOR shifts body position))angled down stage right uhlittle (0.7) °so tha=it’s not complete° profile
10 ((TOR moves back to chair)=and you ca kinda ((TOR looks over shoulder to TYL)) (.) talk over your
11 shoulder >to’er< but you don’t have ((thing falls)) to look at er ((book falls)) ((TOR looks)) ↑°ope°
12 *TAN: °(great)°
13 *JAC: The ghost (1.4) o[f Ips]wich
14 *TOR: Ehhhh[ehheh] (0.9) °the ghost° (0.3) o:ww pfhhhh mhu::hm ((looks at script))
15 (0.8)
16 *TAN: Cool, (0.5) uhhhhh (2.2) >aljustake< (0.2) take it again
17 (5.1)
18 *TOR: Uh (0.2) Jerry drove me >tuhthe< corner, ((TOR looks up))

In this clip, the ‘error’ that is made is identified differently by the director, Tori and
the actor, Calley. What Calley says in line 4 is the correct line reading that she
repeats correctly because of the error she made in line 2. So at first Calley treats
Tori’s starting to speak in line 3 as a correction of her script reading. Then Tori
addresses her correction to Tanner’s reading of stage directions. This is really
interesting because it shows what the actors do when the director starts
speaking: they review what they’re doing and examine their prior behavior for
 error, then take steps to self-correct. This shows how the ‘default’ of just
continuing is broken by the director’s speech - and it’s this point of deviation from
the ‘default’ ongoing reading that is treated as a correction. Continuing on, notice
that Tori’s gaze remained on the actors, not her script, through the error in line 2
into her correction in line 3 (Fig 1.1). When she began the correction, she informs
that the error is not Calley’s line flub when she, in line 5, refers to Tanner needing
to make a change to his line that he said in line 1. Tanner goes along with what
Tori says to do, for example, when she asks him to take a sip of the flask in the
scene (line 6),Tanner responds to Tori’s instruction by taking a sip.

1.1 1.2

Another interesting phenomenon to notice is Tori’s way of giving Tanner the

direction of how to move his body. She begins by just pointing in line 7 (Figure
1.3) but receives no physical response from Tanner. As the correction reveals
itself to be more elaborate and the pointing isn’t effective, Tori stands and
demonstrates the angle change (Figures 1.4 and 1.5). Tanner then shifts from
facing directly downstage (towards the audience) to angled downstage right.

1.3 1.4 1.5

What is fantastic about this correction is that (1) it was not

the initial cause for the stopping of the scene, and (2)
after Tori gives Tanner the physical correction, Tanner 1.6
responds in the same way he did with the drinking the
flask correction by physically moving his body (Figure 1.6) to (1) show Tori he
understood her request and (2) prevent future errors engrave the movement into
his body as well as write the correction in his script. We see change in Tanner’s
physicality in Figures 1.5 and 1.6.

The way the group gets back into the scene leads into another interesting point
to be made regarding the fragment. We see Tori move her gaze to her script in
line 14, followed by a 0.8 second pause. Tanner then responds with “cool” to the
entire correction followed by saying “uhhhh” and giving allotting a 2.2 second
pause, giving Tori the opportunity to share another correction, given that
previously in the fragment she has moved her gaze to the script prior to starting
her corrections. During line 17, Tori remains seated, looking at her script and not
silent. When Tori doesn’t say anything, her silence is the way of acknowledging
that Tanner’s proposal to restart the rehearsal with “take it again” in line 16 is
okay. Tanner is giving Tori the opportunity to continue with her correction, and by
Tori not pursuing that opportunity for feedback, the group is then returning to the
default structure of the activity which is the rehearsal. In essence, the error
detection in 3 to the restart in line 18 has been a detour out of the sequence of
lines in the script reading.

Something to note further is the way that error corrections in a script reading are
similar to storytelling. Tori’s initial correction to Tanner was about his line “picked
up a little flask for the weekend”. Similar to storytelling, we know the end of the
correction has been reached once we return to the line or movement in which the
director initiated the correction and suspended the play.

Fragment 2: (0:02 - 0:57)

Actor acknowledge error (part one)
1 *CAL: ((Walking toward him)) ((TOR looking at script)) Why you’re early a:fter all.
2 (2.0)
3 *TAN: ((Looks at script)) Jerry drove me to t[he corner, ] ((TOR looks up and moves pencil to script))
4 *CAL: [shit sorry,] ((Walks to TAN & kisses him on the cheek))
5 (1.2)
6 *TAN: HHhh
7 *TOR: uhhh::huhu::h? ((looks at script)) [SO:: I think- ] (.) I thi[nk is firs one] (.) [is like] (.)
8 *TAN: [((Jerryheyeah)) .hh] ((drops script))
9 *CAL: [a(h)hh:ahh ] [ahe::uh]
10 *TOR: I think this li:ne will be like- (.)
11 *CAL: ((dances))
12 *TAN: ((picks up jacket)) I will drop this °[on the other side]° ((drops jacket))
13 *TOR: [↑O::hh you’re] (0.3) likeh (0.2) like °ah::hhhh°
14 I wanna s[Link]y (0.9)
15 *CAL: Like maybe he said o::h I’m gonna be late and >then yer like< ↑oh (.) actua[lly (.) you’re early]
16 *TOR: [right (.) an you jus]
17 you jus saw him but he doesn’t know that you saw him?
18 *CAL: So it’s more like (0.3) ↑o:::hh
19 *TOR: Right so like for the audience it’ll be fun[ny:::] if you (0.5) if (0.2) because he doesn’t know
20 *CAL: [Uhhh]uh
21 *CAL: Yeah
22 *JAC: °yeh°
23 *TOR: ghehh hehh that makes [sense,] e:hh::h trying to figure out how to say it eh↑uhm.
24 *CAL: [ye:ah]
25 *CAL: No I see what you’re saying (2.0)
26 *TOR:
I’m here with you,
uhm (.) yeah, ((looks at script))
2.1
27 (4.0)
28 *TOR: Uhhhhhhy↑ea::aah just from wherever (0.5) is fine
29 *TAN: ((Clears throat)) Jerry drove me to thuh corner (0.3) picked up a little
flask

One phenomenon in this clip is that the error made by Calley

in lines 3 and 4, does not necessarily stop the continuation of
the scene entirely, just a moment in time where Calley and Tanner - for lack of a
better term - step out of character; Calley by mumbling “shit sorry”, a line not in
the script, and Tanner by laughing softly (line 6). Taking a closer look, we can see
that in figure 2.1 Tori’s gaze is on her script. In line 3, she
moves her pencil to her script (Figure 2.2), as Calley leans in 2.2
to kiss Tanner. What is so interesting is that though Tori stops
the scene with a vocalization in line 7 - which Calley
acknowledges by changing her gaze towards Tori - Tanner
continues to look at his script and read his following line,
demonstrated in line 8 and Figure 2.3. Just after, he drops
the script to his side and also moves his gaze to Tori, and
she continues her correction (Figure 2.4).

2.3 2.4

Continuing on, Calley’s jig she does in line 11 (figure 2.5) is

interesting and relevant to the correction because it shows that 2.5
she isn’t fully engaged in what Tori is saying. This is fascinating
because, so far, Tori hasn’t actually given a correction. Lines 7
and 10 are just her preparing to say the line that she would like
to address. By the end of line 14 she still hasn’t given a
correction, and the pause right before Calley enters in with her
suggestion indicates that Tori was struggling to come up with
what she wanted to say and correct.
Even more fascinating, the error correction made by the Tori is completely
unrelated to Calley’s error that she acknowledges in line 4, showing us, again,
the actors trying to figure out what they did wrong when the director begins to
issue the correction and pause the scene. Calley assumes that it was whatever
she just did. Thus, Calley using using the adjacency of Tori’s turn to identify the
correctable problem - which she believes is her blocking error. Calley was
supposed to move before she actually did; she recognized this, causing her to
speak out-of-character in line 4. Tori then has to clarify what the correction she is
making is, which is about where Calley’s gaze should be at the top of the scene -
based on what Tori says in line 19.

2.6 Similarly to the fragment prior, at the end of the

correction Tori shifts her gaze to her script in line 26
(Fig. 2.6); however, contrary to the fragment prior,
she gives the actors approval to continue in line 28.
Here is a method for returning to the script reading
and getting back into the rehearsal. This particular
correction has it’s individuality because of the way
Tori struggles to execute the correction herself and has to rely on Calley to follow
through and fill in the blanks for her. Contrary to the other fragments, in lines
19-28 the closing sequence is composed of several acknowledgement tokes
‘yeah’ ‘yeh’ ‘that makes sense’ by Tori, Jack, and Calley. Then, when there is a
pause in the response tokens, Tori shares a final ‘Uhhhhhyeah’ before giving the
direction to start again without producing a clear, coherent direction. Tanner then
clears his throat which achieves two things: one, it tells Tori that he understood
her and is going to start the scene and two, it tells Calley that he is going to
initiate with the first line of the script reading because Tori didn’t give them a clear
place to begin.
This shows us how the structure of a rehearsal differs from moment to
moment and there are many variables to how a rehearsal will go. Something that
is extremely interesting is that in the clip it is made clear that the reason Tori
chose to stop the scene was because of Calley’s first line. However, when she
gives them permission to start from “wherever”, Tanner begins with his first line,
which is right after Calley’s line that was given the correction. Thus, instead of
giving Calley the opportunity to apply the correction and prevent further need for
repair, Tanner started the moment after.
In essence, these examples showcase the work and effort that is required
by the director, SM, and actors to escape from a problematic correction
sequence where the director is unable to give a clear direction.
 Fragment 3: (0:01 - 1:26)
Actor acknowledged error (part two)
*This transcript omits a longer section that is not central to the phenomenon explored in this paper.

1 *CAL: ↑I only hear fragments >of the games< !naturally but do you re:alize than they like
2 nothing better than to imagine us (.) AWAy.
3 (0.5)
4 *TAN: Away?
5 (0.5)
6 *CAL: ↑Ye::s (.4) ↑^de:ad
7 *TAN: (1.4) ((JAC looks up)) °Co::ol°. (.6) °awesome°. [(sah)]
8 *TOR: [So ] maybe::, (.) the dead should be l- (.) u::: 8 (1.6)
9 *CAL: Yeah t[he question mark is like] de:ad
10 *TOR: [Like >are you fucking ki]:dding<, (.) di:h— don’t you know what I’m saying
11 *CAL: >ye[ah - ]
12 *TOR: [=Ye:ah.]
13 *CAL: O:h oka:ay. (0.8) yeah the question mark I’m like
14 *TOR: Like du:uh [ye]ah
15 *CAL: Ah like oa:h ye:[ah]
16 *Pause in transcription
17 *TOR: I think (0.9) after we block this >enwe have more< time we can talk about (0.6) you know (0.5) what
18 *TOR: you want from each other in the scene (0.2) obviously that’s important [huhheh] ah::mm but for now
19 *CAL: [Mmhmmm]
20 *TOR: let’s just keep going
21 *CAL: Yeh, (1.8) thu:h the:h but do you realize that they like nothing better than to imagine us (.) ↑away?

In this segment from rehearsal, there are multiple errors

3.1
made apparent in lines 1-8, but the only error acknowledged
by the actors (before the correction is given) is Tanner’s -
which Tori does not address. Something fascinating about this
clip is that it highlights the one of the roles of the Stage
Manager, which is to give line readings. When Tanner pauses
for 1.4 seconds in line 7, we see Jack’s eyes shift from looking
at the script, up to the actors as shown in
3.2 figure 3.1. This is the first sign of the error
because, with Tanner’s script in front of him, Jack knows
that the line reading is not the source of the error. The next
is when Tanner breaks character in line 7 by saying “Cool,
awesome.” Oddly enough, Tanner’s gaze is on his script
(figure 3.2), yet he doesn’t say the line on the page, so
there could have been something in the scene that caused
him to feel the need to stop progressivity. The key difference
in this fragment compared to the fragments prior is that - as
we can see - the correction is actor-initiated by Tanner, not director-initiated by
Tori.
This leads to quite an interesting sequence because, initially Tori had no
reason to stop the scene and thus no specific correction to give and no reason
not to continue. Tori also specifically clarifies that the rehearsal is a ‘blocking’
rehearsal, giving the actors freedom to make mistakes character-related without
halt and the suggestion to focus just on the movement to line reading
relationship; this becomes important in the discussion. Furthermore, progressivity
continues when Tori says “let’s just keep going” in line 20. What I noticed about
this is that she makes the request that her actors continue from where they were
stopped, rather than go back to a moment previous in the scene or from the
beginning. This caused the actors to keep moving in the scene instead of having
to take time to repeat content that had already been covered. The FPP “let’s just
keep going” is responded to with a SPP from Calley “yeh” or “yep” in line 21,
before beginning. This would give the ability to conclude that Calley understood
what Tori was saying, however, it is evident that she did not because she ends up
going back 2 lines in the script, rather than continuing where she left off.

Discussion and conclusion:

This study brings up many ideas on how blocking errors are detected and
corrected in script read-through rehearsals. The three fragments revealed three
concepts: how progressivity is stopped, how the errors are corrected, and how
progressivity - the rehearsal - restarts.
The first clip shows how actors go about self-correction when the director
stops the progressivity to make a correction. Tori interrupts the scene
(progressivity stopped), and begins to correct the scene (how the errors are
corrected) by standing up and physically demonstrating what she wants
differently in the scene. Finally, progressivity restarts when Tanner gives Tori an
opportunity for further feedback. She declines, and thus the default structure of
activity - the rehearsal - can restart.
In the second clip, the same sequence of lines as the first clip are
rehearsed, but with different results. Progressivity is stopped in a peculiar way in
this fragment because, for one, Calley speaks out of character, but keeps moving
through the scene and two, the stop by the director has nothing to do with
Calley’s error whatsoever. The scene is suspended at different times for each
participant too; Calley changes her gaze towards Tori (a sign of breaking the
fourth wall in theater), while Tanner is still looking at his script before dropping it
to his side and moving his own gaze to Tori as Tori begins her correction. The
correction is given to Calley about where her eyes are at the beginning of the
scene, contrary to her belief that it had to do with her movement during her line.
The participants get back into the play-script rehearsal in a completely different
way this time than the first. Throughout this rather lengthy correction, the director
struggles to give the actors a concrete correction, and the conversation is filled
with many response tokens and other suggestions as Calley tries to assist Tori
and co-direct the correction. When the response tokens come to a halt, Tori gives
one final token before telling the actors to start from “wherever”, and progressivity
resumes.
 In the final fragment, the scene is brought to a halt when Tanner ‘breaks
character’ and says words that are not written in the script - unilaterally deciding
to stop the scene and fix something that happened prior. This final slip also
brings into account Jack’s role as the Stage Manager. When Tanner pauses
before his line, we see a shift in Jack’s gaze from the script to Tanner - the first
sign of an error. What is also fascinating about this clip is that Tanner’s eyes
remain on the script throughout this flub. This reveals that it isn’t the line reading
his is having a problem with, it is something else that causes him to halt
progressivity. The correction given is actually then given to Calley, even though
Tanner was the one who initiated the pause of the play rehearsal. What connects
these three fragments together is the ‘in-character’ and ‘out-of-character’
corrections that are given (KEEP TALKING). Tori then restarts the rehearsal with
a suggestion to keep going, and Calley brings the group back into the play.
In conclusion, there is ground-breaking evidence surrounding play-script
rehearsal and progressivity that can be used to predict errors, solve errors faster,
and increase the efficiency of play-script rehearsals in the future. Not that the
goal of this study is the provoke change in a
rehearsal setting, but rather, to bring awareness to how a group of people work
together to maintain the integrity of a play rehearsal and keep that rehearsal
moving forward. The data brings into light the way the relationships between the
actors, the director, and the SM in a rehearsal setting play a role (figuratively and
literally) into how corrections are detected, made, and resolved so that
progressivity can continue. There is an endless amount of data that could be
further analyzed to draw even conclusions from, but with the data provided thus
far there is fantastic evidence that can be used to inform actors, directors, and
stage managers around the world and provide insight to what is really happening
within their every-day actor-play script-reading rehearsal.

References:
Axel Schmidt, (2018),  "Prefiguring the future: Projections and preparations within
theatrical rehearsals", In Time in Embodied Interaction: Synchronicity and
sequentiality of multimodal resources (Arnulf Deppermann, Jürgen Streeck,
eds.), pp. 231-260. 

Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research:
analysing social interaction in everyday life. London: Sage Publications.

Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2012). The Conversation Analytic Approach

to Transcription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers, The Handbook of Conversation
Analysis (pp. 57–76). Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
Jefferson, Gail. 2004. “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” In
Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, by Gene H. Lerner,
edited by Gene H. Lerner, 13–31. Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First
Generation. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Sidnell, J. (2011). Conversation analysis: an introduction. London: Wiley-

Blackwell.

Spencer Hazel, (2018),  "Discovering Interactional Authenticity: Tracking Theatre

Practitioners Across Rehearsals", pp. 255-283.