Lesson video

Hello and welcome to the lesson.

My name is Mrs. Butterworth.

And I will be guiding you through your learning.

So in this lesson, we will be hearing from Helen Edmundson, the writer of the adaptation of "Small Island".

So we'll be watching videos of her discussing her thought and creative processes.

And we'll be discussing and responding to those and really thinking about how her comments could help us understand the play and the form even better.

So I'm really excited to delve into this lesson.

So let's go.

So in this lesson, you will use Helen Edmundson's comments to explore the processes and challenges of adapting a novel for the stage.

Now, before we begin, let's look at those all important keywords.

Now, you may see some of these pop up in the slides as we move through the lesson.

You may also hear Helen Edmundson use some of these words in her video.

Now, these words are adaptation, collaboration, stark, aspiration, and direct address.

Now, an adaptation is exactly what we're dealing with with "Small Island".

So it's where you change a story to fit a new form.

So, for example, "Small Island" was a novel.

And it was adapted into a play, which makes it an adaptation.

Collaboration is about working together with one or more people.

So in the videos, you'll notice that Helen Edmundson talks about her collaboration with Andrea Levy and the director Rufus Norris.

We have stark, which means very clear, plain, or harsh.

Aspiration is a strong hope or goal to achieve something.

And then finally, direct address, which we see a lot of in this play, is when a character speaks directly to the audience.

So the outline of our lesson looks like this.

We're going to begin listening to Helen Edmundson talking about adapting stories for the stage before moving on to listen to her talk about the adaptation and production process.

So let's begin.

So the first video you will watch is where Helen Edmundson discusses the differences between writing and adaptation and an original play, okay? So you'll need to make sure you listen very carefully to what Edmundson is saying.

You may also wish to take a few notes if that is something you want to do.

When we have finished watching the video, I will want you to answer the question, what similarities and differences does Edmundson identify? So as you are watching the video, you may want to listen really hard to see if you can find any similarities and differences to help you answer that question.

Okay, so are we ready to watch the video? Fantastic.

I'm going to press play now.

<v ->There are actually a lot of similar,</v> there's really not that much difference between writing an adaptation and writing an original play.

Essentially, you are dealing with the same thing.

You're trying to structure a story which you have a reason for telling.

To create characters which can somehow explore that.

The ideas that it is that you're trying to explore in a dramatic, involving way.

Obviously, with an adaptation, there's the characters.

You are mostly dealing with characters who already are there on the page.

Very often, they're beautifully written and have loads of different facets to them and different.

If you are writing an original piece, then you create those characters for yourself.

You do that groundwork.

You make those people up.

And you work out all the different aspects of their personalities, et cetera.

I think maybe what happens with adaptations, which I find quite exciting, is that, very often, if you're writing an original piece, you are always mindful of the fact that you are writing something that's gonna be staged in a theater.

And for some reason, that quite often has a, it sort of makes you feel that you should structure it in a certain way, or that you should be realistic somehow about the possibilities of the staging, or the numbers of characters, how swiftly you move from one place to the next, et cetera.

Whereas adaptations have this way of, often, because the stories weren't conceived as plays, they have this kind of freedom to them, which is a really useful and interesting provocation for me because then I have to think outside the box.

You know, I have to think about staging things in a, how to sort of push the limits of what can be happening on stage and not be frightened of having very large numbers of people.

Not be frightened of, for example, you know, the hurricane.

If I was sitting at home, writing an original play, it's quite unlikely that I would think, oh, I know we'll have a hurricane.

And they'll just have to kind of find a way to make that happen.

Whereas, because there is a hurricane in the novel, which felt absolutely integral to Hortense's state of mind, that in a way, her realization of Michael's relationship with Mrs. Ryder felt as though a hurricane was happening within her and that she was completely spinning out of control.

And so I wanted the hurricane.

And so it just means that therefore, that's a great opportunity.

You know, it means that possibly going into that dramatic space, there's lots and lots of different challenges to the actors and the directors and everybody's imaginations, which then everyone rises to.

And really surprising things happen.

And, you know, amazing theater can happen.

So, yeah, I love the way it pushes me out of my comfort zone, to an extent.

But, yeah.

Essentially, they're the same thing.

You know, plays, very often, going back hundreds of years, plays are nearly, are very often based on existing stories.

Whether those, you know, they probably haven't been written in the novel form, as it were.

But they might have been there as myths or legends.

They might have been recorded in various different formats.

They might be there in folk lore or songs or whatever it is.

And those stories sparked the imaginations of playwrights, going back centuries.

So there's kind of nothing.

It's really just still storytelling and boils down to the same thing.

<v ->Okay, so there is lots to really think about there.

</v> So what I would like you to do now is just to finish up answering that question.

What similarities and differences does Edmundson identify? Make sure you pause the video to give yourself time to get your answer done.

Pause the video now.

Okay, great.

So let's look at how Jacob answered.

So he says, in terms of the similarities and differences, he says that, "Edmundson says that both original works and adaptations aim to tell a story with purpose and create characters that explore the ideas behind it.

Edmundson says that the main difference with adaptations is that they weren't written as plays, so you have more freedom to be creative and think outside box." So Jacob has got some really good ideas there from watching that video.

Now, I'd like to think about your own answers in response to Jacob's.

And I would like you to discuss, please, can you add anything to Jacob's answer? So pause the video to give yourself time to discuss that question.

Or if you're working on your own, you may wish to jot down some ideas or even think quietly to yourself.

Off you go.

Okay, so you now need to decide if this statement is true or false.

So let's read the statement together.

Helen Edmundson says that adaptations can offer more creative freedom because they weren't originally written as plays.

Is that statement true or false? Come up with your answer now please.

Well done to everyone who said, and remembered, that Edmundson said that that was true.

But now, you need to explain why that statement is true.

So pause the video to give yourself time to come up with your answer.

Okay, so here's the answer here.

You may have something slightly different.

But hopefully, it's along the same lines.

So Edmundson says she enjoys how adaptations challenge her to find creative ways to stage complex or dramatic moments, such as the hurricane.

Okay, so in this next video, Helen Edmundson discusses the differences between the novel and the play text.

So what differences there were between that original novel and the play text.

And what I would like you to do, once we have watched the video, is to write down three differences that Edmundson identifies.

So as you are watching and listening to the video, have that in the back of your mind 'cause that's the task we will be completing when the video has finished.

Okay, so are you ready to watch this? Okay, I'm going to press play now.

<v ->I suppose one of the biggest differences</v> between the novel and the play is that in the novel, Bernard features very strongly.

That, really, in the novel, there are sort of four or five very strong voices.

I didn't feel it was feasible to do that in the play.

You know, I've faced this situation several times with adaptations of complex novels.

If you try to do too much, if you try to really feature somebody's too many voices and have too many protagonists, then you risk losing the impact of the ones, you know, the ones that you really, really need.

And I remember talking to Andrea.

She felt quite strongly that she wanted Bernard to have a strong voice in the piece.

And so when I first started writing, I did write quite a few scenes for Bernard on his adventures in Burma and India.

But I realized quite early on that it probably, that there just was not gonna be space for them.

And then, talking to Rufus, he said something which really helped the decision as well, was that he said, you know, obviously, we've already got two small islands.

We've got Jamaica and we've got Britain.

And they are what this novel is about.

They are the small islands.

And if we start introducing Bernard's experiences, although they're fascinating and completely, you know, organic to the novel, if we start trying to deal with those in the play, it takes us away from that idea of the small island.

You know, the two small islands, which we are focusing on, which are the heart of the story.

So it did mean that, obviously, Bernard is still there.

And he's still important.

But it did put an awful lot of pressure on the act of playing Bernard because he then had to try to encapsulate for us the great big, huge numbers of chapters in the book, which, you know, where he gets to tell his story and we understand so much more about him as a character.

He has to try and get some of that across.

You know, we had to try and do justice to some of that in just the short numbers of speeches he has about his experiences.

I think there's a lot more about Michael in the novel as well, which, again, I felt that we couldn't really, that Michael, yes, I suppose I just felt that I had to deal with Michael's impact as it's received by Hortense and Queenie and let go of some of the other, you know, wonderful, delicious stuff that there is about Michael in the novel.

Yeah.

And, obviously, the structure is completely, you know, is a completely different structure.

But even in the novel, there is the switching of points of view.

Switching of protagonist, so.

But I think there is, I guess, in the play, that is dealt with in a different way.

And we also reach the point where those different points of view are basically layering on top of each other and intertwining, et cetera, which is not something that you would do in the novel.

Andrea would've done in the novel.

<v ->Some really interesting things there, aren't there,</v> between those big differences and how those differences were reached in the production and creation of the text.

So that's really great.

So you now need to spend a few moments completing that task.

Write down three differences that Edmundson identifies.

So you'll need to pause the video to give yourself time to complete that.

Pause the video now.

Okay, great.

So we have Aisha here.

Let's see how she answered.

And, again, as we are looking at her answers, really be thinking about your own answers as well and how they compare.

So she has says that, "Edmundson reduced the number of strong voices to keep the play focused." So I think what she says is, in the original novel, there were a lot more strong voices, a lot more stories, that they had to reduce to keep the play really focused.

"Bernard's role was minimized in the play to keep the focus on the two small islands." And I think that's a really interesting point there about what they did with Bernard's story in order to make it fit the play's form.

And, "The structure is very different with less detail about Michael's story." So these are three differences that Aisha has identified.

Can you add anything else? So discuss this and see if there's anything you can add to Aisha's answer.

Pause the video to give yourself time to do that.

Okay, so I need you to answer this question now.

So you'll need to pick A, B, or C in response to the question, how did Helen Edmundson handle Michael's story differently in the play compared to the novel? Pause the video and pick A, B, or C now.

Are we ready for the answer? Okay, great.

So well done everyone that picked B.

She focused more on Michael's impact on Hortense and Queenie, leaving out some details from the novel.

Okay, so that's how she handled the story differently.

Okay, so in this video, we're going to watch Helen Edmundson explain the challenges of staging a novel.

And then you are going to list three important things that Edmundson says you need to do when approaching an adaptation.

So, again, as you are watching and listening to this video, try and see if you can pick out some of those ideas.

Okay, so we know what we've got to do now.

When you are listening and you are ready, we can press play.

I'm going to press play now.

<v ->I have adapted a lot of very long, complex novels before.

</v> I've adapted "War and Peace", which is Tolstoy's extraordinarily long novel that people try not to read because it is so long and complicated.

So in a way, that doesn't worry me.

The length or complexity of a novel, the numbers of characters, the scale of it.

I just see those as great challenges and great provocations.

And I think the most important thing when approaching an adaptation like this is to, obviously, one reads the novel several times.

You have to feel completely as though you know it inside out.

And it's all there for you to choose from and remodel.

But it's essentially like a piece of clay.

And when you are making a play, you then make a new thing.

You don't hold onto the original structure because that's a structure that works brilliantly in a novel.

It's not the structure of a drama.

And so you have to be brave.

You have to let go of the existing structures.

You have to just think, okay, how am I gonna take an audience member who's walking into the theater for the first time and knows nothing about this? How am I going to tell them this story? Where do I start? Who needs to say what, when, who, which piece of information do they need to know in order for that to make sense or for that to matter or land in a dramatic way? So it's really about finding, what I always try to do is find some sort of device, for want of a better word, but some sort of conceit, which I know will unlock the storytelling for me that will enable me to move through time in the way that I need to, switch between characters in the way that I need to.

And in every adaptation I've done, I've found a different way, different key to unlock that.

In "Small Island", it was the first time in an adaptation that I'd use direct address, by which I mean an actor actually talking to the audience and quite openly saying, "I'm going to tell you what happened to me" or "I'm going to tell you this story." And in the first half of the play, I felt good about using direct address because I felt that one of the themes of "Small Island" is that idea of the stories that we tell, the sharing of our aspirations, whether that's going to see a film in the picture house in the 1940s, or watching television as we do now, or just the way that we communicate to each other.

Our stories and our dreams. And so it felt to me organically right that these characters should be able to say to the audience, "I'm going to tell you my story." And then I think the other key thing that I started to realize was that I wanted there to be a strong contrast between the first half of the play and the second half of the play in terms of that device.

In the second half of the play, I didn't want to use direct address, or maybe just very, very sparingly, which I do right at the end.

But I wanted it to feel as though the audience have had to wake up and land in reality in the same way that my first half characters do.

So the first half is full of stories, and dreams, and aspirations, and sort of fantasies about the kind of lives that people might want to live, or the relationships they want to have.

And then the second half is the kind of rude awakening of the reality of what you can actually make of your life and what life allows you.

The compromises, the difficulties, the disappointments.

So that was quite an early decision.

And, yeah.

And I think once I've worked those things out, you know, people sometimes say to me, "Oh, how do you decide which bits to do and which bits not to do?" And it's really not about that.

It's about working out how you're gonna tell this story.

What your devices are.

And then what your themes are.

You know, what you want people to be thinking about.

And then those choices just make themselves.

<v ->Okay.

</v> So, hopefully, we've got lots of ideas.

Because you'll now need to complete that task to list three important things Edmundson says you need to do when approaching an adaptation.

Pause the video to get that done now.

Well done, everyone.

Hopefully, you have those three things written down.

So let's see how Alex answered.

So he has said that what you need to do is you need to, "Read the novel several times to understand it completely." He also said that Edmundson referred to the idea that you need to, "Be brave and willing to let go of the novel's original structure," which in her previous discussion, we can see that Edmundson very much does that with "Small Island".

And Alex refers to the idea that Edmundson talks about finding that special key.

So he's quoted her here.

So that, "Key or device, like direct address, to unlock the storytelling on stage." And Edmundson describes how this is very much part of her process.

So I'd like you to discuss, please.

Can you add anything to Alex's answer? So what did you answer? Have you got some different things? Have you got some ideas that could develop these? All are welcome to this discussion.

So do pause the video to give yourself time to do that.

Off you go.

Okay, so true or false time.

Are we ready? So here is the statement.

Helen Edmundson uses direct address throughout the whole play to keep the storytelling style the same from beginning to end.

So Helen Edmundson uses direct address throughout the whole play to keep the storytelling style the same from beginning to end.

Is that true or false? Come up with your answer now please.

Okay, I need your answers now please.

And I'm going to reveal that it is false.

But we need to explain why that statement is false.

So do pause the video to give yourself time to come up with your answer to that.

Off you go.

Hopefully, you have had time to come up with your answer.

So let's look at the example.

Hopefully, you have something similar.

So the example says that Edmundson says she wanted a clear contrast in act two.

So she stopped using direct address to help the audience wake up and face reality alongside the characters.

So she doesn't use direct address throughout the whole play.

She made a conscious decision to only use it in act one.

So for task A, I would like you to write a short answer to the following question.

How has Helen Edmundson changed your view of adapting a novel into a play? So this question is really asking you to think about what you thought an adaptation was and how Helen Edmundson may have changed your view on this, okay? So you could mention the following things.

A choice that she made that stood out to you.

Something you didn't expect about adaptations.

And what you now understand about the differences between novels and plays.

Okay, so make sure you have everything you need to complete the task.

And when you are ready, pause the video to get this done.

Okay then.

Pause the video now.

Well done, everyone.

Some really great, honest answers there.

I have to admit.

I didn't realize how difficult the process was of adapting a novel to the stage.

And Edmundson really shines a light on that, doesn't she? So here is how Laura and Jun answered that question.

So Laura says that, "Helen Edmundson made me see that adapting a novel means you have to be brave and change the story a lot.

I didn't expect that some parts would be left out to make the play clearer and more focused." And Jun said, "I learned that plays and novels are very different, so you can't just copy the story.

Edmundson's choice to stop using direct address in act two showed me how plays use different ways to help the audience feel the story." Some really great answers there.

And I'd now like you to consider your own really great answers and think about to what extent do you agree with Laura and Jun and why? Pause the video to get that discussion task done.

Off you go.

Okay, so we are at the second part of our lesson now.

We've listened to Edmonton talk about adapting stories for the stage.

And now, we're going to delve deeper into that adaptation and production process.

So let's keep going.

Well done, everyone.

So in this video, we will watch Helen Edmundson talk about why it was important to adapt the play or why she felt it was important to adapt the play.

You're then going to answer the question, why did Helen Edmundson think it was important to adapt "Small Island" for the stage? So, remember.

As you are watching the video, really listen in.

And also see if you can pick out the key information you'll need to answer that question.

Okay, are we ready? Great.

So I'm going to press play now.

<v ->I have adapted a lot of novels.

</v> And what I always try to do is hone in on the themes and ideas which the novel is covering, or introducing, or grappling with, which I feel have strong relevance for audiences today.

They have to be universal themes, which we can all have a response to and which will have somehow touched all of our lives in various different ways.

And it was very clear with "Small Island".

It's clear to anyone that this was a book which was grappling with extremely relevant and important ideas.

Andrea was probably, well, she was certainly one of the first people, because of her life experience, to be able to see what had gone on, and see what was going on around her, and to actually take that knowledge and understanding, and galvanize it, harness it into this brilliant story, which is funny and moving and involving.

It felt to me as though no one else had done that in terms of the experience of the first people who came here from the Caribbean after the Second World War.

And the way that they were received.

And the responses from the people, you know, the people who were already living here, to this influx of new people who, often, it was, for those people who had lived in London all their life or had lived in the country all their life, very often, they were encountering people from the Caribbean for the very first time.

And then, obviously, begins this extraordinary, rather complex, challenging story of that experience for the first people who came here from the Caribbean.

So it felt as though it was an ongoing story.

That it's live history.

It's not even live history.

It's live events.

It's happening.

It's still going on.

And it's a story which, yeah, it feels as relevant, you know, it's completely relevant to the way that we live our lives today.

So I did feel a big responsibility to try to capture that, you know, for Andrea, but also for the sake of telling a story which was going to spark understanding and debate.

<v ->Okay, some really interesting ideas there from Edmundson.

</v> And hopefully, you got some too.

So what I would like you to do now is I'd like you to answer the question, why did Helen Edmundson think it was important to adapt "Small Island" for the stage? So pause the video to get that done now please.

Okay, so let's see how Izzy and Sofia answered.

So Izzy said that, "Helen Edmundson said she adapted 'Small Island' because it explores universal themes that still matter today." And Sofia said, "She felt that Andrea Levy had a unique insight and was one of the first to turn that knowledge into a powerful story." So Sofia and Izzy have picked up some really interesting ideas from the video there.

I think there's a really lovely mutual respect, isn't there, between Levy and Edmundson.

And I think their collaboration was really effective.

And I really enjoyed listening to that myself.

But I'd like you now to discuss.

Can you add anything to Izzy or Sofia's answers? So what did you come up with? And perhaps, you could help them to develop their answers further.

So pause the video to give yourself time to do that.

Off you go.

Okay, so this is a bit of a tricky question.

But I know you can handle it.

So the question is, which answer best explains Helen Edmundson's use of the phrase "live history" and "live events?" So in the video, she talks about "live history" and "live events." So you'll need to pause the video to give yourself time to read the answers and pick A, B, C, or D for the correct answer to the question, okay? You know what to do.

Pause the video now.

Okay, so well done to everyone that got B.

As I said, that was quite a tricky question.

So the phrase "live history" and "live events" refers to the experience in the story, and how they are still happening, and how they affect people's lives now.

So this very much links to the idea of those universal themes and universal ideas.

So when Edmundson talks about this idea of "live history" and "live events," she's really thinking about how these things are still relevant and happening today.

Okay, so in this next video, Helen Edmundson talks about her role in adapting the play.

And then you're going to answer the question, how did Helen Edmundson and Andrea Levy work together? Okay, so you know what to do now.

So get ready to watch the video 'cause I'm going to press play now.

<v ->The first thing which happened</v> on the "Small Island" journey was that I received an email from my agent, saying that the National Theater were asking if I might be interested in the conversation about adapting "Small Island".

And I had read the novel when it first came out and absolutely loved it.

And then I'd also seen the television series where they did a television adaptation and had loved that.

So I was extremely enthusiastic about the novel.

And I went in for a meeting at the National Theater.

And I met Andrea Levy for the first time.

And she had read some of my work.

And she had a hunch that I might be someone who could adapt her brilliant novel.

So, yes, I reread the novel and felt that I could, you know, I kind of feel there is a way to adapt any novel.

They can be very challenging.

I knew "Small Island" would be challenging.

But I thought it was just unbelievably important.

And Andrea and I spent a lot of time together.

We would meet up.

We had about a month to six weeks of meeting up every few days at the National.

Sitting in a room together and talking through the book, literally page by page.

I think Andrea felt that she wanted to be absolutely sure that, before I even started writing, I had completely understood, and we had talked through, and dug into all the narrative, all the characters, all the themes, all the political connotations of everything which she'd poured into that book.

So we had this rather wonderful time together, going through it.

Having conversations.

You know, all sorts of conversations around the novel.

Getting to know each other.

And by the end of that process, I felt, and she felt, we both felt that she trust, you know, she trusted me.

And I felt prepared to go away and start working out how on Earth to approach this play.

<v ->Now, you have watched the video.

</v> It is time for you to complete the question, how did Helen Edmundson and Andrea Levy work together? Pause the video to do that now.

Great.

Let's see how Sam and Lucas answered.

So Sam said, "Helen Edmundson met Andrea Levy and worked closely with her to fully understand the novel." And Lucas said, and he noticed Edmundson discussed how, "They talked through the book page by page to make sure Edmundson understood the story, characters, themes, and politics." Now, when I watched this video, I was quite shocked that they did that.

It must have taken them such a long time.

For those of you that haven't seen the novel, "Small Island" is a very big novel.

So that must have taken them a long time.

But I guess that ensured that they went through it in all of that glorious detail.

So thinking about Sam and Lucas's answers and your own answers, I'd like you to discuss please.

Is there anything you can add to those? Pause the video now.

Okay, so we are now going to watch a video on Helen Edmundson talk about working with Andrea Levy.

And I'd like you, please, to write down three ways Andrea Levy was involved in the process, okay? So I'm going to press play on the video now.

<v ->Yeah, I first met Andrea when the National asked me</v> to come in and talk about adapting the novel into a play.

I was a little bit awestruck.

Because, obviously, I'd absolutely loved the novel and thought she was brilliant.

Andrea was a very down-to-earth person.

She said what she felt.

She wore her heart on her sleeve.

And I think there was, I think as soon as I knew that we could have honest conversations, I really responded to that because I love that.

And we spent a lot of time together in the early part of the process.

She wanted to talk through the novel with me in great, in absolutely, so that we didn't miss a single thing, so the significance of nothing which she wrote was lost to me.

And so she could expand and explain some of the reasons why she'd put certain things in or whether she felt certain things were important.

And that was an amazing experience for me.

And it was a very, you know, it was very incredibly useful experience.

And it also gave me confidence to move forward, knowing that she felt that I understood her novel.

That was very important.

We laughed a lot.

Once we got into workshops, it was great having Andrea there.

Obviously, the actors in the room all really responded to the thrill of having her there.

And they were able to ask her lots of questions.

And she could talk about her parents, you know.

And also her husband's parents.

And, you know, lots of these people who were the inspirations for the characters in the story.

Yeah, she would sit in the workshop.

Sometimes, she would read whole sections of the book out for people.

Especially in the early days when we were just, sometimes, just putting scenes on their feet.

Sections of the book.

So we would read the section of the book.

And we would read the scene.

And we would put it on its feet.

And Andrea loved all of that.

I think it was very important as well when we were dealing with some of the more, the really quite difficult scenes, which, for example, the scene in the post office when Gilbert goes to work and encounters that really stark racism.

And, obviously, it's there in the novel.

But there were decisions to be made about whether we tackle that scene.

Whether we put it on stage.

Reading that on the page is somehow a different experience from actually having people in a room saying those things.

And so I think we, in one of those early workshops, we did try out some different, have some discussions and talk to the actors as well about how they felt.

You know, it wasn't just that I was writing these words.

That Andrea had created these words in the first place.

But then we were also asking actors to say those words, you know, with witnesses and with groups of people sitting around, listening, and knowing that that would be taken in front of an audience.

There was a bit of disagreement in the room.

I think some of the actors felt that we shouldn't include those scenes.

But Andrea felt really strongly that we needed to be honest.

It goes back to this thing of being honest and realistic in order to move forward.

That if we don't see things, really see things for what they are, and witness it, and bear witness to it, and bring it out into the open, then there isn't the possibility of moving forward and changing and learning.

And so I felt that I wanted to take, I felt, yeah, I guess as a white woman who's grown up in Britain, I felt that it was important that I respond to other people's feelings about those choices, and that I do my best to respect those choices, and to, yeah, to kind of realize them in the most appropriate way.

So, yeah.

I think Andrea and I were very much on the same page.

And I think she got to read the second draft, which I wrote, which was actually quite close then.

We were getting quite close to the draft that we took into rehearsal.

I think on my first draft, she had a couple of notes.

I think one of the things she said was that she hadn't thought there would be so much of the children at the beginning.

That she was a little bit uneasy about the possibility of children being able to play those roles.

And I did, in response to that, you know, cut down on some of those scenes.

And even between the first time we did the play and the second time we produced the play, I paired back a little bit on some of those early scenes involving the children, just to give those young actors the chance, you know, to do the very best with what they had and not be overloading it.

And then, occasionally, she would say, "I really would love it." There was just one, I think there was one or two lines that she, I hadn't included in the first draft.

And she said to me, "Please, please, please, can you find a way to put that line in because that's one of my favorite lines." It was usually a joke.

You know, she felt very strongly about the jokes.

About people saying funny things and getting a laugh.

And so I would, you know, happily, if I felt it was right, I would find a way to work those in.

She actually died about five days before we started rehearsals.

But I'd known right the way through the process that she was unwell.

So, yeah, you know, there was a huge sadness about the fact that she didn't get to see it on stage.

But also a huge sense of paying tribute to her.

And for me, definitely a confidence that I knew that she had given her blessing to what I had done and what the production was going to deliver.

<v ->Okay, that was great.

</v> Thank you so much for listening so well.

I found that really interesting.

I didn't realize that Andrea Levy was so involved in the production process.

So it's really interesting for me to hear.

But now, it's over to you to write down three specific ways that Andrea Levy was involved in the process.

So pause the video to complete that now.

Okay, so Jacob put down these three answers.

How Andrea Levy was involved.

That, "She worked closely with Helen Edmundson, going through the book in detail.

She took part in workshops and answered actors' questions.

And she helped with difficult scenes by explaining why they were important to include." So it must have been so amazing to have her on hand in the production process to really help with those finer details.

So I'd like you to discuss please.

Can you add anything to Jacob's answers? Pause the video to give yourself time to do that.

Off you go.

Okay, so true or false time.

So here is your statement.

During the workshop process, some actors felt that certain scenes, such as the post office scene, should be left out.

Is that statement true or false? Come up with your answer now please.

Well done to everyone that said that was true and remember that from the videos.

But you now need to explain why that statement was true.

Pause the video to come up with your answer now.

Okay, so let's look at the example together.

Hopefully, you have something similar or remember some details from the video.

So the reason this is true is that, absolutely, some of the actors felt that certain scenes, such as the post office scenes, should be left out.

But Andrea Levy believed it was important to leave the difficult scenes in.

Because she's, according to Edmundson, she said that being honest and realistic helps people to see things how they really are.

And I think that's a really interesting argument there about why those scenes, those difficult scenes were included.

So in this video, you will watch Helen Edmundson talk about her role through the rehearsal and production process.

So we've heard about Levy's role.

We're now gonna hear more about Edmundson's role.

And then you are going to write down three ways Helen Edmundson describes her role during the making of the play.

Okay, so we're gonna watch the video.

And I'm gonna press play now.

<v ->In theater, it's very different from,</v> say, TV or film in that the writer is part of the process right the way through.

So it's understood that you'll be in the rehearsal room pretty much the whole time.

With this show, and with other shows I've done, quite often, what we start out with our workshops.

So I'll write a draft of the play.

And then we will take it into a room with lots of actors.

You know, willing, talented actors.

And we will try it out.

We'll test out what seems to be working really well.

What maybe needs a little bit more, you know, needs strengthening a little bit.

What maybe needs refocusing, or editing, or whatever it is that's needed.

Those early workshops give us that capability of looking at it and of seeing it very much as the actors in a space, rather than me sitting in my room at home, you know, writing on pieces of paper, or typing it up on a computer or whatever.

Usually, by the time we even get to rehearsals, we've already been through two or three of these workshop experiences.

And hopefully, normally, what happens is that if everything's working as it should do, then the director and myself, so Rufus in this case and myself, had started to feel like we were homing in on a coherent approach to the material and the production so that the sort of crossover, where the words and the visuals start to kind of crossover can be enriched and deepened because we both start to know what it is we are intending to do.

So by the time we actually start rehearsals proper, where we know that, you know, we are going to take it into the theater in X number of weeks, hopefully, we are already on the same page.

And we certainly were in this case.

In the early days, obviously, when I'm in the room, we are exploring the text.

So I'm there for people to ask me questions, or to chip in ideas, or to share some of the background or the research that's gone into the process of writing.

And then gradually, as we start to run sections of the play together, you know, there's just a huge amount that's being learned on both sides.

So I'm learning.

I can see what the rhythm of the piece is.

How the rhythm is emerging.

Whether it's working.

Whether I need to move scenes around.

Or whether I need to, yeah, look again at things.

So there's that sort of very collaborative, useful period of time.

And then we get to the point where we're doing previews.

So we're actually doing it in the space with an audience.

And, again, that is a huge learning curve for all of us, really, involved.

You know, I will sit there, night after night, and listen to the way it's being received.

You know, I can tell whether an audience is not understanding something.

I can tell if maybe I'm eliciting some sort of laugh by something that's happening when I actually didn't want to.

And so I can look at that again.

Once I can see what the production absolutely, you know, with the sounds, and the lights, and all the different elements that come together, once I can see exactly what's happening, and how that's landing, I know whether, sometimes, it's as simple as knowing that I'm gonna have to put a few extra lines in to explain to the audience where we are because maybe I'd thought that was gonna be obvious in the staging, but actually, it perhaps isn't obvious.

And so it needs me to just give a little bit of help with a few line.

You know, verbalize something for the characters.

So, yeah, we learn a tremendous amount through previews.

And we keep, you know, we change things within, you know, we can't change a lot because the poor actors have, you know, done their best to learn it and get it under their belts.

And they need to start feeling completely confident with it.

But we do change small things.

And then I guess my job, to a large extent, ends on opening night when we are sort of saying this is what our show is.

After that, it's kind of understood that I don't tamper with it anymore or say too much.

So then I'm there more in a kind of backup role if I'm needed.

So, yeah, it's a very long, extremely rewarding process.

<v ->Okay, great.

</v> So it's now over to you to write down, while it's fresh in your mind, those three different ways that Helen Edmundson describes her role during the making of the play.

Pause the video now.

Okay, so hopefully, you've got three ideas.

Let's look at Alex's three.

So Alex has identified that, "During workshops, Edmundson helps test the script, answer questions, and works with the director to improve the play." He also noticed that, "In rehearsal, she collaborates closely with the team, shares research, and adjusts scenes." And that, "During previews, she watches how audiences respond and make small changes to make the play clearer." So, over to you.

You know what to do now.

I'd like you to discuss please.

Can you add anything to Alex's answers? Pause the video now.

Okay, so answer time.

I need an A, B, C, or D from you.

So what does Helen Edmundson say about her role after opening night? So you need to pick the correct answer.

A, B, C, or D.

Pause the video to give yourself time to do that now.

Okay, should we reveal the answer? Everyone got something? Fantastic.

So the answer is D.

Once opening night happens, she steps back, but remains available to support if needed.

'Cause her role is kind of complete then.

She's adapted the script.

She's helped in the production.

So she is kind of not as hands-on after that point.

Okay, so task B.

Let's bring all of this together now.

Here are the four main stages of the production process.

Workshops, rehearsals, previews, and opening night.

What I would like you to do, please, is using all of our knowledge from the videos that we have watched, I would like you to write notes for each stage, explaining how Helen Edmundson and Andrea Levy were involved in the production, okay? So at each stage of that production, how were both of those people involved in that process? So use ideas from the videos and what you have learned about their roles.

You may also want to look back at your answers to the questions and discussion tasks, okay? So gather what you need to complete this task.

And I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

Pause the video to get that done now.

Okay, great.

Let's just look at Jun's response.

Remember, this is a really good opportunity to check your own answers.

So for the workshop stage, Jun says that, "Edmundson worked with Levy to go through the book in detail.

And Levy shared personal stories and helped actors understand the characters." In the rehearsal process, "Edmundson stayed involved, answered questions, and made changes.

And she shared her research and worked with the director." For the previews, "Edmundson watched the audience's reactions and made small edits to help things make more sense on stage." And for that all important opening night, "No more big changes.

Edmundson stepped back.

And the final play reflected Levy's ideas and was a tribute to her." It's a really good answer there from Jun, who really understands each of the processes, and how Edmundson and Levy were involved in those.

So looking at your own answers, I'd like you to discuss now.

Is there anything that you would add to Jun's response? Pause the video to give yourself time to do that.

Off you go.

And a very well done, everyone.

We have reached the end of the lesson.

And what an interesting one it has been.

I feel like I've learned so much about the adaptation process and lots that I didn't already consider.

So Edmundson suggests that there is a freedom to writing adaptations that requires you to think differently.

She describes the challenge of shortening or reworking character stories.

Edmundson explains the significance of direct address and its link to the stories the characters tell.

Edmundson describes the importance of the close working relationship with Andrea Levy.

And Edmundson and Levy made a conscious decision to keep challenging scenes and moments in the play.

Thank you so much for your hard work and engagement today.

I really do hope to see you all again soon.

Okay, I'll see you then.

Goodbye.