Lesson video

Hello and welcome.

It's Mrs. Butterworth here, and I will be guiding you through this very special lesson today.

Now, the reason this lesson is so special is because we will be watching and listening to the director of "Small Island", Rufus Norris, talk about directing and adapting the production.

So I really enjoyed listening to his process, his ideas, how the production came to be, and I hope you enjoy this too.

So there is lots to get through, so let's get started.

So in this lesson, you will understand and explain Rufus Norris' ideas about directing and adapting "Small Island", including how the play tackles social issues.

Let's look at some keywords that we will encounter throughout the lesson.

These words are optimistic, the Windrush Scandal, exacerbate, and Black Lives Matter.

Now, optimistic is about feeling hopeful and positive about the future.

So if you feel optimistic about something, you are feeling hopeful.

The Windrush Scandal refers to a specific problem where people from the Caribbean who had lived in the UK for years were wrongly treated by the government.

It's a really important part of the context of "Small Island".

Exacerbate is to make a bad situation worse.

And then we've got the Black Lives Matter, which was a group and movement that works to stop unfair treatment and violence against Black people.

And Rufus Norris talks about the emergence of this movement alongside the production of "Small Island", so watch out for that.

So the outline looks like this.

We're going to begin by listening to Rufus Norris talk about the role of the director and adapting the play, before moving on to hear him speak further on staging social issues and messages of hope.

So let's begin.

So in this first video, we will watch Rufus Norris talk about what a theater director does.

When we have finished watching that video, you will answer the question, what does Rufus Norris say is the main role of the director? So make sure you are listening carefully to what Rufus Norris has to say, and keep that question in the back of your mind, because we will be answering it at the end.

Okay, so gather what you need to watch the video.

You may wish to grab a pen or a laptop to jot down some notes or ideas.

So once we are ready, I'm going to press play now.

<v ->So a theater director is one of the key creatives</v> involved in putting on a production, and it's really the director's job to take the play, the creative source, the musical, the adaptation, whatever it is, and try and deliver it into three dimensions, hopefully in the way that the writer intended.

You work very closely with the writer, if the writer is still alive and present.

You also work with the designer.

You're in charge of the casting of the play, so you choose the actors, and you work very closely with the producer in the theater, to enable that you come in on budget, that all the decisions are made at the right time.

Design decisions, for example, need to be made in order that the set can be built in the right way in plenty of time.

And then your principle role really is when you get into rehearsals, where you, in the simplest terms, tell people where to stand.

But of course, it's much more complex than that.

You're working with the actors, often with the writer in the room, to try and discover every moment and to do things in an ordered way so that everybody feels confident that the process is in control, but also feels empowered to do what they do best.

I'm not an actor, I'm a director, I'm not a designer, I'm not a sound designer or a projection designer.

So I think the role of the director is to give those, all those people, the room and the flex to do their jobs really well, but also to give them enough decisions to make sure that everybody's heading towards the moment where you enter the theater, and then the moment where you open the show to the public, and then finally when you open the show to the press, in good time, in a way that they're all prepared and able to do their best job.

<v ->Thank you, everyone.

</v> And now we need to complete that question.

"What does Rufus Norris say is the main role of the director?" Pause the video to answer that question now.

Okay, so let's just do some feedback.

So here is how Aisha answered.

So this is what she got from the video.

So the main role of the director is to bring the play or source material into three dimensions, ideally as the writer intended.

To guide rehearsals by working with actors, the writer, and designers, so that every moment is clear and the process feels controlled.

To give the team both confidence and direction so everyone can do their jobs well, and the show opens prepared.

So perhaps you've got some different ideas down, or heard something different in the Rufus Norris video.

Well, now is your chance to discuss that, because I would like you please to discuss, can you add anything to Aisha's answer? Pause the video now.

Okay, so we are moving on to our second video, and in this video you will watch Rufus Norris talk about how the adaptation was developed.

And after we have watched the video, you will need to identify two reasons why Rufus Norris thought "Small Island" was an important play to stage.

So do listen out for some ideas for that task, as well as the other important stuff that Rufus Norris is talking about.

Okay, so in a moment, I'm going to press play on the video.

Just make sure you are ready, and I'm going to press play now.

<v ->So at the National Theater,</v> we do maybe 15, 18 shows a year.

So that means that we have to anticipate what those shows might be in future years.

So often we'll commission plays or adaptations, in this case, quite a long time before we think they might come to the stage.

In fact, we've usually got anywhere between 80 or 100 potential productions being cooked up in different ways.

Commissions, or people exploring stuff through workshops.

And some of those won't come to fruition, and some of them will.

So you need more in the kind of, more on the stove, in a way, than you're going to eventually do.

And you see what works.

With "Small Island", it was commissioned, I think in 2015, right at the beginning of my tenure as director of the National Theater.

And we approached Andrea Levy, who was still very much around then, the author of "Small Island", and asked her if she would be interested in an adaptation of it.

She was.

And then we worked with her to decide who the adapter should be, because Andrea was ferociously intelligent, very opinionated, in a really good way, and very, very clear about what she wanted, and she looked at all the potential writers and she decided that Helen Edmundson would be the best person.

Some people might think that was unusual because Helen is a white woman who, to my knowledge, had never been to Jamaica.

But Helen is an extremely experienced adapter, had adapted many classic novels in a brilliant way, and she always works very closely with the source material.

So she's very loyal to the material that she's adapting, and that was very important to Andrea.

They worked together for several years, two or three years.

And during that time, the Windrush Scandal broke in the UK, where it emerged that a lot of the generation that had come to the UK on the Windrush on many, many other boats, or other means of transport in the aftermath of World War II, it emerged that many of those people had had their records destroyed and were being asked about whether or not they really had the right to be living in this country that they had very much helped rebuild.

Some of them were treated very badly, and this became a national scandal, and it threw a spotlight on, really, what was a very racist practice.

And consequently, those decisions were overturned, fortunately, but not before it had done quite a lot of damage to some individuals.

So it was very much in the news.

Sometimes when you're making works of art, there's a very pressing reason in the news, or a prescient kind of, or sometimes almost, you know, poetic parallel with what's going on in real life.

And that proved to be the case with "Small Island".

We didn't anticipate it, it just emerged.

For me, it was very important anyway.

I think, in the UK, one of the things that, one of the things that is not written into our history books enough is the deep history of our colonial past and the relationships, the very deep relationships that Great Britain has with many countries around the world that were former colonies.

And with many of them, those former colonies, when they became independent, or even before independence, contributed significantly to, you know, to both wars, for example.

But they also, of course, during their time as colonies, contributed massively to the economic strength of the UK.

That history is very dark, and very troubled in lots of ways.

But there are positives that have come from it since then, in terms of the, you know, the contribution that many of those residents of former colonies have made, and of course, many of their descendants are now living here, and "Small Island" was, in a way, for me, a perfect narrative, a perfect story, that threw a light on this history.

With all its troubles, but did that very, very crucial thing of, in a very specific way, humanizing the people who were at the center of a story like this.

<v ->Great.

</v> Good listening, everyone, and hopefully you found that interesting and insightful.

And now I would like you please to complete that task of identifying two reasons why Rufus Norris thought "Small Island" was an important play to stage.

I think you know what to do now.

You'll need to pause the video to complete that task.

Off you go.

Great.

So let's share some answers.

So we have Izzy and Jun here, so let's see how they answered those questions.

So Izzy said, "One of the reasons it was important to stage the play, according to Norris, is that it showed the history of Britain's colonial past and its impact, which Norris felt is often left out of history books." Excellent.

And Jun said, "It humanized the people at the center of the story, helping the audience to understand their struggles and experiences." So both excellent answers there from Izzy and Jun.

And I now want you to think about your own answers, and I'd like you to discuss, please.

Can you add anything to Izzy or Jun's answer? Or perhaps you came up with something different.

But now is your opportunity to discuss that.

So do pause the video to get discussing.

Off you go.

Okay, so it is true or false time.

So I'm going to give you a statement, and you need to decide whether it is true or false.

So the statement is, "Norris said that the emergence of the Windrush Scandal made 'Small Island' feel even more relevant." Is that true or is that false? You'll need to think back to those videos that we watched of Rufus Norris to help you with that answer.

So come up with your answer now.

Is it true or false? Off you go.

Okay, so hopefully we all have the answer true.

But you need to explain why that statement is true.

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

Okay, so should we look at the example? Hopefully you have some similar ideas.

So Norris says that the Windrush Scandal threw a light on racist practices, creating a poetic parallel between real events and the themes in "Small Island".

We are now going to watch another Rufus Norris video.

This time, we will watch him talking about what makes "Small Island" stageworthy.

When you have finished watching the video, you will need to answer the following questions.

Why does Norris say that "Small Island" is stageworthy? And what is the purpose of using direct address in the play? You will have time to complete those questions after you have watched the video.

So just focus on listening to and watching Rufus Norris whilst we play the video.

Okay, so I'm going to press play on the video now.

<v ->So "Small Island", I believe is stageworthy,</v> because it is a fantastic story, first of all.

And it's a very, very human story.

And it's a story which, even though it has a multitude of locations, I mean literally going from, you know, the, you know, rural Jamaica into war-torn West End, London, up to Lincolnshire, back again, into a cinema, you know, to a funeral, or a sweet shop.

I mean it goes all over the place.

It is held together because of these really, really core human stories at the center of it.

And by having, by employing the device of direct address, which Helen does, which, in a way, the novel does as well, because the novel, my memory of it is chapter one is called "Hortense", or maybe it's chapter two, and there's a chapter called "Gilbert", and we keep going backwards and forwards from these characters, by giving them a direct access to the audience, you're really celebrating a theatrical form, which is to do what I'm doing now, to appeal to your audience, to come into your world and to understand things from your point of view.

That's a very, very theatrical form.

So even though there were loads of challenges in terms of locations, the central spine of it absolutely was the audience's connection to these three principal characters.

What's interesting in the direct address decisions that Helen and Andrea made and that we evolved through the process, both before rehearsal and through it, is that the direct address actually fades away.

Scene one starts very clearly, with Hortense talking to the audience.

Scene two does the same.

And scene three does the same again.

So our three characters hold scene, in act one, scene one, two, and three, in the embrace of their direct address.

But each of them falls away from that as the story catches up with them.

So Hortense says, "I'm gonna tell you about how I got here, and this is my history as a child," but "how I got here" is the moment in the storm when she's waiting for the love of her life to turn up at the schoolhouse.

And that is Michael, of course.

Now, when Michael turns up, finally, which is three quarters of the way through scene one, the direct address stops, and Hortense is caught up in the real action.

So the direct address actually only applies to, really, the first three quarters, or four fifths of scene one.

You go to scene two, the same thing happens.

"Let me tell you how I got here.

Who'd have thought I'd have been in this situation with this stupid man, Bernard.

Let me tell you the story." The same thing happens in scene two.

So Queenie introduces, you know, we start scene two with an argument, a full blown argument going on between Queenie and Bernard, and Queenie stops the argument, talks to the audience, and said, "How did I get here? I'm gonna tell you how I got here." And then she tells us, right back through her childhood when she was working on the pig farm, how she got the opportunity to move to London, you know, was forced, was not forced, decided to marry Bernard rather than go back to the pig farm.

We understand how she got to that point.

But when the story catches up with that point, she no longer addresses the audience, and she's in real time.

Same with Gilbert.

He's in a fight in a cinema.

Now, at the end of that fight, a tragedy happens.

But by then, we've caught up with the story, we've caught up with the direct address, and we're taken into real time.

So it's not a device that runs all the way through the play.

It really just takes us through those first, the first part, those first three scenes.

And then from then on, the actors are caught up in their own story.

The second half has almost no direct address at all, apart from a tiny moment at the end from Queenie.

So yes, it's used, it's a very theatrical device, it's a very strong device, because it brings an audience in.

Shakespeare does it with soliloquies.

Many writers do it.

"Amadeus", famous play by Michael Schaffer, is almost entirely, you know, the central character is talking to the audience all the time.

It's a very effective way of doing it.

But what Helen did is to do it, I think, in a very sophisticated way.

And in a way, it's partly what "Small Island" is about.

It's about three people who want agency in their lives.

So, "I live in London.

I am an economic migrant.

I didn't grow up in London, but I've come here because that's where the work is." And that's true for Queenie, who grew up in Lincolnshire, for Gilbert, who grew up in Jamaica, and similarly for Hortense.

They are people who want to change their lives for the better, and they take action to make that happen.

But at a certain point, your control over your life is overtaken, by tragedy, by World War II, by opportunity, by missed opportunity.

And in a way, that's what the book is talking about, that all these huge sways of history are just people trying to take agency for their lives, and in the end, their story engulfs them, and it's about how they then navigate through that, which celebrates the human spirit that I think Andrea has done so fantastically with this story.

<v ->Thank you, everyone.

</v> So, we are back, and now we are going to answer those following questions.

Why does Rufus Norris say that "Small Island" is stageworthy? And what is the purpose of using direct address in the play? Pause the video to give yourself time to answer those questions.

Pause the video now.

Okay, let's just take a moment to reflect on our answers.

So let's see how Lucas answered that first question.

Why does Norris say that "Small Island" is stageworthy? So he says, "As Norris says, even though the play has many locations, it is held together by the core human stories at the center, which make it powerful for the stage." So now I would like you to discuss, can you add anything to Lucas' answer? Pause the video to get discussing.

Off you go! Okay, and we have this second question.

What is the purpose of using direct address in the play? So Laura answered like this.

"According to Norris, direct address gives characters access to the audience, celebrates theater, and helps the audience connect with the characters' experiences." So thinking about your own answers, so Rufus Norris talks a lot about direct address, so maybe you have some different ideas or you picked out some different things from the video.

So now is your time to share those.

So I'd like you to discuss, please.

Can you add anything to Laura's answer? Pause the video now.

Okay, so, true or false time again.

So remember, is the statement true or false? "Direct address is used throughout the entire play without stopping." Is the answer true or false? Come up with your answer now.

Okay, are we ready? Hopefully we all have an answer, and hopefully that answer is false.

But we now need to say why the answer is false.

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

Off you go! Okay, so let's share this answer.

Perhaps you have something similar.

That would be great.

So Norris explains direct address fades away when the characters are caught up in the real action.

So an example of that is when Hortense stops speaking to the audience when Michael arrives in the storm.

So it's like the action catches up to her, and she no longer uses that direct address.

Okay, so in this next video, we are going to listen to and watch Rufus Norris talking about the challenges of staging "Small Island".

As ever, when you have finished watching the video, you are gonna answer the following questions.

What main differences does Norris identify between the novel and the play, and why was this choice made? Okay, so there is lots of ideas and information from this video, so do make sure you are listening very, very carefully, and we will complete those questions after we have watched the video.

Okay, so, I'm getting ready to press play, and I'm going to press play on the video now.

<v ->There are lots of challenges</v> when you're adapting a piece of work that has not been written for the stage, to the stage.

Now whether that's a novel like "Small Island", whether it's a film, you see quite a lot of film adaptations now, or a classic written a very, very long time ago, in a different language.

Even a cartoon.

All kinds of things get adapted onto the stage.

Sometimes it's musicals, sometimes it's straight plays, and they all have their complexities.

But one thing that is common to all of them, I believe, is that you've gotta answer some pretty crucial questions.

One of those is, why do this? Why tell the story of "Small Island" at all? It was written as a novel, actually not very long ago, but does it still have a resonance now for an audience? The answer absolutely is yes, in that case.

The Windrush story, and the story of our history, is told beautifully in that book, and without hiding from any of the difficult truths.

So that answers the first question.

But the second question, which is maybe more important is, why do it in a theater? It was written as a novel.

It's also been adapted for television.

But the really crucial question, when you're looking at it is, how is this gonna work in the theater? If you can't answer that question, it's better to read the novel.

The novel's great.

What can theater bring that can really bring this to life? And that was really the primary question that Helen Edmundson and Andrea Levy were looking at when they started talking about "Small Island" for the stage.

There are many differences between the book and the stage version.

I'm just gonna choose one example, which is, which relates to this question.

"Small Island" is called "Small Island".

The UK, and Jamaica, are small islands, in a way.

And also, the kind of metaphor of the small island of an individual and their journey through life plays out.

In the book, there are four principal characters, and one of them, Bernard, spends much of the book in India, which is not a small island, and is a long way from the central axis of the story, which is the deep and complex relationship between Britain and Jamaica.

So we made the decision quite early on, largely Helen and Andrea did this, and then when I joined, I encouraged Helen to go even further in it, to really focus on three characters, not four.

Bernard is still a very important part of the story, but his whole history in India, which is a big part of the book, we didn't represent on stage at all.

And this, again, comes down to theater.

You want to simplify.

You want to make the world of it compact and manageable on stage.

Doesn't mean you can't have 5,000 scenes in the story, but the way you tell it has got to be somehow contained within the world of our stage.

That applies to all sorts of aspects of how you tell the story in terms of the staging.

But sometimes it's got really major implications, like literally refocusing from four down to three principal stories.

<v ->Now we have watched the video,</v> it's over to you to answer those questions.

What main difference does Norris identify between the novel and the play, and why was this choice made? Pause the video to give yourself time to answer those questions.

Pause the video now.

Thank you for your responses.

Now let's just look at some answers.

So, remember the questions are, what main differences does Norris identify between the novel and the play, and why was this choice made? So let's see how Jacob answered.

So Jacob picked up on the following from the video.

"The play focuses on three main characters instead of four, leaving out Bernard's story in India to keep the story centered on Britain and Jamaica.

This was done to simplify the story for the stage, making it more manageable and focused on the key characters and themes." So perhaps you heard something else in the video or picked out some different information, and now is your time to discuss that.

So I would like you to discuss, please, can you add anything to Jacob's answer? Pause the video to complete that now.

Off you go.

So I now have a question for you, and you need to decide whether the correct answer is A, B, C, or D.

So the question is, "According to Norris, why is it important to ask why we tell this story at all when adapting a text for the stage?" So think back to what you heard in the video.

Let's just recap the question again.

"According to Norris, why is it important to ask why tell this story at all when adapting a text for the stage?" Okay? So pause the video so you can decide whether the correct answer is A, B, C, or D.

Pause the video now.

Are we ready to hear the answer? Okay, great.

So the answer is B.

To ensure it still has resonance for today's audience.

So Norris actually gives quite a few reasons for why you should ask that question.

But that is the correct answer there.

So, task A, I would like you to imagine that you are a director adapting a novel for the stage.

So you have to do some imagining now.

You are a director adapting a novel for the stage.

I would like you to create a checklist of things you need to think about.

So use all of that information and all of those ideas from the videos to create a checklist of things you need to think about.

So, use Rufus Norris' comments from the videos to help you, and you might include some of the following.

The role of the director, how adaptations are developed with writers and designers, how to decide if a story is stageworthy, and the challenges of adapting a novel for the stage.

So use some of those ideas to create a checklist of things you need to think about if you are a director adapting a novel for the stage.

Okay, so gather what you need to complete this task.

I'm really looking forward to seeing what you come up with.

And when you are ready, pause the video and complete the task.

Okay, great! So, lots of ideas coming through there.

Let's just look at what Alex has come up with.

So Alex's checklist, so he's imagining he's a director, so this is what he needs to make sure he does when adapting a novel for the stage.

He's going to ask, why tell this story? Make sure it still resonates with audiences.

You need to consider what theater can bring to life that other forms can't.

Focus on key characters.

Simplify the story to make it manageable on stage.

Simplify locations and events.

Keep the story compact for the stage.

Use theatrical devices effectively.

For example, direct address to connect characters with the audience.

Collaborate closely to ensure all feel confident to do their jobs well.

That is an excellent checklist for Alex, and if I was a director, I think I would feel very prepared now in order to undertake that adaptation.

But just, I would like you just to take a moment, reflecting on your own checklists, and discuss, can you add anything to Alex's checklist? Pause the video to discuss that now.

Well done, everyone, and thank you for your hard work so far.

We have reached the second part of the lesson, and in this lesson, in this part of the lesson, we will listen to Rufus Norris discuss staging social issues and messages of hope.

So in this video, we will watch and listen to Rufus Norris talk about dealing with racism in staging the play.

And then you'll be required to answer the following question.

What does Norris say is the most important thing to do when dealing with challenging issues in a play? Okay? So this is a really interesting video in terms of talking about those core issues in "Small Island", and how they dealt with them.

So make sure you are listening carefully.

Okay, I'm going to press play now.

<v ->Sometimes when you're staging a play,</v> you have to deal with issues that are quite challenging.

And, of course, actors are humans, and many of them might have a personal connection to that.

So you have to do it sensitively.

You know, for example, if you, you know, if you're having a scene where two actors have to be intimate with each other, two people might have to kiss on stage, or you know, or dance, or roll around on a bed, and they may only just have met each other.

They might not even like each other.

One of them might be married with three kids, and the other one might be going through a breakup.

Part of the challenge of being an actor is to leave yourself outside of the room, and part of the joy is that you get the opportunity to leave yourself out of the room.

In "Small Island", there's a certain amount of romance within it, but much more challenging are the issues of racism in it.

And it's challenging in more than one way.

Of course, no actor who has suffered racism, and that will be most Black actors in the UK, if not all, want to put themselves in a situation where they are being racially abused every night.

That's, there's no joy in that.

And without wanting to use an overused word, it can trigger people, you know? It can remind them of all sorts of negative experiences, and they've gotta go home in the evening.

Similarly, you know, the white actors in the play have gotta behave in a really horrible way, a way that they would never behave in their lives and have never behaved in their lives.

And that's also challenging.

So I think it's really, that's really a question of the atmosphere that you try and develop.

So it can be very challenging for the actor that has to be racist, as well as the actor that is having racism inflicted on them.

The most important thing is that you create an environment where everybody feels supported, where everybody can express their concerns about it, that you give the company the opportunity to talk into whatever they want to talk into.

You've also gotta be careful because, if you use your whole rehearsal time talking about the problems of the play, you don't put the play on, you don't do it well.

And most actors, more than anything, want to be in a good show.

So it's really a question of finding that balance.

As it happens, the actor who is most racist in this production, the one who ends up fighting with Gilbert, and I'm sure he wouldn't mind me sharing this with you, is from Northern Ireland, and he's gay.

So, and because of the Troubles that he grew up with in Northern Ireland, and that's a very macho culture, or it was then, he has had his own issues of being victimized.

So all these things need to be shared.

Not overshared, but recognized, so that everybody can understand everyone else's position, and then you just get on with the job, and the job is to tell this story.

Sometimes that's not that straightforward, but for the most part, 99.

9 times out of a hundred, actors understand that.

They also read the play before they take the part.

You know, if an actor has to tap dance in a play, and they can't tap dance, then don't take the play, because you're gonna get found out.

And, I don't want to belittle it, but if an actor knows that this is going to be something that they're gonna really struggle with, it's probably a good idea for them not to do it.

None of us want to have a horrible time, and none of us want to inflict that on anyone else.

Most important thing is to have an environment where these things can be discussed.

Racism is real.

It happens every day on our streets.

I don't think it's a racist act to depict that.

What we're doing is showing the, you know, showing the reality of the way things were then, and to an extent, the way they are now.

Interestingly for the audience, the main areas of racism which were around the, you know, when Gilbert is dealing with the post office bags, or when we're in the cinema scene, the audience almost expected that.

You see a bunch of blokes sitting around, you know, looking at someone, you know which way it's gonna go.

Where it was more shocking for them, and where they really responded was the casual racism of the neighbor, when she comes around and complains about Queenie taking in these lodgers.

So it's interesting, sometimes, when you meet your audience, finding what are the really impactful things and what are the, in a way, the more difficult areas.

<v ->Thank you everyone, and welcome back.

</v> I would now like you please to answer that following question.

What does Norris say is the most important thing to do when dealing with challenging issues in a play? So pause the video to give yourself time to complete that question.

Off you go.

Okay, thank you everyone.

Sam and Andeep have offered their answers.

So let's look at these as we reflect on our own answers.

So Sam has picked out that, "Norris says that the most important thing is to create an environment where everyone feels supported.

Actors should be able to talk openly about their concerns, especially when dealing with difficult issues like racism." And Andeep picked this out of the video.

"According to Norris, the key is making sure the cast can discuss the challenges together.

He stresses that racism is real and painful, so directors need to give space for actors to share, but also balance this with getting on with telling the story." So both really great answers from Sam and Andeep, and there was lots that you could pick out of those videos.

So perhaps you have picked out something different, or could develop these answers a bit further.

And that's what I would like you to do now.

So thinking about your own experiences of listening to Rufus Norris, I would like you please to discuss, can you add anything to Sam or Andeep's answer? I think you know the drill by now.

Pause the video to get that done.

So true or false time.

Here is your statement.

"According to Norris, the audience found the most shocking racism in "Small Island" to be the violent fight scenes." Is that, according to the videos, true or false? Come up with your answer now, please.

Well done to everyone that said that was false.

But you need to say why.

So think back to what Norris said.

So according to Norris, what did he say was the most shocking racism in "Small Island"? Okay? So pause the video to come up with your answer.

Off you go! Okay, so here is the example.

So according to Norris, okay? So Norris believes that it was actually the subtle, everyday racism, like Queenie's neighbor's comments, Ms. Todd, that seemed to shock audiences most.

So Rufus Norris said that he could feel that in the audience when he was watching it, and for him, he believes that that's the most shocking, the most shocking racism in "Small Island".

But you may have different views, and that is fine too.

So in this video, we will watch Rufus Norris talk about staging the play between 2019 and 2022, as these are very significant years.

So we will let him talk about that.

And then I'd like you to answer the following questions.

Which events does Norris identify as impacting the production? So which specific events? And how did they impact the production? Okay, so, I hope everyone's ready to listen and hear what Rufus Norris has to say here, because I am about to press play on the video, and I will do that now.

<v ->One of the additional challenges</v> around the area of racism in this play was that we did the production twice, and a very, very important movement happened as a result of a terrible incident, and that, of course, was the murder of George Floyd, and the Black Lives Matter movement.

And that had a huge impact on America, had a huge impact in the UK, and it became a very, very live discussion about institutional racism, and you know, the racism in society, as I'm sure you all know.

With the production, or when we mounted the production after George Floyd, it was exacerbated in a way that we hadn't anticipated.

This may be too much detail.

But the other thing that happened at that time, of course, was COVID, which meant that when we were rehearsing "Small Island", the remount, in some ways it was easier.

We knew the production worked.

We had a lot of the same company coming back, though not all.

And we knew how we were going to build it.

However, we weren't allowed to have very many people in the same room.

So we had to rehearse the scenes separately.

People weren't allowed just to come in and watch each other rehearse.

I couldn't move from London to Jamaica to, you know, act two in a day.

We'd spend one day, for example, on scene one, and we'd just work on that, or we'd spend, you know, one day on scene three, and anyone who wasn't in scene three would not be allowed in the room, because of people keeping social distancing.

What that meant was, for large periods of time, we would just work with the Black members of the company, and for other periods of time, we just worked with the white members of the company.

That meant that they didn't bond in the same way as a company, and to an extent, it felt like they were telling different stories.

So the combination of the heightened awareness that came about through Black Lives Matter and the vulnerability of many of our Black actors because of the challenges at that time, and the fact that they could finally talk about what their lives were really like, the combination of that with the separation that was forced on us by COVID, meant that it was more of a live issue, and we did have to do more work on that the second time we did the production.

<v ->Thank you.

</v> Hopefully you got lots of ideas, 'cause it's now over to you to answer the following questions.

Which events does Norris identify as impacting the production? Okay? So pick out those events.

And how did they impact the production? So you'll need to pause the video to get your answers down now.

Okay, so we have Sofia's answer here, so you can use this to reflect on and look at your own answer.

So, which events does Norris identify as impacting the production, and how did they impact the production? This is how Sofia answers.

"Norris identifies the Black Lives Matter movement and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Black Lives Matter movement made racism feel more urgent and personal for the actors.

COVID meant the cast had to rehearse separately, which stopped the company from bonding fully, and sometimes made it feel like different stories were told." Okay, so that's what Sofia got from the video.

So maybe you have something different, or maybe you have something that you would like to add.

But I'd like you to think about that now, and discuss.

Can you add anything to Sofia's answer? Pause the video to complete that now.

So in this video, we will watch Rufus Norris discuss whether he thinks "Small Island" is a hopeful play.

And then I would like you to identify two ways Norris says the play is hopeful, and two ways in which Norris says the play is realistic.

So be listening out for some ideas for those tasks as you watch the video.

I'm going to press play now.

<v ->I think "Small Island" is absolutely a hopeful play,</v> but it's hopeful without being rose-tinted.

It's optimistic without being fantasist.

It doesn't duck, for me, the difficult issues around it.

We know that that young man who is handed over from Queenie to Hortense and Gilbert is not gonna have an easy life.

He's being brought up in the UK, in London, in the 1940s.

And that's not an easy thing for a mixed-heritage young man.

He's gonna face racism.

He's gonna face all kinds of prejudice.

But he's gonna do it with love.

And that, for me, is what makes the story hopeful.

That actually, for all that these three characters have done what they can to improve their lives, the next generation, which of course is a unification of Great Britain and Jamaica in the most primal way, is going to be brought up in an environment where he's loved.

It's Hortense's final words in the play.

Gilbert says, "We will be proud of him," and Hortense says, "He will be loved." And that is, for a start in life, the kind of basic ingredients.

You need to be looked after, you need to be warm, you need to be fed, and you need to be loved.

And you need parents who are gonna be proud of you.

And so, from that point of view, I think it is hopeful.

It's really tough for Queenie, because she has given up something that she loves very, very dearly, in order to make her life possible, in order to make her marriage possible.

She's loyal.

Obviously there's no deep love, or she's not been deeply in love with Bernard, but she makes the choice because she knows it's gonna be impossibly difficult for him, and that she can't do it on her own.

She also knows that she, that this child will have a good life, because she knows, she doesn't know Hortense that well, but she knows Gilbert, and she knows that he's a very deeply good person.

So I do think there's hope.

<v ->Okay, some really interesting things to consider there.

</v> And I like how Norris kind of discusses the idea that the play can be both things at the same time.

It can be hopeful, and it can be realistic, depending on the parts that you are focusing on.

Okay, so it's over to you now.

Please can you complete this task? Identify two ways Norris says the play is hopeful, and two ways in which he says the play is realistic.

You know what I'm gonna say? You need to pause the video to get that completed.

Off you go.

Okay, so let's run through some answers.

So Aisha said, identified these two ways in which the play is hopeful.

So the child will grow up with love and parents who are proud of him.

And the next generation, Britain and Jamaica together, represents unity and a better future.

So Aisha picked out those two.

But perhaps you have something you can add.

So I'd like you to discuss, please, can you add anything to Aisha's answer? Pause the video to give yourself time to do that.

Off you go.

Okay, and Lucas, for the two ways in which Norris says the play is realistic, answered in this way.

So the realism comes in the child, being of mixed heritage in 1940s Britain, will face prejudice and a difficult life.

And that Queenie must give up her baby, showing the painful sacrifices people make in tough circumstances.

So again, I would like you to discuss, please, can you add anything to Lucas' answer? Pause the video to do that now.

Okay, thank you everyone, for those excellent discussions.

And I'd now like you please to come up with the correct answer for this question.

In what way does Norris describe the play as hopeful? You need to pick A, B, C, or D.

Pause the video to do that now.

And a very well done to everyone that picked A, that the baby will grow up loved and supported by proud parents.

So according to Norris, that is one way that the play is hopeful.

So task B.

So this is what task B is going to get you to do.

So first we have a statement to consider.

So Rufus Norris says, "'Small Island' is absolutely a hopeful play, but without being rose-tinted.

It's optimistic without being fantasist." So I'd like you to discuss, please, to what extent do you agree with Norris? Does the play feel more hopeful or more realistic to you? You may wish to consider the following points.

Your own experiences of reading the play.

Did you finish the play feeling uplifted, saddened, or a mixture of both? Specific parts of the play.

Which moments felt hopeful, and which felt more realistic? And any additional points Rufus Norris made in the videos.

Okay, so you've got lots to draw on there, 'cause we've watched lots of videos.

So, if you are working on your own, you may wish to write your answer instead of discussing.

But you will need to pause the video to give yourself time to complete that task.

I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

Pause the video now.

Thank you, everyone, for your lively discussions.

There is so much to think about there, and it's difficult to decide, isn't it? Whether we think of it as being more hopeful or whether it's more realistic.

But I think that statement from Rufus Norris is really worth thinking about and interrogating further.

So let's see how Laura and Jun answered.

So Laura agrees with Rufus Norris, and she agrees that the play is hopeful, because "the way Gilbert and Hortense support each other and the idea of a new generation growing up with love made me feel optimistic about the future, despite the challenges they face." And I really like that from Laura.

I think that's really thoughtful, and actually, there is something quite hopeful and something quite lovely about Gilbert and Hortense's relationship.

It might not be full of romance and love and all of that kind of stuff, but there is something quite hopeful about it.

And Jun says that he thinks the play felt more realistic.

"The racism and prejudice seemed very real, showing challenges that still exist.

But small hopeful moments like Gilbert and Hortense's love remind me of the importance of support.

But overall, it made me think more about injustice than optimism." So for Jun, he actually felt that it was much more realistic, and I think Jun makes a really good point here about those issues of racism and prejudice that come up throughout the play, and that Rufus Norris was discussing as well.

So yes, there are small moments of hope and optimism, but Jun's quite right, there are these really realistic moments and ideas that perhaps make it difficult to fully see the hope.

So I would like you to decide now, who do you agree with most, and why? So spend a few moments discussing your answer to that question, and pause the video to do that now.

Wow, thank you everyone, for your excellent answers and your engagement today.

It's been really fun working with you.

Let's just remind ourselves of a few things we have covered in this lesson, and it is a lot.

We know that Norris explains how the production coincided with the Windrush scandal.

Norris emphasizes the importance of direct address in creating a connection between the characters and the audience.

That's very important.

Norris says focusing on three characters strengthened the metaphor of Jamaica and the UK as two connected islands.

Norris explains the challenge of producing the play during the significant events of 2019 to 2022.

And Norris suggests that the play is hopeful because there is love, but it remains realistic.

So lots to think about there.

Lots to think about of hope and realism and all of those things.

I really hope to see you all in another lesson soon.

Thank you again, and I'll see you then.

Goodbye!.