Interactional Contingencies in Rehearsing a Theater Scene: The Consequentiality of Body Arrangements as Action Unfolds

Abstract

Based on video-recordings of several weeks of rehearsals of a Japanese theater piece played by French actors, and adopting an ethnomethodological and conversation analytic perspective, this paper focuses on how the same few lines of a scene are subsequently enacted. In particular, it explores how the scene is played, not only in relation to the script but also to the situated moment-by-moment unfolding of embodied movements constituting the actions and achieving their detailed formatting and meaning. Whereas the dialogue refers to the scripted text, we argue that the multimodal details of each scene constitute a unique situated course of action achieved for ‘another first time,’ whose multimodal configuration depends on the temporality and the shape of each step, gesture, and body posture, as they are embodied and responded to in the vivid present and its contingencies. We demonstrate this by revealing how variations of the scene are performed, explored, and serendipitously found by the actors. We focus in particular on embodied details like walking, sitting, hugging and kissing, and the sequential and temporal positions at which they co-occur with the lines of the script. The analysis demonstrates both the indexicality of the script interpretations and the creative contingencies of the embodied work of the actors. In this way, it aims at contributing to current growing literature revisiting theater rehearsal as a situated activity and an interactional multimodal achievement.

Introduction

In this paper, we examine the way a short scene in a theater piece is rehearsed and progressively transformed. Within the framework of ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (EMCA) and on the basis of a series of video-recorded rehearsals of a piece written by a Japanese director and played by French actors, we reflect on the locally situated elaboration of solutions the actors engage in while playing and the director while instructing them. In a nutshell, we demonstrate the double constraints on how a scene is repeatedly rehearsed. First, the scene as it is played constitutes a situated in vivo interpretation of the script, produced (by the actors) and evaluated/corrected (by the director) by reference to that text. In this sense, the script works as an instruction, constituting the lived work of interpreting it within a Lebenswelt pair (Garfinkel, 2002: 188). Approaching the scripted action of the actors as a local contingent achievement, adapted in a context-sensitive way, we consider the necessary and irremediable indexicality of “following” the script. Second, the scene as it is bodily enacted by the actors constitutes a course of action which is generally not scripted in its embodied details and is achieved for “another first time” (Garfinkel, 1967: 9). This occasions the collective elaboration of the scene: the actors, as interactants, engage in a course of action with their bodies and their words, which are sequentially organized and thus consequential for what will be done next. In this sense, each action, turn, movement, and step projects and constrains the next one within the inescapable local sequentiality of that course of action. Our analyses reveal how the local contingent multimodal details of action are consequential for the emergence of the next possible actions—in a way that might correspond or not to the script, be treated as a good interpretation of the script or not, or even as a new serendipitous version discovered in situ and locally appreciated. In this sense, with this paper we aim to contribute to the current growing literature that revisits the theater play and theater rehearsal as situated activities and interactional multimodal local achievements.

Background: The Actors’ Bodies in the Theater Rehearsal and Performance

We focus here on the body as a resource in and for the theater performance. The interest in the body is ancient according to the classical literature on theater; more recently, EMCA studies of theater rehearsals have proposed a multimodal analysis pinpointing the importance of embodied details for the emergent order and accountability of the scene in the here and now as well as across time.

The growing EMCA literature examines how the actors build their performance on stage during the rehearsal by reading, interpreting, and embodying the script (Hazel, 2018; Lefebvre, 2018, 2020; Norrthon, 2019; Schmidt, 2014, 2018). These studies describe how the rehearsal is organized within the alternance between the play and corrective instructions of the director (Schmidt, 2014, 2018; Schmidt & Deppermann, 2021), also relying on the script, which can be variously interpreted. But these studies also show that in order to embody the script, the actors rely on their mundane knowledge of social interaction (for example, for managing pauses or gaze shifts [Lefebvre, 2020]). The possibility to video-record rehearsals along time until the final product, the official piece played for the public, has also prompted longitudinal studies across rehearsals (Deppermann & Schmidt, 2021; Hazel, 2018; Lefebvre, 2018; Norrthon, 2019), highlighting both the emergence and contingency of some creative moments and the stabilization of their interpretation over time. In this paper we chose to focus on a relatively shorter process and a short scene in order to pinpoint the changes from one scene to the next: Thereby we add to the previous literature by highlighting the detailed situated embodied work of the actors and the consequentiality of their moment-by-moment decisions about how to shape their body conduct for the in vivo and in situ interpretation of the scene.

Focusing on the embodied character of theatrical actions, we use advances in multimodal analysis in EMCA (Deppermann & Streeck, 2018; Goodwin, 2017a, 2017b; Mondada, 2016, 2018; Streeck et al., 2011). The intelligibility of social life as well as theater relies on what Goffman calls “body glosses” as exteriorized signs (1971: 11) for the organization of social encounters and what EMCA treats as the public accountability of action (Garfinkel, 1967), multimodally achieving action formation and action recognition. The multimodal formatting of action (Mondada, 2018) relies not only on embodied conduct (gesture, gaze, body posture) in relation to talk but also on body arrangements in space (Haddington et al., 2013; Mondada, 2009) and haptic configurations [such as hugging (Goodwin, 2017a, 2017b)] or kissing (Kendon, 1975; Mondada et al., 2020, and more generally touching the other Cekaite & Mondada, 2020). The way these resources are situatedly selected, emergently shaped, and temporally combined crucially depends on the in vivo sequential unfolding of action. This concerns everyday social interactions as well as interactions on stage since embodied details are generally not scripted.

Data and Aims

In this paper we study the multimodal formatting of actions during the rehearsal of a unique scene of a piece as an emergent, instructed, and serendipitously discovered matter. In particular, we focus on the verbal embodied details involved in the accomplishment of walking, stopping, sitting, and engaging in haptic intimacy.

The piece, La Métamorphose version androïde (The Metamorphosis, Android version), was written in 2013 by Japanese director Oriza Hirata, directed by him, translated into French, and rehearsed by French actors in Japan prior to touring in Europe. The rehearsals, held in the Kinosaki International Arts Center, lasted 30 days in 2014 and involved the French actors, the Japanese director, an interpreter, and robot engineers. They were video-recorded by the first author of this paper, with the consent of all the participants, as part of a project led by Mayumi Bono on the Human–Robot Theater developed by Hiroshi Ishiguro and Oriza Hirata since 2008 (Bono et al., 2016).

The play is inspired by Kafka's novel The Metamorphosis, with important modifications: Gregor wakes up transformed into an android, and the play is centered on the family members conversing with him. Hirata implements on stage a naturalistic conception of language and dialogue fundamentally inspired by everyday talk (Hirata, 2008), and even the artificiality generated by the robot is treated in a realistic way. The scene we focus on in this article does not involve the robot but rather the mother and father. It takes place after the visit of a possible tenant of a room that the family must rent to support itself now that Gregor is no longer working. The mother has just accompanied the visitor to the door and announces il est parti/ “he's gone” (l.1). as she comes back to the room where the father and Gregor are. The scene is sketched in a few lines in the French translation of the script used by the actors:

Although mentioned in the script, the sister is absent from the scene as it is rehearsed. The mother returns to the room where the father is waiting for her and announces the departure of the visitor (l.1). The father thanks her (l.2), appreciating her work in taking care of the stranger. They then engage in a topical conversation about the tenant (l.3–5). Thus, this short fragment is organized in two sequences, in which an announcement is made and thanks given (l.1–2), and next a comment/assessment is initiated by the mother and further developed by the father (l.3–5). The fragment represents the transition between the end of the visit and the next conversation between the couple.

As we can observe, the script does not contain any embodied instruction beside the mention of the mother’s entry on stage. At the beginning of the rehearsal process, the instructions regarding how to embody the scene are scarce. They are partially provided by the space of the scene, delimited with a white rubber band (Fig. 1), which defines the place where the mother enters the scene and the location of Gregor’s bed (Guy, who interprets him, is almost silent during the scene; later on, he will be replaced by a robot). The position of the small round table where Jérémie, playing the father, is sitting and another seat on his right, where Irène will sit, are also instructional elements constraining the actors’ performance.

Fig. 1

The stage and the distribution of the participants within the local ecology

The rehearsal process begins the first day with the simple reading of text. On the second and following days, on which we focus, the actors begin to embody the scene. At this early stage, the scene is tried out within a creative process characterized by the indeterminacy of the script and its local embodied interpretations by the director as well as the actors. As we shall see, this creative process implicates choices at several organizational levels concerning sequence organization, the proxemics and mobility of the participants on stage/within the local ecology of the action, the formatting of their embodied conduct, and its timing with the production of their turns at talk. Each of these aspects is shaped in situ and emergently with reference to the scripted text and also to the local unfolding of the actors’ embodied conduct.

In the following analyses, we focus on the solutions implemented by the actors and the director across a series of successive versions of the scene, organizing in various ways the moment when the mother reenters the scene and rejoins the father. Despite its brevity—the scene lasts 10 s—we highlight the complexity of its multimodal organization. We show how the actors coordinatively and responsively embody step by step the trajectory of the reconjunction by considering the consequentiality of the details of walking, standing, sitting, and coming closer, which make possible (or not) further embodied conduct, such as touching and kissing. In particular, we show how the scene is arranged around Irène entering the scene, the consequentiality of Irène’s and Jérémie’s embodied actions leading to the couple kissing, the troubles this kiss generates, and the consequent adoption of an alternative version without kissing.

Ecology and Mobility: (Re)organizing Entering the Scene

The opening of the scene is achieved by Irène reentering the scene. Her reconjunction with Jérome crucially relies on how she walks through the scene and sits on the seat beside him while producing the lines of the script timely.

Prior to the fragment analyzed, the only instruction given by Oriza has indicated the stool where Irène will sit when entering the room (not shown). He has also commented, in a kind of self-talk, dou shimashou ka/ “how will we do that” (not shown), which indexes that he does not have a precise plan for this scene. Thus, the detailed embodied way the couple comes together is largely left to the actors. It is this emergent choreography that we will describe.

The extracts are transcribed multimodally following Mondada’s (2018) conventions. Since we focus on the work of the actors, we refer to them as such, using their names: Irène (IRE, actor playing the mother), Jérémie (JER, actor playing the father), Oriza (ORI, director), Yui (YUI, interpreter), Guy (GUY playing the son Gregor). The transcripts focus on the embodied reenactment of the scene (regular font); they include the verbalization of the scripted talk and the in vivo comments about it (bold) and their translation (italics). We join the scene as the mother enters the room:

Irène enters the scene, walking in and raising her hands above her head (Fig. 2A/B). This gesture visibly projects her announcement and at the same time expresses some relief (l.1–2). As she comes in, Jérémie, who was sitting until then, responds by standing up and thanking her (l.4). Note that when Jérémie finishes to say merci, Irène is still on the opposite side of the table (Fig. 3). While continuing walking, she proffers a positive assessment (l.5), upon the completion of which, both actors face each other (Fig. 4). When Jérémie responds (l.8–9), they both sit down at the same time (Fig. 5A/B/C, constituting three different views of the same instant). When they reach the sitting position, Jérémie suspends his turn (l.8), occasioning a hearable delay in its completion.

The embodied interpretation of the script involves timing the scripted dialogue with the trajectory of the body movements. In this version, Irène walks towards and then around the small table Jérémie is sitting at, joining him on his left. Her trajectory and timed arrival are consequential for the establishment of an interactional space in which they stand face to face, separated by the table (Fig. 4), which prompts them to sit down simultaneously. One practical problem they face in this scene is how to coordinate their reconnection. The formatting and timing of their mobility is strongly connected with how they achieve the transition between the announcement sequence and the subsequent initiation of the topical talk about the tenant.

The situated trajectory around the table, targeting the stool on the left of Jérémie, is consequential for the solution embodied by the actors in the first version studied here (Version 1, extract 2). A few minutes later, it is corrected by Oriza in Japanese and translated into French by Yui. Oriza explicitly asks Irène to change her position and refers back to a past performance in which the actors were kissing each other (unfortunately, that day the recording starts with some delay and misses the very early part of the rehearsal during which the kiss might have happened).

In his corrective instruction (Schmidt & Deppermann, 2021), Oriza shows Irène how to walk directly towards Jérémie, on his right, to kiss him, and to sit down on the other seat available, on his right. He thus corrects the trajectory that was circumventing the table on the left (Version 1), twisting the body (l.19), and making the kiss impossible. Oriza invites them to reorganize the details of their walking/sitting trajectories in a way that is consequential for the kissing (l.10), which was performed in a previous version—relativizing the constraints of the current material space for the performance (l.18).

At this early stage, in which both the actors and the director try different solutions, the changes introduced by both do not merely concern the mobility and spatiality of the participants: The modified ecology is consequential for actions that are afforded by the so created interactional space. A change in the spatial disposition of the scene, by way of transforming the movements and positions of the body, also changes the actions this body projects, makes possible, and indeed achieves. A different trajectory opens up for new opportunities for the actors to connect the announcement and the initiation of the new topic within the details of their actions, affording resources for embodying different relationships and emotions between the characters at this specific moment of the play within a new interactional space creating the opportunity for a new haptic configuration, the kiss.

(Re)organizing Trajectories: The Haptic Reconjunction of the Participants

The detailed way the actors’ bodies reconnect together, with possible haptic contact, such as hugging and kissing, emerges from the trajectories of the bodies and their mutual orientations. This happens in the next two versions, following Oriza’s correction above and quickly succeeding each other (extracts 4 and 5):

Irène enters the space of the room, opening her arms as she proffers the announcement (l.2, Fig. 6) but then repositioning them along her body as she comes closer to Jérémie. In response, Jérémie stands up and extends his arm towards her. This movement projects not only welcoming her but also touching, hugging, and eventually kissing her (l.3, Fig. 7, 8). Thus, his thanking turn co-occurs with the initiation of the hug, which progresses into mutual touch and leads to the kiss (l.5). As soon as the kiss is completed, they separate, and Irène initiates the topical talk about the tenant (l.6ff) while they both sit down.

In the subsequent version immediately thereafter (which is not instructed and occurs after Oriza suspended the action to address a problem occurring after our target lines), the same unfolding of embodied movements is observable again in an enhanced and smoother manner:

Irène, entering the space, visibly raises her arms (Fig. 9) and then lowering them, extends them towards Jérémie (Fig. 10). Now one gesture merges into the next, thereby projecting reciprocation of the hug. As she walks in, Jérémie not only stands up but immediately extends his arm (Fig. 11), projecting hugging while expanding the scripted thanking turn (ah. h:: merci > merci < (beaucoup)/’oh h thanks thanks (very much)’ l.3). This adjustment of the script enables a timed coordination with the extension of the hug. In this version, the actors’ reciprocal movements unfold in a smooth(er) way, one leading to the other. In this way, their embodied trajectories complete the first sequence while projecting mutual hugging and kissing.

The increasingly fluid and reciprocal aspect of the third version in comparison to the second one is the consequence of a temporal contingency: Irène utters her line il est parti later when she has already made some steps on the stage (see Comparison 1, Fig. 12, 13). This enables her to better connect her gesture with Jérémie's. For instance, she lowers her arms when she is closer to Jérémie, and this occasions the possibility to extend them directly toward him rather than letting them fall (see Comparison 2, Fig. 14, 15). On his side, Jérémie finishes saying merci when Irène is much closer to him (see Comparison 2), affording the possibility to connect thanking with hugging and kissing in a more fluid way.

The fluid reciprocity of the third performance is thus made possible by the timing of Irène's entry on stage and the subsequent actions through which both participants manage the affordances occasioned by the details of Irène’s trajectory.

In the last examined versions of the scene (extracts 4 and 5), the actors organize the reconnection of their bodies in a way that ends in a haptic contact, which reaches its peak with the kiss. One important temporal detail of the finely tuned reconnection between them is the way Jérémie stands up, coordinately aligning with Irène’s entering the room. This movement reveals how one actor mobilizes projections responding to what the other actor is doing: This shows that they do not engage in the mere repetition of scripted or agreed-upon gestures but rather in a situated coordination, responsively sensitive to what each other is doing.

Orchestrating the Proxemics of Intimacy: Kissing

Three days later, the actors and director rehearse again the same scene. The next excerpts show how Jérémie's movements as he stands up, in coordination with Irène's entry and the production of his line, project their haptic reconnection and the kiss. We also show how the kiss is organized in detail and the trouble this might occasion.

We join the first rehearsed version of the day, occurring in continuity with the previous scene and without any specific instruction by Oriza:

Irène coordinates her entering the room with the production of the line il est parti (l.1–2), without however raising her hands as in the previous versions (extracts 4 and 5). Jérémie looks at her as soon as she makes her second step towards him, just as she begins to say her line (l.3, Fig. 16). As she says it, Jérémie puts his hands on his knees, leaning forward (Fig. 16). This movement projects standing up, as Irène has not yet completed her turn. On her side, Irène continues to walk towards Jérémie after the end of her turn.

As he stands up, Jérémie responds merci and extends his arm towards her as she continues to walk towards him (Fig. 17, 18). Moreover, he contributes to their reconnection by further extending his right arm (Fig. 18, 19), which projects touching her neck (and their kiss). Irène responds to Jérémie’s arm movement by raising her left hand, directing it towards his back (Fig. 19). This movement is maximally extended when she stops close to him at the appropriate distance for kissing (l.8). The kiss is thus initiated by Jérémie and completed by Irène (Figs. 17, 18, 19). The hug and the kiss are both the consequence and the completion of the way the actors coordinate their embodied movements to accomplish their reconnection in a reciprocal way. The space of intimacy they create has also other consequences we examine next in the continuation of the same rehearsed scene.

Engaging in kissing is instructed in extract 3 and experimented in embodied ways in the next versions. Kissing supposes the achievement of an interactional space of close proximity, resulting from the coordination of Irène’s walking trajectory with Jérémie standing up. This proxemic relation, enabling haptic contact, namely hugging and kissing, has its own intercorporeal dynamics (M.H. ), which has some consequences for the way the actors organize the completion of the kiss, the disengagement of their bodies, and the next actions.

We join the continuation of extract 6, focusing on the kiss:

During the kiss (l.8, Fig. 20), Irène and Jérémie engage in a proxemics of intimacy: their bodies are close to each other, motionless, their arms and hands touch each other, and their heads are reciprocally oriented in the kiss (Kendon, 1975). After the smack, they do not say anything. They prolong the intimacy of the kiss by an exchange of glances and by Irène caressing Jérémie’s back while their bodies stay close (Fig. 21). So, extracts 6 and 7 show how entering into and exiting from a kissing haptic configuration takes some time, and establishes a moment that suspends any other concerns, including other sequential possible progressivity and expectations.

Thus, as a consequence of this prolonged, close embodied intimacy, the action slows down and the production of talk is suspended during a long silence. The sequentiality of this intercorporeal moment is part of the theater performance but has consequences for the production of the scripted lines: It suspends the verbal progressivity of the piece. The engagement in the haptic sensoriality of the kiss constitutes an alternative form of interaction than the scripted talk, which is momentarily suspended.

The completion of this proxemic intimacy is accomplished by disengaging from touching and gazing at each other when both begin to sit down (Fig. 22). This completion also enables a return to the verbal dialogue, as is observable when Irène opens her mouth while sitting down (Fig. 22). Nonetheless, she does not say anything. This delay of the next line manifests trouble that is formulated in so many words (l.10–11) in an action that displays “now remembering” (Koivisto, 2013). The problem encountered by Irène may indicate in retrospect that the moment of kissing intimacy has shifted the couple into another context than the rehearsal and the piece. Jérémie proposes this interpretation a bit later (l.23).

The trouble encountered by Irène and formulated by her with the change-of-state tokens (l.10, 12) concerns who speaks the line that initiates the new sequence after the kiss. This trouble seems to be related to the fact that it is a new action, that is, an action that is not projected by the previous one and is relatively autonomous from it.

The trouble also involves Jérémie, who first initiates repair (l.12) and then rejects (l.14) the first guess by Irène, generating her own repair initiation (l.15). She also puts on her glasses, thereby projecting the relevance of going back to the script at that point. Her repair initiation is responded to by Guy (l.17), who specifies who does the action (notice that he refers to the “mother” and not to Irène, thus referring to her persona). At that moment too, Jérémie gazes towards Oriza, expecting a possible instruction by the director and orienting to the latter’s primary right and authority to do so. Thus, this particular moment is oriented to making the script relevant again and maximizing the participation of all the actors and the director.

Consequently, the actors restart the action: Irène first restarts it just at the point where the error occurred (l.18), while Jérémie stands up, manifesting that the action should restart just before the kiss. Irène aligns with him and stands up (l.20, Fig. 23), then takes a few steps back, showing she is ready to start before their haptic embodied contact (l.21, Fig. 24). At that point, Oriza instructs them to restart when entering the scene (l.22). The repositioning of the actors in space shows that they orient differently to the moment the scene has to be restarted.

At this moment, Jérémie retrospectively offers an interpretation of Irène's problem (l.23): With a smile, he mentions the kiss as the cause of her trouble. This mention of the kiss serves as a resource to mitigate/explain her error, confirming that the kiss is part of the (stylized) repertoire in the rehearsal but also alludes to some (actual, interpersonal) intimacy it lets transpire beyond the piece.

The resumption of the action involves a decision concerning not only the line in the script from which to restart the action but also the position in space at which to restart it. The repristination of the action is here (for Version 5) launched by the actors in a slightly more advanced spatial position than in the previous versions and with Jérémie standing (Fig. 25).

In this case, the kiss (l.30) is produced shortly after the thanking (produced in a double form, l.28). We can also notice that after the kiss there is a short gap of only 0.3 s before Irène says the line initiating the new sequence. The actors seem to orient retrospectively to what occasioned the trouble in the previous version, that is, the prolongated intimate engagement in the haptic configuration of the kiss. Quite the opposite, they minimize here the time between the smack and the initiation of the new sequence (l.32). The new line is uttered by Irène just as she disengages from the kiss (Fig. 26). At the end of it, she sits down while Jérémie, who responds immediately (l.33–34), is still standing (Fig. 27, 28).

In the analysis of Versions 4 and 5 we show how trouble emerged from the haptic configuration of the kiss, which was then addressed and corrected by the participants. We turn now to the next trouble in the rehearsal, occurring on the same day, during Version 8 (after Versions 6 and 7, not shown, focused on the prosody of the initial announcement). In this version, an error occasions a radical alteration, which is the abandonment of the kiss.

The Suspension of the Kiss and a Reinterpretation of the Action

In Version 4, the participants experienced in a vivid way the consequences generated by an extended focus on an action (kissing), occasioning the disruption of the next sequence. Trouble in the sequential unfolding between one sequence and the next reveals, for the participants as well as for us analysts, the consequentiality of embodied and temporal details for the progressivity of the action.

We turn now to another error, occurring in Version 8, which produces a situation in which the participants (actors and director) can retrospectively observe the cascading consequences of different—delayed—placements of a line (il est parti). In the next excerpt, the line il est parti is produced several times in different sequential positions. This generates serendipitously the idea of moving the announcement later. Consequently, this changes the action made by the line; it also changes the role of the kiss, which moves from thanking (after the announcement) to welcoming (as Irène walks in).

We join Version 8 after Oriza has suspended the rehearsal to address a problem that does not concern our target lines:

Irène steps in without saying a word (l.1). She continues to walk across the stage as Jérémie stands up, extending his arm towards her (Fig. 29). They continue their mutual approach (Fig. 30) projecting hugging and kissing. However, as Irène stops, Jérémie suspends the trajectory of his body towards her and instead withdraws from her, also letting his right arm fall down, abandoning hugging.

Jérémie’s change of posture incarnates the identification of trouble and the initiation of a correction. His turn, il est pas parti?/ “isn’t he gone?” (l.4, Fig. 31), is both a correction (a metatheatrical question exiting the play) and a possible adjustment (a variation by which he supplies Irène’s missing turn with a guess within the play). Irène’s response aligns with the latter (l.5), whereas Jérémie’s interrogative ah? (l.6) orients to her error. The participants’ turns oscillate between the play and a metacommentary about the missing script’s line. Nonetheless, they kiss (l.9) while Oriza explodes in laughter (l.8). Once they disengage from the kiss, Irène sits (l.10) and produces the line (l.11), which is responded to by Jérémie (l.12). The sequence is completed with him sitting too. In this position, they produce the subsequent sequence (l.14–16).

In this case, the missing line il est parti is produced three times, performing three different actions: as a candidate guess (in a negative declarative question) by Jérémie (l.4), as a confirmation (l.7), and as a post-kiss announcement by Irène (l.11). This occasions not only a delay in the production of the kiss but also a change in the positioning of the kiss with respect to the last occurrence of il est parti since this line is produced for the third time after the kiss (l.11).

Jérémie’s hesitation and withdrawal before kissing as well as the guessing turn (l.4) orient to the relevance of placing the line il est parti before the kiss. This is less an orientation to following the script than an orientation to a sequentially relevant action to be made relative to Irène in situ coming back into the room, producing the accountability of what has happened just before (which is not available to the audience). The sequential repositioning of the line il est parti also changes the role of the kiss: Whereas in the previous versions the kiss was associated with thanking, in this version it is rather associated with the reconjunction of the couple. This shows how changing the temporal/sequential environment of the kiss changes also the action it performs.

Extract 10 is suspended by Oriza, who corrects an issue located just after our target lines and then asks to redo the scene (l.1). Irène uses this suspension as an occasion to initiate a discussion about her interpretation of the scene (l.4):

After Oriza asks to redo the scene (l.1), Irène makes explicit her way of performing it (l.4–10): She enacts two possible versions, which are presented as mutually exclusive (by the construction soit … ou/ “either…or”). These are crucially based on the moment when il est parti is uttered, either earlier when she enters (l.8, Fig. 32) or later when she sits (l.10, Figs. 33, 34). The interpreter translates Irène’s explanation (l.12, 14) for Oriza. Before Oriza responds, however, Jérémie focuses on another issue—the relevance of kissing or not (l.16–17). He presents it as a consequence of Irène’s alternatives: Depending on the version chosen, he either kisses her or not. This is received as news by Irène (l.19). Her response reveals that they do not share the same interpretation of the kiss. This occasions an explanation (l.20) of the kiss as thanking, responsive to Irène’s entry on stage. Thus, Jérémie formulates precisely the relation between the position in space in which the turn is uttered and the action the turn and the kiss elicit. In this way, a renewed understanding concerning the accountability of the multimodal organization of the actors’ actions is locally generated.

Oriza accepts both versions (l.27) translated by Yui (l.29) but highlights their exclusive character (l.30, translated l.32), which is treated as no news by Irène (l.33). At this point, Oriza walks across the stage. Adopting Irène’s position, he enacts the two options (Figs. 35, 36, 37), thus transforming them from actors’ interpretations into director’s proposals. His instructions are embodied in a demonstration targeting two things: First, he shows with his body the two locations at which il est parti can possibly be said (Figs. 35, 38), confirming Irène’s versions and transforming them into two options that can be tested by the actors. Second, he demonstrates a way of walking across the stage, without moving his arms while gazing down (Figs. 36, 37), which will be reproduced by Irène immediately afterwards (Fig. 39) and in the next version (extract 12).

So, Version 8 shows how trouble in the performance produces variations concerning the sequential and temporal position of a line within a mobile trajectory, occasioning a formulation of the action achieved in each case. This reveals that the two main actors do not share the same understanding of this action despite having rehearsed it several times already. The trouble generates a discussion about the relation between the detailed spatial-multimodal-sequential configuration of actions and their interpretation (announcing/thanking/kissing). This discussion will constitute the basis for the next versions, in which the kiss will be abandoned.

The Abandonment of the Kiss

In the subsequent rehearsals of the scene, the consequences of the options explored in extract 11 on sequence organization in general, and on the kiss in particular, are observable. In extract 12 (just following Version 8/extract 11), the line il est parti is spoken as Irène sits down, with the couple experimenting with a configuration without a kiss—hinted at by Jérémie although not imposed by Oriza in extract 11.

Irène enters the stage and walks towards Jérémie. Her walk, directly after Oriza's demonstration (extract 11), imitates his way of walking: She advances without moving her arms (Fig. 40, see Figure 39/extract 11), with her head bent, showing a kind of weariness. Irène thus retrospectively interprets Oriza's previous demonstration as an instruction about how to embody the trajectory from the entry on stage to the action of sitting down. Jérémie stays on his seat, bending over with his elbow on his knees (Fig. 40). He raises his torso up and looks at her as she is coming closer (Fig. 41). She sits down and, looking at him, she produces the line il est parti (l.4), to which he responds with a head toss and a nod. In this embodied and sequential configuration, they do not kiss.

While in the previous versions the announcement during the walk was accompanied by some gestures and had a strong contrastive prosodic contour, in this version the walk is plain and silent. The line il est parti is produced much later than in the previous versions, after Irène sits down. Jérémie minimally looks at Irène when curling up on his chair as if not expecting anything in particular from her. When Irène sits down, she brings her hands to her lap, and Jérémie remains seated with both hands on his legs too (Fig. 42). This posture prevents them from making any further gestures and makes it impossible for them to kiss. The line il est parti (l. 4) is produced with a much flatter prosody. In this way, the actors produce a sense of resignation and discouragement as well as minimal agency.

The next topical sequence (l.10ff.) is produced in strong continuity with the previous one (contrary to what was happening in the previous versions). Moreover, a new element is introduced: When Jérémie responds to Irène, sustaining the topic she just introduced, he turns towards Guy and smiles. This enlarges the participation framework, introducing a possible change in the accountability of that line (the reference to the visitor being a doctor was audible until then as a way to attribute seriousness to the tenant but is now audible in relation to Gregor’s problems). This is also made possible by the fact that at this point they both already sit (vs. they were sitting much later on in the first versions) and thus can easily pivot towards Guy. So, the exploration of the possibility to produce il est parti much later than when Irène entered the room has a series of consequences for the organization, timing, and accountability of both sequences, which radically change with respect to the previous rehearsals.

Extract 12 integrates and experiments with a possibility that emerged out of a discussion (extract 11) prompting the participants to explicitly envisage various options. This further confirms the sequential interactional consequences of the spatial position in which the line il est parti is uttered: Said early when Irène enters the room, the line is clearly produced and heard as an announcement, yet when spoken later when Irène sits down, it loses its strength and becomes rather a retrospective comment or formulation of what happened. This in turn has consequences for the way Jérémie responds to it: Whereas the action of thanking is clearly relevant in response to the announcement, and is further elaborated within the kissing, thanking is less relevant to a simple comment. In the latter case, Jérémie responds with a flat merci and a simple head toss while staying immobile, which accentuates Jérémie’s stance of discourage and despair. In this last version, the acceleration of the progression of the action also enables them to enlarge the participation framework of the next turns, thus smoothly implementing a new activity.

Conclusion

Studying several rehearsed versions of the same scene and the omission, reintroduction, and (re)abandonment of a significant action, kissing, we have shown the productivity of a detailed multimodal analysis both for understanding how a theatrical interpretation situatedly emerges from the work of the actors and the director and how the temporality of multimodal details matters for the organization of sequentiality. While the EMCA literature is often interested in the longitudinal changes of a piece through the rehearsals, often encompassing a long history of transformations (Deppermann & Schmidt, 2021; Hazel, 2018; Lefebvre 2018; Norrthon, 2019), we have opted here for a much narrower time span, which enables us to demonstrate how embodied choices create affordances and constraints for next actions (and their interpretation) in a way that is consequential for the ongoing in situ shaping and interpreting of these actions on stage.

The actors’ work can neither be reduced to the reproduction of the script nor to a repetition of a scene with respect to the previous instructions/rehearsed scene. Rather, each new performance, for another first time, reflexively (re)shapes the interpretability of the script (Lefebvre 2018; Schmidt, 2014). The relation between script and performance lives in this constant mutual adjustment—and this is even more striking when considering how the script is finely embodied. In our analyses we show that even if actors repeat the text faithfully, the sequential unfolding of embodied actions has its own emergent and consequential situated logic, with one action—the in vivo details in which it is performed—being consequential for the next one and opening up constraints and possibilities for the next one. The actors, as the participants in ordinary social interaction—whose conversational practices inspire Hirata’s naturalistic theater—orient and respond to this consequentiality of action, adjusting their performance to it. This produces the singularity of the implementation of each scene, the unique character of what they do again and again and yet for another first time. This has consequences for the way we can conceive the rehearsal, and more generally the work of the actors, at least within naturalistic theater: Actors do not merely interpret a text that precedes and determines them, but they engage in a course of action that is built on fundamental sequential methods relating to their member competences and to fundamental methodic principles of human interaction (Deppermann & Streeck 2018; Mondada 2018). Likewise, this form of theatrical interpretation does not just amalgamate elements decided upon and instructed by the director; rather, the embodied actors’ interpretation has to fit with the naturally emerging sequential course of the action, especially when performed within an esthetics drawing on everyday talk and conduct (Hirata, 2008). This is vividly demonstrated by the way the intimate and haptic moments make sense at some point in the rehearsal but are much less relevant in other sequential contexts.

The director's instructions are themselves produced in relation to the sequentiality of multimodal actors' actions. We observed this in two ways. First, the director's instructions are indexical in the sense that they come within his observation and correction of the actors' ongoing performance (Schmidt & Deppermann, 2021). Second, the actors take hold of the director's actions by selecting and interpreting them in a situated way, retrospectively achieving their status as instructions. For instance, the way Irène imitates Oriza's walk (extract 11) shows the contingent nature of the director's instructions. Though the director focuses explicitly on the two places where the line can be said, Irène rather retains the way in which he moves from a place to another.

These analyses of the situated, contingent, and serendipitous changes from one version to another aim at contributing to a better understanding of the actors’ work and interactions on stage, complementing much literature focused on directors’ instructions. In turn, their study contributes to a more fundamental understanding of the sequentiality of social interaction. The rehearsals are a form of “natural experiment”—an expression we use to refer to the fact that interactants repeatedly engage in the “same” scene, again and again, in a way that is “naturally” occurring (Lynch, 2002), for the sake of their professional practice (and not in response to an exogenously pre-defined experimental lab setting). This provides analysts of social interaction with a perspicuous setting in which to observe the consequences of sometimes minimal changes produced by variations in the multimodal details of an action—like the kiss. These variations constitute a natural experiment revealing the specific consequentiality of embodied details for the formatting and accountability of a course of action. The experiment confirms the relevance of the precise timing of an action: We saw how the same line/turn, like il est parti, said earlier or later, is embodied differently, interpreted as doing different actions, and responded to in different ways. It also shows the effects of the timed positioning of the action within a changing mobile interactional space, thus confirming the strong relation between mobility and action formation as well as spatiality and multimodal formatting. Furthermore, it shows in vivid ways how responses are reflexively shaped within the emergence of the sequence and adjust to it. This is for instance the case of the kiss, which is naturally occurring in one emergent haptic configuration but becomes less relevant in another proxemic configuration—shedding some light about the dynamics of intimacy more generally (complementing work of Kendon, 1975 who adopts a narrower approach to the kiss, as well as or Mondada et al. 2020 showing the importance of embodied trajectories making kiss possible). In this sense, the EMCA perspective elaborated on in this paper aims at producing a better understanding both of embodied actions on stage in their specificity, and of the sequential organization of ordinary embodied actions more generally.

Transcription Conventions

Talk has been transcribed using Jefferson’s (2004) conventions, and multimodality with Mondada’s (2018) conventions (see www.lorenzamondada.net/multimodal-transcription). Transcription symbols used:

	IRE	JER	ORI	YUI
body	%	+	&	‡
arm	*	¬
walk	•	†
gaze	$	±