A Conversation With Director Miguel Perez, “One for the Road”, Art of Acting Studio, Theatre 2, by James Scarborough

Harold Pinter’s “One for the Road” finds a provocative staging under Miguel Perez’s direction at the Art of Acting Studio. Perez’s approach, which he terms the “West Coast Style,” forgoes traditional rehearsal methods in favor of a more spontaneous, intuitive performance. This radical departure from conventional theater practice promises a raw, unpredictable experience of Pinter’s exploration of power dynamics in a totalitarian regime.

Perez’s decision to forgo blocking and dress rehearsals is a bold gambit. It places enormous trust in the actors’ abilities to navigate Pinter’s taut, menacing dialogue and complex characterizations without the safety net of extensive preparation. This approach may yield moments of electrifying spontaneity, but it also risks undermining the precise timing and measured silences that are hallmarks of Pinter’s work.

The production’s political resonance is underscored by its commitment to donate a portion of profits to the ACLU, suggesting a conscious effort to connect Pinter’s timeless examination of authoritarian brutality to contemporary concerns. The success of this production will hinge on whether Perez’s experimental methodology can convey the play’s chilling portrait of political horror while honoring Pinter’s meticulous craftsmanship.

JS: Your “West Coast Style” production method for “One for the Road” is intriguing. How do you reconcile this spontaneous approach with Pinter’s famously precise and calculated writing style?

MP: My master teachers Philip Meister and Mario Siletti both worked with and were deeply influenced by Stella Adler. They believed that the training of an actor is not unlike the training of a musician or a dancer. Like the musician, the actor is learning to play an instrument, like a dancer, that instrument is the body…and the mind. When I hear Pinter’s language I hear music not unlike what one hears when listening to Shakespeare. A close study of Pinter’s word choice, line construction, syntax, rhythm and use of silence will foster a reading of his work that possesses the true nature of talk. I believe that, just as well trained musicians can gather and make beautiful music together on the fly, and expert dancers can fill a space together with dynamic and improvised movement. So too can sensitive and well trained actors meet and tell a powerful story together in the moment and on the fly without pre-planning. The script itself is the plan. By the way, the “West Coast Style” of Theatre production is nothing new. Players in film and television study their parts on their own for days or weeks before arriving on a set and playing their parts with other artists with whom they have never rehearsed and sometimes have not even met before. The key difference is that on a film set, you always get another take. No so on a stage. That is why this approach is for experienced players only. 

JS: Pinter’s work often relies on subtext and carefully timed silences. How do you ensure these crucial elements are preserved in a production where actors haven’t rehearsed together?

MP: It is Pinter’s precision and scrupulous attention to detail that, I believe, makes him a perfect playwright for a west coast style production. It is an article of faith among players that we must listen to and respond to each other honestly and in the moment. By relying on Pinter’s expertise and cleaving to the lines, beats and scenes he has crafted, all that the players need to do is conn their parts well and play honestly with each other in order to tell the story well.

JS: The play deals with themes of political oppression and torture. In what ways does your production method enhance or potentially complicate the audience’s engagement with these difficult subjects?

MP: The nature of our approach forces us to be simple and honest in our choices. With great playwrights, like Pinter, O’Neill, Shakespeare, Williams, Hellman. The tendency is to search too high and too far for complexity and meaning when the truth is most often found close at hand. It’s possible to make the case that a long rehearsal period is an opportunity to lose one’s way in the mounting of a play, and perhaps miss the point altogether

JS: You mention that actors will only know their own parts. How do you envision this affecting the power dynamics between characters, particularly in the interrogation scenes?

MP: The power dynamics are baked into the language and structure of the play. David Mamet, in his treatise Lies & Truth, suggests that a well written play, well played, does not require actors to “create a character” or “build relationships.” Rather it is the audience that takes on that task as the play unfolds. Pinter leaves the audience plenty room to jump in with their imaginations.

JS: The play is known for its taut, menacing atmosphere. How do you maintain this tension in a production where the actors themselves don’t know what to expect?

MP: Full disclosure. While we are not blocking or rehearsing the play in the traditional manner we are still taking pains to develop a dramaturgical foundation for the play. At regular intervals we sit down together to do table work and to establish the “givens” of the piece. Together we settle any lingering questions about the narrative and each character’s place in it. I also do one on one meetings with the players, either via Zoom or in person to check in on their progress and address any new ideas that their solo work has uncovered. In short, I offer them direction as they explore the piece on their own. On the night, they will know, in broad terms, what to expect, but the moment to moment playing of the piece will be filled with surprises.

JS: Pinter’s work requires a delicate balance between realism and abstraction. How does your production approach navigate this dichotomy?

MP: The balance you describe is especially evident in Pinter’s earlier work, especially the “memory plays”. Old Times comes to mind as a piece that leverages that tension between the real and the abstract. Anna, Keely and Kate all agree that there is something to remember about their collective past but they can’t agree on what. Their descriptions of the “old times” read like half remembered dreams.  This stands in contrast to Betrayal where Emma, Jerry and Robert all share a common and agreed-upon history in addition to secret, shadow histories. There is little doubt about what happened, only about when they all found out the truth. The late, short political plays, One for the Road, New World Order, and Mountain Language, are steeped in the reality of the brutal oppression that millions of people live under right now. They feature to a far lesser extent, that delicate balance you’ve so correctly observed.

JS: The play’s setting is intentionally non-specific. How does your production engage with the universality of the themes while potentially resonating with contemporary political concerns?

MP: Pinter crafted a piece of dramatic literature that is stripped down, spare, and language driven. I’ve often thought that it would make a great radio play. We are trying to strip it down even further by shrouding the stage in darkness interrupted by shards of glaring light. Once again leaving room for the audience to make the connection between the play and the world we live in today.

JS: In traditional productions, the interrogator’s character often develops a rhythm of intimidation. How might your approach alter or enhance this aspect of the play?

MP: I feel that Nicolas is intimidating from the first moment, what he tries and sometimes succeeds in developing, is some barely plausible deniability of his intimidation tactics. His verbal ambiguity makes it easy for him to “turn on a dime” and thus confuse and terrify his victims and the audience again and again.

JS: Pinter’s language is known for its musicality and rhythm. How do you preserve these qualities in a production where actors haven’t rehearsed the interplay of their dialogue?

MP: If two jazz musicians are to achieve a pleasing musicality and rhythm they must listen very carefully to each other. The same is true for two actors in a play. In our approach, careful listening is not just an ideal, it’s an imperative.  

JS: Your decision to donate a portion of profits to the ACLU suggests a political engagement beyond the stage. How do you see the role of theater in current socio-political discourse?

MP: One for the Road is Agitprop theater pure and simple. Pinter himself admitted this despite his distaste for the form. Depending on how the upcoming elections go, we might see a lot more political theatre, a lot more protests, more arrests, more imprisonments. Authoritarians love theatrics, and hate a Theatre that tells the truth about injustice, corruption, and oppression. 

Performances are Saturday, November 2nd and Sunday, November 3rd at 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. Tickets are $5 for students, $10 for general admission, and $25 for generous admission. The Art of Acting Studio, Theatre 2 is located at 1017 N. Orange Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90038. For more information, click here.