Monday 12th December 2011, 7.00pm
Camden People's Theatre
Hosted by Improbable and Camden People's Theatre
A celebratory evening, a chance to collectively take stock, and a chance to discuss burning issues at the end of the year.
Read the full invitation here
Below are a list of issues that were raised during the evening.
If a report was written, clicking on the title of the session will take you to the report.
Applying theatre- off the stage, in organisations, communities, etc
"Human beings in a rehearsal room"- How can we take better/best care of each other in our process/time together as theatremakers?
I am new in England. I am a director and have a ready show. I don't know anyone. Help!!!
I've just agreed to produce my first show independently. HELP?
Doctor Theatre- can we heal the world?
Another year gone. Can I go on?
Who needs privacy? (or, Thanks, Internet, for enabling everyone we've ever known to find out how well/badly we've aged; how we actually earn money; and how much/little we have worked in the arts this year.)
What counts as a performance? Does it matter if nobody, including the performer, knows there is a performance going on?
Last week someone advised me not to "box above my weight". What is the least useful advice you've had this year? And how can we give better advice to each other?
What's the best (most useful/transformative) thing you've learned this year?
Marketing oneself- the joys and pitfalls. Any tips?
Acting and Actions. In the park? Play? Dance? Gallery?
Monday 19 December 2011
I’ve just agreed to produce my first show independently. HELP?
Convenor:
Bridget Floyer
Who attended?
Only got one name so here are the whys!
- runs a Marketing and PR film and helps small companies
- works for ACE and interesting in independently produced work and what questions people are asking
- doing a Producing MA so interested in potentially producing own work
- runs a fringe festival on the Isle of Wight
- interested in how to be adaptable to different situations
- has done some producing but still not entirely sure what the role means
- doing an MA in community arts, has an idea for a musical
- producing her own work, can share experience
(some whys are from the same people)
Summary of discussion
I convened the session because I’m about to produce my first play (with a film and theatre company) and although I’ve worked in the industry for nearly ten years, I’ve never done this independently before – maybe I’ve done things backwards! It seems as though a lot of the help and support available is aimed at those aged 25 or even 30 and under and I’m 32. Was interested in getting advice but also in discussions generally about starting out later on. Notes are not in chronological order but grouped loosely into categories.
GENERAL
- Go through a company, you can claim VAT
- Separating film and theatre (into separate companies) is a good idea, people don’t get confused as to what you do (and different scales of budget can be a problem)
- drilling down the product and finding out what it is is important – have an R&D period
- don’t necessarily make long term decisions until you know what the product is
- but do also go for it – staying in development for too long can bog you down
VENUE
- Match your product to your venue
- Choosing the right venue is really important
- venues don’t have to be existing theatre spaces, can create your own
- find your venue first
FUNDING
- Can be useful NOT being subsidised – if independent for the first time subsidy could make you not scrutinise your costs so carefully
- The Space – partnership between BBC and Ace, digital arts fund, just closed
- Grants for the Arts fund development (one member of the group had received development funding from G4A)
- sponsorship – break it down into bitesize chunks, find what your investor’s reason is, what’s their benefit?
- crowdfunding: you need to have a really strong existing online audience
- one member of the group [knows someone who?] crowdfunds everything they produce but then makes it all freely available online. Sustains his work that way.
- £1 a month direct debit – doesn’t seem that much, you forget you’re paying it and never cancel, if you have 100 people doing it that’s £1200 a year
- if people have turned up to a live event they want to purchase/donate online
- people want to donate to someone they know, to have a face to it
- online donating you seem to need to offer something back
-
AUDIENCES
- Do audiences cross from film to theatre?
- Generally hard to cross over audiences
- Often depends on the right setting
- IoW Festival do have some cross-over audiences
- work with what you’ve got –eg if your work is new and experimental find an audience who are interested in that
- A lot is about audiences trusting a venue (though some audiences don’t even cross over within a venue – is that partly about the audience not the venue? eg some “types” are more likely to cross over than others)
- can be interesting to go out to get a different audience
- explore different expectations, different venues, not so much competition? More open?
- What is your audience’s expectation and how do you create different expectations
PRODUCING ROLE
- does anyone who produces ever go “yes I know what this is, I know how to do this”?
- can be a very undefined role – varies loads, job description is often misleading
Bridget Floyer
Who attended?
Only got one name so here are the whys!
- runs a Marketing and PR film and helps small companies
- works for ACE and interesting in independently produced work and what questions people are asking
- doing a Producing MA so interested in potentially producing own work
- runs a fringe festival on the Isle of Wight
- interested in how to be adaptable to different situations
- has done some producing but still not entirely sure what the role means
- doing an MA in community arts, has an idea for a musical
- producing her own work, can share experience
(some whys are from the same people)
Summary of discussion
I convened the session because I’m about to produce my first play (with a film and theatre company) and although I’ve worked in the industry for nearly ten years, I’ve never done this independently before – maybe I’ve done things backwards! It seems as though a lot of the help and support available is aimed at those aged 25 or even 30 and under and I’m 32. Was interested in getting advice but also in discussions generally about starting out later on. Notes are not in chronological order but grouped loosely into categories.
GENERAL
- Go through a company, you can claim VAT
- Separating film and theatre (into separate companies) is a good idea, people don’t get confused as to what you do (and different scales of budget can be a problem)
- drilling down the product and finding out what it is is important – have an R&D period
- don’t necessarily make long term decisions until you know what the product is
- but do also go for it – staying in development for too long can bog you down
VENUE
- Match your product to your venue
- Choosing the right venue is really important
- venues don’t have to be existing theatre spaces, can create your own
- find your venue first
FUNDING
- Can be useful NOT being subsidised – if independent for the first time subsidy could make you not scrutinise your costs so carefully
- The Space – partnership between BBC and Ace, digital arts fund, just closed
- Grants for the Arts fund development (one member of the group had received development funding from G4A)
- sponsorship – break it down into bitesize chunks, find what your investor’s reason is, what’s their benefit?
- crowdfunding: you need to have a really strong existing online audience
- one member of the group [knows someone who?] crowdfunds everything they produce but then makes it all freely available online. Sustains his work that way.
- £1 a month direct debit – doesn’t seem that much, you forget you’re paying it and never cancel, if you have 100 people doing it that’s £1200 a year
- if people have turned up to a live event they want to purchase/donate online
- people want to donate to someone they know, to have a face to it
- online donating you seem to need to offer something back
-
AUDIENCES
- Do audiences cross from film to theatre?
- Generally hard to cross over audiences
- Often depends on the right setting
- IoW Festival do have some cross-over audiences
- work with what you’ve got –eg if your work is new and experimental find an audience who are interested in that
- A lot is about audiences trusting a venue (though some audiences don’t even cross over within a venue – is that partly about the audience not the venue? eg some “types” are more likely to cross over than others)
- can be interesting to go out to get a different audience
- explore different expectations, different venues, not so much competition? More open?
- What is your audience’s expectation and how do you create different expectations
PRODUCING ROLE
- does anyone who produces ever go “yes I know what this is, I know how to do this”?
- can be a very undefined role – varies loads, job description is often misleading
Tuesday 13 December 2011
I am new in England. I am a director and have a ready show. I don't know anyone. Help!!!
Some notes by Kelly:
I attended the help the director new to England in session 1. He is from Ubekistan and is looking for help in trying to get a show on as the system of doing so in his own country differs from the British System, he has a show that he is trying to take to Venues. We were joined by another young director called Sophie Besse who is putting her first production on next year at The Etcetera Theatre next April. I am interested in connecting with such people as I am doing an MA in Creative Producing at Birkbeck, so it is interesting to hear about other people's experiences. We all agreed that in persuading venues to take your production it is helpful to have some weight behind you, such as a previous body of work, reviews, comments, footage. It is difficult for first timers. Saying that though if you provide a detailed yet succinct "pitch pack" your chances should improve. We also spoke about researching the right venues for the audience you want your story to reach and how to get funding/resources from a variety of interesting sources, including Embassies.
I attended the help the director new to England in session 1. He is from Ubekistan and is looking for help in trying to get a show on as the system of doing so in his own country differs from the British System, he has a show that he is trying to take to Venues. We were joined by another young director called Sophie Besse who is putting her first production on next year at The Etcetera Theatre next April. I am interested in connecting with such people as I am doing an MA in Creative Producing at Birkbeck, so it is interesting to hear about other people's experiences. We all agreed that in persuading venues to take your production it is helpful to have some weight behind you, such as a previous body of work, reviews, comments, footage. It is difficult for first timers. Saying that though if you provide a detailed yet succinct "pitch pack" your chances should improve. We also spoke about researching the right venues for the audience you want your story to reach and how to get funding/resources from a variety of interesting sources, including Embassies.
Applying theatre – off the stage
Session called by: Paul Jackson
Attended by: Paul, Tim, Lee, Kirsty and others
We can make theatre on a stage or off. Theatre is not a sealed world. Many of us are involved in permeating the boundaries – for example taking theatre into organisations or taking ideas from organisations into theatre.
Taking theatre off the stage focuses more attention on the experience of ‘the audience’. The nature of the interaction between performers and audience changes. In a comedy improvisation show, the audience are more participative when they are offering suggestions. In ‘immersive theatre’, the audience moves from location to location. In a murder mystery, they get to play scenes with the suspects. In a workshop of theatre skills, they become participants and there may be minimal stage-style performing by anyone present – even the facilitator.
Whether the cross-over is skills-building, community development or therapy, the practitioner is an ambassador for theatrical means of expression.
What remains of ‘theatre’ through these transitions? The intangible meeting the tangible, perhaps? And the need to keep the work alive, spontaneous, in the moment – the actor/facilitator staying fully awake.
Paul Z Jackson, President of the Applied Improvisation Network - http://appliedimprov.ning.com/
Attended by: Paul, Tim, Lee, Kirsty and others
We can make theatre on a stage or off. Theatre is not a sealed world. Many of us are involved in permeating the boundaries – for example taking theatre into organisations or taking ideas from organisations into theatre.
Taking theatre off the stage focuses more attention on the experience of ‘the audience’. The nature of the interaction between performers and audience changes. In a comedy improvisation show, the audience are more participative when they are offering suggestions. In ‘immersive theatre’, the audience moves from location to location. In a murder mystery, they get to play scenes with the suspects. In a workshop of theatre skills, they become participants and there may be minimal stage-style performing by anyone present – even the facilitator.
Whether the cross-over is skills-building, community development or therapy, the practitioner is an ambassador for theatrical means of expression.
What remains of ‘theatre’ through these transitions? The intangible meeting the tangible, perhaps? And the need to keep the work alive, spontaneous, in the moment – the actor/facilitator staying fully awake.
Paul Z Jackson, President of the Applied Improvisation Network - http://appliedimprov.ning.com/
Human beings in a rehearsal room: How can we take better care of each other in the process of working together as theatremakers?
Session called by: Ben
Checking in and checking out at either end of the day as both an active process in itself and for what it signals.
· Avoid check in/outs becoming orthodoxical. It doesn’t always have to be the same. There is no right answer. It’s ok to be ok. It’s ok to be not ok. Uphold and encourage the right to feel out of step with the group.
· Make the offer that people can check things in at the door if they want but also don’t have to if they don’t want to.
· Think through what it means to have a ‘duty of care’.
· Your process has to be real, genuine and not just pay lip service.
· Think through how you see individuals in a group. And how they see each other.
· Transparency and honesty feel important. Share as much information as possible, but also know when it’s not necessary to share everything.
· Think about who you are as a director in the process of checking in and through the day. Think about how you want to frame your process and roles within it.
· Remember: you may never make another show after this one. Make the most of it.
· Collaboration is the matching of strengths. Working together can make us work better.
· Decisions about timing of when things happen, when things become apparent, when things are shared is a useful tool.
· Roles.
· ‘Sticking with’ vs. ‘the law of mobility. Or perhaps a balance between the two.
· Balance feels important.
· Disciplines of time-keeping etc coupled with an openness towards people leaving their phones on or sleeping in rehearsal or going out for a bag of crisps. If we’re in this room we’re working.
· Make deliberate, considered choices about how you are going to work. This in itself is a way of taking care of everyone. Set the tone.
· Care and trust and love. A sense of being held. Really hear people and hold open an accepting space
· How do consensual group processes operate? Can I share my role/responsibilities with others?
· Human = complex, fluid.
· A sense of lightness feels vital.
· Working ‘serially’ means things are going to change day to day and moment to moment, including how we feel.
· What do you want to feel like at the end of the day?
· Baking as preparation and a gift to the room.
A question to consider: When I’m taking care of everyone else, am I not being taken care of?
Merry Christmas,
Ben x
Checking in and checking out at either end of the day as both an active process in itself and for what it signals.
· Avoid check in/outs becoming orthodoxical. It doesn’t always have to be the same. There is no right answer. It’s ok to be ok. It’s ok to be not ok. Uphold and encourage the right to feel out of step with the group.
· Make the offer that people can check things in at the door if they want but also don’t have to if they don’t want to.
· Think through what it means to have a ‘duty of care’.
· Your process has to be real, genuine and not just pay lip service.
· Think through how you see individuals in a group. And how they see each other.
· Transparency and honesty feel important. Share as much information as possible, but also know when it’s not necessary to share everything.
· Think about who you are as a director in the process of checking in and through the day. Think about how you want to frame your process and roles within it.
· Remember: you may never make another show after this one. Make the most of it.
· Collaboration is the matching of strengths. Working together can make us work better.
· Decisions about timing of when things happen, when things become apparent, when things are shared is a useful tool.
· Roles.
· ‘Sticking with’ vs. ‘the law of mobility. Or perhaps a balance between the two.
· Balance feels important.
· Disciplines of time-keeping etc coupled with an openness towards people leaving their phones on or sleeping in rehearsal or going out for a bag of crisps. If we’re in this room we’re working.
· Make deliberate, considered choices about how you are going to work. This in itself is a way of taking care of everyone. Set the tone.
· Care and trust and love. A sense of being held. Really hear people and hold open an accepting space
· How do consensual group processes operate? Can I share my role/responsibilities with others?
· Human = complex, fluid.
· A sense of lightness feels vital.
· Working ‘serially’ means things are going to change day to day and moment to moment, including how we feel.
· What do you want to feel like at the end of the day?
· Baking as preparation and a gift to the room.
A question to consider: When I’m taking care of everyone else, am I not being taken care of?
Merry Christmas,
Ben x
Monday 5 December 2011
Improbable's Monthly D&D Satellite: writers and devisers
November 21st at Ovalhouse
Hosted by Stella Duffy and Chris Campbell
Facilitated by Phelim McDermott
Do writers and devisers have anything to say to each other,
or should we proceed directly to violence?
A D&D for us all to ask how we can talk more, work together, come out of our corners and engage...
Read the full invitation here
Below are a list of issues that were raised during the evening.
If a report was written, clicking on the title of the session will take you to the report.
Does longevity matter?
Does devised theatre always have to look devised? Does written theatre always have to look written?
Can devisers work with dramaturgs?
Are we a bit too reverent about the written word?
Where do we begin?
What is the lifespan of a devised piece?
Authorship. Who owns what?
Don't pigeonhole me man! A session for people who do more than one thing.
Collaboration: how can a writer and devisors work together (better)?
Below are a list of issues that were raised during the evening.
Can a scripted play be devised?
Where are the writers writing performance texts, rather than plays?
ME, ME, ME How can devisers work with writers on the autobiographical?
Butcher amongst vegans? What does that mean?
Are writers programmes talking about devising as a "dirty" word?
Let's get Physical (on paper)
I'm a designer... Get me out of here!
What's the difference anyway? Is it just a question of how many people are in the room doing it?
Dream devising/writing: experiences and strategies?
Hosted by Stella Duffy and Chris Campbell
Facilitated by Phelim McDermott
Do writers and devisers have anything to say to each other,
or should we proceed directly to violence?
A D&D for us all to ask how we can talk more, work together, come out of our corners and engage...
Read the full invitation here
Below are a list of issues that were raised during the evening.
If a report was written, clicking on the title of the session will take you to the report.
Does longevity matter?
Does devised theatre always have to look devised? Does written theatre always have to look written?
Can devisers work with dramaturgs?
Are we a bit too reverent about the written word?
Where do we begin?
What is the lifespan of a devised piece?
Authorship. Who owns what?
Don't pigeonhole me man! A session for people who do more than one thing.
Collaboration: how can a writer and devisors work together (better)?
Below are a list of issues that were raised during the evening.
Can a scripted play be devised?
Where are the writers writing performance texts, rather than plays?
ME, ME, ME How can devisers work with writers on the autobiographical?
Butcher amongst vegans? What does that mean?
Are writers programmes talking about devising as a "dirty" word?
Let's get Physical (on paper)
I'm a designer... Get me out of here!
What's the difference anyway? Is it just a question of how many people are in the room doing it?
Dream devising/writing: experiences and strategies?
Does Longevity Matter?
Session called by: Rebecca Manson Jones of Just Jones &
Attended by: various including Kate McGrath, Phelim McDermott, Alwyn, Sarah G, and several others whose names I didn’t catch, sorry.
I called this session in response to some other sessions which I heard being called. I called it out of curiosity and with a leaning towards wanting to understand why the devised theatre-making (or the D&D) community might be considered to be “vegans”.
It seems to me that the question follows on from the “ownership” theme which came up early in the session calling, but is also linked to legitimacy of the work as it is viewed in the theatre community (linked at least in my mind to Chris Campbell’s opening remarks). Is devising work’s “poor cousin status” connected to its lack of visibility beyond the time in which it is performed? For me, some of the most exciting, important and enduring performances I have been part of and have attended since 1990, are those for which there is no conventional performance script. After the event itself, there is not much record except in the memories of the people who witnessed or made the work.
Whereas, with the ubiquity of the published text by Oberon, Methuen, Nick Herne etc I house a few undistinguished playscripts as part of the production programme. Some plays which I missed I can easily pick up on Amazon. Those plays remain on sale, they can be accessed continually. (It was pointed out to me that many more devising and multi-media performances are recorded via DVD than previously and can be found via Youtube these days - but I’d still argue you don’t see people buying them in the National or Royal Court bookshops, onsale at Waterstones etc).
It is still easier for writers than devisors to evidence their work to those who haven’t witnessed it in performance and for some of those scripts to be revived. Hybrid works like Pool No Water are credited to Mark Ravenhill and are revived by companies other than Frantic Assembly who originally made it. (I know a performer who was part of the original devising process who was asked to audition – with mixed feelings - for a revival of this show she’d already helped create and then didn’t get the gig – weird viewed from several angles.)
My experience is that devised work is often regarded as a poor relation to written texts partly because of its even more transient nature than the written script. I wondered if that contributes to the issues of legitimacy of devised work. As a director who has made devised and text based work, I had forgotten that the divide between the two worlds is still so clearly defined. I use both strands to make work – it’s what suits me.
[A bit later in the week, I met another senior figure in literary management, and was amazed to discover he had never heard of D&D. When explained - especially with the “butcher amongst vegans” anecdote - , he thought the principle very interesting.]
A few years ago, when getting new plays on was becoming increasingly hard in the light of budget cuts, I was in a discussion about longevity with “new writers”. Did anyone think about the future or posterity of the work, or were they writing for the moment? I wanted to ask the same of devisors now. I wanted to ask makers of this kind of work if a life beyond the production matters to them? And how would they feel about other people who weren’t involved in the original production reviving their work in other manifestations later on.
In the end I think we covered these three themes
• Does having a record of the performance in something like a text-based published script add legitimacy to the work?
• Do devisors think differently about the future of their work from text-based playwrights?
• How would devisors react to other people/companies wanting to revive their work or to reviving works themselves?
The following is the best I can do from scrappy note-taking. Apologies if your comments are bowdlerised or omitted.
Q - Do written texts command more respect because they are written down?
Q - Do they justify revival?
Caryl Churchill it could be argued writes up a devising process in some of her plays but brings to it a genius for unifying the work.
I asked KM about Will Adamsdale’s work. Would he ever accord the rights to someone else to perform it, as I believe there have been revivals of by other performers of Tim Crouch’s “My Arm”? KM thought it unlikely at this point. She mentioned that agents have contacted her about onward productions of work that has been made in collaboration between a playwright and a company and each time it has to be referred back to all of the collaborators. Phelim mentioned that Improbable had been approached by a band in Hamburg to remake Shockheaded Peter without the Tiger Lilies and Improbable collaborated on that and kept their artistic link with it. I mentioned that Oily Cart have licensed one piece of their work to be made in the US but this in response to a request. Not something they have considered doing for themselves.
I asked him whether hypothetically he’d consider granting the rights to other performers to revive 70 Hill Lane. Phelim said it was his story and that would feel weird. There is such a strong emotional attachment to the process, could it be given over to other people and what would be the point?
There seemed to be a theme that much devised work was very close to the originator’s personal experience so detaching the lived experience, and the original making process from the performance might just render any revival a cardboard facsimile re-enactment thing.
Phelim (?) considered that he might go back to a subject to revisit it if there was unfinished business. Looking at that work 10 years on - might bring something new – watching other people in those roles might be interesting.
We agreed that most of the time, the people making the work were interested in its theme at this particular time of making, it was a personal or public response to the world as it is now and posterity never entered their heads. The audience is here and now. Playwrights who joined the discussion including Sarah G commented that sometimes playwrights have to think of the future because they have no guarantee the play will be put on now, even if under commission. Devisors tend to know when the show is planned for, where, when and why it will take place. Someone mentioned that Shakespeare had no sense of the future or revival. He wrote and performed and the future was another story.
The idea of documenting and notating the work like Laban notation was mentioned. There seemed to be a concensus that preserving the work like Becket’s work would not be favoured. Phelim felt that it would be important to him if revival were ever to take place that people understood the energy that inspired the show, the process that went into its making and that a revival might look, sound and feel quite different, rather than being a re-enactment of the original.
I asked whether a sense of legacy was important for future theatre-makers and academics? I think it would be great if more people could be aware of this work in the future so that when Performance is studied and this past 20 years is looked at, it isn’t just the published texts which are focused on. War Horse will be remembered and celebrated but will all the work of all those companies which lead us up to War Horse be known about? I used the example of suffragette plays mostly unpublished, frequently not very good, but important in their time and for us to remember that they happened. Someone mentioned that some companies do make source books for their shows and sell them (was it the Wooster Group) so these works are taught on university courses and in drama schools.
Q - does the British Library contact devising companies for a copy of their scripts?
We talked about archiving live performance and how we can do that better than with a fixed camera video. Capturing the specificity and rigour of the process seems to be important. Re -creation could kill the magic – is it possible to repaint a Picasso? Is devised work another genre from a written-down play, that is even more transient than a text-based play. Is part of its essence?
If the originators went back to a work later, they’d probably do it differently - playwrights often rewrite for a revival if they’re still alive (directors/dramaturgs edit texts).
Can these devised works evolve or is the continuum like the folk tradition in that each generation refinds the discoveries and deals with them in a new way, with the new production tools and other conditions available to them?
Perhaps a devised work might be revised 30 years on from its creation because the time seems apposite. A revisit might throw new light.
Phelim mentioned that Opera’s are commissioned to be created so that they can be done again (perhaps musical too). Nature of the genre.
Playwrights now hope their plays will last because it may not be picked up at the time of writing. And it can take so long for the play to be written, then workshopped,....
WHOEVER PUTS IT ON IS THE ONLY PERSON WHO COULD HAVE.
Often with productions what we are left with is script, photos, reviews, publicity materials. The devised productions which may be celebrated may be the ones where a case book is created. In the digital age, perhaps we have the possibility of better, cheaper documenting of process and production which may put these productions into a debate about work 5, 10, 20 years on.
Wooster Group, Philip Glass were mentioned, Pina Bausch who kept revisiting her work and whose work continues after her death.
Phelim mentioned that Spirit produced by the Royal Court never got a published play text as anticipated for sale as the programme because the script wasn’t finalised. By the time it was finalised on tour, the publishers weren’t interested because without the door sales it wouldn’t have sold in sufficient numbers. There was some consideration of how it would be watching the originators perform that “play” now or whether a younger team could do it. Phelim imagined it would have to be a different way into it...however hard it is documented... the nuances in the realisation would elude verbal capture... video helps a bit, but turning it over to new people.... hard to know if it could be revived.
A playwright mentioned that revivals are less troublesome in that way because by the time the script is handed over for a first performance, there is already some emotional detachment, the play has been given over.
Who would make such a revival? -
• would it be other devisors or a director auditioning for a company?
• It could be ghastly – could be the worst sort of flattery ending up in a grotesque of the original, like bad Ayckbourn.
• It could be reproduced brilliantly if it was more in the spirit of the folk tradition because it was passed on, reinterpreted, enjoyed, passed on....
And then Kronos got in the way and it was over, but perhaps it’s not over.
Attended by: various including Kate McGrath, Phelim McDermott, Alwyn, Sarah G, and several others whose names I didn’t catch, sorry.
I called this session in response to some other sessions which I heard being called. I called it out of curiosity and with a leaning towards wanting to understand why the devised theatre-making (or the D&D) community might be considered to be “vegans”.
It seems to me that the question follows on from the “ownership” theme which came up early in the session calling, but is also linked to legitimacy of the work as it is viewed in the theatre community (linked at least in my mind to Chris Campbell’s opening remarks). Is devising work’s “poor cousin status” connected to its lack of visibility beyond the time in which it is performed? For me, some of the most exciting, important and enduring performances I have been part of and have attended since 1990, are those for which there is no conventional performance script. After the event itself, there is not much record except in the memories of the people who witnessed or made the work.
Whereas, with the ubiquity of the published text by Oberon, Methuen, Nick Herne etc I house a few undistinguished playscripts as part of the production programme. Some plays which I missed I can easily pick up on Amazon. Those plays remain on sale, they can be accessed continually. (It was pointed out to me that many more devising and multi-media performances are recorded via DVD than previously and can be found via Youtube these days - but I’d still argue you don’t see people buying them in the National or Royal Court bookshops, onsale at Waterstones etc).
It is still easier for writers than devisors to evidence their work to those who haven’t witnessed it in performance and for some of those scripts to be revived. Hybrid works like Pool No Water are credited to Mark Ravenhill and are revived by companies other than Frantic Assembly who originally made it. (I know a performer who was part of the original devising process who was asked to audition – with mixed feelings - for a revival of this show she’d already helped create and then didn’t get the gig – weird viewed from several angles.)
My experience is that devised work is often regarded as a poor relation to written texts partly because of its even more transient nature than the written script. I wondered if that contributes to the issues of legitimacy of devised work. As a director who has made devised and text based work, I had forgotten that the divide between the two worlds is still so clearly defined. I use both strands to make work – it’s what suits me.
[A bit later in the week, I met another senior figure in literary management, and was amazed to discover he had never heard of D&D. When explained - especially with the “butcher amongst vegans” anecdote - , he thought the principle very interesting.]
A few years ago, when getting new plays on was becoming increasingly hard in the light of budget cuts, I was in a discussion about longevity with “new writers”. Did anyone think about the future or posterity of the work, or were they writing for the moment? I wanted to ask the same of devisors now. I wanted to ask makers of this kind of work if a life beyond the production matters to them? And how would they feel about other people who weren’t involved in the original production reviving their work in other manifestations later on.
In the end I think we covered these three themes
• Does having a record of the performance in something like a text-based published script add legitimacy to the work?
• Do devisors think differently about the future of their work from text-based playwrights?
• How would devisors react to other people/companies wanting to revive their work or to reviving works themselves?
The following is the best I can do from scrappy note-taking. Apologies if your comments are bowdlerised or omitted.
Q - Do written texts command more respect because they are written down?
Q - Do they justify revival?
Caryl Churchill it could be argued writes up a devising process in some of her plays but brings to it a genius for unifying the work.
I asked KM about Will Adamsdale’s work. Would he ever accord the rights to someone else to perform it, as I believe there have been revivals of by other performers of Tim Crouch’s “My Arm”? KM thought it unlikely at this point. She mentioned that agents have contacted her about onward productions of work that has been made in collaboration between a playwright and a company and each time it has to be referred back to all of the collaborators. Phelim mentioned that Improbable had been approached by a band in Hamburg to remake Shockheaded Peter without the Tiger Lilies and Improbable collaborated on that and kept their artistic link with it. I mentioned that Oily Cart have licensed one piece of their work to be made in the US but this in response to a request. Not something they have considered doing for themselves.
I asked him whether hypothetically he’d consider granting the rights to other performers to revive 70 Hill Lane. Phelim said it was his story and that would feel weird. There is such a strong emotional attachment to the process, could it be given over to other people and what would be the point?
There seemed to be a theme that much devised work was very close to the originator’s personal experience so detaching the lived experience, and the original making process from the performance might just render any revival a cardboard facsimile re-enactment thing.
Phelim (?) considered that he might go back to a subject to revisit it if there was unfinished business. Looking at that work 10 years on - might bring something new – watching other people in those roles might be interesting.
We agreed that most of the time, the people making the work were interested in its theme at this particular time of making, it was a personal or public response to the world as it is now and posterity never entered their heads. The audience is here and now. Playwrights who joined the discussion including Sarah G commented that sometimes playwrights have to think of the future because they have no guarantee the play will be put on now, even if under commission. Devisors tend to know when the show is planned for, where, when and why it will take place. Someone mentioned that Shakespeare had no sense of the future or revival. He wrote and performed and the future was another story.
The idea of documenting and notating the work like Laban notation was mentioned. There seemed to be a concensus that preserving the work like Becket’s work would not be favoured. Phelim felt that it would be important to him if revival were ever to take place that people understood the energy that inspired the show, the process that went into its making and that a revival might look, sound and feel quite different, rather than being a re-enactment of the original.
I asked whether a sense of legacy was important for future theatre-makers and academics? I think it would be great if more people could be aware of this work in the future so that when Performance is studied and this past 20 years is looked at, it isn’t just the published texts which are focused on. War Horse will be remembered and celebrated but will all the work of all those companies which lead us up to War Horse be known about? I used the example of suffragette plays mostly unpublished, frequently not very good, but important in their time and for us to remember that they happened. Someone mentioned that some companies do make source books for their shows and sell them (was it the Wooster Group) so these works are taught on university courses and in drama schools.
Q - does the British Library contact devising companies for a copy of their scripts?
We talked about archiving live performance and how we can do that better than with a fixed camera video. Capturing the specificity and rigour of the process seems to be important. Re -creation could kill the magic – is it possible to repaint a Picasso? Is devised work another genre from a written-down play, that is even more transient than a text-based play. Is part of its essence?
If the originators went back to a work later, they’d probably do it differently - playwrights often rewrite for a revival if they’re still alive (directors/dramaturgs edit texts).
Can these devised works evolve or is the continuum like the folk tradition in that each generation refinds the discoveries and deals with them in a new way, with the new production tools and other conditions available to them?
Perhaps a devised work might be revised 30 years on from its creation because the time seems apposite. A revisit might throw new light.
Phelim mentioned that Opera’s are commissioned to be created so that they can be done again (perhaps musical too). Nature of the genre.
Playwrights now hope their plays will last because it may not be picked up at the time of writing. And it can take so long for the play to be written, then workshopped,....
WHOEVER PUTS IT ON IS THE ONLY PERSON WHO COULD HAVE.
Often with productions what we are left with is script, photos, reviews, publicity materials. The devised productions which may be celebrated may be the ones where a case book is created. In the digital age, perhaps we have the possibility of better, cheaper documenting of process and production which may put these productions into a debate about work 5, 10, 20 years on.
Wooster Group, Philip Glass were mentioned, Pina Bausch who kept revisiting her work and whose work continues after her death.
Phelim mentioned that Spirit produced by the Royal Court never got a published play text as anticipated for sale as the programme because the script wasn’t finalised. By the time it was finalised on tour, the publishers weren’t interested because without the door sales it wouldn’t have sold in sufficient numbers. There was some consideration of how it would be watching the originators perform that “play” now or whether a younger team could do it. Phelim imagined it would have to be a different way into it...however hard it is documented... the nuances in the realisation would elude verbal capture... video helps a bit, but turning it over to new people.... hard to know if it could be revived.
A playwright mentioned that revivals are less troublesome in that way because by the time the script is handed over for a first performance, there is already some emotional detachment, the play has been given over.
Who would make such a revival? -
• would it be other devisors or a director auditioning for a company?
• It could be ghastly – could be the worst sort of flattery ending up in a grotesque of the original, like bad Ayckbourn.
• It could be reproduced brilliantly if it was more in the spirit of the folk tradition because it was passed on, reinterpreted, enjoyed, passed on....
And then Kronos got in the way and it was over, but perhaps it’s not over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)