My Background

My background is as a professional facilitator and director in participatory theatre and creative engagement. My role is to facilitate participant-performers to devise theatre. While the quality of the outcomes and sense of achievement participants get from them is important, the more important thing is the process, and that is where my work lies. My role is to shape the participants’ ideas and creative vision through the devising process. The process is often democratic, with me being a facilitator or co-owner of the work (Butterworth, 2009). Within my work it is crucial that the creative impetus comes from the participants, as Boal says, “If the intention is to create theatre which liberates, then it is vital to let those concerned put forward their own themes.” (Boal, 2002, p19), I am there to support and serve the participants I am working with. 

Line of Enquiry

Through my MA I have shifted from the role of supportive facilitator to equal collaborator in teams of creative peers and moved from a “Tossed in the pool” (Robinson, 2015) style of collaboration towards “complimentary collaboration” wherein “each participants role is different and a division of effort based on distinctive expertise…the practitioners are equal in status but embrace different ways of working” (Candy, L. 110, 2009).   

Throughout this, my focus has shifted away from enabling others’ creative process toward the quality of my contributions to the product. This speaks to a wider conversation about credit and authorship within theatre-making; “historical accounts have traditionally been written around memorable individuals and the landmark events in which they play key roles.” (Candy, L. 103, 2009). Outside of participatory practice, this idea of lone creative genius is one which persists. This is puzzling within theatre making which is implictly a collaborative endeavour. Even with a show written and performed by one artist, there are technicians and a live audience involved – theatre cannot be made alone. Here, I interrogate the reasons for and usefulness of my pre-occupation with individual contribution during this process.

  

---

Reflection 1 – Vacation

Refelections

This way of working was similar to my professional practice, therefore familiar and comforting to me. We generated material quickly and worked in a way where everyone had equal input on the piece. At times there was disagreement about suggestions but trying everything meant that “meritocracy prevail[ed]. Someone suggest[ed] an idea; someone else suggest[ed] another. The one that catches the group’s interest usually wins” (Robinson, D.R. 2015, p 100). Seeing ideas in practice, I could understand ideas which made less sense when explained abstractly, or limitations of an idea were spotted quickly. Additionally, the time limit was an enabling constraint: “time pressure helps resolve differences and is a great motivator for getting things done” (Robinson, D. R. 2015, p98) we were less inclined to self-edit or reject ideas, as we felt the pressure to generate content  

Analysis

The ability to work in this way was supported by the fact that the outcome did feel relatively low stakes; the focus simply being on making something, rather than making something good. There was a sense of play in how we were creating which meant that proposing ideas didn’t feel like a vulnerable act. In a higher stakes setting, it might feel more difficult to offer ideas, or the group may fall into patterns of critiquing and debating the merits of each idea as it arises – this is something Robinson points out as a flaw of this method saying: “The group gets involved in the minutiae, polishing one moment….they never finish the assignment.” (Robinson, D.R. 2015 p 99).  However, it strikes me that this could be a relatively cyclical line of thinking. Is it harder to work in a playful way, as a group of equals when the stakes of the piece you are creating feel higher; or do the stakes feel higher when we delineate roles and lose that sense of open play? 

Reflection 2 – Tomorrow / The Mountain

Reflections

Inherent in this process was an order of operations, as director “your first step in preparing is to gain a strong sense of the text and story” (Deer, J. 2014, p 13) for me to do this, the text needed to be created. This meant that for much of the process I felt concerned that I was not contributing enough. While I had started to visualise blocking throughout the piece, there was a ceiling to how much I could develop these ideas. Through a longer rehearsal period “the final structure may be as much a result of your literal mapping out of a physical behaviour as it is the impulses of your cast.” (Deer, J. 2014, p 146). I knew there were interesting ideas to be explored, which would come from working with the performers, but the structure of working on musical theatre, meant that other parts of the process needed to happen first. Moreover, I felt concerned that my part of the process wouldn’t be included in what we ultimately shared. I found this frustrating – and continued to feel the anxiety around not being able to identify the tangible parts of the final sharing which I had created. 

Analysis

Reflecting on this, I returned to the idea of the individual creative and the pressures around authorship and credit. Watching the piece back, I can clearly see the work I have done; the generation of the original idea, the guidance around the rising and falling tension reflected in the melodic structure, the impact of character notes on actors vocal quality. Nevertheless, in the immediate aftermath of the performance I felt concerned that I had not made a significant contribution. In unpacking this, I realised that this is not a singular experience of mine, but something inherent in the role of a director: “as directors of musical theatre, we are ultimately invisible…if you’ve done your job well by opening night you are useless.” (Deer, J. 2014) What I realised is that inevitably, in a collaborative team, my ideas will be interpreted by a myriad of other artists to create the eventual final product, but that does not mean my contributions are not there. 

Reflection 3 – Baggy Trousers

Refelections

The choreography that had been created was visually exciting and stylistically in keeping with the tone of the piece, however within my role I had an “obligation as central interpreter of the text” (Deer, J. 2014, p 57) and during the process I had made decisions about the storytelling and dramaturgy, which I had not communicated effectively. I felt tension around communicating these ideas once the number had started to be choreographed. Because we had been working so separately, it didn’t feel like working with a collaborator to reach the best version of the piece but rather coming in as someone external to give feedback on someone else’s work. I wanted to unpack why it felt this way, and find ways to more effectively and confidently give feedback – as giving feedback and notes is a core part of the role of the director. 

Analysis

Liz Lerman’s Critical Response Process examines how we give feedback and empowers artists to take control of the feedback they receive, (Lerman, L. 2003).  This framework could have been useful in equipping me to give feedback to collaborators in a supportive way – however in this context it also perpetuates the idea of individual collaborators being responsible for certain parts of the work (and therefore, rightfully, holding the power to take or reject feedback) rather than the process being a collaboration of equals – in the context of a rehearsal period, this could mean that feedback which is important for the clarity of the final piece goes ungiven.    

This difficulty could be lessened by proactive collaboration at the beginning of the process. “The more clearly your choreographer understands all of what you’ve imagined, and the sooner he or she is involved in the process of defining that world, the more seamlessly the choreographer’s work will integrate into the tapestry of action in your musical.” (Deer, J. 2014, p 60) By not making time to outline the story the dance was telling at the beginning, I was now imposing changes and refinements on her, based on creative decisions I had made without her. This meant that my notes felt more like subjective opinions from someone exercising authority, rather than the thoughts of an equal collaborator. 

Conclusions

The collaborations discussed here have at times felt disconnected. Often I was giving feedback other’s work, or developing my own ideas in isolation to contribute to the whole at a later point. As the pieces grew in scale and complexity, this mode of working felt more common, sometimes inevitable.  Upon reflection, I challenge this idea of inevitability. I believe it is possible to make work on a large scale, of high quality, as creative equals. Of course, when collaborators have a particular skill set, it makes sense to draw on those skills, however I want to challenge the idea that this work must happen isolation, to be shared only when it’s ready or complete . The focus on individual work and authorship can be pervasive and damaging, particularly in a medium like theatre, where the lines between where one artist’s work starts, and the next artist’s ends are blurry. The pressure to be able to point at the finished product and identify the parts each individual artist are responsible for often comes at the detriment of a playful, harmonious process. 

The belief that a positive collaborative process will lead to a better creative outcome is central to my professional practice and is a belief which I think is integral to theatre-making at any level. In a medium like musical theatre, where as a director I am reliant on the skills of other creatives, the key to this lies in preparation. To enable a collaborative process for larger teams it is essential that I have a clear understanding and vision of what I want any piece of theatre I am collaborating on to say. Moreover, in order to create a truly equal collaborative space, I need to give space and time for other creatives to feed into the development of that vision. When I present a piece of theatre which I have made with participants, I rarely feel like I have not contributed enough to it’s creation, even though centering the vision and ideas of participants above my own is central to that practice. Going forward, I am keen to reflect that in my wider work. The best theatre is made when every artist working on the piece feels able to contribute and make decisions about the work, and creating a space where that can happen does not negate my work as a director, indeed it often is the work.

Bibliography

• Boal, A. (2002) Games for Actors and Non-Actors 2^nd Edition. London: Routledge.  
• Bogart, A. & Landau, T. (2005) The Viewpoints Book. London: Nick Hern Books.  
• Butterworth, J. (2009) Too Many Cooks? A framework for dance making and devising. In: Butterworth, J. (ed.) Contemporary Choreography. London: Routledge pp 89 – 106.  
• Candy, L. (2019) The Creative Reflective Practitioner. London: Routledge.
• Deer, J. (2014) Directing in Musical Theatre. New York: Routledge 
• Fels, L. 2007. When Royalty Steps Forth: Role Drama as an Embodied Collective Learning System. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 6, 124-142.7 
• Lerman, L. 2003. Liz Lerman’s Critical Response Process. Takoma Park: Liz Lerman Dance Exchange 
• Robinson, D. R. (2015) A Practical Guide to Ensemble Devising. London: Palgrave.