BACKGROUND STATEMENT AND LINE OF ENQUIRY
I began dancing at fifteen. Together with my peers, I would help my dance teacher to create choreography for our Easter and summer schools, something I very much enjoyed and continue to do even now when I am available. I began to properly explore the role of the choreographer in 2023, mainly choreographing for dance showcases and competitions. This was when I joined my university’s dance society, and with their support, I choreographed both solos and group numbers in styles including jazz, lyrical and contemporary dance. I discovered a passion for it and now wish to develop the necessary skills to work as a choreographer in the musical theatre industry. In the dance world, the choreographer is “considered to be a creative artist equal to a composer of music, as author of a book and a film director” (Flatt, 2019, p.11). But as I transition into choreography for musical theatre, I know I need to learn to work “in collaboration with producers, writers and directors” (Flatt, 2019, p.14), producing work that is in line with others’ creative ideas as well as my own.
Through this portfolio I will analyse my previous and current experiences of collaborating, both as a dancer first working with a choreographer, and as a choreographer myself. I will look at my experiences through the lens of Butterworth’s didactic-democratic framework model, exploring how collaboration between cast and creatives differ. I will start to understand some of my preferred methods of collaboration, and how I need to develop for future projects.
WHAT IS BUTTERWORTH’S FRAMEWORK?
Butterworth’s didactic-democratic framework model is “a framework for approaching dance making and devising through a continuum of five distinct approaches to the generic choreographic process” (Wildschut, 2018, p.89).
(Wildschut, 2018, p.90)
At one end of the scale is the more traditional aspect of choreography “in which the choreographer is considered expert, and the dancer is the instrument” (Wildschut, 2018, p.90). It follows a more didactic process, demonstrating the choreography and the dancers replicating it (Wildschut, 2018, p.89). On the other end of the scale is the democratic process, which prioritises equality, collaboration, and joint ownership of work between dancers and choreographers (Wildschut, 2018, p.91).
MY EXPERIENCE – COLLABORATING AS A DANCER
My experience with collaboration and choreography began when I was still a student at my dance school at sixteen. For our Easter and summer schools, my teacher would gather a group of the senior dancers to help create the choreography, using us to test out different moves, partnering and patterns to create the performance for the rest of the school. This arrangement mainly fell into process one, with my teacher as the “expert” creating and us as dancers being used as the “instrument” to recreate her ideas (Wildschut, 2018, p.90). Occasionally, we would suggest, for example, a move or positioning, or just perform the choreography differently, and if our teacher approved, our adjustments would be incorporated. I consider this contribution to fall under process two rather than process one which defines the dancer’s skills to be “imitation” and “replication”, whereas process two describes them as “imitation, replication “and “interpretation” (Wildschut, 2018, p.100). The key difference is the word “interpretation”. We were not simply recreating what was given but adding our own suggestions and ideas for minor changes. This falls short of process three because Butterworth describes the skills needed for this phase to be “replication, content development [and]content creation” (Wildschut, 2018, p.100). Whilst we did contribute slightly to the creation of choreography, ultimately everything was created or approved by the teacher. We were not asked to create sections by ourselves, or improvise to certain sections of music, only to give suggestions when appropriate.
As a dancer, I enjoyed process two because it felt involved and I was able to suggest changes that I was comfortable with as well as change dance moves to my preferred leg for example. But it was still completely under the professional’s control, and there was no expectation to come up with anything myself, which not every dancer is comfortable doing. As a choreographer, I can also see the appeal of process two because you maintain total control and the choreography belongs to you. It also allows you to choreograph specifically for the dancers, enabling you to get the best out of them.
As this was my introduction into choreography, process one and process two feel very comfortable to me because “Musical Theatre choreography is an art form that requires exposure and experience in order to learn” (Abate, 2022, p.175). Going forward I intend to research choreographers who have completely different methods, especially those who favour processes three, four and five, so that I develop a fully informed preferred choreographic process.
MY EXPERIENCE – COLLABORATING WITH THE COMPANY
Of course, in this situation I was the dancer not the creator, but as a choreographer I think this process offers a lot of value. When I was the dancer, I and other dancers suggested changes we felt confident doing. This was useful when choreographing the song “Baggy Trousers” from Our House the Musical, for our performance project. Not everyone in the company feels confident in dance, so I used process two in a small workshop before I began the full choreography. In process two, I as the choreographer have control over the “concepts, style, content structure and interpretation in relation to capabilities/qualities of dancers” (Wildschut, 2018, p.100), so I still had complete control over the content created and there was no pressure for anyone inexperienced in dance to create anything themselves. It also allowed me to learn and understand what people felt comfortable doing, as well as assess ability. This greatly helped me to create choreography that I was confident everybody could perform successfully and to the best of their ability. Below is a video of the workshop’s end product.
The advantage of this process was that it enabled me to mould the choreography to the dancers I was working with. However, the downside was that it was difficult with tight time constraints, as the process depends on the dancers being in the room for them to “interpret”. This is where process one has advantages, as I am responsible for the “generation of all work” and the dancers just focus on replicating that (Wildschut, 2018, p.100). I was then able to go away and choreograph the number, to then teach in rehearsal, saving us time as the process could move more fluidly, but also allowing more time to go over any moves or confusions.
In future projects I would be interested in exploring process three, where the dancers hold a more active role in the content creation and development (Wildschut, 2018, p.100). I feel this could be a preferable workshop method to process two because as Abate states “no one has all the answers, but you can figure it out together as a company” (Abate, 2022, p.11), meaning there is the potential to create the best possible work if it includes many diverse voices. However, as before, this process requires space and time to be able to experiment properly with everybody’s ideas, so would not work well with short timeframes.
MY EXPERIENCE – COLLABORATING WITH THE DIRECTOR
Abate states that “musical theatre is one of the most collaborative art forms” (Abate, 2022, p.133) and that “Choreographers should strive to speak the language of their collaborators” (Abate, 2022, p.133). This is the area where I lack the most experience, which became apparent during the process of choreographing and staging “Baggy Trousers” in our performance project. When sharing the work we had done outside of rehearsals with the director, they wanted to change the patterns for one section. The change was from image one to image two below:
Image One:
Image Two:
I was concerned that this would change my choreography or be impossible for the dancers to get to in time. I found adapting on the spot extremely challenging, and upon reflection, this could have been avoided with some prior discussions before the choreography had started. The change shown above was done outside of rehearsal.
At the beginning of the project “the choreographer will want to brainstorm concepts and get clarifications from the director” (Abate, 2022, p.134). Abate also states that before rehearsals begin the creative team should have “ideally reached an agreement about the story, concept, style… of the production” (Abate, 2022, p.134). We, as a creative team, did not prepare in this way before rehearsals began, which led to moments as described where choreography had to be changed to better suit the director’s vision.
In future projects I aim to engage in the discussions between the creatives before rehearsals begin. I find myself quite protective of my work and unwilling to change it, but “the director captains the mounting of the musical” (Abate, 2022, p.136), and therefore understanding their specific vision is paramount to the success of the overall production. Even though I am used to working and creating by myself, I think it’s important to remember that “differences in opinion, when embraced, can unlock new avenues and often results in a product that is greater than the sum of its parts” (Abate, 2022, p.133). It’s interesting to me, that I find listening to others’ opinions easier when working with dancers rather than other creatives. This is something I will be exploring in future projects to further my work.
Looking at this section of collaboration through Butterworth’s framework, I think it falls quite comfortably into process four of the scale. The director becomes the “choreographer as facilitator” whose skills “provide leadership, negotiate process, intention [and] concept” (Wildschut, 2018, p.100), and the choreographer becomes the “dancer as creator”, whose skills are “content creation and development” (Wildschut, 2018, p.100). Sometimes the relationship between them shifts towards process five, where the choreographer and director become co-owners of the work. This is something I aim to try in our second performance project. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the director and choreographer will work equally on, for example, a dance break. Instead, it should illustrate how, by working together, the flow between the choreography and direction is seamless, as “the audience should not be able to tell where the director’s work left off and the choreographer’s work began” (Abate, 2022, p.136).
CONCLUSION
Overall, I know I have a long way to go creating choreography for musical theatre, and a lot of work is needed to develop my collaborative skills. When it comes to simply creating choreography, I feel most confident with processes one and two, and I am comfortable shifting between the two when necessary. To move forward I need to experiment with processes three through five and find other choreographers who work within these methods to learn through them. I think great choreography comes from understanding the dancers you are working with, which means a more collaborative approach is needed to create the best work possible.
As for collaborating with the director, the most important thing I have learned is that the overall artistic vision is paramount, and that the choreographer serves that vision as a movement expert and consultant (Berkson, 1990, p.6), but that overall vision comes from the director (Abate, 2022, p.136). I believe that processes four and five, at the democratic side of the framework, best serve this principle and favour co-ownership of work, so that no one can tell “where or when the authority for direction changed hands” (Berkson, 1990, p.7).
Bibliography
Abate, C. (2022). The art and practice of musical theatre choreography. London: Methuen Drama.
Berkson, R. (1990). Musical theatre choreography. London: A & C Black Publishers Limited.
Flatt, K. (2019). Choreography. Ramsbury: The Crowood Press Ltd.
Wildschut, L. (2018). Contemporary choreography. Abingdon: Routledge.
