ADSA PRESENTATION, 2010 Stripping Bare the Ensemble: Collaborative Practices

DRAFT

STRIPPING BARE THE ENSEMBLE

Presented at ADSA, 2010

Collaborative Practices: ImpulseTraining

with

Margi Brown Ash

My latest research, which could, AT A PINCH, be called Stripping Bare in A Mouthful of Pins, reports on the attempt to create a collaborative theatre making process by incorporating post-modern constructs borrowed from the COLLABORATIVE therapy room.  The study asserts that, when applied with awareness, POST MODERN therapeutic frameworks can help members of the creative team, including:

·      the director

·      performers

·      writer

·      designers and

·      technicians

 ‘strip bare’ and fulfil their artistic capacity, thereby enriching their process, their performance as well as their collaborative relationship with each other.  

For this to occur, it is imperative that the director/facilitator ‘strip bare’ by:

·      STAYING CURIOUS

·      STAYING AWARE of how they lead their creative team,

·      WITH PARTICULAR CARE around their USE OF LANGUAGE,

·      AS WELL AS an increased awareness of the MULTIPLE STORIES (including the sometimes invisible social, historical, political, theatrical and leadership discourses) that surround and impact the artist’s process.

My research is designed to assist students of theatre as well as established professional practitioners with an alternative approach for collaboration that can result in longevity of their practice, while at the same time embracing best practice for their outgoing creativity.

I will endeavour to provide what I will call a

MAP OF THE COLLABORATIVE THEATRE PRACTICE

It is important that this is seen not as a prescriptive approach to theatre making, but a gathering of ideas that may help an ensemble of artists unfold the ‘mysteries’ that emerge in their rehearsal process, and perhaps provide a means of keeping the space between each artist alive, responsible and transformative.  In other words these offerings may provide an opportunity to see the familiar in a different way, to hear it differently and to understand it differently (Anderson, 2007). 

To begin with I suggest we re examine the concept of respect and good manners, crucial values to incorporate into the collaborative process.  The culture of the theatre industry sometimes overlooks respect and good manners, often excused due to lack of time, funds and opportunities. We can sometimes forget that

Using manners reaffirms our basic human connectedness and interdependence despite the hierarchies that compose so much of our professional and personal lives. Therefore manners are a crucial part of the behavioural repertoire of the collaborative life style.

(St. George & Wulff, 2007, 407)

Throughout the collaborative process I encourage this respect through careful use of language, focusing on constructive use, with no blame and no judgement (using self referential language such as ‘I think that’ rather than ‘you thought that’).  Let us  appreciate what is working rather than on what is not working.  In therapy there is no solid evidence that we need to dig the roots of a dysfunction in order to help solve the problem (Bertolino & O’Hanlon, 2002) so in a similar way if we focus on the strengths of the participants we will perhaps be closer to providing a transformative experience not only for the actors and creatives involved but also for our audience.  Here are five steps that may move us closer to this goal:

1. Engagement of Ritual

The working terrain in theatre can be held together by a cycle of rituals that provide “frameworks of expectancy” (Douglas in Roberts et.al., 2003, 12).  Rituals are an important part of our theatre culture, providing a fertile creative environment, using repetition, familiarity and transformation of what is already known [the familiar] into what is about to be known [the creative act] (Roberts et.al., 2003).  Rituals could be seen as providing the scaffolding to enter the ‘zone of proximal development’ (Vygotsky, 1997), that space where the actors and creatives transform the elements of theatre making into something new.

The rituals involved in the COLLABORATIVE rehearsal/performance process include:

·      Group Norms;

·      Check In/Check Out (including Scaling);

·      Goaling;

·      ImpulseTraining (this will be discussed in detail further on);

·      Reflective Practice;

·      the incorporation of the Four Agreements (Ruiz, 1997)

·      The Practice of Gifts (Kinman et.al.,2004);

These rituals, evidenced in the following flow chart, merge with one another and form the container for the rehearsal/performance:

Figure 9: Creative Constructionist Ritual               

Group Norms

Group Norms are created as a group and displayed on the wall at each rehearsal. I want to add Derrida’s idea concerning responsibility as a potential requirement: being responsible, we are required to respond when needed (Kinman et.al. 2004). According to Derrida, responsibility insists on response (Kinman et.al, 2004), and could be seen as connecting us in relationship to the other.  For a community of actors to work together we could embrace this definition of responsibility; that we are required to respond to the problem at hand.  Derrida talks about irresponsibility as being the refusal to look someone in the face and Kinman expands this:

It is about how we look someone in the face. It is about whether we look someone in the face. And it is about how do we respond, together, in the context of that looking.  And it is about how do we respond, together.

(Kinman et.al, 2004, 243)

Rather than running from them, individuals would be required to face the issues and in so doing have the opportunity to resolve them, keeping in mind that people can only work to the best of their own ability.

Check In /Check Out

This methodology was highly valued by many of the participants in both “Gone to Earth” and “A Mouthful of Pins”:

I have defiantly [sic] come to value check in and check out as this establishes a trust… respect… caring and nurturing…and… allows issues to be solved within the rehearsal room.

(Students response, July, 2008)

Check in and check out were great because it gave a very free rehearsal room some structure and gave us an opportunity to gauge what we were feeling and to leave it behind.

(Students response, July, 2008)

Shakespeare wrote that the truest poetry is the most feigning: in short, I feel that I was able to speak ‘truthfully’ within the ‘false’ construct of check-in/out’.

(Collaborator, May, 2008)[1]

We start and finish with check in/check out using scaling between 1 and 10: 1 when I am feeling extremely low; 10 when I have never felt better. Scaling allows the group to use another language, the language of numbers, to state succinctly their emotional, physical, intellectual and spiritual landscape.  It is a way of communicating what is happening without having to move into content; only the speaker really knows what they mean by a particular number, and the rest of the group accepts this fact.  If the score is low, a question focusing on what the group could do to help increase the score could be asked (Berg & de Shazer, 1993). 

The use of scaling provides this opportunity for every participant to be seen and acknowledged by others in a very simple yet profound way.

Goaling

Each day there is a goaling exercise where we state what we want to achieve each rehearsal/performance. This keeps us mindful and on task. Because the process of a collaborative rehearsal could be seen as unpredictable at times, it may be  important for the artist to have something to work towards each rehearsal.  Goaling provides a rigour of practice that calls on the logical self to commit, providing us the opportunity to journey objectively before moving into more subjective and alternate stories. It doesn’t matter whether or not we achieve our goal/s, what matters is that we have a starting point to begin the exploration of the collaborative territory.

Reflective Practice as Ritual

Each rehearsal we allocate time to reflect on what has happened, and how to dream it on. This is one of the greatest tools for consolidation of process. As tools for reflection we  use stream-of-consciousness writing, pastels, clay, plasticine, an assortment of papers, magazines and glue. Actors use these tools to access what they ‘don’t know they know’ about their creative process.

The Practice of Gifts

This seems a simple way of solving critical incidents or ‘hotspots’, or at least reducing their intensity:  A Collaborative Action Plan (Kinman et.al. 2004) provides key discussion points to open conversations up to a variety of strength based possibilities, what he calls the language of gifts :

We are suggesting that [we] enter each situation with an attitude or a spirit that receives the person or group being served as an entity bearing gifts. Even when the discourse surrounding the person or group is permeated with deficit and problems, the practitioner sees her work as one of distinguishing abundance and receiving the fruit of that abundance as figs offering enrichment and healing.

(Kinman et.al. 2004, 234)

The practice of gifts appears to be very useful, helping theatre practitioners move away from the overwhelmingness of the dominant story of difficulties that can enter the rehearsal room at times, particularly when time is limited. 

Kiernan O’Rourke-Phipps (Kinman et.al, 2004) explains what happens:

When two people interact in language in a way that is mutually beneficial, open and transparent, they are exchanging gifts…two people can begin to transform the language used by their community.

(O’Rourke-Phipps in Kinman et.al, 2004, 235).

Each member is required to discuss the gifts of the other members of the group as well as sharing her/his own gifts.  Kinman also suggests exploring the roadblocks that could get in the way.  My preference is to propose a discussion around what would amplify the gifts, strengths and potentials of the participants, rather than focusing on roadblocks.

This process is then expanded by asking questions about the characters as well as the artists themselves, questions such as

·      ‘What strengths are visible in that scene?

·      What gifts do you think would benefit your fellow actor?

·      What gift would be beneficial to receive from your fellow actor and

·      what would aid this relationship?’

Use of Miguel Ruiz’s Four Agreements

It is important that each member takes responsibility for creating and sustaining the community and one way to do this is by following Miguel Ruiz’s Four Agreements,  including:

·      taking nothing personally,

·      not making assumptions,

·      using impeccable language and

·      always doing one’s best (Ruiz, 1997).

If we begin rehearsals with such a detailed framework of ritual, we will have multiple in-built protective factors to deal successfully with any critical incidents that emerge.

2.  ImpulseTraining

ImpulseTraining, a phrase coined by me as a result of this research,  is one of the major findings and definitely the major ritual employed in the Constructionist rehearsal/performance space.

It is a way of:

·      moving on the floor with others

·      responding to each individual by mirroring their movement or

·      responding to their movement in some way, constantly building on the ‘gifts’ of the other actor.

If we take the premise that to understand someone else you not only need to have self awareness, but you also need to see the other person in a non judgemental way (Stromsted & Haze, 2007), ImpulseTraining allows the actors to develop a deep understanding of each other and themselves and to respond to what emerges.

 They are encouraged not to create, rather build on what other actors are doing[2].

By removing the need to be creative the actor can find a freedom on the floor responding minute by minute to what is happening in front of them.

The space between each actor remains alive as unconscious material is manifest. It is important to allow the actors to find that space of surrender to the movement, rather than willing the movement.

Whitehouse talks about this feeling of will and surrender:

‘I move’ is the clear knowledge that I am personally moving. The opposite of this is the sudden and astonishing moment when ‘I am moved’.

(Whitehouse in Plevin, 2007, 105)

The ego of the actor surrenders to the Self, the unconscious, what I like to call the ‘spiritual essence’ of the artist. Because the director/facilitator is the witness, watching the practice take place, the actors have a sense of safety.

To surrender to being moved can be quite scary and that is why the director as witness is an important part of the process:

Surrender can be stated as a letting go. However, there is fear in letting go. It is risky. Something unfamiliar may happen. Within the safety of a strong vessel held by the conscious witness the mover moves, trusting that whatever she brings can be held.

(Plevin, 2007, 111)

Once the group develops the culture of ImpulseTraining, where they surrender each time they approach the floor, there is space to transform. This safe place where the actors build and grow the space between each other seems to become the ‘zone of proximal development’ (Vygotsky, 1997).

3.  Zone of Proximal Development

Australian researcher/therapist Michael White (2007) adapted Vygotsky’s research to the therapy room, suggesting that it is by providing scaffolding through conversation the client can move through this zone of learning.  In reference to the artist, the director/facilitator coaches from the sidelines as the actors engage in ImpulseTraining, gradually providing scaffolding for the actor to move away from the known (the comfortable place of ‘I know what is expected, I know how to do this’) into the unknown where everything is seen as if for the first time. The actor responds with a beginners mind, allowing the moments to unfold rather than consciously unfolding them.[3]  This is the polarity of many of the acting techniques taught to actors, where the intellect is engaged to logically make choices, and before it is translated into the body.  Here the body is able to find the answers itself.

Through the interconnectivity of the group, the actors are able to experience new ways of knowing and discover things that they could never have conceptualised alone.

4.  Valuing Joint Construction of Meaning[4]

In a collaborative … context, knowledge is neither given nor gained: it is ‘jointly constructed’.

(McNamee, 2007, 326)

This is an important thing to address in the rehearsal room if we are wanting to embrace a more postmodern approach to theatre making.  We can easily fall into the default position of the director believing that ‘I know best’.  And of course this is often the quickest and most efficient use of time.  However if we can persevere and ask questions to enhance communication, our final product will be a rich fabric of stories, with everyone feeling as though they have not only been heard, but have contributed significantly to the end product.

  Some of the questions that may be appropriate to ask your actors/creatives when they are feeling unsafe (which is not a rare occurrence in the rehearsal room) could include the following.  As I read them out you may think they are too carefully constructed, but it is a process that really helps clarify what people are needing to say, and I suggest you put it into words that feel comfortable for you.

·      What words would you like to use to communicate to me your feelings of being unsafe?

·      How would you need me to respond so that you knew I heard that you felt unsafe?

·      What would I need to say to you to show you that I have understood what you mean by unsafe?

·      What qualities would I show that convinced you that I now embodied unsafeness?

By asking these questions, I am suggesting that members of the ensemble help each other respond in a way that is meaningful.  During my research process I thought it was my sole responsibility to hold the space, to make it a problem free zone, to make it ‘the best rehearsal ever’. I think my agenda actually corrupted joint construction of meaning at times, because I was failing to place myself firmly in the equation, negating my frustrations in order to stay alert to the group’s story. I had quite unknowingly placed myself outside the group.  It is important that we stay aware of our responsibility to jointly construct meaning in the rehearsal/performance space by endeavouring to clarify our expression, to invite clarification, assuming nothing and embracing a transparency and commitment to the process.

5.  Working Horizontally, both in Leadership Style and in Theatre Making Process

One way of moving towards a more horizontal constructionist process is to privilege everyone’s stories, which requires the director to work democratically, encouraging spontaneity, participating moment by moment, responding openly and honestly and guiding the group towards self supporting behaviour (Donigan & Hube-Kellachy, 1999).

One way of staying cognisant of the horizontal form would be displaying a visual map, which would track the forms of development, along with the other four learnings discussed above. In this way everyone would stay actively involved in a theatre making process that was transparent and workable.

Everyone has the capacity to be proactive, to notice when things are going amiss so that check in/check out and goaling could invite discussions of potential critical incidents. 

The diagram is placed on the rehearsal/ dressing room wall, and referred to in each rehearsal. At the end of check out, one of the ensemble members could ask if we had anything to discuss regarding our theatre making processes, so check in/ check out become a tool to gauge the health of the project as well as the health of the participants.

The diagram below provides an opportunity to initiate the ensemble in processes that can develop collaboration by:

§  addressing the multiple stories and multiple selves that emerge in rehearsal and finding some joint construction of meaning through careful use of language;

§   helping members stay aware of the power distribution not only between people (especially in relationship to leadership) but also between art forms (horizontal form and process); 

§   making visible those hard to identify discourses that can exert covert, yet powerful forces, on the uninitiated; and

§  Providing multiple ways of communicating, embracing both vocal language and body language (ImpulseTraining) to cater for all learning types.

Figure 10: Scaffolding of Constructionist Rehearsal/Performance Process

Through the use of multiple rituals and a learned awareness of language, we can provide a solid scaffolding to allow the members safe avenues of communication, enhancing and growing the performance experience.  This approach could help actors/artists develop a heightened sense of ‘personal agency’ (White, 2007), an increased ability to understand each other on a transformative level by the ‘fusing of each other’s horizons’ (Gadamer in Anderson, 2007), and consequently creating work that is vibrant, joyful and transformational.

What I have proposed is but a beginning stance that theatre makers can dream on, incorporating their emerging or developed practice into the fabric of collaborative process. There is no right or wrong way; there is just a lively awareness of the space between people, an awareness of the power of language and an acknowledgment of the multiplicity and complexity of the creative act. We also need to bring into the room an acknowledgment of all the historical, patriarchal, social cultural and power discourses that have shaped us.

One of the first concepts I heard from my lecturer when I ventured into the world of postmodern therapy was ‘With awareness comes change…’ and so our job as collaborative artists is to develop our awareness in order to create performances that have the capacity to change the way people view their world, opening up their perceptions and dreams, along with our own and providing a lens that may enrich the journey towards ‘personal agency’. How long will this take? My lecturer finished off the statement above with something like ‘and there are no guarantees how long the change will take’.  Possibly a lifetime.