Convener: Matilda Leyser
Participants: Oops. Didn’t take these names down.
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
I explained why I don’t like devising:
What I have a problem with is the product-orientated thinking that can (not always!) underlie it. The pressure to ‘come up with something’ and the lack of awareness given to process whilst the focus is all on needing to produce – to assuage the underlying panic that is created by the absence of a script.
The thing I particularly don’t like is when I am sent off in a group of people into a corner and then we have to make a thing together and then come back and show it. Uuuuurk!
I think that if the story of the people in the room (the story-tellers) is looked after – in other words, the process – then the product, the show, the story (and story IS process!!!) will take care of itself.
Other people felt some other things:
Questioning the word ‘devising’ – it doesn’t even exist in Europe. Would just plain ‘making’ be better?
Okay in a group, not okay when you have to go into the corner alone and come up with some stuff.
What are the differences between devising and improvising?
Devising is okay as long as the structures are clear.
Need to start from where you are.
It has to be okay to fail.
What if you don’t have to come back from the corner to show anything? Does this change things? You can make stuff up and choose whether you show it or not.
Need to be able to sit in the terror of not knowing/ not having any material.
‘Side-coaching’ might be another way of working that supports people to improvise rather than go away and have to devise in isolation.
Need to keep working with same people to build up methods that work for you and challenge each other to find new ways. Danger otherwise of always descending down to the lowest common denominator.
How is devising different to what a writer has to do when writing a piece?
They are on their own and can create the conditions that best suit them to work. Also whilst it is terrifying to handover your page of words it is still less exposing than physically standing in front of people presenting yourself.
More fundamental than an allergy to devising is an allergy to ‘end-gaining.’ Devise, make, improvise, do whatever you see fit but start from where you are not from a future idea of where you should be.
Showing posts with label process. Show all posts
Showing posts with label process. Show all posts
Friday, 5 February 2010
085 Process Vs Outcome when working with disadvantaged groups
Convener: ilana Winterstein
Participants: Simon Day, Sharon Matthews, Deepa Shastri, Aaron Minnigin, Marie Kenny, Jennifer Pearcy-Edwards, Katherine Maxwell-Cook, Jennifer Lunn, with other people dropping in and out
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
What do we mean by disadvantaged? To encompass refugee/asylum seeker groups, disabled, youth out of education, etc.
Practitioners self-impose the pressure of having an ‘outcome’. Assumption by funders/ leaders/ participants that there will be some sort of formal outcome.
Does the process sometimes block the ability to create? Example referenced of sign language captioning in theatre creating a barrier for mainstream audiences. Does the process help or hinder the outcome?
Book suggested: Chris Johnson ‘House of Games’. Deals with process, outcomes, expectations, etc.
American company ‘ City At Peace’ run by Paul Griffin. Improve your process y aiming at the highest quality outcome. Process vs outcome = not mutually exclusive. It doesn’t need to be a fight between these.
Cultural nuances – involve a mediator.
Ensure that there are support networks in place. Be honest with yourself and the group about your skills/limitations – eg. Not a drama therapist but a drama practitioner. Be honest about the things you don’t know. Ask the group eg. Cultural norms/taboos.
Arts industry/art viewed as a commodity in the UK. Who is qualified to judge? If art is a form of expression then it becomes problematic to put a value on it. The notion of ‘good and bad’ for an outcome is problematic in itself. Should you force a process to ensure a ‘good’ end product?
Establish your own value systems at the start of a project. Allow participants to decide what is valuable, eg. Turning up regularly to rehearsals may be an achievement. Be specific to the group and group dynamics.
Identify your objectives from the start. For example the theatre project working with asylum seekers aims to give participants a sense of empowerment.
Companies who work with refugees: Ice and Fire. Creative Roots.
Create a safe space. Key to establishing confidence within a group.
Always important to have something to work towards. The process becomes more valuable if there is an end goal, eg. Performance, but be aware that performance can take many different forms eg. Video of rehearsal process.
Use Open Space. If there are language barriers could use objects to initiate open space.
Assume nothing. Make the implicit explicit. Start from the basics when beginning.
As a facilitator really listen to what the group wants, their specifics.
Be in the process and allow it to lead the way
Participants: Simon Day, Sharon Matthews, Deepa Shastri, Aaron Minnigin, Marie Kenny, Jennifer Pearcy-Edwards, Katherine Maxwell-Cook, Jennifer Lunn, with other people dropping in and out
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
What do we mean by disadvantaged? To encompass refugee/asylum seeker groups, disabled, youth out of education, etc.
Practitioners self-impose the pressure of having an ‘outcome’. Assumption by funders/ leaders/ participants that there will be some sort of formal outcome.
Does the process sometimes block the ability to create? Example referenced of sign language captioning in theatre creating a barrier for mainstream audiences. Does the process help or hinder the outcome?
Book suggested: Chris Johnson ‘House of Games’. Deals with process, outcomes, expectations, etc.
American company ‘ City At Peace’ run by Paul Griffin. Improve your process y aiming at the highest quality outcome. Process vs outcome = not mutually exclusive. It doesn’t need to be a fight between these.
Cultural nuances – involve a mediator.
Ensure that there are support networks in place. Be honest with yourself and the group about your skills/limitations – eg. Not a drama therapist but a drama practitioner. Be honest about the things you don’t know. Ask the group eg. Cultural norms/taboos.
Arts industry/art viewed as a commodity in the UK. Who is qualified to judge? If art is a form of expression then it becomes problematic to put a value on it. The notion of ‘good and bad’ for an outcome is problematic in itself. Should you force a process to ensure a ‘good’ end product?
Establish your own value systems at the start of a project. Allow participants to decide what is valuable, eg. Turning up regularly to rehearsals may be an achievement. Be specific to the group and group dynamics.
Identify your objectives from the start. For example the theatre project working with asylum seekers aims to give participants a sense of empowerment.
Companies who work with refugees: Ice and Fire. Creative Roots.
Create a safe space. Key to establishing confidence within a group.
Always important to have something to work towards. The process becomes more valuable if there is an end goal, eg. Performance, but be aware that performance can take many different forms eg. Video of rehearsal process.
Use Open Space. If there are language barriers could use objects to initiate open space.
Assume nothing. Make the implicit explicit. Start from the basics when beginning.
As a facilitator really listen to what the group wants, their specifics.
Be in the process and allow it to lead the way
Thursday, 4 February 2010
083 what do actors really need to learn?
Convener: Mark Phoenix
Participants: Liam O aristoll, lisa stubbs, roger Phillips, andy Harman, rajha shakiry, nigel Richards, leo wood, shakera louise ahad, Charlie folorvois
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Following comments from yesterday’s session, where difficulties with quality work were discussed, I latched onto one problem: the actors ego.
My premise is that drama training positively encourages this, and is a breeding ground for actors’ ego. So my issue is what should we be teaching to the next generation of actors.
Initially it was thought that what was really important cant be taught, but is learnt through experience.
We then moved on to a discussion of actors issues in dealing with the reality of the working environment, your unique selling point, dealing with unemployment, finding your niche and the need to survive. And a call to bring in/back a progression route. Fringe- weekly rep- more substantial parts.
Then the discussion moved from actors worries, as directors, writers, designers, producers got involved in the discussion.
From a writers perspective, actors need to be open and offer themselves/ideas into the rehearsal space to learn to work with and collaborate with a writer.
From director/ designer perspective, actors need to understand the other roles in theatre. Lighting, stage management costume, set…… how else can the collaboration happen? The actor needs to get used to the costume/ props.
Bad tuition
Traditionally drama schools think they have the right to tell you
“you are shit” this leads to defensiveness, and self protection and then egotism.
From a training perspective, what tools does an actor use?
Observation Transformation Interpretation
So self analysis to eliminate default behaviour, becoming a character and working with the imaginary world.
The story is not about you! Actors play small roles, but they are equally important to the story, but if usual acting techniques are applied ie; my
Objectives, my journey, this becomes a distraction to the protagonists journey
And objectives. Strangely enough the lead actor/protagonist of story is the only one who cannot see the vision of the show. Eg; The lighting design is not seen as the lights are on you all the time. So a lead will race on with their interpretation without listening to ensemble and everyone else plays catch up.
Its not about the actors comfort but the audience comfort.
Physicality- the neutral mask, a useful tool for saying what you see.
Unfortunately voice, movement and acting are taught as separate and not seen as part of the holistic whole. Our physical system is all one
Work on body response/ breath work.
Outside in or inside out? Do we live by our will power or as a response to the world?.
Neuroscience- imagination sets up real responses within neurons and is only stopped by inhibitors (social control). Imagining yourself doing a 100m uses more calories than imagining a jog.!!! So Imagine more= giving more. Our body gives us our emotion.
Actors says that scientist say that there are 27 senses not 5! The audience is hardwired to respond to fake/truth of physiological behaviour of human face and body language.
NO breakfasts
All the back story of what your character had for breakfast is often not relevant. Do it if you must but don’t bring it into rehearsal. Is it readable? Often not. The trap is that the actor becomes safe and comfortable and removes risk in performance.
The observer affects the experiment
Being watched changes the way that you behave, this is often the cause of much blocking within actors. Hence defensiveness, hence ego.
To the actor (notes and suggestions)
The job is to live truthfully and
Tell stories.
The things we can’t communicate are the essence of what we are trying to do. =theatre.
Unlearn bad habits
Take risk / be brave
Work as an ensemble
Consider yourself a theatre maker and not an actor
Theatre is a creative act, actors are not puppets.
Fear is natural.
Take responsibility within performance.
Keep it live and present
Does it communicate?
Resolve the gestalt.
Deal with “what is” not the plan
Be able to translate directions (director /actor interface)
Communicate theatre language
Allow audience to be part of translation process.
Find shades of grey.
Let audience follow your choices
Lose as actor and character.
Discover size of performance/style of work
You can note someone’s behaviour, e.g.; you are angry- but you cannot know why just by looking at them.
Don’t fight truth of moment
Learn clarity of thought
Learn to be switched on; focused
Raise the stakes- make it more important
It’s not about you. Use the other actors
Have autonomy. You will meet bad directors. Don’t be bullied.
You will meet good directors, - acquiesce
Learn to problem solve. How do I do that?
Things are working if there are more questions than answers
Learn to receive
Small parts create the world
Remember it is for the audience, not you.
Reading list Drew Leder Absent Body
Antonio de Mazio Descartes Error
David Mamet True and False
Declan Donalan The actor and his target.
Books on Jung, cognitive therapy, deception and con men.
Participants: Liam O aristoll, lisa stubbs, roger Phillips, andy Harman, rajha shakiry, nigel Richards, leo wood, shakera louise ahad, Charlie folorvois
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Following comments from yesterday’s session, where difficulties with quality work were discussed, I latched onto one problem: the actors ego.
My premise is that drama training positively encourages this, and is a breeding ground for actors’ ego. So my issue is what should we be teaching to the next generation of actors.
Initially it was thought that what was really important cant be taught, but is learnt through experience.
We then moved on to a discussion of actors issues in dealing with the reality of the working environment, your unique selling point, dealing with unemployment, finding your niche and the need to survive. And a call to bring in/back a progression route. Fringe- weekly rep- more substantial parts.
Then the discussion moved from actors worries, as directors, writers, designers, producers got involved in the discussion.
From a writers perspective, actors need to be open and offer themselves/ideas into the rehearsal space to learn to work with and collaborate with a writer.
From director/ designer perspective, actors need to understand the other roles in theatre. Lighting, stage management costume, set…… how else can the collaboration happen? The actor needs to get used to the costume/ props.
Bad tuition
Traditionally drama schools think they have the right to tell you
“you are shit” this leads to defensiveness, and self protection and then egotism.
From a training perspective, what tools does an actor use?
Observation Transformation Interpretation
So self analysis to eliminate default behaviour, becoming a character and working with the imaginary world.
The story is not about you! Actors play small roles, but they are equally important to the story, but if usual acting techniques are applied ie; my
Objectives, my journey, this becomes a distraction to the protagonists journey
And objectives. Strangely enough the lead actor/protagonist of story is the only one who cannot see the vision of the show. Eg; The lighting design is not seen as the lights are on you all the time. So a lead will race on with their interpretation without listening to ensemble and everyone else plays catch up.
Its not about the actors comfort but the audience comfort.
Physicality- the neutral mask, a useful tool for saying what you see.
Unfortunately voice, movement and acting are taught as separate and not seen as part of the holistic whole. Our physical system is all one
Work on body response/ breath work.
Outside in or inside out? Do we live by our will power or as a response to the world?.
Neuroscience- imagination sets up real responses within neurons and is only stopped by inhibitors (social control). Imagining yourself doing a 100m uses more calories than imagining a jog.!!! So Imagine more= giving more. Our body gives us our emotion.
Actors says that scientist say that there are 27 senses not 5! The audience is hardwired to respond to fake/truth of physiological behaviour of human face and body language.
NO breakfasts
All the back story of what your character had for breakfast is often not relevant. Do it if you must but don’t bring it into rehearsal. Is it readable? Often not. The trap is that the actor becomes safe and comfortable and removes risk in performance.
The observer affects the experiment
Being watched changes the way that you behave, this is often the cause of much blocking within actors. Hence defensiveness, hence ego.
To the actor (notes and suggestions)
The job is to live truthfully and
Tell stories.
The things we can’t communicate are the essence of what we are trying to do. =theatre.
Unlearn bad habits
Take risk / be brave
Work as an ensemble
Consider yourself a theatre maker and not an actor
Theatre is a creative act, actors are not puppets.
Fear is natural.
Take responsibility within performance.
Keep it live and present
Does it communicate?
Resolve the gestalt.
Deal with “what is” not the plan
Be able to translate directions (director /actor interface)
Communicate theatre language
Allow audience to be part of translation process.
Find shades of grey.
Let audience follow your choices
Lose as actor and character.
Discover size of performance/style of work
You can note someone’s behaviour, e.g.; you are angry- but you cannot know why just by looking at them.
Don’t fight truth of moment
Learn clarity of thought
Learn to be switched on; focused
Raise the stakes- make it more important
It’s not about you. Use the other actors
Have autonomy. You will meet bad directors. Don’t be bullied.
You will meet good directors, - acquiesce
Learn to problem solve. How do I do that?
Things are working if there are more questions than answers
Learn to receive
Small parts create the world
Remember it is for the audience, not you.
Reading list Drew Leder Absent Body
Antonio de Mazio Descartes Error
David Mamet True and False
Declan Donalan The actor and his target.
Books on Jung, cognitive therapy, deception and con men.
055 When are we gonna stop scratching and make a proper show
Convener: Laura Eades
The producers’ insight
Complaint that one can get stuck circulating in the scratching eddies and never moving to the next level. There were some producers in the room who asked why our work was not going to a full run.
People from Fuel talked about using scratches as part of a wider strategy – and that it’s easier to get grants for that early development stage.
They say it gives something to film, and that the audience understand the scratch process, and the artist is forced to make decisions which can really accelerate the creative process.
They said they have organized their own work-in-progress showings at the studio space in the Roundhouse, that not many people know about.
They invite industry people and general audience separately.
A marketing person says: You need to meet people and generate interest in advance of your scratch. You need to articulate what you do easily.
At this point, some of us realized we were truly ignorant of the producing process, need a producer, and are naively trusting in the scratch process to ‘provide’ a natural development path for new work rather than having a plan already in place. We called to the ceiling and to the ether: Where are all the roving producers? If they could call me on 07946 458699 that would be awesome.
The merits and zmerits of the scratch system as it stands
Is scratching an artist-led process or a venue-led programming tool?
It provides a level of publicity and therefore there’s also the pressure of display, which is at odds with the instruction to experiment.
We do scratch because it sounds achievable.
To move from a scratch to a show you have to work out what you want from your audience, you have to approach the nights with appropriate expectations.
It’s a bit like Britain’s Got Talent – the hope that luck, money, producing may follow from a scratch.
You can build a network.
You can use scratch as audience development – use the gigs to publicise your work (if it fits into a scratch slot).
It changes the kind of work that’s made, because you make work to fit into designated slots.
You can build up strength this way.
It feels risky but is it a bit insecure to need all this feedback? You can get stuck there because it feels safe.
The feedback and presentation mode are limited by the venue’s specifications. You can’t contextualize your work by explaining.
You can scratch somewhere and then scarper
Oh god, maybe we are stuck in the scratch circuit because we are actually frightened of a real show, because it feels bitesize and we can handle it, because it’s reinforcing to have all the feedback but ultimately disempowering, because it’s free, because we are ADDICTS
Some places that you can scratch and what people said about them:
BAC – no feedback from audience you don’t know
The Space-Isle of Dogs – Theatre of Inspirations –mainly physical theatre
Pulse Festival – great feedback from an after-show discussion
Brockley Jack – audience want to see a nice little show for not much money
Shunt Lounge – good chances of your interests chiming as 10 curators
One coming up at Lyric run by Shane Silankey who made Last Mango in Paris
Young Vic – very good useful feedback
Chinese venue in Manchester – very useful
Nightingale Theatre, Brighton – don’t produce but very structured feedback
Arch468 –audience intimidated by open discussion feedback format, but they do want to produce and develop work they like
Berlin – HAU – has 3 spaces
Berlin – Sophiensaele
Berlin – Dock II
Berlin – Tanfabrik
Scenepool at Camden People’s Theatre run by New Work Network – very good experience but have to drum up your own audience to some extent
What is a proper show?
A 3-week run, or more than just a night
Where you can get reviews
That you get paid for
Or that you don’t have to pay for
But just because you may not be paid for it doesn’t mean it’s not a proper show for everybody
It’s whatever you put on and say: This is a proper show. Pay for it. If you like it or don’t like it, it’s what I’ve chosen.
A proper show has a feedback process that’s not in the bar afterwards (where everyone’s pretending to be theatre critics) but where you adjust the show as you go along from the very truthful real feedback that you get from people’s attention shifts. That’s why you should dare to put up shows that are not yet ready, so the audience can finish them.
It creates the idea that a finished show is ‘frozen’
How is the scratch phenomenon changing our theatrical cultural landscape?
Used to be called work-in-progress and was dreamt up to put the risk back into the process – but some feel it’s risk-aversion dressed up as risk-taking: it’s a process that allows everybody to check and see things and check with the audience every step of the way. It allows venues not to take a risk and you not to take a risk with your audience not liking it.
Scratch nights have become a genre in their own right, and the audience is its own audience.
Someone tells of seeing a rehearsed reading and just liking the rough presentation, not wanting to see the whole show. Someone else was banned from using video and had to draw, and so then the audience said they didn’t want to see a video at all they just wanted drawing. These are not bad outcomes, but the medium actually alters the process and the product too
Possible solutions and alternatives
Artists teaming up to make scratches of their own kind, making their own models
Making 15-minute work for the cabaret and scratch circuit in its own right, like the open mic circuit works
Making work that uses a scratch aesthetic and playing it in working men’s clubs and old people’s homes
Putting your show on and having the courage to do that without all of the verification (this requires money and no guarantee of audience)
More venues which actually produce and develop the work they scratch rather than just scratching it for the sake of it
The ultimate aim is to put on proper shows that never stop scratching
Stop fighting against our inevitable inability to reproduce performances identically
Let’s have a load of premieres rather than scratches
Go to small drama festivals – Buxton fringe, Henley fringe
Make shows in squats
Deal drugs
Get a producer, get a producer, get a producer
045 Playful Writing: Writing for theatre without writing plays
Convener: Matilda Leyser
Participants:
Oli Townsend, Hanna Walker, Ben Luke, Katey Woolmer, Gregor Henderson-Begg, Anouk Miskti, Sam Hall, Emma Newborn, Catriona James, Jen Toksvig, Peter Cant, Mary O’Conor, Grict Spanhove, Greg Wohead
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Lots and lots of questions…………
What does it mean to be a ‘writer’? Is it a role that anyone can inhabit?
What would it be like if the writer’s name was left off the credits of everything in the theatre for 6 months?
What is the difference between the (live) experience of reading and seeing a piece of theatre?
What are playful plays?
How would you leave enough space in a theatre show/ play so that, as with a book, the audience had to construct the world in their imaginations?
What makes a text more suitable to be read (silently on page) as against performed out loud?
Why is poetry often painful to hear on stage?
Am I the best person to read out loud/ perform my own work?
How much do you experience the process of writing/ composition to be similar/ different from improvising?
Do you use improvising exercises to write?
Should we just talk about ‘creating’ and ditch the word ‘writing’?
What do an audience need to stay engaged in a bit of writing as they listen to it?
Are different forms of writing inherently different skills? Or is it all the same skill set and if you can write poetry then you can write dialogue too?
Can writing be an extension of movement?
When you write do you take it down from dictation in your imagination or do you see images, or what?
What is the difference, if any, between a monologue performance and a performance poet performing their work?
What makes a play ‘a play’ if there are plays without words?
Participants:
Oli Townsend, Hanna Walker, Ben Luke, Katey Woolmer, Gregor Henderson-Begg, Anouk Miskti, Sam Hall, Emma Newborn, Catriona James, Jen Toksvig, Peter Cant, Mary O’Conor, Grict Spanhove, Greg Wohead
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Lots and lots of questions…………
What does it mean to be a ‘writer’? Is it a role that anyone can inhabit?
What would it be like if the writer’s name was left off the credits of everything in the theatre for 6 months?
What is the difference between the (live) experience of reading and seeing a piece of theatre?
What are playful plays?
How would you leave enough space in a theatre show/ play so that, as with a book, the audience had to construct the world in their imaginations?
What makes a text more suitable to be read (silently on page) as against performed out loud?
Why is poetry often painful to hear on stage?
Am I the best person to read out loud/ perform my own work?
How much do you experience the process of writing/ composition to be similar/ different from improvising?
Do you use improvising exercises to write?
Should we just talk about ‘creating’ and ditch the word ‘writing’?
What do an audience need to stay engaged in a bit of writing as they listen to it?
Are different forms of writing inherently different skills? Or is it all the same skill set and if you can write poetry then you can write dialogue too?
Can writing be an extension of movement?
When you write do you take it down from dictation in your imagination or do you see images, or what?
What is the difference, if any, between a monologue performance and a performance poet performing their work?
What makes a play ‘a play’ if there are plays without words?
027 What BIG things do SMALL groups of people do best?
Convener: Annie Rigby
Participants: Jonathan ‘Peth’, Rachael McGill, Jo Turner, Matilda Leyser
(a small group - perfectly so!)
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Why is it that bigger organizations with more resources have less time?
Are small groups of people less encumbered, more elegant, lighter on their feet?
CONNECTING:
Small companies know their audiences on a more conversational scale. The relationship is more personal.
FAILURE:
It is less shameful for small companies to cancel/abandon projects. And less costly – they probably haven’t got 10,000 brochures for the 2011 season printed yet…
It’s easier for small groups to TAKE RISKS. There’s less to lose. They can just stop.
LOOKING AFTER STAFF:
A small company can be more responsive to staff. If it lets one person bring a dog in, it doesn’t have to implement a company-wide ‘Pets at Work’ policy.
Smaller companies can more easily involve all their staff in intelligent conversations.
(Small companies can still be shit, mind.)
BRINGING ALL OF OURSELVES:
In a smaller group people bring more of themselves, and have less narrowly defined roles.
SCALING UP AND DOWN:
Small companies are good at morphing and changing scale temporarily.
Freelancers make more of an impact.
No one expects small companies to have the answer, so they can do more ‘kite-flying’.
Small groups fit in one car.
MORE FUN:
Working in small groups means sometimes you have to do unusual things (making a 1940s-looking newspaper quickly for a Fringe show).
Isn’t this where we had more fun...?
What is dangerous for small groups:
- Assuming that being a small groups means you need to think small
- Knocks can hit harder
- One person disappears and the whole thing goes (although is this sometimes ok?)
COMMUNICATION:
It’s quicker amongst a small group of people.
COLLABORATION:
It’s easier to collaborate more deeply with a small group. There’s time to share what each person is doing; to get involved in each other’s process.
What SMALL things do BIG groups of people do best?
Small talk.
Big groups always have good gossip.
And a contribution from Twitter which put a whole new slant on small groups/big power:
“It reminds me of that old saw: ‘the British Empire’ was built on the playing fields of Eton”…
Participants: Jonathan ‘Peth’, Rachael McGill, Jo Turner, Matilda Leyser
(a small group - perfectly so!)
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Why is it that bigger organizations with more resources have less time?
Are small groups of people less encumbered, more elegant, lighter on their feet?
CONNECTING:
Small companies know their audiences on a more conversational scale. The relationship is more personal.
FAILURE:
It is less shameful for small companies to cancel/abandon projects. And less costly – they probably haven’t got 10,000 brochures for the 2011 season printed yet…
It’s easier for small groups to TAKE RISKS. There’s less to lose. They can just stop.
LOOKING AFTER STAFF:
A small company can be more responsive to staff. If it lets one person bring a dog in, it doesn’t have to implement a company-wide ‘Pets at Work’ policy.
Smaller companies can more easily involve all their staff in intelligent conversations.
(Small companies can still be shit, mind.)
BRINGING ALL OF OURSELVES:
In a smaller group people bring more of themselves, and have less narrowly defined roles.
SCALING UP AND DOWN:
Small companies are good at morphing and changing scale temporarily.
Freelancers make more of an impact.
No one expects small companies to have the answer, so they can do more ‘kite-flying’.
Small groups fit in one car.
MORE FUN:
Working in small groups means sometimes you have to do unusual things (making a 1940s-looking newspaper quickly for a Fringe show).
Isn’t this where we had more fun...?
What is dangerous for small groups:
- Assuming that being a small groups means you need to think small
- Knocks can hit harder
- One person disappears and the whole thing goes (although is this sometimes ok?)
COMMUNICATION:
It’s quicker amongst a small group of people.
COLLABORATION:
It’s easier to collaborate more deeply with a small group. There’s time to share what each person is doing; to get involved in each other’s process.
What SMALL things do BIG groups of people do best?
Small talk.
Big groups always have good gossip.
And a contribution from Twitter which put a whole new slant on small groups/big power:
“It reminds me of that old saw: ‘the British Empire’ was built on the playing fields of Eton”…
026 What Are Directors For?
Convener: Sarah
Participants:
Nick Coupe, Regina, Rod, Sophia, Backi Hainis, Dave Johnston, Emily Kempson, Tom Creed, Anouk Kishti, Annette, Gail Sawyer, Jackkla, Thomas Hescott, Will Heather, Nick Moran, Paul trussel, Jen Lunn, Rajha Shakiry, Mark Rhow, Sophia Lersmon, Lucy Pw, Binoya Solanki, Tom Brocklehurst
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Here are some of the answers I was given:
People Management
Creating a warm room
Outside eye
Stimulation
Reassurance
Giving notes
Pushing people further
Admin and publicity
Creating a space, creating goalposts
Cultivating an atmosphere of trust
Creating a safe space
Creating a dialogue
Finding a common language
Asking why
Liberating the story
Communicating
We pondered whether it’s possible to make theatre without directors. A lot of directors thought it wasn’t, but there are examples of groups achieving this. If people are good enough collaborators, a director’s job becomes less important or possibly completely redundant.
We thought bad directors have a failure to communicate with their team, or concentrate only on actors. Is it bad to nurture the neediness of actors? Some actors want to be told what to do – is this ok?
A playwright had lots of useful things to say about working with a director who did not take the time to understand what he had written, and there was criticism of directors who have closed rehearsals when working with new writers; the writer/director relationship is a difficult one, it seems.
We also talked about the relationship between directors and designers/othe members of the creative team. This is often neglected in training and in ‘real life’.
We discovered that in Holland, directors are usually trained with designers rather than actors, which leads to a better ability to collaborate and to the theatre practice having a much more holistic process/result.
We talked about continental companies who work without directors. If anyone can remember the names of a couple that were mentioned, please write them down for me! (Tegestan?)
Two phrases that I will take away with me:
“What are you trying to achieve?”
“Conjuring meaning from within.”
Thank you for all your contributions.
Participants:
Nick Coupe, Regina, Rod, Sophia, Backi Hainis, Dave Johnston, Emily Kempson, Tom Creed, Anouk Kishti, Annette, Gail Sawyer, Jackkla, Thomas Hescott, Will Heather, Nick Moran, Paul trussel, Jen Lunn, Rajha Shakiry, Mark Rhow, Sophia Lersmon, Lucy Pw, Binoya Solanki, Tom Brocklehurst
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
Here are some of the answers I was given:
People Management
Creating a warm room
Outside eye
Stimulation
Reassurance
Giving notes
Pushing people further
Admin and publicity
Creating a space, creating goalposts
Cultivating an atmosphere of trust
Creating a safe space
Creating a dialogue
Finding a common language
Asking why
Liberating the story
Communicating
We pondered whether it’s possible to make theatre without directors. A lot of directors thought it wasn’t, but there are examples of groups achieving this. If people are good enough collaborators, a director’s job becomes less important or possibly completely redundant.
We thought bad directors have a failure to communicate with their team, or concentrate only on actors. Is it bad to nurture the neediness of actors? Some actors want to be told what to do – is this ok?
A playwright had lots of useful things to say about working with a director who did not take the time to understand what he had written, and there was criticism of directors who have closed rehearsals when working with new writers; the writer/director relationship is a difficult one, it seems.
We also talked about the relationship between directors and designers/othe members of the creative team. This is often neglected in training and in ‘real life’.
We discovered that in Holland, directors are usually trained with designers rather than actors, which leads to a better ability to collaborate and to the theatre practice having a much more holistic process/result.
We talked about continental companies who work without directors. If anyone can remember the names of a couple that were mentioned, please write them down for me! (Tegestan?)
Two phrases that I will take away with me:
“What are you trying to achieve?”
“Conjuring meaning from within.”
Thank you for all your contributions.
018 Staging A Last Tango in Paris
Convener: Lawrence O’Connor
Participants: Lawrence O’Connor, Dodger Phillips
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
- STORY
- CHARACTERS
- AUDIENCE
- MORALITY
- ETHICS
- LOGISTICS
- OTHER STORIES
- PHILISOPHY
- TEXT
- POLITICS
CONCLUSION
Probably the most effective way to communicate what we agreed was beautiful and interesting about this story is to stage, in very truthful terms, the basis for and the process undertaken during this Open Space Session no. 18 to unearth what it is that we find of value in the story and, using snippets and extracts from the text/film, enable the audience to take that journey with us.
Components of the telling of The Story:
- Exploration
- Animality
- Animals have no need for…
- Worry
- Self-justification
- Living outside the moment
- Humanity
- Beauty
- Why it needs to be told
- Why it is difficult to tell
- Reactions to it
- Reactions, obstacles and challenges to the telling of it
- And those described in the following themes…
- Flawed***
- Worlds
- Inside (together)
- Outside
- Need to be understood
- By
- Themselves
- Each other
- Chooses to…
- Question
- Judge
- Reconcile
- Story accesses…
- Their personal experience
- Their images
- This is the personal world view that the story tellers and the audience will inevitably bring and that will enrich the giving and receiving of the story.
- This is the social & political external, cultural dimension that will inform and, at times clash with and contradict the personal morality of the story, its tellers and of the audience.
- Simply staged
- Lectern
- One actor
- Flip chart and large space on which the map of the story will evolve.
- Screen for projections of movie snippets
It seemed helpful to look at other stories that include some of the elements that we wanted to address in this staging:
- The Piano & Blair/Iraq
- Flaws
- All the main characters are flawed**
- Voyeurism + revelation
- Key moments seen through…
- Slots
- Holes
- Gaps
- Self-destructive
- Privately
- Publicly
- Need to be:
- Discovered
- Understood
- Swimming to Cambodia by Spalding Gray
- Useful model for staging.
This is where we spent most of our time in discussion – it was a way of unfolding what the ideas were that made staging the story of A Last Tango Appealing and getting beyond the common perception of the story as only about ‘fingers, butter & bottoms’.
- Human evolution
- Existentialism
- Process
- Choice
- Possibility
- Beauty
- Risk
- Being Wrong
- Disapproval
- Nihilism
- Dark aspect
- Satre
- Typical, general perception
- Responsibility
- Light aspect
- De Beauvoir
- In the moment
- Absence of ‘worry’
TEXT
What will be the content…
· Extracts
o Screenplay/script
o Research about the original film/story, the making of it and the impacts of it having been made.
· Story of the story of…
o First encounters/impressions of A Last Tango’
o Finding beauty in the story/emotions/tears.
· Impro
o Engaging the audience
POLITICS/CULTURE
One of the things that will make the staging of the story of the story is interesting is the context in which it is told, the tensions between that and our current social politics and culture and the disconnect between them and the themes of A Last Tango’.
- Rules
- Other People
- Who are they anyway?? (we bearly know ourselves, how can we ever claim to ‘know’ other people???).
- Social
- ‘Inclusion’ it is a futile and sometimes destructive exercise to set out to attempt to ‘include’ everyone. People will include or exclude themselves based on their choice.
- Important to remember that, on one level, people are organisms.
- The importance of:
- Time
- Place
- The story staged must be personal and truthful to be a sufficient antidote to the challenges above and enable the interest & beauty to be revealed.
017 Stories & Learning
Convener: Lawrence O’Connor
Participants: Louise Platt, Amy Wackett, Andrew McLay, Jennifer Pearcy-Edwards, Stephen Darcy, Colin Atkinson, Thomas Hescott, Cheglee Houston, Alison Goldie, Liz Porter, Andrew McLay, Rachael McGill, Antonio Arrara, Jen Lunn,
Zoe Cobb, Mary O'Connor, Dominic Cambell, Martin Aukland, Mark Pheonix, Sharon Seager, Kiplacet, Rupert Jones, Grefor Henderson-Begg, Jack Knight, Nick Coupe, Lawrence O'Connor
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
This session was a truly amazing, inspiring and encouraging dialogue by a group of people both passionate to both contribute and to listen.
The participants requested that the map that resulted from the session be the included as reference in the record of the conversation.
Time permitting, text notes to explain the ideas will also be added.
The ideas discussed extended and interconnected rapidly with passionate sincerity. The map also grew rapidly, therefore, and so it is presented in sections below in the interests of legibility. It is best viewed in colour- click on the images to view fully.
Participants: Louise Platt, Amy Wackett, Andrew McLay, Jennifer Pearcy-Edwards, Stephen Darcy, Colin Atkinson, Thomas Hescott, Cheglee Houston, Alison Goldie, Liz Porter, Andrew McLay, Rachael McGill, Antonio Arrara, Jen Lunn,
Zoe Cobb, Mary O'Connor, Dominic Cambell, Martin Aukland, Mark Pheonix, Sharon Seager, Kiplacet, Rupert Jones, Grefor Henderson-Begg, Jack Knight, Nick Coupe, Lawrence O'Connor
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
This session was a truly amazing, inspiring and encouraging dialogue by a group of people both passionate to both contribute and to listen.
The participants requested that the map that resulted from the session be the included as reference in the record of the conversation.
Time permitting, text notes to explain the ideas will also be added.
The ideas discussed extended and interconnected rapidly with passionate sincerity. The map also grew rapidly, therefore, and so it is presented in sections below in the interests of legibility. It is best viewed in colour- click on the images to view fully.
014 Response Ability
Convener: Jen Toksvig
Participants: Andy Harmon, Suzy Almond, Jen Toksvig, Kerry Andrews, Adam Brace, Oliver Townsend
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
I called this discussion because Phelim suggested that if we feel a passion about something, we could take responsibility for that passion and open a space to discuss it. The word ‘responsible’ made me want to avoid doing that, as it always does, which is why I like to split it into two words: being responsible, for me, means opening out to other people so that I can have a look at the thing in their hands, and am therefore able to respond to it because I’m not in control of it.
I wanted to see how other people felt about the idea of responsibility. Here are some of the ideas we discussed.
Responsibility is about making something happen.
+
Being responsible is being at the base of the triangle, where anything is possible.
Being responsible can feel like huge pressure.
Ultimately, there must be a goal if it’s intended to be a finished work. (What is the goal?)
Being responsible is not necessarily about control. It’s a different thing.
We tend not to want to be changed, but in an open space, anything can happen, so you could be changed.
Taking responsibility is acknowledging and celebrating fear.
Breathing creates a space.
Being responsible is active.
Responsibility and fear are very closely related.
When you’re responsible, you are creating something.
The dark side of responsibility is trying to take responsibility for how other people will behave.
Groups need a point of authority.
Being responsible tends to move from facilitation to direction in order to produce a final goal.
Being responsible means opening a space for something.
What to take responsibility for? The work? The group? Yourself? Your voice?
Paradox: taking responsibility by letting go. In fact, not a paradox, but balance.
There’s a risk that comes with being the one who is responsible. You open yourself up.
It means going in to the arena and maybe getting eaten alive.
Boredom / laziness are aspects of fear.
Fear drives you to be safe, but fear can also act as a pilot light.
All creativity is fear because it’s about transgression. (Fear and hunger)
Being responsible is having an awareness of opportunities.
The director is the audience’s advocate.
Maintaining – inspiring, to keep the flame alive.
Participants: Andy Harmon, Suzy Almond, Jen Toksvig, Kerry Andrews, Adam Brace, Oliver Townsend
Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:
I called this discussion because Phelim suggested that if we feel a passion about something, we could take responsibility for that passion and open a space to discuss it. The word ‘responsible’ made me want to avoid doing that, as it always does, which is why I like to split it into two words: being responsible, for me, means opening out to other people so that I can have a look at the thing in their hands, and am therefore able to respond to it because I’m not in control of it.
I wanted to see how other people felt about the idea of responsibility. Here are some of the ideas we discussed.
Responsibility is about making something happen.
+
Being responsible is being at the base of the triangle, where anything is possible.
Being responsible can feel like huge pressure.
Ultimately, there must be a goal if it’s intended to be a finished work. (What is the goal?)
Being responsible is not necessarily about control. It’s a different thing.
We tend not to want to be changed, but in an open space, anything can happen, so you could be changed.
Taking responsibility is acknowledging and celebrating fear.
Breathing creates a space.
Being responsible is active.
Responsibility and fear are very closely related.
When you’re responsible, you are creating something.
The dark side of responsibility is trying to take responsibility for how other people will behave.
Groups need a point of authority.
Being responsible tends to move from facilitation to direction in order to produce a final goal.
Being responsible means opening a space for something.
What to take responsibility for? The work? The group? Yourself? Your voice?
Paradox: taking responsibility by letting go. In fact, not a paradox, but balance.
There’s a risk that comes with being the one who is responsible. You open yourself up.
It means going in to the arena and maybe getting eaten alive.
Boredom / laziness are aspects of fear.
Fear drives you to be safe, but fear can also act as a pilot light.
All creativity is fear because it’s about transgression. (Fear and hunger)
Being responsible is having an awareness of opportunities.
The director is the audience’s advocate.
Maintaining – inspiring, to keep the flame alive.
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
006 Is it More Fun to Make Theatre than Watch it?
Convener: Gloria Lindh
Participants: Roisin Stimpson, Oliver Townsend, Mary O’L, Susanna, Sarah, David Bellwood, Matt Trueman, Roxanne Peak-Payne and others who dropped in as the discussion was underway
Summary of discussion:
The question:
Does fun mean frivolous? The proposer suggested fun might not be the most useful term to describe an experience. Maybe satisfying? Theatre doesn’t always have to be fun. Another question might be ‘why make theatre’ or ‘why watch theatre’.
This was a more theoretical than practical discussion, it would be fair to say!
(What people said about) watching theatre
In trying to describe an audience experience and what was important to us, the group member’s wishlists included:
To experience a completed event.
Others like there to be room for the audience to be part of completing the event.
Truth, generosity of spirit from maker and audience. Generosity was a word that was used a lot at one point in the discussion.
To feel that the maker had considered and honoured the audience experience; the context, the group.
Quality, sense of spontaneity, access to process of making.
There was a discussion that surfaced a few times about making the experience of watching theatre more like the experience of making theatre. We talked about a participatory audience and the ways that people felt part of an event: sharing the same space as those who were making theatre, having a role within the performance. Scratch performance wasn’t seen by some to be a good mechanism for achieving this.
The experience of an event starts when you hear about it and ends when you stop hearing about it.
(What people said about) making theatre:
It’s not always fun, of course. Theatre is playing seriously…….
A positive making experience does not always match with a positive audience experience.
We talked about making theatre considering a potential audience. Do the audience have more fun if a specific audience is considered while making? Not everyone agreed. It’s possible to think about your audience too much, and trying to cater to all audiences isn’t always a good idea said others. There is a balance or tension.
Who are we making theatre for? Is there a selfish element to making theatre. If we’re making theatre for other people do they want to see it? Do we make theatre for other makers?
Conclusions
There were more people who did not raise their hands in response to the question ‘do you think making theatre is more fun than watching it’. This might mean that more people enjoy watching theatre, or it might mean that less people think watching theatre is fun.
There is interest in how the process of making theatre can be shared with audiences.
As audience members people want to feel that they are considered as part of the process.
There were no calls to action, apart from generally to be fun.
Participants: Roisin Stimpson, Oliver Townsend, Mary O’L, Susanna, Sarah, David Bellwood, Matt Trueman, Roxanne Peak-Payne and others who dropped in as the discussion was underway
Summary of discussion:
The question:
Does fun mean frivolous? The proposer suggested fun might not be the most useful term to describe an experience. Maybe satisfying? Theatre doesn’t always have to be fun. Another question might be ‘why make theatre’ or ‘why watch theatre’.
This was a more theoretical than practical discussion, it would be fair to say!
(What people said about) watching theatre
In trying to describe an audience experience and what was important to us, the group member’s wishlists included:
To experience a completed event.
Others like there to be room for the audience to be part of completing the event.
Truth, generosity of spirit from maker and audience. Generosity was a word that was used a lot at one point in the discussion.
To feel that the maker had considered and honoured the audience experience; the context, the group.
Quality, sense of spontaneity, access to process of making.
There was a discussion that surfaced a few times about making the experience of watching theatre more like the experience of making theatre. We talked about a participatory audience and the ways that people felt part of an event: sharing the same space as those who were making theatre, having a role within the performance. Scratch performance wasn’t seen by some to be a good mechanism for achieving this.
The experience of an event starts when you hear about it and ends when you stop hearing about it.
(What people said about) making theatre:
It’s not always fun, of course. Theatre is playing seriously…….
A positive making experience does not always match with a positive audience experience.
We talked about making theatre considering a potential audience. Do the audience have more fun if a specific audience is considered while making? Not everyone agreed. It’s possible to think about your audience too much, and trying to cater to all audiences isn’t always a good idea said others. There is a balance or tension.
Who are we making theatre for? Is there a selfish element to making theatre. If we’re making theatre for other people do they want to see it? Do we make theatre for other makers?
Conclusions
There were more people who did not raise their hands in response to the question ‘do you think making theatre is more fun than watching it’. This might mean that more people enjoy watching theatre, or it might mean that less people think watching theatre is fun.
There is interest in how the process of making theatre can be shared with audiences.
As audience members people want to feel that they are considered as part of the process.
There were no calls to action, apart from generally to be fun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)