COLLECTIVE CREATION IN HIGHSCHOOL:
THEMYSTERY STRINGP ICKERAT THE DEATH CAFE
by
© Lois Brown
Athe s i s submittedto theSchoolof GraduateStudi es in partialfulfillmentof therequ i rements
forth e degree of Ma s t e r of Educat ion
Departmentof CurriculumandIn s truc tio n MemorialUn i v ers it yofNe wfou nd l a nd
August 1989 cse,
St. John' s Newfoundland
11+11
National01 CanadaLlbr ary Biblio lhequenatiorlale duCaeadeCanadianTheses SCNlce Service desne scseaooceroea
The authorhasgranted an irrevocabl e non- exclusive licence allowing lheNationalUbrary ofCanadatoreproduce.loan,distributeorsell copiesof his/her thesis byanymeansandin anyform or format, making thisthesis available toint erest edper sons .
The authorretainsowners hipof thecopyright in his/herthesis. Neither Ihethesisnor substantialextracts fromitmaybe printedor otherw ise reprod uc edwithout his/herper- mission.
L'auleur aecccrdeunelicenceirrev ocabl eet non exclusive permettant
a
la Bibliotheque nat cnale duCanadade reorcoulre, p-eter . distribu er ouvendre des copies de sa these de que'o uemanlere at sous quelque form e que ce soit pourmettre des exemptairesde cettethese aladispositiondes personnes fnteressees.L'auteurconserveIapmprietedu droit d'auteur quiprotege sathese.Nila thesentdes extraits subs tantiels decelle-cl ne doivent etre lmorlmesouautreme ntreoroccltssans son eutorisatic n.
Canada
i i ABSTRACT
This thesisis an examination of the value of using collecti v ecr e a t i onin an educat ionalsetting. A review of the literatureshowshowthe theatreof collect ive creationhas much in common wit hthe goalsandappro ac hes of drama edocat.ocs . The jou r nal provides a description of itsuse in a particularinstance, as well as th e te ac her 's exper ience of this processand of the studentsinvolved.
The MysteryStrioanlcker at theDe a thCaf e was
performedat a highschoolDrama Festival on April 7, 1981. It is the culmi nationof the efforts of eight teenage rsandon e teacherto collectivelycr e a t e a hi g h sch oo l play. The collective cr e a t i o n processthatthis groupused was similarto that pi oneered in Canadaby Theatre Passe Murailleand in Newfoundlandby the Mumme r s Troupe . Collectivecreation providedthese studentswith the opportunity to participateintheatre thatwa s studentecerrtered, spontaneous, and ope n-e n d ed and to ev al ua t e the processthroughtheperformance.
Thete a cher' s journaland thetranscriptsof two tape-recordeddiscussions held bythis collectivegroup reveals an individual approach to a processth a t is
i i i characterizedby cooperation, empowerment , and A.sense of community. The s e qualities demonstratedth e group nut only to be learning aboutaparticularap p r oa c h to theatre, butalso to be creatingthe opportunities for the mselves to develop in accordancewi t h theAim.s...Q.f PublicEdllcation for Newfoundlandand Labrador. The journal is also a description of a lived experience and so allowed the teacher to experience again her thoughts and actions and reflect uponand enrLch her understanding of teaching.
Iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
in the sense of celebration Dr.FrankWolf e, Maureen Connolly, and Jeff Cuff.
Ken Tlzzard, John Riche, Helen Gregory,GinaBest, Laura Langridge, Mark Kimberley, ShelleyCornick, Bob Earle ,Lori Small, Sean panting, and especiallyChris Thompson, AndrewYounghusband, Ashley Billard, Christ i ne Taylor, and RickMe r c er. Allt!'~people I have tau ght for wha t they ha ve taught me.
Dr.ChesleyBrown, Lyndon Brown,EdwardBrown, especia llyBarbaraAnn Brown,KatherineEngland Cave , and Elias Burt.
Rob e r t a Thomas andthesignificant ot he r Thomases - Leu La, t'il , and es peciallyDa nny.
Rhonda Pelley,Toby 0' Dea, Elisabeth Mou l a nd , Joh n Bonia , Mar yWa l s h ,Cha rles Tomlinson,Mike Jones, De bbie Ma Ge e,TimBarlase,Codco and the FlemmingStreetFre e School.
TABLE OFCONTE1-'TS
INTRODUCTION•••••• • • • • • • • • • •• ••••• • • •• ••••••• • • •••• •••••1
Purpose... . .••. ... .•... . . •. ... ..•... .•.. ..1 What isa collectivecreation?Aworking defi niti on ....1 Myapproach ... . ...•... ..•...•.•...•.. •.•... .. ...•..3 DRAMA. ORTHEATRE :WHAT EDUCATORSHAVE TO SA Y ••••••••.••8
BrianWa y .... .• .. . ... • . .. ...••.•. ...•....12 DorothyHeathco te .. . ...•. . ... ... . . ..•. . .• ... .. . .... ...14
Gav i nBolton 16
ViolaSpolin 18
Keith Johnstone ••. . ... .. .•...•• •.. ..••. . . .. . .. ... 21 Concl usion .. ..• ...•.. ... .. . ...•... •...•..•21 THEATRE IN THE TWENTI ETHCENTURY: MY INFLUENCES ••••• ••:"
xc nstant.In Stanislavsk i and Vsevol od Meyerhold .. .... .•31 Je r z y Grotows k! : integrat i ngexpe rie n ceand expression 36 Bertolt Brecht •..•• .••...•.. . ..•.. •.•.. ... . ... •. ...40 Richard Schechne r .. ... . ... . ...•• .•.•...•..•...• 43 Collectivecreation:the Living Theatre ..•. .. ... . ...48 Coll ec ti vecreationin Canad a .. . . .. .. .•... . . . .... 53 Theatr ePas seMuraill eandTheMummersTroup e 56 Colle ctivecrea t ionandcolla bo r ation 69 Recentcommuni tycollect i ve s ... ..•. ... • ••. .. ....•11
vi The key cha racte r ist i c s: dis cussionand inte r p ret a t io n 75 THE STORYOF THE MYSTERY sTBTNGpr c KEB hI THE QEl\TH CAft 89
Myjourn a l •••..• •. • .•.•• • ...•••.. .• •• ...•... • • . • ....93
Talki ngabout how toendthe play: ata pe - r ecorde d conversat ion ... . .• . ... .... ... . .. ... ... . . .169
Talking abo ut the playaft.er the performa n ces: ata pe- recordedconv ersati on ....• •.•• ..•..• •.••.••.. .• • ... 214
DISCUSSI ONANDREF LECTI ON ••. .•• ••. .•.••. •••.•••..••.•270 Look ing atthe key char ac t eri s tic s 271 Co op e r a ti on ..• •...••..• •••• •.. .... ••..•... . ...27 3 Empo we r me nt•••• •••• •.•••••••••••• •.• ••••• • • ••• •• •••• • •285 An indi v i dua l approach •••. •• •.•• .••.•.•...• •...296
A senseof commun i t y ..•.. . . ... ... ....309
Tea chi n g •. .• •• .• •••.• •...•.•..• . .... .... ••.. .. . ..• .•. 318
CONCLUSIONS •••..• .•• .•••••.• • ••.••....••..••... .. .333
Perso n a l and social developmen t in aneducational setting .••.• • •.•..•• ..• • ..• .• •••.••333
Folding the product cecx on the proce ss .• .• .. ...•• . .•335
Colle c tive Cre.at ionin the cl a ssroom .•••... •. ...338 Co llectiv ecr eation aseduca ti ona l dra ma .. ••... .33 9 BEGINNING, AGAIN •• •• • •• •••• ••••••••• •• • ••••• •• •••••••3'13 REFERENCES ••• •• ••••••• ••• •.• •• •• •• •••• • ••••••• • •••.••352
INTRODUCTION
Purpose
This cne sisembo diesa desc ri ption ofthe coll ect ive creation ofa scho olplayby a gr oup of hig h sc hool stud ents and "e ac he r , and an inq u i r y intowh a t happen ed aimed at describingapractical useof thecolle c t iv e cre at i on pro cessin an educa t ionalsetting.
Collectivecr e etLc n isakindof theatrethat ha s been sh own tobecha r acte rLze d by co operation, empowe r ment , development of anindi v i d u a l approach, anda sense of commu nit y . These quali ties are held tobe valua b leeduc at ionalexperLe nc e a. Thi sthe s i sint en d sto showthat when co lle ct i v e creat ionwas us e d byhig h sch oo l stude nt s anda te a ch e rto createa sc ho o lplay it was cha r a c t eri ze d byth e s esa me qua lit ies.
Of greates t personal signifi cance isthe inte ntio n to share my experienceas a te ach eras I come to understa n d more about the collect ivecreat i onprocess , my students, and myself .
What is a co ll e c t i v ecr e at i on ? A working definition:
The simp lest def i n i t i on of collective creati on isa playwr it t e n by agr oup ofpe ople. Lik.emost definitio n:::, it saysbothtoo much and too little. To say that collective is.kl..t.it.t..e.does not adequat ely des c r i be how it is developed ; it s development includes mu chmo r e thanthe literary te xt ofthe pla y . Mos t of a collect iveis usually de velo pe d byacting out id ea s. (Infact, to say that any play is wri t te n describesit as literature , not theatre. No part of a pla yhas to be writtendownor recorded, althoug haccordingto Peter Brook.(1968), it has tobe reneacsecr.) However, its simplicity ma ke s th i s defini tio n agood point of depa rt ureand it does reliably ind icatethata grou p ofpe op l e gettog e t h e r and invent somet hing that they ag reeto sh ar e withan audie nce, Tha t:
event , whi c hmaynot be writte ndown, isa collective cr e ation.
Thisison l ya poi n t ofoe per -w r e, si ncecollective creation isa ric h con cept tha t need s developmentmore than it needsdefinition. A.s "each collective group develops its ownindiv idual app r oa c hand methodology"
ttves , 19 88, p.30), the conc eptofcollecti v e creation cha nges. Theapproa chn,'y be a resultof thepolitical 01
social commitmentsand concerns of the collective group, but eac h collective group adds it s ownindividual knowledge towha t is already kn ownabou t thiskind of theatre. In the same way, the groupdescribed in this thesisadds its own knc wl ed ge , particularly to what knownabout thi s kindof theatrein anedu c a tional setting.
My app r oa ch
The inquiryint owha t happenedwill be madeby presen ting, exa mi ning, andreflect i ng on a journal I kept during the collective creationpr oc e s s andthe transcripts of two tape-recorde d di s c u s si on shel d by thecor recr tve group. In th i sway , this thesis intends to take the reader through the process, allowing te ac hers to see how it wasused and the trans formativeref l e cti o n that wa s associa te dwithit.
I pre sent my journalas partof my thesis, although it is quite leng t h yand its pres ent a t io nmay be considered uno rthodo x. Mydeep int e restand lov e ofcollecti ve wo rk fo ll ows fr ommy vocationas a teache randdirectorand my beli efthat collect i ve cre ationhas providedmy students
with z-aze opportunities forle a r n i ng and de-velopment.
wi s h to sharethe journal ....ith other teachers, ot he r direc tors , and students because it tells a story. fo r them, t.he story I willrela t e may be themo s t us efulpa rt of th i s t.hesis, because it is theexp e r i e n c e ofa teach,", who "hasbeen throug hi t" and bec a use, as ast.ory, it wl 11 providethe m with a vicari ous experience. forth em, like me, the story shouldbe a highlyval uableand useful resource document.
TOshow howIdevelopedmyund e r s t a nd i ng of the collective creationas an educational activityandas theatre, I will review what some of themost influen t i a l drama educatorssay about dramaandtheatre inth e sch o o l and what the theoreticiansand practitionerswhose writ in g has influencedme say abouttheatre. To show how I developedmy concept of collectivecreation, I wil l review the history of collectivecreation, especiallyinCa n a d a , and the process used by The atrereese MurailleandThe Mummers Troupe. As I reflect. on these ideas andhistor i e s again, additional th e me s will emerge.
I believethe fourcharacteristicshereattributed to collective creationals o cha r act erLze the collective
creation processI us e wi:.hhigh schoolstudents. I am able toLder-:-ify these four characteristics, no t becauseI couldenter thesetting as an oos e rver- I was already in it- but because I re a l i zed theyrepresented my key objectives. Even so, the problem of my inquir: is the problem of phenome nological inquiry: not "thatweknowtoo littleabout the phenomenonwe wishto investiga te,but that we k.nowtoomuch" (Vanaanen , 1984, p,9) . Ik..ami I am carryingout an activi tythat has educationa l value; I
~ !am bringingab out experiencesthat have educationa l valu e : wh a t;isit abou t the s e tha t is valuable? I amabl e to id e nti f y fou r qua li t iesthat Iintend tosho w shaped thi s process, but there may beot h er even more signi fi cant educat i onalqualities that ar e part ofth isprocessan d this experience. Ifonly becausethi sis my initial documented inq uiryintocc tiectivecre a ti on, I limitmy reflectionto the fourkey qualities This inquiry is in t end e d to deve l opa context fo r further study.
I wi l l not only examinemyjourna land the tapes and providea discuss ionon the degree to whichthe s e key qualities (a ndothe r qualit ies) were a partof this
pr o c e s s, but Iwill als o ref lec t onmyrole in bringing themabou t. I int endto le t thi s experiencepresent it s e l f throughmyjournal and theta p e s , an d toref l e ct andLe exnfrom'it.
Thel i fe wo rl d that I int e r p ret is myown, bu t wit.hin that life world I interpre t the beh av i o u r and experiences ofmyst uden t s. Howel sedo I come to act? Si nc e
"pe d a g o g i c situ atio ns arealway s unique" (Van Manen , 196 4a, p. 17 ) howelsedo I come toexe r c i s epe r s on a l aut on omyove r my pedag ogi c a l actions? (Van Manen , 1964a , p. 6\ Soaltho u g h I donot inv e stig a t e theexperi e nces of mystud ent sby carryingout formalinte rvie wsor having th emke ep jou rnalsofthe irex p e ri e nce s , I am conscie ntiouslyawaz-e ofthem andIdo talktoth e m.
tr ytorespo nd toea ch of themand eac hsitua tion wi t h thoughtful nessand tact. Th e jo u rnal an dthe ta pes ar e evidence of th is and my bas i s for di s cuss i o n and re fl ection. This kin d of tho ug h tful re s pons e isthe way of many clas sroo m teacher san d th eon e wi t hwhi c hI approac h this work .
1\meth odo l og ica l tr iangu la r de si g n , inc l Ud in g carrying out formal inter vi e ws andha vi n gmy st ude n tskeep
journ a l s of their expe ri e n ce s,wouldhavegiven further info rmationto enrichmy analysis. It might confirm any in s i ght s Iha ve in the ir exper ience. The fa ctthat th is is not partof my approachmakesanybiases in myjou r n a l writingall themore powerful ; ncveve c, a part of my experience is represented by the tapes and the ypr ov i de infor mationthat isnot colour edby my biases. Notonly that, thepresentationof myjournal mak e s my biases (an d oth e r sho r t- c omin g s ) sel f-e v i d e n t. The r e are also adv an t a ges to my approach. Faceto face encoun t e r sof the kind th a t I record in my jour n aloffer the richestdat a sou rceforunders t a nd i nghurranstruct uresof experience {Polkinghorne, 1983, p.2671. My relations h ipwiththese students was already friendlyandopen , so wha t the y have saidto me abouttheir expe ri e ncesis likely tobe und i s gu i s e d (p. 268 1 andso as data, unbi a s e d. Biases a re alsoaddressed th r ough theinte r s ubje c t i v it y of writerand re a der . The value ofwha t Isay is in the respons eof the teacherand in the ext e n t towhi c h sheperce i v es thatmy experiencecould be her expe rience (VanManen, 1984, p.14 ) . Sh erecogni z es the truthin wh a t.I ha ve presen t e d , and he rexp erienceva lidates it.
DRAMA OR THEATRE: WHATEDUCATORSHAVETOSAY:
"The scho olplay,"as RobertLandy pointsout in HandbopkofMll r a tiond1prqmaandTheflt ce. "i s undou b t e d1y the most widely practi cedformofdrama andtheat re in ed ucation" (1982 , p.77) , yet the prevalent viewof dr ama in educat Ionl , even where it is schedu l ed as a subj e c t, is th a t it is "a way of teaching" (Way, 1967, p. 7 ) . It is regardedas atool for teachi ng ch il d r en abou t something or as a wayofde velopi ngthe whol e chil d . The metho d s dramaeducators advocated canbe used with adole scentsor young adults, but ar e more oftendirected towa r d s ch i ld re n . Perh apstha t is why thi svi e w holds that students acting somethingoutin thecla ss roo mor outside thecl a s s roo m, whe the rit iscu r r icula r , co- c ur r i c ular, extra-curri cular ,may be regarded as clveIc p me nt al, cre a t i v e, or educational,but it sho u l d not invo l ve an audienceor re h e a r s al.
Edu catio naldramaisce ntere din the experie nc e of the students . Even though drama in th e cl a s sroo musesthe art of theatre, according to Dorothy Heat hcote, the a t re is
"contrived" {Johnson&O'Ne il l , 1984, p.IS8) and aud i e n c e centered. "She thinks we pressch il d r e n far tooearly to
grow the art form of cneat re" (Wagner, 1976, p.1471. On l y a few, according to BrianWay, are capableof theatre (Way, 1967, p.)). PeterSlade, inAn Iotrodu cti o oto
!:h.i.l.d..., describesthe performanceof plays be f o r e audiences by th irteento fUteen yearol d s as "less narmrur" (1958, p.6)).
Is ab e l Burger almo st seems to lament that "there come s ati me whe n everydramagroup is calledupo n to producea full length play" (1966, p.8 D). Whenthetime come s she recommends, as does Landy, the combin ing of cre at i ve andforma l techn iques.
Landy comments: "It isof t e n said that educati onal drama is a studentcen teredactivit y, invo lvingale a rning pr ocess, whe re a s theschoo l pl ay, an experie nce in educationaltheatre, represents a produc t that is audienc e centered" (1982, p.78). ThE' notionth a t the school play is a product and not a process paralle ls thenoti on that
"drama is not a subject,- (Way, 1967, p.7), whereas the a tre io.
Landy goes on totalk about the school playas relationship between product and process"withinthe educational experience"(p . 7 9 ). He says that "itis too
si mplistic to referto theex.perienceof rehe a r s a l and performance as mereproduc t" (p.78). Just as educat i on a l drama is studen t-centered, spontaneous, and open-ended - intendedau.a le a r ning proce ss, so the school pl a y sh ou l d be.
Spontaneity, axper Imant at.Lon, and process, La ndy argues, must be part ofthe "theschool playexper Le nc e"
(1982,p . 79), just as much as prac t i ceand a prod uct i on schedulemus t be. Muchofwh a t drama educators like Peter Slade, BrianWay, and Dorothy Heathcote, to namethree of the most inf luent ial, have contributedto drama in education is valuableto the process of prOducing a scho ol play. Methodsin educat ionaldrama fordevel opi ng spontaneity, int u it io n, ima gi nat io n, improvis..tLona l skills, cooperation, authenticity, and the desireto pursue kn owl e dg e areas importantinthetheatre. In fact, th e wo rk of drama educat orshas much in common wit h developments inthe atre and perfo rmance in thi s ce ntur y.
Thisis especiallytrueof the theatre of collect ive crea t ion.
Evenso the division in theliteraturebetween educationaldrama andthe atrein an educational setting is
11 ctee rcut. Theatre isn't for everyone, evenLa nd y , oddly enough, argues at the end of his discourse on drama and the a t r e in educ a t i o n 0982, p.259). Drama is. The a t r eis for thetal ente d , andforthose"who havemade a commitment to their art" (Landy,p.259 ).
Clearly,th i s viewofth e a t r e in an educationa l set t ingis too narrow and overlooks the valueof perf orma nce. I tdenies theop port u n iti e s for lear ning tha t collectivecre at ionmay prcvLd e toth osewh o ha ve not yet cometosee thems e l v es lor tobe seen) astal ent e dor committed. Theatre sho u l d no t be pressedupon childr en, but neither would a drama educat orpress educa tiona l dra ma upo n a child. Beyondthat, th e atr e in an educat i ona l set tingand educationaldrama seem tohave much incommon.
The br ' ~interpr atatLo n of the work of Brian Way, Do rothy Hea thco te, and Gavin Bolton th a t follows suggest ssome of the parallels (and some of the contradi ctions) tha t wo uld exist ina co mpa r i s onof educat i onaldrama and theatre.
The work of Viola Spo Hnand Kei th Johnst.one,als o discu ssed, demonstrates that ever yo n e is tal en tedand that in the study of either drama or the at re a person can uncover his talent.
12 Brian Way
It is BrianWa y who describ es dram a as "awa y of teachi ng" (1967, p.7). In his book, Developme nt th ro qg h
D..r..a.mapublished in 1967, he describes a philosophy and
method that is concerned with the developme ntof intuition, inner resourcefulness, and imagination. His chi ef concernis the developmentof th eindividuality of theindividual. "Drama," he says,"p r-ov idea the fullest.
opportu nity forbu ild in g 3 reallygenuineconfidence in oneself" (p.227).
The teacher is a "s t i mu l a t o r " (Way, 1967, p.255). He describesa method in whichtheteacner begins with concentrationand sensory exe rcis esanddirectsstudents to an awarenessofthei r 0\<"1 expe rience . Imagination is developed throughimpro visation , in anatmosphere free fromfailur e, competition, criticism, and audience reac t i on . "Sharing [wi thi n theclass group] shouldnot involv ea changeinthe approac hto the activity fr om dramato theatre" (Way, p.2BO). Sharingisdi s c o u r aged if it jeopardizesthe opportunity of a class member to part. icipate and developth r oug h the uniqueness of his indiv idualpersonality.
l.' Imp rovisation be g i ns with suggestions developedfrom se nso r yexercises,move ment ,speech , or other sources offered by the grou p or th eteacher. What ever the source,
"drama," he says, "pr ovide s the unique oppo r-t unitv for bringing immediacyto any situation . lit] transcends in f o r mat ion andma ke s of i t a livingexperience" (1967, p.266). Way recalls:
One primaryclass dra matis edThe PiedPjperpf
aaaauc.
and so horrifiedwere the citizensof Hamelin at the actual experien ceof the ratstha t wh e n the Piperreturned from d-o wn.lnq the ratsthe y anda very grateful mayor and corporat.i onpaidhim handsomely and cheer ed him onhi s vay. (p.2 "'"GIBecause, forWay,dr ama is awayof teaching I.h~
Piperof Hamelin, not a subject (for which Thepi e d Pjper 2L..Ha.me.l.1nis a source of inspiration) , the facts must be corrected. Because the impact on the participantsof enactingthe drama ismuch st.ror.qer than hearing or reading about "t he newfacts," Wa y points out that "the newfacts" mustbeenactedaswe ll (p . 267)•
Dorothy Hea th c ot e
14 Best known for her ill-.r..c.le.wo rk ,Dorothy Heat.hcote sees the teachernotonly as a stimulator,but as a participant andeven anin s t i ga t o r ofanimp rov i s at io n. She takesa roleto in t e r ve n e, to heightenthe experience of the group, and moves out of the role to createthe di stan ce neededfor refle ct ion. Wagner (1976) des cr ibe s Heathc oteusingthis app roa c h.
Sheonce gavea groupofsix yea r c Ldsa drink.at a party they were dramatiz ing . Sudd e nly she saidin a witch llke voi ce , "Aha! You dr ankmy drink.• And nowyou nice . • • child r en aremy slaves • Sh esaw that this forcef u l utt eranceha d astrong effect up on the m, soshe quick ly ca meou t of ro l eand said with a warmsmileand her normalteacher voi c e ,
"Wou ld you liketo be my slavesju s t to see wha t happens?" They agreed, so she went backint oro le again." (p.128)
He a thcote moves outof roleto al low the s esix yea r old s to decidewhat they want todo. Her witchchar ac te r ha d a strongeffectupon the m, heighteningtheir experie nc e J, but her te a che r roleprovides distance from thedr ama t ic experience toallowthem to dec i d e to (ornot
to) part i c i pa t e as slaves.
Shepromotes the takingof ri s k s. If studentsar eto make as many decisions as possible, to"wa t ch their own choi ces worked outin ac tion" lJ ohns on ," O'Neill, 1984, p.20"";thete ache r mu stbeab le to take ther Lakof tr ustingthe cap acityof st uden t s togr ow in the open- ende d situa t i ons she is cr ea t i ng. Shemustbean .a.ut.hent.i.cteac her. The teacherinv o l ved incol l e c t i vely cre a t i ng theatre with he r stu dentswould alsobe in such anop e n- e ndedsituation andcalled upon. in this sense, to bean authent i c teache r.
Heathco t eidentifi"~sinte res t in stude nt s, sh a r i n g , definingof tasks andthe accomplishment of tasks as re l a ted toallauthentic clima t e. 'rne teacher must nave respect fo r students and theirabilities . She must accept and use the i r"o f f e rs." (This approa ch correspondsto Johnstone'swho 1sdi s cussedinthis section.) She must ident ifyhe rs e lf, although she is more experienc e d ,as a member of thegroup abletopromote cooperat i onand to inspir eandmot iv a t e students.
GavinBo lt on
ic In hisbook pr a ma as Edu ca ti on , Gavin Bolton poin ts out that thewo r kof educational dra ma teac h e r s continues tobe misunders tood. He indica testhe atmosphere In whLcb cre-naeducators havedrawna clearcutdivisionbetween educ ationaldrama and theatre, giving an example ofan eminenteducator whoperceives "the informa l acttvtt tc s of thedrama lesson as a regrettablecompromisefal l ingfar short of the.nain purpo s e ofdr a ma , th eschoolplay"
(BoLt.on , 19B4, p.60 ). Inthis atmosphere of mi s unders t a ndin g andpre s s u r e to perfo rm, i tis not surpris':';;gthat dramate acher s strongly defenda chanc e for theirstudentsto experienceand learn 'informa l ly' by establishi ngtheiract i vi tie s as a departure from the for ma l and tradit iona ll ynarrowactivities involved inthe production ofth e schoolpl a y. Bolton (1984) goes onto say , however , that themessage teachersfound in thewor k of "Brian Wayand DorothyHeathcotewa sth a t the dramatic pro ce s swas all import a nt " [p,64). This focusdiminished
"re s p e ct for product. intheformof dr amatic pr o d u c t i o n"
and "reg ret tab ly, thos e wh o believ e din th e va l ue of crene as a community enterprisegave up the struggle "(p.6'1).
From there, Bol t on examines playingandperro m anc e
17 to establis ha dialecticbetweenthe two. "The actor," he says , "in atte mptingto subject himselfsponcaneccary to an occurrenceand at the same time communicate chat occurrence to anau di e n c e , is experie ncing an unresolveablete n s i on" (1 9801, p.l22). He refers to the endless attemptsbypsychologists and the l iketo define and redefinethis tensionas "inner/outer reality: liMe, Ego/Self, subjective/objective " (p.122!. He compares this
tension to the struggle involved whe n a person tries to share his private world in a social situation . He calls itfinding a pub l i c vcace (p.139). Bo lto n makes many references to thesethemes in work of Stanislavski;these themes al s o echoth e wor kof Meyerhol d, Grotowski, Brecht, andSchechner discussed in thenext section.
s'o r Bolton(19841. the connections betwe e ndrama for le ar ni n g and drama as an art formare significant. On the one hand, "it isa form of experiencingthat 'br a ck e t s off' an occurrence " (p.1421 . allowing the the de cons t r uct i o n of th a t expe rience. Ontheot.her hand. it is "a way of looki n gat somethi n g"(p.1441 th atex p osesits mea ni ng . Together, these are ways in whi ch drama can t.r ansformapers ona l and social unders ta ndingof the
18 world. He mentions learning todo drama, learn ing about drama, learning socialskil ls, le a rni ng la ngu a g e skill s andle<'.r0109about oneself (p.14a) as legi t ima tepurpos e s of drama,but itsmain purpose, he says, is "the developmentof commonunde r s t and ingth r oughth e eserctse of basicmentalpowers" ( p.IS1). In this way, he al s o points to theview of dramaas a "ce lebrat i on ofa communal IdentLcy" (p.164 l . A col l ect.ive cr e ation charact er izedby coop e r at i o n and ase nseof communit y wouldthe nfulfillthe ma inpurp oseof educa t. i onaldrama.
andthi s is what I am expl o ri ng .
Vio laSpo LLn
Tr a i ned as a recreationa ldirect orunder Neva Boyd in Chicagointhe mid-1920s,Viola SpoHnprovided methodologyfor "making playtoecatalys t for self- ex.pressionand self-realizat i on" (Sweet. , 1978 , p.x.vii) .
~orspolin, "the basis of cre ati v ity is persona l freedom"
(Carlson , 1984, p.421l . S·..;J.f-dis c ove ry isinhibi t edby the need for approval or di sapprovalfrom an
"authoritarianism thathas changed it s face ov e r theyea rs fr o m that of the parent to teacherand ultimatelyt.he
19 whole social structure" (SpoHn, 1963, p. 7-8).
Improvisation, for SpoHn, is a way of liberatingthe self. "Since life and theatr econstantlyplacecrises and choices before us, theatrecantrainus in a spontaneous, natural choiceof al ternatives,a constant re-creationof selfin r-esponseto thewo rld , which SpoHn calls transformation" :Ca rl so n , p.421). Through SpoHn'sideas, collectivecreation, withits transformat iveprocess and theatre product,can be connectedtoed uc ati ona l drama.
Furtheringthis connection, herwo rk ignores any divisionbet weendrama as away of teaching and th e atre as the sub je c t tha t oughtnot to be ta ug h t . Sharing with audience is "anor g a n i c part of the theatre experience"
(Sp o li n , 1963, p.13). Duri n g rehearsals, SpojLn has the te a c h e r and students becometh e audience for a given imp r ov i s a t i o n, so they can learn to evaluate what they see, to share theirinterpretationof theprob lem and the solution offered. Th i s promotes the ability of the group tocommumceue (Spolin, 26-28).
According to Spolin (.'l63), "Everyonecan act. Everyonecan improvise. Anyonewh o wishes to can play in the theatreand learnto become 'stage-wort hy'" (p.)).
20 Exp erience tea c he s. Sheempha s i zes the learning environmentand hypothesi z esthat what is calledtalentis simplya greater capacityfo re....per Lenc Lnq . Activitte s that promote spontaneityin that environment liberate intuitivekno wl e d ge and "talent."
This environment is one where thetea c he r or dt ce ctor does not limit herselfby making judgements, where equalit.y betweente a c he r and student ts permitted, and where closegroup relationshipsare promoted by agreement
(SpoHn, 1963, p.8-IO). Agree menteliminates co mp e t iti v e ne s s and promotes openness. The rightof the performer to choose is part of group agreement. SpoLfn setsout individua l freedomth r oug h corrununity responsibility as a goal (p.44) .
In her use of the wordt.a.J..mt., Sp o l in bringst.oq ethe r self-discovery, theindi v i d u a l freedom necessary to tha t, and conununityresponsibility. Although this meaningis unusual, some of the same ideas aresu gge s t e d by the Biblical story of talents. The servantswho used their talents gained more talents. The servant who did notus e his talent didnot, because he was afraid. Instead , he Kept his talent hidden, and eventuallylost it. His fear
21 oflo s i ng his ta l ent pr e ve nted hi mfrom ta k i n gany risks, and in this way , herenege don hi s responsibilityto incre a sehis talentsand reali zed hi s own fe ar. In this story, risk-taki ngis ne ces s ary tomult i pl yi n gta le n t s , to self-discovery. These rva nts who tookrisksalso entered the re alm of social interaction , ifnot community rc -cnsIbiLkty. Alms ofppb 1icEd ll ca tion""orNewf o ll o d l ap d and Iflhr a d Qr also draws a connection between self and social development.
Kei t h Johnstone
Ke i t h Johnstone (1979) 5 began to investigate improvisatio nwhen he was invited to give classes at the Royal Court Theatre Studio inthe late 1950's. He had alre ad ybegun inhis earlier wo rk withthe Royal Court writer'5group toop e r a t eund e r the prin cip l e that anyth ing thatcou l d be actedout "shou l d be acted , rather than disc ussed" (p.27) . .ronnstcoe believesthat imagination is the true self an dthat school tea c he s stude n t s to supp resstheir imagi nations, to reflect endlessly and thus to stymi e an yspont aneous ac t or even consciousn e ssofanyspo n taneous thought. Studentsare
22 afr a id t.c speak or toact spontaneous ly beca use their actionmayresu l t indisapprova l or fa ilu r e. Beca usethey ve nt;to gi ve the right.answ er and todo the right thing, studentsareuna bl e to ta kerisks. They lose their talents. Many"nor mal"adul ts ar e"bi t t.e r, uncr eative.
frigh t e ned, unimag inat i ve. . • dama ged by their educ a tion and upbringin g" (J ohnstone, p.781.
John s t one (1979) sugge sts thatthe teacher regar d st ud e nts not as unt a l ented,but as"Ph ob ic" (p.31) and tha t. th e te a che r present exper Lanc as in awa yth a t ens u r es the successof herstuden ts (p.20). The teacher isnot.to impo seon students, but toabs o l ve studen tsof re s p on sibilityfor the contentof theirimagi nationuntil the yare st rongenoug h toassumeres pons ibil ityaga i n . John s ton e says t.h a t.th e first t.h ing he doe swhen hemeets a ne w gr oup of st uden t sis totell themto bl amehim if the yfail (p.29).
Theseideas ha ve muchin common wi t.ht.heprinciples onwhichspo a
rn
ba se s her work: the need for authorit arianis mgrows out of the des ire for approval.She believest.he ne e d forapprovalis an obstacle to personal freedom, tospon t a neity, andth e re for eto
23 experiencingand thatthe capacity fo r experiencingis re la t ed to talented be ha v i o u r . In th i s way, Spo l dn,with Johnstone, equatestale ntandspontaneity . Er-om there, Johnstone '5wo r k providesa deeper understanding of the connectionbetween improvisation whichreliessohe a vil y on spontaneityand cooperation.
Johnstone (1979) recalls an experiment in which businessmen were tested andsho wn tobe very
unimaginative, then asked to pretendto be "happy-go -luc ky hippy typ e s" (p , 75)I while they were retested. Inthe second test, the businessmen demonstratedthemselvesto be far more imaginative . Johnstoneccnctueesth at "it's possible to turn unimaginativepeoplein t o imaginative peopleat a moment'5noti c e " (p.75).
Impulses, according to Johnstone (1979),are rejected as psychotic, obscene, or unoriginal (p.82)in order to continuethepretenceofordinariness and
unimaginativeness. "We de s t r oy our talent"in order to ma ke theideas that occurto us acceptable to othe r people. Then "wego to the theatre to see [them) expr e s s ed" (Johnstone, 1979,p.B41.
Tore-c on s truc t "our talent," Johnstone (1979 )takes
his studentsth ro u gh threestages:
(l) that we strugg le againstour imaginations, especiallywhen wetrytobe imaginative; (2 ) thatwe ar enot responsibleforthe con te n t of our ima gi na tio ns ; and (3 ) tha t we arenot aswe are taught tothi n k , our "personal i ties ,"but the imag inat ionis our trueself (p.lOS).
Joh n s t o ne expla insthat in stage 2he enc ourageshi s studen t stofree-ass oci atebycr eating an environ me: - in wh i c h st ud e nt s know they aren't going tobe punished , held responsibleforwhat theyima gine . John s to ne , echoingHeath c o te'swit ch /teacher, says, "I prote c t students, encouragethem and reassure themthat they '11 come tonoharm, and thencoa x themor trick theminto le t t ingtheir imaginat i on offits lea sh" (p.118 1. He doesn'tenc o u ragea grouptobe obs ce ne, fo r examp Le, but to be awareofide a s that occu r tothe m.
Awareness of spontaneous th ou g ht allo ws students to abandon controlwh ileat the same time exe r c i s i ngi t
(Johnstone, 1979, p.142). St ud en t s cho osea process that is associat iveor that is non-associative. AnassoctatIve process may score lower on a creat ivitytest, but it is a
25 narra t ive skill. (Jo hns ton e devotes or;eof the fo u r seccIons of his book, Impro- Imp r o vi sa tio o andthe
~, to narra t iveskill ~ .) What is impor ta n t isthat studen t s are freeto cho o s e eitherprocess andthati f studentsrefuse to partic ipate, the y unders ta nd that they are ref usi n g to participate, notuntalen t ed (Johnsto n e , p.116 1 .
Joh n s t on e (1979 1explainsandgives examplesof several ga me s th a t pro mot e cooperat ion. Heidenti fi e s pe op l e as "Yes" sayers and~andpoints out tha t one gr oup can le a r ntobehave like the ot he r . Joh ns t one gi vesth e fo ll owi n gexamples:
"Yourname Smith?"
"NO."
"Oh . Are you Brown, the n ? "
"Sorry. "
"Well , hav e you seen eitherofthe m?"
"I'mafraid not."
Wh a t e ve r the que s t ionerhadin mindhasnow been demolishedand he feels fed up. Theac t orsare in total conflict.
Had the answerbe e n "Yes," the nthe fe eling
2·, wou l d have been completely di f fer e nt..
"Yourname Smit.h'?"
-ves.«
"You'rethe onewho'sbeenmucking about with my wife then? "
"Very probably."
"Ta ke that, you swine."
"Augh!" (p.92)
Johnston e has found tha t initially , mo s t improvisers are
"No" sayers. They seek control and maintenance of inne r equilibrium. "Ye s" sayersar e ready to respond affirma tively, to accept and yield to inner and outer forces. Johnstoneteaches that anything an actor does is an.Q.f..fe.r.an dth a t it can be ~orb.l.o..c.k.e.d. An ac t or- who learnsto accep t or ap p r ov e of the suggestionsof another actor le a rn s, as Johnstone points out, that his mo s t; essentialskill is hisab i li t y to releasethe imaginat i on of hispartner. Thedisapprovalthat anact or demons trates to another actor "de stro y l sl . . . talent"
(J ohn sto ne, p.93). Johnstone al s o pointsout that stude ntsoften discoverthat what they use against others, they us e against themselves{p , 93).
27 Conclusion
Although Way , He athcote, Bolton,spolln, and Johnstonedisput ethe val ue of the a tr e inthe school, their insightsprovide a basis for the use of collective
creationin an educationalse tting. The i r approa che s 1:0 the use of drama in educa tion and toth e functionof the
teacher aresome t i me s philosophically inc o mpa tib l e , but each approach is a richexplorat ionofide a s that have contributedvaluabletechniques . In practice, an y and all approaches ca nbe borrowedfrom.
Many ofthei r ideas reflect the import a nc e these te a c he r s giveto cooperation, empowerment, the development of antnc rvtduarapproach (creativity), and a sense of commun ityand i l lustratethe waysin wh ichtheyst r tve to
develop these qualities in the groupsof studentsth a t they work wi t h . Collective creation, as a kind of theatre that off e rsthe opportunity for studentsto exper ience these qualities wo uld thereforehave a st.rongeducational va lue. Its processcan bedescribe dasdeve l opme nt al, creative,and educational. There were alsoarguments presentedfor sharing withan audience. That th i s , to", isdev e l opmen t alandedu c a t i o n al, as well an essential
par t of creativeexpression in the atr e and drama.
Notes
IThisdiscuss ionexcludes The a t re in Educa t i o n (TIEl.
20orothyHe a th c ot e isaprofessor of drama at the uni v ersit yofNewc a s tle . She has lectured and led work s hop s throughoutE:uropeand Nor thAmerica.
3Perhaps shehastore t urn to her teacherrole to avoid traum atizingthe childr en.
4Thisis not to saythatplay~:~itingcannot evo lve by, forexample , recordingthe improvisat i o n, but tha t pla ywri ti ng withinthe improvisation violates th e group agre e ment tobe spontaneousandto beawareof eachother.
SKeith Johnstoneiswe ll-known in Canada as the inventor of Theat respo rts . Hefounded The Theatre Ma c h ine, oneof the most imaginativeof the companies inv o lved in improvisatio nalworkand theatre gamesin the sixties. In 1971, he leftth e Theatre Machine andbe g an teach i ng in the Drama De p ar tme ntof theUn i ve r sityof Calg a r y. In 1976, Johnston e (1979a) found e dt.cc semoose The a treCompa ny , a troupe whichpe r f o r me d collectively wri t ten plays, impro v ise dplays, and a newgame which
29 Johnstone called Theatresports, co mp e t i t i v e improvisat i on complete withteams, jUdges and scoring.
6AndyJo ne s is a Newfoundlandactor, director, filmmaker, and member of the well-knowncomedycol lective, cooco. His one man show, Optofth e Bini l lustrates'.:,15 po int. In it he does a rocctrecalled "the shittingpi g ."
On thesubway rideho me from a performanceof~at the TarragonTheatre a few yearsag o, a friend and I started a discussionabout what is funny. I commented that in Out Qf tbe Rin. Andydoesa routine that I k.now you willthi nI- isdi s g us tin g , but most people find it hys t e r i c all y funny."At the point where I mentioned "the shitting pig, "my friendstartedla u g h i n gan d cont inued la ug h i n g until we arrivedat our subway st o p. Then she giggledunt i lwe wereho me.
JO THEATRE INTHE TWENTIETHCENTURY:MY INFLUENCES.
Thissection will reviewthe prominent infl uenc e sin the twentie thcenturytheatre·Stan islavsk i , Meyerhold, Grotowski , Brecht, andSchechner. ':'heseare the theorist s whose writinghas mostinfluencedme and as I reflect.on theseide a s and historiesagain,theme sthat have educationalsignificance willemerge.
Asense ofthe way in which colle c tiv e cre at i on grew out of these ':'nfluenceswillbe createdby giving backgroundto the emergence in the 1960's of a kind of theat-re calledcollecti ve r~e i! tjJm. Hist.cr y ,metho do lo gy, and analysisofcoll e cti ve creationas itappeared in EnglishCanada in the 1910' swillbe Interwoven to give a sense ofthe ric h tr adi t i onof collectivecreat i on tha t exists inCanada. A discussion Of the wor kof rneecr e PasseMur ai lle in the 1970's and The MummersTroupe exemplifiesthis tradi tio nand providese patternfor ccmmunityco lle c t i ve creations fromwh i chthe a tr e like Nt.e..s..inan.fIritt lepiece of HeaVeD and rns ide 'en0llt ,a school play, devi at e slittle . A discussionof these collectivesindicates a Newfoundlandcommunitycontext.
This review of theatrical theory and ofcoll ec t i ve
31 creation in Canada. together with theid e a s of Way, Heathcote, Belton, Spolin, and Johnstone that have been me n tione d , will be the basis of a discussionof the four characteristics that re p r e s e n t myke y object ivesandof the demonstrationofthose qualitiesinthe exper ienceof u.ecollective group.
KonstantinStanislavskiand Vsevolod Meyerhold xonstantLn SergeyvichStanislavsk i isoneof the most importanttheoristsof the modern theatre. Born in 18 6 5 , thi s Russian director, actor, and teac her foundedwith Vladmir »emricvrcn-uencnexcthe most influentialand fa mou s of theRus si a n theatres, the Moscow ArtTh e a t r e . Because Stanislavsklwrote l i ttleabout his lifeor work untilnear the end of his career,most of what he said abouthis own workwa s not availableuntil after his death .
His reputatio n wa s well-establishedduringhis lifetime th r o ugh the Mosc owArt The at r e produc t i ons.
Stanislavski"took hisdeparturefr om a hatred of theatre anda love of truth" (Hoover , 19'74, p.25 11 . His productionsof Tchekhov'splays, his greatest workas a
32 director,attended to realisticdetail, ratherthan to the artifice of the popular well-made play of the nineteenth century - to psychological suggestionra t he r than the histrionic acting of so many Russian actors of the day
(Taylor, 1966, p.265l. "I know that scenery, make-up, ccstume s , and the factthat I have to perform my work in public," Magarshack quor es $tanislavslci as saying, "is nuthinq but a barefaced lie" (Hoover, 1974, p.251l.
Initially, realisticre-creationofthe sett ing and portrayal of character were the ways in whichStanislavski attemptedto overcome the "lie" of theatre, and reveal truth. Later he developeda systemcele b r ate d as "the method" and consisting in psychophysical processes to qIve the actor concentrat ionand an inner creative state in whichto relive the character's feelings and carry out the scenic actionand super-objectiveauthentically (Moore, 1960, chap. 2; Stanislavski, 1936). Stanislavski comments on theac t o r ' s responsibilityto search for authentic i ty:
Never lose yourself on stage. Alwaysact in your own person as an art 1st. You can neverge t away from yourself. The moment you lose yourself on the stage marks the departure fromtru l y Hv Lnq your partand
33 thebeg inningof exagge r atedfalse ac t i ng . ISt ..-usievskt , p. 1 6 1 )
In Ame r icaStanista v sld's wor kwa s known primarily through the perspecctve offeredby An Ar tn rPre pare s (publi shedin19 361 ; thiswo r kconfir med Lee Stra s berg ' s psycho logicalinterp re t a t ionof theStani s l a v s ki appr oa c h that beca me t.hebasis of the Ameri can me thod . l Asa resul t Sta ni s l av s k i has cometc represent theabi l i t yof the actor to reveal th e inne r truth of psycho log i ca l experience.
Ju stas Stanisl a vs ki has come to represent in te rnal ac t i on or experience . sohi s pupil, vsevorcc Meye r hold . has come to represent ext ernal ac t i on . Born in 1814, a me mber of the MoscowArt The at r e from its inceptio n, Me ye r h o l d is one of the most pro minent theat r i cal innov a t o r s of thetwe nt iet hcentu r y. Hetou t e dWi l .i.iam James' theory,"Run andyo uwi l l feel fe a r . " Hedevel op e d a system,bio-mec ha nics, and techn iqueslik.epre-a cting, wh i chtaught act ingas th e actor and hismovements.
"Economy , accuracy , calculation , suppaeness, and li ghtness in motion were the aims of theact or c reine d inbi o- mechanics " (Gorcha kov, 1969, p.13 J ).
34
"Everymovement is a hieroglyphwi t h its ownpeculiar meaning" (Braun, 1969, p.200J, according toMeyerhold. Hiswa s a theatre of physical actions. "Deprivedof dial ogue, costume , footlights, wings,and an auditori um, and left withonly th e actorand his masteryof movemen t , the theatreremainsthethe at r e " (Br a un , p.1471 . Inthe 1950' 5, Jerzy Grotowski fur t h e r inv e s tig a te dthis no t i on, advancingte c h n i qu e s that soughtto developthe "ho ly"
acto r for the "poor"theatre.
Wh i l e in th e early yearsof the Mos c owAr t Thea tr e , suen tsj.avsxfwa s fascinatedby re a listic deta i l, Mey e r hol d was becomingmore and mere in te re s te d in the atricali t yand ini t iallyevenconceivedof setting up "a theat reas a reaction agains t naturalism"(Braun, 1979, p.34). In 1902, Meyerhold, withxoeneverov, didre sig n from the MoscowAr t Th eatre, andfor m a company ofnt e own. However, his earlyproductionsowedmuc hto Stanis lavsk iwhom Meyer!101ct copied despite the fact that philosophica lly he was already dissatisfiedwithmuch of Stanislavski'searly productionmethods. Hisla t e r product ionsused stage crafttohe i ght enthe ambivalenceof the humansitu atio n and theco nt r a di ction in human express ion. In Alexander
35 SUk h Ovo-Ro byli n' sTa rel kl n' 5 peath, fir stpro du c edby Mey erholdin 1917:
Ta r l e ki n, bo u nd hand and fo otinpr i sonan d fran t i c wi t hthi rst , tried in vaintoreach acup ofwater held by th eward e r - then sud d e nlyhewink e d br oa d l y atthe aud ience andtoo k alo n gdraught fr omaccec re of winethat hehad concealed in his pocket. (Br aun, 1919, p.l7S)
aeyerncto, in a moment oftheat ri c a lit y t.hat illustr a tes Br ec h t ' s a1ien i't1o n effect, offered the human c.:\d i t io nin all its pos s i bil i t ies .
I t1s ort ensupposedth atwhile Meyerholdwas telling his ector s, "Ru n andvouwill feel fe ar,H Stanisl av skiwas instructing hisac t o r s to explor e fear th rou ghtechniques such as emo t ionalllIemoryand to discover runningas an outwa rd ex pre s s i on ofth a t in n e r psychol o g y ; howev er , acco r d i ng toBor i s Zakh a va, who st u diedwieh both St a n i slav s ki and Meyerholdan d trained ill bothsystems, Stanisl avs ki, as well as Mey erhold, was teaching his actorsto act physicall y. Stan i s l a v sk i "never wear i ed of repeating to the m, 'Act phys icallyand be surethe feeling willcomeof itse lf' '' (Hoove r , 19704,p.75 1.
36
aeczvGrotowsk i: integra ting experienc e and expre s scon Jerzy Grotowskirepresentsthe integra ti o n of inn er truth, psychologica lexpecrenceand out e r expression : Stanislavski'sspontaneity~fda il y life and Meyerhold ia n discipline. In 1959. Grotowskifounde dth e Po lish Lab o r a t ory Theatre inOpol e, in south-west Poland. In 1965, the Theatre Laborato rymovedto the universi tytown of Wr o claw whe r e i tconti n ue d to carry out its rese a rch In theatrical art and,more specifical l y, in the art of the actor.
Grotowsk irevivedSt.anislavsk i's notionof penetratInga rol e. Byma ki ng every aspect of the role ne c e s s ar y (Euge n e Vakhtangovthought. St ani s lavski and
Melerhold had thesame ob jective- to eliminateeve rything t.rivia l),the acto r,1u.s..t.i.fi.eor penet r a ted arole. The morewebecom eabso rbed in what is hidde ninsi de us ,H
Grot o ws ki (1968) sa ys in Toward sA Ppor Theatre, "in the exc es s , in the exp osure, in theself-penetration , the mo r e rigid must be the exte rnaldiscip line: thatis tosa y the form, the artificiality, the ideogram, the sign . He r e lie s thewh o l e principl e of expre s siv e ne s s " (p . 39 ).
37 Grotowski attempts "to eliminate his [t h e actor'sl resistanceto the psychi cprocess. The result is a freedomfromtheti me lapse between inner impulse and oute r reactionin such a way thatthe impulse is already an outer reaction" (p.16) . Thus, in the theatre"t o understand is toknow how" (Melik-Zakhavrov &-Bogatyrev, 1963:p.1 4 ) . The imaginationof the brainandthe imagination of the body result in organic transformation of behavi our, gestu re, posture, and voice (Melik-Zakhavrov
&-aoqatyrev, p.14). For Gr otows ki (1 9 GB).theesse nti a l
co nt r a dict i o n oftheat ri ca l process (represe n tedby Stantsievsxt- inner acti on- and Meyerhold - exter na l action ) is exposed and resolved in "theclosene s s of the livi ng organism" (Grotowski, 1968, p . 41).
In the seventies, Grotowski began with the Laboratory Theatre group paratheatricalwork, work thatno longer del ineatedbetween actorand audience, butof f e r e d to participants expe r Lence s that had previous lybeen the domain ofthe actor, such as releasing"inhibitingor qanf c reactions" (Kumiega, 1965, p.l75l, reorganizing impul ses or motivesin yourself, andexplor ingforms ofco nt a c t s between people (Kumiega, p.175l. Groc owskLr s concernwas
38 authen t i cit y and th epromot ionofdirec t exp erience. "The realch a ll eng e is life"(Kumie ga , p.1841.
Parathe atric a l workbroke downmet aph or and philosop hyandrep l a c ed i twi t h thetangibleand pr actical. Ofthe Mountai n s ro ject, one of Groto wski 's pa ra thea tricalwor ks,he said, "The Mountainis somet hing we ai mtowards [It] isa kind of test" (Kumeiga.
1985 , p. 1 8 7 ) . but the project als o dealtwitha real mount a in. Lear ni ng not to imitate orpr ete n d (to resign fromac ti ng ), but to experience , topa r t i c i p a t e , to do th e simplestactions: this is the aim of thethe -ecc or" of theLaborat o r y Theatre or paratheatrlcalproject.
Stanislavski , Meyerho ld , an d Grotowski allpoi nt to areasof investig ation fo r the actor. All offer systems and met hod s; howev e r , as Grotows ki haspointedout, systemsdonot inspire:
Anythin gthat hasbee n a general formula for eve r yb o dyha s al readymissed the point; it is a device fo r cr eati ng new s.rc q ans , andto make pe op l e believe that thes eare new truths . Therere mains wha t ex ist s solelyonthe level of an ap pea I foran individual, a concreteappealin the context of their
3.
life and theirexperience. ~oranother individual, it will alreadybe something different." (Kumiega, 1985,p.238)
The conflict represented by Meyerholdand Stanislavski of insp i r a t i on and discipline, coupledwit h thework offered by Grotowski all point to the problem of spontaneity, of truth, of presence, of "newness" in action. The investigation is the actor's. He investigates his own experienceand roo kr for authenticity in his expression of his experience. Bolton (1984) writingabout education also points out how the actor'sart reflects a human struggle. He talks about the resolution of this struggle in the discovery of a public voice, allowing a person to share his private world in a social situation (p.122).
Where theatre provides this opportunity to students,it provides them with the opportunity to develop as "both private individuals and as members of human society"<Aim.s.
.Q..f....bmlic EdllqtIon for Newfound]and and I abrador, 1959). These areas of investigationcan be explored through the collectivecreation process and they are actor- or performer- or student- centered. Whe n mystical, hysterical, ellipticalstatements associatedwi t h art and
artists prov oke, the truthis measured aga i ns t human internal re sponse:this is validation for pro ceedi ng intui t i v el y . It isal s ova lida t i on forcente r i ngthe theatricalproces s in the act or or perfo rmer or student .
The noti on of anacto r- c e nte r e d theatrechalle nge s Heathcote' S notionofan audience-cente red the atre . alignsthi s kindoftheatre,11kecollec t i vecreat ion, withthe development of the uniquenessof theindividua l, withself- d i s c overy , and wi t h a a curricu lu m fo r self- actual izat ion. 'rhus J.t also alig ns its elf wi t hWa y, Sp o Ldn , andothe r educa t o rs .
Bert o ltBrecht
InBerto1tBrecht'sthe at r e , on theothe r hand , the societyofwhi c h both the performersandsp ec t ators ar e a partis presented and the ir per c e pt i o n str a n s formed throughreason . The investiga ti o n is not resol v ed in the authent i c expression of indivi dual expe r ie n ce, bu t inthe cri ti c al examinat i o n of socia l and poli ticalnumar.
inte r a c t io n for the purposes of revo luti on, Pe r fo rmers and spect a-ocs areeducated ,empoweredbythe possibilities of alte rab leac t i on, libe r a t ed from the
41 au t hori ty of a society whichtheyhave internalized.
Abo u t 19 2 6 , Brec ht- a playwright, a director, and th e ore t i cian. beg-an todeve lophis ideas aboutanewdrama he called "espichesDrama"that would "beaddre ssedto reas on insteadof empathy" (Carlson, 1984,p , 3831. Whlle th epra matic Fo r m requires the spectator to suspend belie f, to accep ttheaction(sc ri pt) as uneiteretn e,the
~woul drequ i r e the spectat o r to perceive the action crit i cally (insteadof ernpath e t icallyl as alterable . andto "conside r oth e r possibilities and to judqe be t we e n them" (Carlson,p. 38 3 ) .
Bre c h t cons ideredthe Epic theatre tobe a politi ca l the a tre , strugg11ngagainst the suppressionof change and calling onthe spectator to makedecisi onsthat would transform hisworld. Hesawtheatre asthein s t r ument of revolution.
Br echt's discussionof~ or alienaticn is oneof his most importa nt cont ri bu tio ns to theat rica l theory. Alt ho ugh hedid not cre a te the concept (Car l s on, 1984, p.3851 , t.he influence his expro r e crcnof theY=
.t.!..fek.t.or alienationeffect ha shad hasmade hisname syno nymous wi th it. Brechtus ed the alienation of a
42 ch a r ac t eror th e histor ici zi ng ofan ev erydayevent to aliena t ethespectatorfro m the si tuationrepresentedor from hi s sympa thyfor the character. Brecht'5 inte ntion wa stomake a char acteror aneve nt thatmight be ordinary or familiar, strang e. He wantedto produce surprise, arouse curiosity, and promote questioning.
The actionof the scriptwa s dividedintoopposing episodes- what is referred to in film as~(a nd is ofte n usedto describeBrecht'stechniques), that we r e inte nd ed to polemic lze, to galvanizethe spectators int o decision-ma king. "By means of a certain
interchan ge abilit yofcircumstancesand occurrences the spectator must be gi ve n thepos s i b i lit y (and duty) of as s embli n g, expe r ime n t i ng and abstracting" (Willett,196 4, p. 60 ).
Ac t o r s didno t become their characters; instead, they present edthem. Thespect ators enc ounteredno t only a character , but the actor'sattitudetowards the character.
The ac t o r was to ma ke himse lf"obse rve d standing be tw e e n thespect a to r and theevent " (Willett , 1964, p.58), cre ating acriticaldistanc ethatallowedthe spectator th e freed omto se e the eventas oneofa rangeof
43 possibilities .
RichardSchechne r
Af t e r the 1970'S,American theorybeganto describe theatre as a~art. RichardSchecnne r (1977) , present edit o r ofTh eDr a ma Rey1 ew, is probablythe most influential of the American theatre theoristswhobeganto investigateperf ormance, "the up s e t ti ng idea ofart as an event - an actual" (p.5). In hisbook, ~ Performance Theory 19 70-1 9 7 6 , he describestheat reasthe event enacted by performers and perf orma nceasthe range of humanact ivitysurr oundingthe performedevent, affecting the even t, and includingtheevent:
Thecoming and going of bot h au di e nc e and pe r f o rme rs guarantees (i n Goffman'susage) the existenceofthe
"theatri cal fr a me " sothe events ca n be experience d as actualre a ctuali z a t ions : inothe r words, the realityof the performance isinth e performing;a spectato rneed not interveneinthethe a t r e to pr e v en t murde ras he might feelcompelledto doin ordinary life - this is because the violenceon stage is actuallya performance. Thatdoesn't make i t
4·'
"l essreal" but "different ceei.« Theatre ,to be ef f e c t i ve, must maint a i n itsdoublepresence as a he reand now per f orma nce of ther eandthenevents.
Thegapbe tw een "her e and now" aod "there and then"
allows foranaud i en c eto contemplatetheaction, and to ent e rtai n alternatives, for dramais the art of enactin gonly on e:of a rang e of virtual alternatives.
It is alu xury us c:~l lyunaffordabl e in re al li f e: and very edllCariQoal , (p. 122l
The gap between the herean d now presenceofthe spectators that allows for their reflection on the~
.a..nd-t.h.e.naction is presentedhereas an assu mption that is part of the sp e cta t o r' s understandingofthe a t r e, while for Brecht alienationof the spectat o rfro mthe the re and the n event sbyempha sLzLnqtheher eand now aspectsof pe rforma n cesuc h as li ght ing ,scenery, andprese nt a ti onof charact er s (asoppos e d to being characters) . wa s an obje ct ive.
Sothe tra nsfo r maLio n a l asp e c t ofperfor ma nc e , the awa re nessthehuman bei ng has of hisownincompletion int. ensifiedin thepe r f or ma nce of rigidor completed sp eechandgestures , has pres uma blybec omea partof our
understanding of contemporary theatre (as it recoversits traditionalsignificance). Why not, since it had been, the time of the publicationof Schechner'sbook, about forty years sincethe publicat ionof Brecht'smajor theoreticalwork? The audience ha s presumably escaped the authori tar i a nism of staged experience,acknowledging it as
.on l y one of a range ofyirtualaiceccsmses.
Itis evi d e nt,however, that either herean d nowor the r e and thencanbe emphasized to encourageempathetic identification withenacted experience orana l y t.Lc deconstructionof presented event. Itis al so evident tha t the interactingcont radic t io n betweencomple t i o n and incompletion, disciplineand spontaneity is not only a dynami cof performi ng- the principleOf expressiveness;
it is also a dynamicof performance, the inte ract i on of
"the spontaneousattentiveness of a spectatorand the plannedparticipat ionof a performer" tscnecbne r, 19 7 7 , p.152). For Grotowski experiencein paratheatre has provideda resolution; for Schechner the ritualizationof theatre has provideda re s ol u t i on. (Simplified, everyone beco me s an actor/performeror everyonebecomes a spectator /par t icipant.)
Schechner'sinsig htsexplain howthecontr adi ctor y visio ns of Gro t o wski and Brecht exist in pe r fcrma n ce , althoughif neitherpredominates, th e theatrerealizes neithervis ion . (That does not matter ; it will re alize saaevi sion. )
The principleof expressivenessrequi resthe empat het ic unde r s t a ndi n gof the spectat or. It is r.ot.
really"requir ing,"sincethLs,principl e underlie s 0'11 human expression thr oughperforma nce . Anyway, a usual state ofan t i pathet ic misunderstand ing cou l d be described as psychopathi c . The spontaneousattent i ven essof the spectato rdemons trates tha t while hemay be natu r ally empathetic, he is aware of his ownspontane ou s prese nc e at an eventwhere thos eth at el i cit hi s emp a the t i c respon s e are perfor mingaccordingto a plan. Heescapes th e authorityof theexper ien ce of th is planas unalt erable that hisownsentimen tal nature mayhave en cou r a g e d, by acknowledging tha t he is a sou rce ofspont an e i ty inthe theatre . He gives his attentionto theevent so that i t canpr o ce ed . His experience isindi v i dua l; hi s cooperat ion is social. He knowsitas a rit ual for reconstruct ion. It is a col l e cti ve eventin wh i ch he
47 chooses to participate. He experiencesi t . It transforms him.
"Transformationis atthe heart of theatre"
(Schechner, 197 7 , p.66). scnecnoe r (1977) talksab o u t the the atr e ~ . It offers, like other workshops, "a way of playing aroundwithreality" {p , 60). The r e realityca n be restructured, reordered, fragmem:ed, and recombined, and uLt.Lme t.e Ly transformed in ord erth a t theco mmuni t ycan
survive (p.60- 6I l. This co n n e cti o n oftheth e a t r e workshopto thesurvival ofth e communityde e p e n s th e notion of a sense of community identified as a key characteristicofcol lectivecreation and one of my own educ a t iona l objectives.
When Scbe cbne r (1977) refers toth e the a t r e workshop, he includes theret-eer aat. "Theth e a t r e ," he says, "i s unique inthat i tis always undergoingthe rehearsal process. Even the most traditional work.s.. . are rehearsed"
(p. 134). The processof rehearsa l is one in whichthe workis is re-worked un t il i t is accept a ble fo r showing.
In theth e a t r e , however, this re-workingprocess continues even after the work is "complete," Schechner concludes,
"rehearsalsand recol lect ions - pr-ep Ley and afterplay-
"
converge in the theatricaleve n t.
Transformingthe work afteritiscomple t e raises th e is s ue of evaluation . Ins t e ad of comparingthe work to other wor ks or establishing a standard, aboli sh i n g "any cultural, historicalor evolut ionary perspective"
(Schechner, 1977 , p.133), Schechner says, "one mus t fold the work back on itself , comparingits completedstate to the processof in v en tin g it, to its owninter nal proceduresduring thatti me when it was notre ad y for showing" (p.134). The abilitytoevalua teisone the most complex cognit ive ski lls that students can acquire, yet i t is oneof the basi caim s of education- to develop students' "abili t iesto think critically" (i\j rns ofPllhl iC Edll C3ti go forNew f o Jln d l a nd and lab r a d or, 19 5 9 ) . The processof evaluat ionSchechneradvo c a t e s is one wh i c hthe pa rti c i p a nt s would be theexpertev a lua t o r s. Thisalone wou l d make i t an appealingand appropriatewayof evaluat ingthe performanceof a collective cr e ati o n.
Collective Creation:the LivingTheatre
In 19 6 8,during thestudent uprisingsin Paris, the Avi gn o nfe st i v alwa s challengedin an open let t e r fr om
"
young theatreradicals. "Treize quest i ons .'.lUX organisateurset .'.lUXpar ticipan ts du festival d" Avignon"
condemnedthe idea of culturethat reserved i t for those th at couldpay. "Itca r reafora theatre of'c ol lec tive cr e atio n ' wi t hnoschism between artisti cacti v i tiesand 'po li t ical , so ci al,and everyday events" " (Ca r l s on , 1984, p.4.7 1)•
Th e s e con c e r n s ref lectedthoseof theLiving Th ea t re whopa rt i cip a ted in the occup a tionof the nat i o na l the atre, theoc eo n. and who sought a co lle ct ive lycre a t e d the atre by acommunity of performers freed fromthe op p r e s s ionofa direc t or. The LivingTheatrefoun ded in 1947 by JudithMalinaand Jul i an Bec kbecame oneof the
best known exp e r imenta l groupsofthe 1960' s . By thetime ofthe May upr is ing in Paris, itwas alreadywe ll on the way tomakingits"namesynonymouswith coll ective expression, str ong pol it i c alcommitment, cbe-ere ri tu a l , ceremonia lmystical rite s . , . " (Ge l b er, 198 6 , p.20).
In the initial years, the Living Th e a t r e had presentedauthoredwo rk s. Duringthese years, the y were in s p i r e d by Bre cht.2 Later, the Becks becameint erest ed in the workof Arceud• His visi onhad more in common wit h
50 thepoliticalanarchismthat ins pi r e dthe i r production s. Bythe ti me of the 1964- 1968Eur op ean exile, the Living Thea trehad moved onto thecollectivecreationpr oc e s s. In1970, the Livi ngTheatre~re newe d its commi t ment tostree t the at re .
Karen Malpede sugg eststhe scopeofthe Living Theatre ' 5commitmentto thecollecti veand thecommun i t y :
One ofth e reasons thatth e Li v i ngTh e a tre had such a ritua l impacton the audience, [isJbecausein order to have a ritualyou mu s t reallyspe ak toa community. The LivingTheatrehas always, I thin k , seen part of its workas the creation ofco mmunit y<'IS well as the making of theatre events , and th is communityin New Yorkand all over the wo rld, is a wo n de r f ulweb andne t wo r k of diverse peoplewhoall want pea c e, imme dia tely . (Smith, 1986, p. 111) Th enatureof theat re is collaborativewhatever the theor etical or philosoph ica lview. Yurt Zavadsky in hi s in troductiontoK Staoj s)ays ky18 6 3-19 61ha s St antsLa v s x: commenting : "Th ethe a t r e, 's a id Stanislavs ky ', is collective cr eation" (Me li k- Zak har ov &Bog at yrev, p,lS) . AlthoughStanis lavski wa s not identifyinga kind of
51 alternativetheatre, it is interes tingthat this term is attri butedto him to ind i c a t e hisco nc e rnthat his actors de monstrate "a generosityof spirit,"awareofth ems e l ves as more tha n "a collectionof individua ls ,"as acompa ny
(Melik- Zakharov &aoqatyrev, p.1S) .
In 1972, The Dram aRe y iewpublished "Coll ectiv e Creat ion"by The odo re Shan kexaminin gthe processof coll e c ti v e creati onas "themethod of co nc e i v i n g and developing works inth e al ternativetheatre" {p .3} . He identifiesthe basis of the work (likeSt anr s Lav akt ) the~of acolle ctiv e , althou gh he put s stro ng emp ha si s on the role ofthe gr oup leader. He names the cr e atio nof the workfrom incepti on to rea l izat i o nth r ocqh a singleprocessas the mast sign if icant differ ence betwe encollect ivecreationandtr a d i t io na l method sand sevs that improvisation isit s "pri ncipal technique"
(p. 4 ) •
Some timesthe imp r ov i s a tio na l exerc ises the ms el ve s bec o me the perfo rmance. Despitetheus e of improvisa t ionby ne a r l y every group, eecbde velop s it sown uniquemethodthatma ycha ng e somewhat from wo r k towo rk as they experime nt with newconceptions
