To what extent
is contemporary ensemble theatre practice influenced by the traditions and
practices of its antecedents? How might these influence your own practice
within context of an ensemble company?
A shared
aesthetic, shared motives, collaboration and artistic freedom. Each of these
things is seen as important to the work of an ensemble. For an ensemble to
function properly, it is important to find common ground in each of these
areas. Having a group of individuals working closely together, at a high level
of intensity, for an extended period of time is what separates the ensemble way
of working from the more ‘traditional’ producing theatre company structure. It
has long been established that consistency of members is vital to what makes
ensemble movements successful – this allows the group to explore each other,
and themselves, over long periods of time, and to a greater degree of depth. It
is a challenge, to work so closely with others for such extended, intense
periods of time. Within the folds of a regular cast of performers, this challenge
to work closely is only for a relatively short period. But as Peter Brook says
about the work of Grotowski, working within a dedicated ensemble presents a
challenge “not for a fortnight, not for once in a lifetime. Daily”. This
collaboration and exploration of each ensemble member can lead to discovery of
new skills and unknown talents, as well as fostering of a deeper understanding
of what is important to create truly new and exciting work.
The concept of
collaborative ensemble work is not new, but it has changed and developed over
time, from the early companies in the time of Shakespeare, through to modern
groups such as Complicité and Cheek by Jowl. As with every other area of human
development, there have been changes and developments as new ideas and
potential have been realised, and this evolution will continue to develop
through the development of current and new ensemble practices.
When looking at
how ensembles are shaped by their antecedents the clearest place to begin is in
their approach and methods. How often are terms such as “Brechtian” used to
describe a particular style, whether its use is accurate or not? This is due to
the impact had by the likes of the Berliner Ensemble on the theatrical
vocabulary of our times. Littlewood talks about collaboration and not the
“supremacy” of one individual over the direction of the group, but is that
truly what happened during her career, and are we more familiar with the work
of Joan Littlewood, or of Theatre Workshop?
Ensembles,
perhaps more so than other forms of theatre or live entertainment, are built on
an ideal of collaboration between equal members of a group. An ensemble can be
described as is “one body with many heads – but many heads who work in the same
direction”, and this deep
understanding and unity within the group will be discussed later. The issue
here, though, is the practicalities of creating quality work for an audience,
to a deadline, while avoiding becoming “the most tiresome,
awkward…forever-compromise, never-right” situation that
many such as Olivier feared ensemble work could become.
That is the main
challenge to Littlewood’s statement of collaboration. While she has admitted
that she believes there ought not to be one ‘supreme’ individual above others
in the creative process, did she herself, however unintentionally, take on that
higher authority during her work? During her time with Theatre Workshop in
Stratford, she collaborated with Ewan MacColl and Gerry Raffles, but much of
the work that the company produced is regarded as being her work – for example,
look at the involvement she had in taking the work of Brendan Behan and making
it possible to be staged. That is not to say that she deliberately placed
herself in this position. Her desire to foster a process of collective decision
making to achieve the best production, and a developmental style based around
combining the works of Stanislavski and Laban’s movement theories (Holdsworth 2006) supports the
idea that her method was not requiring of a “genius producer”
, rather a
collaborative effort. Her description of herself as ‘saboteur and concierge’ of
Theatre Workshop also points towards a mutual, collaborative approach, and her
prominence as the decision maker and authority being an accident of
practicalities as opposed to a deliberate, defined position.
The presence of
one individual at the head of a group is not an uncommon occurrence within
ensemble theatre, with one of the most famous examples being the Berliner
Ensemble and Brecht. As with the Berliner Ensemble, companies like Odin Teatret
in Denmark and Theatre Laboratory in Poland have been overshadowed by their
founders – Eugenio Barba and Jerzy Grotowski respectively – despite much of
their methodology based on collaboration and sharing of creative responsibility,
much in the same way as Theatre Workshop. The method of shared responsibility
and creative freedom is very much a staple of ensemble work, though with both
ensemble groups of the past, and more recent exponents such as Complicité and
their Artistic Director Simon McBurney, it is likely that there will be an
individual with either an overall accountability for the direction of the group
or a responsibility to view a piece as a director – which is the role often
undertaken by Littlewood at Theatre Workshop. Whether or not it is always the
same person who fulfils this overseeing role is dependent on the makeup of the
group and the individuals involved. Working with the same people consistently
also makes it possible to explore different positions within the creative
process, meaning a range of directorial vision and ideas can be explored in
confidence – and if there does emerge one figurehead, as with the above
examples, then it can be a natural development rather than imposing one vision
overruling others.
Something which
is always referenced during discussions of Ensemble Theatre is the idea of a
shared aesthetic. When used in this manner, aesthetic can be taken to mean the
vision of what form of theatre the company wishes to produce. I would argue,
however, that aesthetics can change over time – look at the career of
Littlewood and the difference between the earlier ‘living newspaper’ work she
was involved in and pieces such as Oh
What a Lovely War to see this contrast – but what is much harder to change
is the motive behind creating the work in the first place. Here is where the
‘why’ question is most important. The hallmark of true ensemble work is in the
united motives of a group of practitioners. This motive or ideology can be the
ensembles’ greatest source of strength. Why are people driven to make the type
of theatre that they do? Mikhaïl Stronin said it best when he said: “Ideology –
not in the vulgar understanding of the Soviet times, but ideology; what the
actor thinks about art; what they think about the style of acting; what they
want to say”. While the
ideology of each company is as diverse as its members, it is important for this
common ideology to stay strong, since if everyone believes in the same goal,
then it makes the bond between them stronger. When this strength is present,
the effect it can have on the audience is quite profound, even on performers
like Simon Callow:
“The connectivity of the actors was almost tangible, an organic
tissue which made them breathe as one and move with a profound awareness of
everything that was going on within the group. I was overwhelmed. I had never
seen a group like it and had never had such a comparable experience in a
theatre.”
If there is not
this presence of a shared motive and ideology within the group, then it is
possible to think of it as not being a true ensemble – and being more of a
producing company under the guidance of the directors, in the more
‘traditional’ view. Joint Stock, whose method in terms of their development of
a piece was certainly collaborative, was described in this way:
“Joint Stock stood for the taste of its directors. The Joint Stock
style was the Bill Gaskill style, the Max Stafford-Clark style. This style
didn’t stem from a political position or even an aesthetic theory: it was just
their taste, what they liked to see… So once again, just as in any other
non-collective, unfanshened company, those who stood on stage were fulfilling
the will of someone else, for reasons of which they were never altogether sure”
Here, I feel
that while the work they did involve collaboration, there was not a sufficient
amount of responsibility and ownership given to the members of the company,
outside of the directors. This is where the company steps away from being an
ensemble, to simply being a more collaborative company. If working as an
ensemble, it is important that every member of the company feels that their
ideas and their vision is valued and considered during the creative process.
When current
ensembles look to the work of their antecedents, one area that is an important
source to be learned from is the mistakes made by previous groups. I do not
mean mistakes in the commercial sense, or shows that received poor reviews.
What is more important in terms of learning from past ensembles and
practitioners is to look at the ways in which their work has been passed down
to us, and whether or not this has been a help or a hindrance. One example of
this is the work of Grotowski and the Theatre Laboratory. While the Poor
Theatre and the work that went into developing it may not be to everyone’s
taste, it does have a place in the ensemble canon. Given the physical nature of
the work that they undertook, it is very difficult to recreate their methods
and intensity without guidance from an expert. It is possible to read the
theories and understand the concepts, but translating that into physical action
is a very different challenge. Without proper guidance, as with the work of
many practitioners it can lead to poor imitations and incomplete understandings
of the work. Part of the challenge is not to recreate past works, but to build
on them, but without a solid base of understanding, then this can be difficult,
and occasionally unproductive – some of the language used, such as the description
of the ‘holy’ actor and ‘holy’ producer can also make the ideas difficult to engage
with fully due to a level of negative exclusivity. This can be especially
frustrating for a younger generation of developing practitioners, as it means
that not only can an element of disaffection with the work set in, but it also
means that some of the most significant research and discovery in the field of
live performance is not used to its full potential.
Another issue,
though this problem is one of methodology, can be found in some of the
limitations behind Joint Stock. While they did have a significant role to play
in reshaping theatre in Britain, as well as helping to further collaborative
working styles, they were known for the amount of time taken to fix upon ideas
and make progress. This can lead to problems both within the company
and with those affected outside of it. The primary concern with this length of
discussion and debate is that it can foster a lack of enthusiasm or creativity
towards the project, because of the amount of time taken to move forward. In
terms of current ensembles, when taking inspiration from some of the elements
of Joint Stock’s work, it can be a challenge to engage with this level of
discussion before decisions are made – though this can be mitigated by the
personality mix found in the ensemble, and the ways in which the group
develops its own decision making
processes.
All ensembles
are influenced by those who came before them. Whether it is in their working
method – the devising and writing methodology of Joint Stock or Littlewood’s
own Theatre Workshop, their views on design by utilising concepts developed by
Brecht and Neher, or the deeply investigative approach of Grotowski’s Poor
Theatre. It is important to develop an understanding of these works to be able
to develop and adapt a new style, suited to modern audiences, and current
theatrical concerns. When looking at how this has affected my own personal
practice, the dynamics within the group is an area of particular importance –
especially the development of a safe and secure space in which to experiment.
When people feel
uncomfortable, especially in the presence of strangers, they articulate the
problem or the feeling as being that their ‘personal space’ is being intruded on.
When sharing physical proximity with a group of other people, this idea of
personal space has the potential to be highly limiting in terms of feeling
freedom to express oneself. This can be especially damaging in rehearsal space.
When rehearsing in a shared space with others, it is important not to view it
as one’s personal space, but rather as the group’s ‘personal space’ – that is
to say, if each individuals bubble of personal space overlaps, then everyone
can share the same bubble. A shared personal space, if you will. This is where
the long-term work, contact and understanding of an ensemble is beneficial, as
unlike with other rehearsal processes, this establishment of personal comfort
does not have to begin again at the start of work on each new piece. Having a
stronger understanding and knowledge of those around you are working with can
also mean there is time for a wider and deeper range of concepts and ideas to
be explored during rehearsal work.
The challenge of
this approach to spaces arises upon the introduction of new outsiders – the
audience. As an unknown quantity they possess the potential to be truly
disruptive. This introduction of a new relationship and the potential to create
a new dynamic is not unique to ensemble work – and neither is the effect it can
have on both performer and audience member. ‘Stage fright’ is something that
every performer feels, and is the rush of excitement before the beginning of a
performance can be felt by everyone involved; however active or passive they
may be. This must be admitted to, embraced and harnessed:
“The riot that is at the theatre’s heart – the gaudy assertion of
carnival values, upturning everything, embracing everything – cannot be reduced
to a note, or a gesture. It springs from the primitive act of theatre – an
actor and an audience – fuelled by an all-consuming, raging need on both parts
of the equation.”
Live performance
is unique in its ability to create this closeness between performer and
audience – even going so far as to create Boal’s idea of the ‘spect-actor’. The
audience must be invited into the performers safe space, so that they can fully
experience the work to which they bear witness. This is where idea of theatre
being the interaction and shared moment between the performer and the actor (Grotowski 1968) begins to
make sense, as it is the interaction on a more emotional, in some eyes almost
spiritual, level.
The
establishment of a group space takes time, and it is not easy to do. Once it is
established, if it is not maintained by the members of the group, then the
comfort and freedom of this shared private space can be worn away. The benefits
of creating a safe space can be worth the effort, however. Whenever the
ensemble style is approached, one of the main concerns is that it is of vital
importance to create a ‘safe space’ where the members of the group can be
without the concerns of the outside world, and also where they can feel free of
pressure or judgement from their peers. This allows for greater levels of
exploration, experimentation and risk-taking. This is helped by being able to
work within the same group for extended periods of time, as each new step can
be expanded or built upon.
The confidence
that can be gained from inhabiting a totally safe space, free from outside
concerns –something repeatedly mentioned by attendees at the Ensemble Theatre
Conference – also has the potential to provoke a greater level of child-like
exploration from the practitioner, as well as a lessening of socially-imbued
inhibitions and stigma. As mentioned previously, the key to this space is total
trust in the other members of the group, as they are the other inhabitants of
this same vulnerable space. A subconscious acknowledgement of this
vulnerability is needed to realise to what extent the group is there to support
the individual. If this acknowledgement is not made by the ‘observer’, then the
trust can break down. Once this trust is gone, it can be very difficult to
rebuild, and can take longer than the original trust took to develop. Here is
one of the great challenges of ensemble work, but also where it can offer some
of its greatest rewards. To work so closely with others, in total trust, so
that you each know all other members as well as you know yourself can help to
create challenging work, exploring ideas on a deeper level than with other
creative processes.
One element that
is, in my opinion, highly important to development of both ensemble as a whole
and the members of the group, is the comfort and ability to share. The ability
to share our fears and to vocalise our concerns may not be as superficially
helpful towards performance development, but it has the potential to be as
beneficial, as it can help to further the bonds within the group. Emotions are
something that almost every human being feels and possesses. They give us the
ability to interact in a wide variety of ways. They are hugely powerful.
Performance, and the creation of quality work, relies a great deal on the usage
of our emotions. The long-term work of ensembles can make it possible to
explore these emotions on a much deeper level than other methods. If the
ensemble all works in accordance to the work of a particular practitioner, such
as Meisner or Grotowski, then they might have one chosen method of exploring
their inner selves, but if there is not one defined and chosen ‘method’, then
that does not make exploring emotion any less possible – much as having one may
not make it any easier. The goal is not to explore emotions in order to be able
to more accurately portray them in performance, rather to search for shared
emotions, and to establish the root of those emotions. The importance of being
able to share things which live beneath the surface of all of us is what makes
the ensemble different, and also what gives it the potential to create truly
challenging work.
When it comes to
ensemble theatres of the modern day, there are a wide range of style and
methods adopted. This variety is important because it ensures that both the
work that they create, and the process that is used to get there are as diverse
as possible. As we have seen, in the past there has not been one fixed method
of ensemble theatre, and it is important that each new group developing now is
able to shape itself in whatever mode that is decided by its members.
One of the
clearest examples of this variety is in the size of the ensemble. While it is
easy to see an ensemble as a group of eight to twelve people, this is certainly
not the case everywhere. For instance, in the German state theatre, they have
‘ensembles’ which can contain 40 performers. This may seem unwieldy but in this
instance the ensemble is the talent pool from which each production is cast. It
allows for a wide variety of productions to be performed simultaneously,
because while it takes a great deal of organisation to keep track of what roles
each individual is playing, it means that there is a sufficient number of
performers to be able take on plenty of pieces. Furthermore, with the extended
contracts given to the members of the ensemble, they are not only aware that
they have financial security for a period of time, but also they know that
there will be regular work for them to keep working at their craft – as well as
being able to develop a greater understanding within the company between
directors and performers, as they have the time to work on a wider
understanding of their skills.
On the other end
of the scale are companies such as Clod Ensemble and Cheek by Jowl – ensemble
companies in so much as they are groups formed with a shared set of ideas and a
shared vision. However, they are, in terms of numbers, the polar opposite of
the German state ensembles, being made up of only a few people. Indeed, “Cheek
by Jowl in a sense is an ensemble of two – Declan [Donnellan] and Nick Ormerod.
That’s okay. That’s an Ensemble too”. As mentioned
above, Cheek by Jowl can be counted as an ensemble because the permanent
members of the company share in a vision for the type of theatre they wish to
create. This then allows them to bring in other artists with whom they wish to
work, and with whom they know they can share objectives. This may sound similar
to the work of Joint Stock, which has been said to not a real ensemble.
However, I would say that if Joint Stock are looked at as an ensemble made up
of the two directors, who then brought in those who they could work with, then
they fit more into a similar mould as Cheek By Jowl – as long as there is a
shared vision within the group, then they can be seen as an ensemble, no matter
what the size. This is why there is no common method of ensemble, it is more
that the commonality between ensembles is that they are groups whose members
share a goal, motive and aesthetic for the work they wish to produce.
When approaching
the question of current ensembles learning from their predecessors, one can
consider the knowledge passed on to be similar to a language. Theatrical
vocabulary, knowledge and methodology are passed on from one generation to the
next, much in the same way as language and the ways we use words. In everything
we do as humans, we learn it from the generation above us – whether that be our
teachers, our parents or people who inspire us. The vocabulary and application
of theatrical practice is no different, especially since “the languages we
learn affect how we think”. That idea is
significant as it means that when we are learning new theatrical language – in
this specific case, the language of ensemble practice – we are also then
learning to think in a way that allows us to apply that language.
As we learn, we
are also able to branch out towards other cultures and methods which may not be
indigenous to the theatrical culture that we are used to. This exploration of
other cultures and ideologies can mean that when we create our own work, we can
take inspiration from the work of those whose work has impressed us. Michael
Boyd has admitted to such exposures as being a formative part of his own
development, having been “profoundly sheep-dipped abroad in Moscow at the
Malaya Bronnaya Theatre”. This using of
other cultures to expand our own is not limited to theatre – it happens in
food, language, television, everywhere. The ability to access different schools
of thought can only benefit us as practitioners. And it is not a one-way
street. As Boyd continues:
“Just as the great European ensembles have appropriated
Shakespeare as their own, there’s no reason why we can’t appropriate their
great auteur director tradition as our own or their great ensemble acting
strength as our own?”
In an
increasingly multi-cultural world, it is important that theatre, especially the
ensemble, continues to lead the way in developing this acceptance of ideas from
outside of our frame of reference. The reason why I state it is especially
important for ensembles to push the development in this way is that there are
such diverse languages within ensemble theatres – from Indian Kathakali to
elements of Japanese No Theatre. This is something that has been mentioned by
practitioners in the past, Grotowski being one example, and continuing to
investigate and absorb elements from these other styles of cultural performance
can only help to enrich the theatrical language within which we try to express
ourselves.
In conclusion,
it is clear that Ensemble Theatre, as with almost all forms of theatre, is
hugely influenced by its antecedents. Those who took a hand in developing
ensemble working methods have made it possible for current groups to have a
starting point from where to develop their own aesthetic, and their own
audience. There are influences from past ensemble works, as with any form of
performance, but that does not cheapen either the past or the present. With a
theatrical vocabulary that has been developed by years of companies and
practitioners, it is now the responsibility of their current successors to
develop the next layer, so that in years’ time it will possible to look back at
the contemporary ensembles as the continuation of our antecedents.
The work of our
antecedents has also taught us that there is no one clear description of what
makes an ensemble. My personal view is that the most important part of forming
an ensemble is a collaborative approach, stemming from a shared ideology behind
what it is the group wishes to produce. That group can be two people, it can be
twenty people. The dynamics within the group must be given time to grow and
develop over time, as they will be unique to the people who make up the
ensemble. These are things that have been learned from previous groups, from
their failures, their ideas and the ideas that they pioneered. The
responsibility of the current generation of ensemble practitioners is to learn
from the past, and build upon the foundations, so that in the future it will be
possible to look back at our work as the next stage in the evolution of
Ensemble Theatre.
Bibliography
Billington, Michael. State of the Nation.
Faber and Faber Limited, 2007.
Brook,
Peter. The Empty Space. Penguin, 1968.
“Ensemble
Theatre Conference.” Equity, 2004.
Goldman,
Emma. The Social Significance of Modern Drama. Applause, 1914.
Grotowski,
Jerzy. Towards A Poor Theatre. Methuen Drama, 1968.
Holdsworth,
Nadine. Joan Littlewood. Routledge, 2006.
Lo,
Jaqueline, and Helen Gilbert. Performance and Cosmopolitics. Palgrave
MacMillan, 2009.
Robinson,
Sir Ken. Out of Our Minds. Capstone Publishing Limited, 2001.
Tynan,
Kenneth. Theatre Writings. Nick Hern Books Limited, 2007.
Witts,
Noel. Tadeusz Kantor. Routledge, 2010.
