Module 3 - Module 2 Feedback

The following text was sent to Paula last week for formative feedback but some arguments featured relate to my previous blog post regarding my choice of literature review for the inquiry.

Since reading and assessing my module two feedback, I have found that several aspects of my inquiry have changed. Whilst the topic, ‘creative collaboration within theatre production’ remains the same, ideas for how the inquiry will be structured has affected questions that will be implemented for interviewing as a result new, potential ethical issues. My current idea for an inquiry title is ‘How does creative collaboration in theatre production permeate between participating members and is this altered by the level of professional experience shared as a theatre company?’

Whilst beginning to gather literature for review last study period, I came across an argument in Robert Cohen’s ‘Working Together in Theatre: Collaboration and Leadership’. Cohen (2010) proposes that the term ‘ensemble’ has ambiguous meaning. The first being the common expression for production teams collaborating together on a singular piece of work. The second was in the awareness of creative control between participating members and that in order to create successful work a hierarchy must be put in place in order to maximise productivity within a company. Cohen (2010) suggests that due to the institutionalising of theatre as a business model, the industry is made up of professionals who have trained in particular specialisms. He then goes onto cite the breakdown of what was formerly known as the ‘family’ company ideal for theatre, which was developed by Stanislavsky. In his book ‘An Actor Prepares’, Stanislavsky (1936) references his own professional experience in that his own theatre company ‘Moscow Theatre Art'. He believed that all members of the theatre company, whether an actor, director, stage or props manager, should share an equal role in creating a production. However, Stanislavsky (1936) later experienced this method not always efficient particularly when rehearsing for Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s ‘The Village of the Stepanchikovo’. After conducting 196 separate rehearsals and eventually abandoning the project due to his own opinion for it not meeting a satisfactory standard, it can be assumed that a lack of decisiveness from within the company led to this decision. Today, theatre companies cannot afford to work in this manner and members train in highly specialised, individual roles to fulfil projects. Cohen’s (2010) view for hierarchy within theatre companies validates an earlier argument made by Thomas Hobbes (1651), found in Reader Five (2015) and discussed during my inquiry plan. This was that personal, professional and organisational contexts are part of a moral social contract that “works on the premise that rational people will accept it on the understanding that everyone else will as well and supported by the idea that morality is a set of rules for mutual benefit.” What Cohen (2010) and Hobbes’ (1651) views suggest is a synonymous thinking that the product of collaboration will be strengthened by participating member’s willingness to show leadership in their particular field of the project and communicate their reasons for action effectively with their colleagues. Cohen believes that “Discipline may be ordered, to be sure, but the deepest levels of artistic achievement can only be evoked – and in large part that evocation must come from within the artist’s own creativity, comprising his or her wildest imagination, deepest aesthetic sensibility, and wellspring of artistic passion. No theatre veteran would doubt this.” (2010).

Detailed example of this interplay is chronicled using real life examples by Tina Bicat and Chris Baldwin in their text ‘Devised and Collaborative Theatre: A Practical Guide’ (2002). The work offers a detailed analysis of how theatre company personnel interact with each other through recording a number of real life professional relationships and how they evolve and permeate projects. With multiple examples being given throughout the text, I have been beginning to think that perhaps my observations and interviews need to extend beyond my current professional workplace in order to gauge a varied amount of data for analysis. As Cohen (2010) mentions, “communal” theatre production stills exists today and it may be interesting to investigate whether companies that compose of the same actors, creatives and stage and technical managers over various productions tell a differing opinion for their experience in creative collaboration. With my new company, Live Business, I will be entering rehearsals in just under two weeks’ time, meeting many of my cast and team for the first time. An example of a company working closer under the ‘family’ ethos for theatre production would be my experience on ‘Half a Sixpence’. The fringe company, ‘Solomon Artistes’, that produced the show are made up of a team that often work yearly together with the same ensemble across several productions. Although I had not worked with the company on a show before a couple of years ago, I knew of it and many of the people who made up the team before formerly beginning rehearsals for the show. I believe that a comparison between the two companies, one that is beginning a collaborative relationship anew and another whose members have crafted a working relationship over years, could yield for interesting data and analysis especially for the transdisciplinary knowledge (Gibbons, 2008) between professional and organisational contexts (Reader Five, 2015). I may find contrasts and equally similarities between the two companies which will be made clear given the correct approach and preparation for interview and observations. What this does mean, however, is a possible alteration in my ethical approval. Although Live Business are fully aware of my activities, should I wish to engage with ‘Solomon Artistes’ for observation and interview purposes I may need to prepare a separate ethics form for their consent. Whether this needs to be completed like the ethics and employer support forms as completed for the module two submission I am unsure of, however. Would a self-produced consent form detailing my inquiry project, its intent and safeguarding of all involved be deemed appropriate to carry out my inquiry tools? This is something that may need to be discussed.

Bibliography

Baldwin, C, Bicat, T (2002) Devised and collaborative theatre: a practical guide, Wiltshire: Crowood

Cohen, R (2010) Working together in theatre: collaboration and leadership, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Gibbons, M 2008 “Why Is Knowledge Translation Important? Grounding the Conversation”, Technical Brief No. 21 [online] Available at: http://ktdrr.org/ktlibrary/articles_pubs/ncddrwork/focus/focus21/Focus21.pdf [Accessed 29 Feb. 2016]

Middlesex University, Module Two Reader Five, 2015.

Stanislavsky, K (1936) An actor prepares, 2008 re-print, London: Methuen Drama