“Devoted & Disgruntled”: Improbable's Devising, Eldership, and Open

Home , Adeel Akhtar, Annie Castledine, Reclaiming (Neopaganism), Robert Bathurst, Sandi Toksvig

“Devoted & Disgruntled”:

Improbable’s Devising, Eldership, and Open Space Technology

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

Ian Bradford Ngongotaha Pugh

Graduate Program in Theatre

The Ohio State University

2013

Dissertation Committee:

Lesley Ferris, Adviser

Beth Kattelman

Joy Reilly

Ian Bradford Ngongotaha Pugh

2013

Abstract

Improbable, a London based, international theatre company, after having achieved over a decade of critical acclaim found themselves in an excellent position in the industry to serve the theatre community. Through what the company terms ‘eldership,’ the company has stepped back and placed more and more of their energy helping others, particularly young and emerging artists. Beginning with creating mentoring programs, and evolving into studying, training, and developing alternative leadership methods, the theatre company created a theatre conference like no other. Borrowing heavily from the

Open Space Technology principles of Harrison Owen and the influence of Process Work and World Work pioneered by Arnold Mindell, Improbable created the Devoted &

Disgruntled conferences.

The Devoted & Disgruntled conferences have worked so well for Improbable because they mirror the ways that the company works when creating their devised performances. Like the company’s work, the Devoted & Disgruntled conferences are a collaborative endeavor. There are no invited speakers, the conference agenda is not preplanned, but is developed by those attending during the initial hour of the event in a collaborative process where all of the participants are empowered to take charge of issues and concerns they feel passionate about, opening dialogues, pooling resources and knowledge, and seeking actionable plans and solutions. This participant-created

ii conference of self-managed sessions (including discussion groups, experiential workshops, ideas sessions, and planning meetings) are all related to a central question of strategic importance: “What are we going to do about theatre and the performing arts?”

Devoted & Disgruntled allows diverse, and often very large, groups of people to get together, discuss issues of heartfelt concern, share ideas, pool their knowledge and develop plans for collaborative action. There are no invited speakers, and just one facilitator to explain the procedure and facilitate the plenary session creation.

This document explores the first six years of the annual Devoted & Disgruntled conference, mapping out the trends, concerns, practices, and passions of the greater

London theatre community using a historiographical and documentarian lens to illuminate the efficacy and ability of Improbable’s eldership work to affect positive change in the theatre world.

iii

Dedication

For my parents Ann Louise Mullard-Pugh and Robert William Pugh,

whose enduring love and support has made all the difference.

Thank you.

Acknowledgments

This project owes its existence to the many people at Improbable – thank you for your openness and generosity. I am also indebted to Dr. Lesley Ferris and Dr. Beth Kattelman for their mentorship and support in organizing and structuring the vast amounts of data in this document. Finally, I must thank Melissa Lee for all of her suggestions, questions, and the numerous walking discussions, and especially for her friendship that kept this project, and me, going through to the end.

Vita

1989...... Bonanza High School, Las Vegas

1995 ...... B.A. Theatre, University of Nevada Las

Vegas

2007...... M.A. Drama, San Francisco State University

2007 to 2013 ...... Graduate Teaching Associate, Department

of Theatre, The Ohio State University

Fields of Study

Major Field: Theatre

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii

Dedication ...... iv

Acknowledgments...... v

Vita ...... vi

List of Tables ...... xi

List of Figures ...... xii

Chapter 1: Improbable Eldership: Devoted & Disgruntled ...... 1

1.1 Improbable Introduction ...... 1

1.2 What is Devising? ...... 5

1.3 Open Space Technology...... 12

1.4 Participant-Observer...... 14

1.5 Chapter Breakdown ...... 17

Chapter 2: Histories ...... 24

2.1 An Improbable Tale ...... 24

2.2 Devoted, but Disgruntled ...... 36

Chapter 3: Politics of the World – Politics of the Body ...... 45 vii

3.1 Global Conflict – Local Response ...... 45

3.2 Women(’s) Matter(s) ...... 67

3.3 Politics of a Life Lived Theatrically ...... 83

Chapter 4: “Help!” ...... 101

4.1 “I Me Mine” - Personal Rants/Selfish Needs ...... 101

4.2 Help Wanted (or to continue the Beatles theme: “Help! I need somebody!”) ...... 117

4.3 “Help! Not just anybody,” or “And I do appreciate you being around” – Non-

Theatre Session ...... 135

Chapter 5: Making Theatre ...... 157

5.1 ACE in the Hole ...... 157

5.2 Hit the Road, Jack! (cause it’s understood: you ain’t got no money, you just ain’t

no good) or Touring Troubles ...... 182

5.3 Devising Dilemmas ...... 198

Chapter 6: Conclusion – The Future of Devoted & Disgruntled ...... 221

6.1 Bigger, Better, More...... 221

6.2 Change Is In the Air ...... 224

Works Cited ...... 228

Appendix A: Improbable Production History ...... 245

Appendix B: Devoted & Disgruntled - How It Works ...... 246

viii

I. Intentions...... 246

II. First Impressions...... 249

III. Spaces ...... 258

IV. Opening Space ...... 263

V. One Law, Four Principles, and Two Bugs ...... 264

VI. (a)Typical Session(s)...... 273

VII. “Close of a long day.” ...... 278

VIII. Convergence and Action Plans...... 282

Appendix C: Session Stats ...... 290

I. Devoted & Disgruntled 1 ...... 292

II. Devoted & Disgruntled 2 ...... 296

III. Devoted & Disgruntled 3 ...... 304

IV. Devoted & Disgruntled 4 ...... 310

V. Devoted & Disgruntled 5 ...... 316

VI. Devoted & Disgruntled 6 ...... 321

Appendix D: Photographs from Devoted & Disgruntled ...... 329

I. Devoted & Disgruntled – New York City ...... 331

II. Devoted & Disgruntled 3 ...... 336

III. Devoted & Disgruntled 4 ...... 340

IV. Devoted & Disgruntled 5 ...... 346

V. Devoted & Disgruntled 6 ...... 350

VII. Devoted & Disgruntled 7 ...... 355

VIII. Devoted & Disgruntled 8 ...... 360

IX. Devoted & Disgruntled Roadshow ...... 368

Appendix E: Cited Sessions ...... 370

I. Cited Sessions: Devoted & Disgruntled 1 ...... 371

II. Cited Sessions: Devoted & Disgruntled 2 ...... 409

III. Cited Sessions: Devoted & Disgruntled 3 ...... 446

IV. Cited Sessions: Devoted & Disgruntled 4...... 476

V. Cited Sessions: Devoted & Disgruntled 5 ...... 518

VI. Cited Sessions: Devoted & Disgruntled 6...... 548

VII. Cited Sessions: Devoted & Disgruntled 7 ...... 584

List of Tables

Table 1. Improbable Production Chronology ...... 245

Table 2. Devoted & Disgruntled 1 Reports Breakdown (2006) ...... 292

Table 3. Devoted & Disgruntled 2 Reports Breakdown (2007) ...... 296

Table 4. Devoted & Disgruntled 3 Reports Breakdown (2008) ...... 304

Table 5. Devoted & Disgruntled 4 Reports Breakdown (2009) ...... 310

Table 6. Devoted & Disgruntled 5 Reports Breakdown (2010) ...... 316

Table 7. Devoted & Disgruntled 6 Reports Breakdown (2011) ...... 321

List of Figures

Figure 1. "Open Space 2 Innovate" ...... 14

Figure 2. "How do we get paid jobs as set-designers, costumes and props makers?" ...... 16

Figure 3. 70 Hill Lane ...... 31

Figure 4. Newspaper puppet from Satyagraha ...... 32

Figure 5. A scene from Panic ...... 33

Figure 6. “Is Theatre Political?” ...... 47

Figure 7. The Sultan’s Elephant...... 53

Figure 8. Augusto Boal facilitating a Forum Theatre event in NYC ...... 58

Figure 9. Day three opening circle, Devoted & Disgruntled 7 ...... 59

Figure 10. A picture of the Massive Phallic Airship of Male ART ...... 82

Figure 11. Selfish Sessions in Relation to Total Sessions by Year ...... 102

Figure 12. “The Drinking Issue: Before” ...... 138

Figure 13. “The Drinking Issue: During” ...... 140

Figure 14. “The Drinking Issue: After” ...... 141

Figure 15. "Wrestling" Session ...... 146

Figure 16. Julia and Manice ...... 149

Figure 17. “Here is a picture of Peter Brook mythering his room of terrified butterflies.

Who will be next tonight my pretties?” ...... 151

xii

Figure 18. Arts Council of England yearly spending data ...... 162

Figure 19. A breakdown of the ACE budget for 2010/11 on £588 million in expenditures

...... 163

Figure 20. Decline in funding support for of arts organizations and grant projects ...... 165

Figure 21. Funding for the Grants for the Arts program compared with grants awarded

...... 167

Figure 22. The (roughly) inverse relationship of sessions called concerning funding and the rise and fall of the ACE annual budget ...... 168

Figure 23. #DandD6...... 251

Figure 24. A sign outside the front doors of York Hall ...... 253

Figure 25. A sign making party ...... 255

Figure 26. “Devoted & Disgruntled 5: What are we doing about theatre?” ...... 259

Figure 27. Calling Sessions...... 270

Figure 28. Time/Space Matrix - Devoted & Disgruntled 8 ...... 271

Figure 29. A portion of the session board (Marketplace) for Devoted & Disgruntled 7 275

Figure 30. http://www.youtube.com/user/weaselspoon/videos ...... 330

Figure 31. Devoted & Disgruntled NYC Logo...... 331

Figure 32. Devoted & Disgruntled NYC Graffiti ...... 332

Figure 33. Devoted & Disgruntled NYC Graffiti ...... 333

Figure 34. Participants at Devoted & Disgruntled NYC ...... 334

Figure 35. “Passion, or lack of” ...... 335

Figure 36. Devoted & Disgruntled 3, York Hall, Bethnal Green, London ...... 336

xiii

Figure 37. Time/Space Matrix - Devoted & Disgruntled 3 ...... 337

Figure 38. "Whoever Comes Are the Right People" ...... 338

Figure 39. Typing up a session report - Devoted & Disgruntled 3 ...... 339

Figure 40. Newsroom view of Devoted & Disgruntled 4 ...... 340

Figure 41. Devoted & Disgruntled temporary tattoos - Devoted & Disgruntled 4...... 341

Figure 42. A view down the Newsroom - Devoted & Disgruntled 4 ...... 342

Figure 43. Volunteers at registration - Devoted & Disgruntled 4 ...... 343

Figure 44. Sessions in progress - Devoted & Disgruntled 4...... 344

Figure 45. Marketplace - Devoted & Disgruntled 4 ...... 345

Figure 46. Volunteer taping a "space" location name in place – Devoted & Disgruntled 5

...... 347

Figure 47. Bumble Bees Poster - Devoted & Disgruntled 5 ...... 348

Figure 48. Butteryfly and Bumble Bee - Devoted & Disgruntled 5 ...... 349

Figure 49. Devoted & Disgruntled 6 Singing in the Dark Times: What Are We Going To

Do About Theatre and the Performing Arts now? ...... 350

Figure 50. Breaking News Poster – Devoted & Disgruntled 6 ...... 352

Figure 51. “Lullaby For the dark Tymes” - Devoted & Disgruntled 6 ...... 353

Figure 52. Tweet Here - Devoted & Disgruntled 6 ...... 354

Figure 53. Devoted & Disgruntled 7: Whate are We Going To Do About Theatre & The

Performing Arts? ...... 355

Figure 54. Phelim McDermott creating the "Space/Time Matrix" - Devoted &

Disgruntled 7 ...... 356

xiv

Figure 55. Spaces Map - Devoted & Disgruntled 7 ...... 357

Figure 56. Lemon Jousting - Devoted & Disgruntled 7...... 358

Figure 57. A young participant watches a session ...... 359

Figure 58. Phelim McDermott creating the Devoted & Disgruntled 8 "Space/Time

Matrix" ...... 361

Figure 59. Space Flags - Devoted & Disgruntled 8 ...... 363

Figure 60. Robert Wells ...... 364

Figure 61. Day Three Opening Circle - Devoted & Disgruntled 8 ...... 365

Figure 62. Day 2 Sessions in the Marketplace – Devoted & Disgruntled 8 ...... 366

Figure 63. Breaking News - Devoted & Disgruntled 8 ...... 367

Figure 64. Locations of Devoted & Disgruntled Road Show 2012 conferences ...... 368

Figure 65. Devoted & Disgruntled Road Show 2012 stats ...... 369

Chapter 1: Improbable Eldership: Devoted & Disgruntled

1.1 Improbable Introduction

Do you love theatre?

Do you find it frustrating?

Do you wish it were different?

Do you feel like an outsider in your own profession?

Have you just started out and need support?

Have you been in the profession for years and feel jaded?

Is your sector always left out of the discussions?

Do you usually dread discussions and meetings?

Are you looking for a sense of: community, eldership, mentorship?

Are you looking to change things?

Phelim McDermott

Devoted & Disgruntled 8 Invitation (“Devoted 8” para. 1)

This research seeks to illuminate the ongoing evolution and activities of the annual Devoted & Disgruntled theatre conference held in London by Improbable, the award-winning and internationally acclaimed theatre group that was formed in 1996. The comprehensive examination of the conference’s activities that follows is based on its copious written and visual documents, and on my own experience as a

1 participant/observer. Improbable is a British theatre company whose work in the loosely defined devised theatre genre transcends its members’ production habits to include what the group terms eldership, or giving back to the community (i.e., of fellow artists and theatre practitioners), and to some extent stepping back and making room for new voices in the theatre community. Improbable’s eldership role comes through a series of yearly, monthly, and special topics conferences that are devised events, similar to the group’s theatrical practice. These events are referred to as Devoted & Disgruntled, with each conference focusing on its own special topic relating to the theatre and the needs of their communities. These conferences have no initial set agenda beyond a general topic concerning theatre and the performing arts. Rather, during the first sixty minutes, the attendees—individuals devoted to theatre as a viable artistic endeavor but who are disgruntled by the challenges and pitfalls of a life or career in the industry—set the course of these meetings. These conferences, similar to Improbable’s productions, strive to find innovative ways to solve problems and build community, and offer participants a low stress environment in which to socialize—an activity that Improbable views as highly underrated as part of the creative/creation process.

Improbable has with some productions reversed traditional hierarchies in the theatre, switching conventional roles by becoming observers of the audience, who in turn are made to be the performers, their private lives transformed into theatre performances, such as their critically acclaimed Life Game (1998), or their more recent The Still (2011).

Life Game was a key production in Improbable’s early history – a collaboration with

Keith Johnstone, one of the theatre’s more influential experts and innovators in

2 improvisation (he is the creator of the popular and widely used improvisation format:

Theatresports),1 and the newly formed Improbable theatre (whose name is derived from impro and able). Like Theatresports, Lifegame also uses an improvisation format, but one that is not built using audience generated situational comedy, but instead tells real stories provided by randomly selected audience members. Creating the Lifegame format and then making it into the Lifegame performance with Johnstone helped establish

Improbable’s style of impro (the British shorthand for improvisation) and served to build their name and reputation (McDermott, “Dreaming” para. 18). It is this drive to get to the real, the human, and the personal that is typified by the company’s ability to listen to and respond to their peers, provide support and foster communication between normally disparate groups. Improbable’s members now spend more time reaching out to the theatre community than creating theatre productions themselves. Moreover, as the title of its conferences indicates, it is devoted to the art and, simultaneously, is disgruntled by its practice and practitioners. Improbable presents not merely a forum for people to complain (“whinge” in British parlance) but also an opportunity to find ways to discuss and solve pressing issues. Documentation of theatre companies and practices is still secondary in most practitioners’ minds (if thought of at all). Despite technological improvements that facilitate such documentation, what little material is recorded is as easily lost when companies disband or move. Some work is currently being done to remedy this situation by Unfinished Histories, Ltd. (http://www.unfinishedhistories.com),

“A project recording British Alternative Theatre, 1968 -88” (para. 1). Their goal is to collect archival materials and conduct interviews with the innovators of some of British

3 theatre’s first, “Black, Asian, lesbian, gay, women’s, disabled, political, experimental,

TIE2 and community-based theatre groups” (Unfinished para. 1), especially while many of these practitioners are still living and able to provide first hand perspectives on their work and companies. This project is being funded on many levels both public and private. Unfinished Histories recently (2012) received a substantial grant from the governmental Heritage Lottery Fund, further highlighting the importance preserving this invaluable cultural information holds for its society (Unfinished para. 3).

Like Unfinished Histories, this research seeks to document and preserve the work of a theatre company, but instead of waiting to catalogue this data after the fact, I follow what Heddon and Milling, scholars on the history of devising practices note as the,

“desire to trace chronology, to follow time forward, to write a story that ‘leads’ us to think about the work we might make in the present” (Heddon 22). I seek to conserve the company’s work while the material is still fresh in the practitioners’ minds, and in the case of the Devoted & Disgruntled conferences, the participants’ minds. An examination of Improbable’s members, history, productions, and eldership, shows a theatre committed to work outside of conventional theatre production, work that is more prolific than their performance output, but work that is even more susceptible to being lost than performance documentation. This dissertation will offer insights into Improbable’s devising efforts and the influence that the group has on the contemporary British (and international) theatre landscape, specifically by analyzing the ongoing annual London

Devoted & Disgruntled conference which started in 2006, and the copious documents it has produced, thus preserving a portion of this valuable cultural output.

1.2 What is Devising?

In the theatre, a revolution has taken place that has silently – although at times loud and radical – integrated itself into much of modern theatre making. The broad term devising has become a buzzword in the theatre that is often difficult to define. Devising as a means of theatrical production has many roots. However, the French, and then the

British, notably through Etienne Decroux and Peter Brook, took the first strides toward what is considered modern devising (Dympha 11). Joan Littlewood’s Theatre Workshop production of Oh, What a Lovely War! (1963) is considered the beginning of devising as a specific movement and practice in contemporary theatre (Heddon 31). Welfare State3 and Forced Entertainment4 followed in the 1970s and 1980s respectively to become significant players in this theatrical revolution along with many, many others. Today, devised theatre practices continue to grow and find acceptance with British artists and audiences alike, with successful, mainstream devised theatre companies receiving substantial funding from the government-funded Arts Council of England. Popular companies include Improbable, Complicite, and Kneehigh Theatre.

The simplest generic definition of devised theatre involves performers as total artists that are intimately involved in and undertake the writing, direction, and design of the production. In Milling and Heddon’s 2006 Devising Performance: A Critical History, the authors limit their definition of devising to, “a mode of work in which no script – neither written play-text nor performance score – exists prior to the work’s creation by the company” (Heddon 3). In her 1994 book Devising Theatre: A Practical and

Theoretical Handbook, the first devising book of its kind, Alison Oddey gives a brief, but

5 open definition of what devising is to her, “a group of people, exploring and experimenting with the nature of performance” (Oddey ix). From my own experience working with Theatre de la Jeune Lune, a Tony Award winning, devising theatre company in Minneapolis,5 we defined devised theatre as work that did not know where it was going to end, unlike literary theatre, where the script exists, fully formed by a playwright who worked alone, fixing the story, themes, and often methods.

Initially, most devised works were new, original, “ex nihilo” creations (Heddon

3). Dialogue was created directly through the rehearsal process and, in many cases, play scripts of any sort were expunged from performance practice in an attempt to break free of a text-focused tradition in which the written word—rather than people and action— was of prime importance. In many companies members of the group worked as equals, and each member was encouraged to give his or her creative input to help solve production problems. In true avant-garde fashion, devisers believe that rules are hindrances rather than guideposts (Oddey 7).

The London based devised theatre company Improbable was born in 1996 to four friends with different areas of specialization. They resisted forming an actual theatre group because of the traps that they saw in putting themselves into a clearly defined container. Their work is always original, deeply personal, and derived from extensive improvisation. Each time these friends worked together represented a singular experience. Their continuing together was itself “improbable” as they continued to work with other groups and on other projects (as they still do). This lack of defined responsibilities tends to pull apart a fledgling group, not bring it together as is the case

6 with Improbable. The name, aside from the previously mentioned “impro” word play, also reflects the group’s non-realistic, whimsical, and at times preposterous approach to their work. The company members embrace the precarious. Instead of settling down and congealing their process, they continue to work outside the company and try new ideas by growing their associations and challenging their own and others’ preconceived notions of their work. In the field of mentoring they seek new ways to use their continued success and prominence in devised theatre to bolster and illuminate their evolving leadership practices. Like their performance work, the Devoted & Disgruntled conferences begin with a collective of people passionate about theatre and then let the participants run with it, and no one, not even Improbable, knows where each conference will end.

Despite significant success, research and publication on Improbable has been sparse. A rare exception is Devising: A Handbook for Drama and Theatre Students

(2000) by Gill Lamden which is a practical guide for students featuring a ten page section on Improbable that looks at principles and anecdotes from the company on how they approached the creation of their production 70 Hill Lane. While brief, the section on

Improbable gives a few clear glimpses of the company’s working philosophy. Lamden describes a typical quality of the company that distinguishes them from other devising companies:

Improbable’s approach to performance is unusual and frightening for

performers. They deliberately build uncertainties into shows by leaving

gaps which aren’t scripted or set and often stop actors from learning lines.

(Lamden 30)

While many devising companies use improvisation to craft their shows, the end product is often fixed. Improbable fight against this definitive end product paradigm, endeavoring for everything, including their performances, to be a continual process, generating real moments of surprise in the audience and themselves.

Any research into devised theatre inevitably starts with Allison Oddey’s 1994 study of the subject, Devising Theatre: A Practical and Theoretical Handbook, the first examination of the practice in British theatre. Oddey notes in the book’s preface, “When asked to recommend reading material to students on this particular subject, I was unaware of any publication that addressed a general theory and practice of contemporary British devised theatre” (Oddey 1). In her book, Oddey limits her conversation to the contemporary, moving away from the larger context of the avant-garde practices of the earlier half of the century. Oddey sees the birth of devising as a distinct movement in

British theatre as demarked by the explosion of democratically run collective theatre companies of the 1970s but limits most of her discussion to what was happening in

Britain as she was developing her book in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The book serves as a how-to guide without being prescriptive. Oddey breaks down various important ideas as she sees them, questions the context surrounding devising (e.g., politics and the environment), and then uses examples of productions by specific companies to show possible ways to engage these ideas. Oddey’s book is more than just a handbook for practitioners. Oddey acknowledges her book’s place as just the first of many more books and articles to come on the subject of devising:

This book is the beginnings of a dialogue to be shared with others. It is

neither definitive nor prescriptive, but sets up a conversation about

devising theatre. (Oddey xii)

Indeed, Oddey hoped for her book to begin a discussion within the theatre world on devising that would raise its status and visibility, particularly in academic/training circles.

While that discussion has been slow to kindle, it is certainly taking place.

Tim Etchell’s, founder of Foreced Entertainment follows Oddey’s publication with his own book in 1999, Certain Fragments: Text and Writings on Performance, that details the company’s works and methods. This is the first book created by a devising theatre company that not only catalogues the company and its works as a moment in time, but also paves the way for others to build upon their methods and successes. In another first, academic theatre journal Theatre Topics in 2004 devoted a special issue of the journal to theatre devising. This issue approached the topic from an institutional viewpoint, looking at projects and practices in university productions.

In their own book on the subject, Devising Performance: A Critical History

(2006), Deirdre Heddon and Jane Milling talk about Oddey’s desire to spark a discussion.

They note:

Ten years later, and after what turns out to be a surprisingly quick survey

of books or articles that specifically concern themselves with this enduring

and prevalent practice, it is apparent that very little has changed [since

Oddey's book]. (Heddon 1)

That little has changed is in part the result of the nature of Oddey’s text. In attempting to create a comprehensive theory, the discussion was prematurely couched in a theory that could not cover the variety and disparate approaches of practitioners of a movement that is still in the process of defining itself. Nonetheless, Heddon and Milling set out to continue Oddey’s work. Their book follows a similar exploration of topics that the writers feel are the purview of devising or, as they call it, collaborative creation.

Chapters include approaches to acting from a devising standpoint, politics, and community engagement and activism. They examine the roots of these practices and give context using both early pioneers and contemporary practitioners. Heddon and Milling’s study is more comprehensive, expanding the history beyond Britain to include the United

States and Australia. Although they briefly mention Improbable, they provide more of a chronology of their productions spending little time talking about the group’s process.

They do discuss their innovative use of props, such as the use of sellotape (a proprietary eponym for clear plastic tape in the UK, in the US the term “scotch tape” is generally used) in 70 Hill Lane to create architectural and character elements, and the use of newspaper to construct puppets on stage for Cinderella. The authors do consider

Improbable’s sometime collaborator Keith Johnstone and his use of improvisational theatre games when examining their groups influences. Heddon and Milling’s 2006 publication came the same year as the first Devoted & Disgruntled conference, and as a result is missing the current evolution of the company and their practices, an evolution that has fundamentally altered the company’s identity as a devising theatre company as they embraced their role as elders in the community.

More in-depth explorations that focus on company practices and processes are needed in the field of devising. The conversation that Oddey started over fifteen years ago is only just now beginning to flourish. Some important recent releases on devising that are filling in many of these gaps include Making a Performance: Devising Histories and Contemporary Practices (2007), co-authored by Emma Govan, Helen Nicholson, and Katie Normington Making a Performance is an excellent book giving a multi- continent (Europe, Australia, and North America) examination of the history, influences, and evolution of devised theatre. The authors give clear and concise examples of how various companies turn ideas and concepts into theatrical productions. The Frantic

Assembly Book of Devising (2009) by co-founders of Frantic Assembly Scott Graham and

Steven Hoggett give valuable insight into the company’s practices and methods, chronicling not just the company but offering many practical exercises and useful advice to aspiring theatre makers. The anthology, Devising in Process (2010), edited by Alex

Mermikides and Jackie Smart, is a fascinating look at eight contemporary British devising theatre companies. The authors of the collected essays were granted access to the creative process from rehearsal through performance. Many of these scholars are also practitioners of devising while also working at universities. They teach the methods to their students and carry significant authority when writing about their given topic company. The book’s essays taken together provide a broad review of production practices, each noting that many observations hold true only for a given production because, as is often the case, a given company’s approach to a project is specific to that project and those practitioners involved. The authors’ intimate contact with the

11 practitioners allows Devising in Process to provide deeper insight than other books on the subject. The essays illustrate why certain choices were made, giving readers a better understanding of process, as implied by the title. Finally, Devised and Collaborative

Theatre: A Practical Guide (2012) edited by Tina Bicat and Chris Baldwin is an exciting handbook on nearly every aspect of creating theatre without an existing play text. Their book demystifies the creation process, creating a simple, yet open-ended approach to both the creative and practical sides in devising a theatre performance.

1.3 Open Space Technology

Devoted & Disgruntled utilizes on the concepts of Open Space Technology developed by Harrison Owen in his seminal book on the subject: Open Space

Technology: A User's Guide (1997). The precepts are fairly simple. There needs to be a topic that people are interested in discussing (in our case theatre), and the topic should be posed as a question calling for action. Next there needs to be an invitation, one that is as inclusive as possible, but it is important that it is an invite – forced attendance is an anathema to Open Space work. A facilitator sets out the format of the conference or event, but not the content. The format gives out a list of four admonitions:

Whoever comes are the right people.

Whatever happens is the only thing that could have.

When it’s over, it’s over.

Wherever it happens is the right place. (Owen 33)

These serve to enable and empower the participants, removing constraints and restrictions. The other important component of Open Space Technology is its one rule,

“The law of two feet” (Owen 33). This law demands that if participants finds themselves in a session where they are not engaged, that they should use their feet to find another session that interests them. This ensures that each session has people who are passionate and active in the topic at hand. Owen also describes how some people behave at these events, and gives them names: bumblebees, those who cross-pollinate ideas from session to session, and butterflies, individuals who attract others to the sessions they attend

(Owen 41).

According to Owen, more than 100,000 Open Space events have occurred in over

134 countries (TEE interview para. 6) in the last twenty-five years. Despite this popularity and its use by high profile organizations such as NASA and Arts Council

England, academia has largely neglected research and documentation on Open Space conferences. Only a handful of academic articles and dissertations exist on applications using Open Space Technology. Most of these studies look at the use of Open Space principles applied to civic and sociological purposes. No study has looked at the use of

Open Space Technology in the theatre (or any other arts) community. This dissertation seeks to help fill in this gap.

Figure 1. "Open Space 2 Innovate"

A Goddard Flight Center wide forum in which employees were encouraged to think innovatively and collaborate across boundries to address their mission, business, and technical challenges. This circular arrigngment is used in most Open Space conferences.

17 March 2010. Photo NASA/GSFC/ Debbie McCallum - cc-by-2.0.

1.4 Participant-Observer

As Devising in Process demonstrates, being present during the work done by devising companies is vital to understanding and documenting the definition of a process- oriented endeavor. Thus, an important strategy in conducting this research has been my

14 involvment in the day-to-day operations of the company as a participant/observer. The methods used to conduct this research include informal interviews, direct observation, participation in the life of the company, collective discussions, self- analysis, and life histories. The first conference I attended was the first annual Devoted &

Disgruntled conference in New York City, hosted by Improbable in January of 2010, where I was a participant/observer from the conference attendee side. Later, I attended the fifth (2010), sixth (2011), seventh (2012), and eighth (2013) annual London conferences, where I was a participant/observer on the organizational side of the events.

The primary source for this dissertation is the written records created during the course of the Devoted & Disgruntled conferences (for a detailed description of a Devoted

& Disgruntled conference, I have written a narrative of the experience of attending my first London conference that can be found in Appendix B). Each session at Devoted &

Disgruntled is created and run by attendees to the event, no special status is needed to do this, anyone in attendance is empowered to call sessions on anything they feel passionate about. The people who create a session are referred to as the session conveners. Part of the instruction given to participants at the beginning of the conference asks that conveners take notes and write up a report of their session to give to those unable to attend the session access to what was discussed, planned, and decided. A bank of computers in the conference hall is set up and used specifically to create such reports, thus facilitating this process. Because no specific rules are imposed on these reports

(much like the rest of the Devoted & Disgruntled conference), their style and format vary considerably (as do their quality). Not all sessions are reported, either, some do not lend

15 themselves to computer formatted documentation, including sculptures and performances created at some sessions. Around 10-15% or sessions go unreported, and some, like the paper note sculpture depicted below, do not readily convert to an electronic document meant to be printed up as a book. Many sessions that are performances, drawings, paintings, and sculptures leave no trace in the final report of the conference.

Figure 2. "How do we get paid jobs as set-designers, costumes and props makers?"

An ephemeral session report, not officially reported. Photo © Alex Eisenberg 2008 via

Flickr, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported.

After reviewing the more than 800 reports that covered Devoted & Disgruntled’s first six years, I created a series of seventeen categories based on my initial reading of the broad, common topics that were the focus of these sessions: Academic, Audience,

Business, Complaints, Education, Gender, Industry, Initiatives, Metaphysical, Money,

Non-theatre, Performing, Quotable, Race, Selfish, Social, and Solutions. I then reexamined and categorized each report based on content and style, with most session reports occupying multiple categories. I created spreadsheets to contain these data, which

I then used to tabulate trends from which I selected topics to explore and discuss in the main chapters of this dissertation. Each chapter consists of three related topics broken down into subsections, which are in turn broken down into specific session reports to provide a glimpse into how different groups perceived the issues at different times. The tables of data are catalogued in Appendix C.

Additionally, I occasionally use personal knowledge gained from attending some of the sessions discussed to add insight into the workings of these groups. Along with these experiences, I use my involvement in helping to organize and run several of the

Devoted & Disgruntled annual conferences. This gave me access, understanding, and familiarity with the people involved in making Devoted & Disgruntled such a success.

This background allows me to bridge the written session reports with an understanding of the events themselves and how these text-based reports reflect the life and vibrancy that created them.

1.5 Chapter Breakdown

Chapter 2: Improbable and Devoted & Disgruntled: A Brief History

This chapter introduces and situates the award-winning, London–based theatre company Improbable and its artistic founders, Lee Simpson, Phelim McDermott, Julian

Crouch, and Nick Sweeting. It provides a foundation for the study’s central concern:

Improbable’s use of the devising process as a means in creating the Devoted &

Disgruntled conferences that are an extension of the group’s artistic methodology, and applying these practices to problem solving beyond the rehearsal hall with an eye to community engagement. This section considers Improbable’s role as artistic mentor in the community by introducing the principles and methods used in the company’s Devoted

& Disgruntled conferences.

Chapter 3: Politics of the World; Politics of the Body

This chapter covers issues of politics in the theatre within the institutions that create theatre and examines sessions that seek to create theatre about the politics of government and everyday life. The first section considers the politics of global and local interests, particularly war and social issues, and how theatre might engage these topics.

The next section explores women’s issues from the increasingly popular misconceptions and rejection of feminism by young women in the theatre to the persistent inequity in the theatre profession for women compared with their male counterparts. The final section reviews the politics of living a theatrical life, and analyzes sessions that report on the problems of and solutions to balancing work with family life.

Chapter 4: Help!

This chapter documents sessions called by individuals for personal reasons and that seek individual responses tailored specifically to their (the session’s convener’s)

18 situation or need. It examines the rise in popularity of these types of sessions during the conference’s evolution over the years. Sessions calling for advice on specific recurring subjects, as a place to rant, and that encourage rebellion against the conference itself are discussed and examined to help shed light on just how far Devoted & Disgruntled goes to allow participants to shape and guide the conference to their specific desires and creativity.

Chapter 5: Making Theatre

Chapter Five reviews the issues specific to making theatre that are a staple at the annual Devoted & Disgruntled conferences. The annual conference is a great forum for disseminating best practices, learning new methodologies, raising concerns, and engaging in the creation of new projects. Considering that the Arts Council of England (ACE) supports a large portion of the theatre in Britain, this session topic is perhaps one of the more volatile, particularly as a worldwide recession forced austerity cuts in the sector, affecting the livelihood of thousands of theatre practitioners. Access and reach are explored in the section on touring, a vital part of the theatre business in the U.K. Finally,

I explore some of the hot topics concerning devised theatre, particularly its continuing fight to define itself and its place in contemporary theatre practice.

Chapter 6: Conclusion – The Future of Devoted & Disgruntled

This final chapter summarizes Improbable’s significance in the evolution of the devising movement and its unique contribution to the arts beyond the realm of theatrical production. Improbable represents a new and exciting trend in contemporary British theatre that is having an effect beyond its own borders. The growing demand for staging

Devoted & Disgruntled gatherings speaks to an increasingly fragmented and cynical community that has become ever more guarded about the tools and secrets to success given the fierce competition for dwindling funding. This chapter also looks at how

Devoted & Disgruntled changed beyond the years of this study, and evaluates the future of Devoted & Disgruntled and its continued expansions.

Appendix A: Improbable Production History

A table listing the chronology and collaborations of Improbable from 1996-2013.

Appendix B: Devoted & Disgruntled – A Primer

Appendix B is a longer, more detailed look at how a typical annual Devoted &

Disgruntled three-day conference happens. This narrative, based on my experience, attempts to provide a better perspective of the conference to those unfamiliar with Open

Space Technology and will give an account from a participant’s point of view.

Appendix C: Session Stats

Appendix C contains the spreadsheet categorization of each reported session from the first six annual Devoted & Disgruntled conferences.

Appendix D: Photographs from Devoted & Disgruntled

Appendix D contains images taken to document the Devoted & Disgruntled events. This includes photos taken by Improbable personnel, other participants, and myself.

Appendix E: The Cited Sessions

This appendix includes the session reports that are cited in this document in their entirety. Early on, the notion that the work done by Devoted & Disgruntled might be of

20 value to those outside the conference, while a hope, was not a prime focus. The reports from the early Devoted & Disgruntled conferences are difficult to obtain and are not available online. More recent conference reports have been posted online, but the methods and sites used for hosting have changed over the years, with several of these repositories essentially abandoned and unmaintained, making locating these materials difficult to locate and questionable in their longevity. Thus, this final appendix provides all session reports as they were written and submitted.

Much of what makes Improbable unique is its engagement with the theatre community and their eldership practice. Just looking at the time and energy that the company puts into their eldership (mentoring, advocacy, collaborations, and the Devoted

& Disgruntled conferences) shows that the company members see this outreach as being equally important as the plays they create. This dissertation seeks to illuminate

Improbable’s work as cultural leaders and the methods and mechanisms they use to accomplish their goals.

Notes

1 Theatresports games have become a ubiquitous part of the improvisation scene both in education and professional entertainment. The games are taught in drama classes to teach improvisation skills and are also used by professional comedians. Scenarios for the performers to improvise are yelled out by the audience along with character names, locations and other relevant information. This collage of input and the preposterous scenes that ensue have become almost synonymous with improvisation. The popular comedy television show Whose Line Is It Anyway? borrows heavily from Johnstone’s

Theatresports. The format for Lifegames moved away from the spectacle of situational comedy and looked at the creation of real, human stories while still relying on audience input. This created an improvisational format that was centered on more serious and sensitive plots and echewed playing for mere gags.

2 TIE is the British acronym for Theatre in Education, companies that use theatre practice in the schools for educational purposes beyond theatre per se.

3 After thirty-eight years, Welfare State closed down in 2006. The company’s book

Engineers of the Imagination (1983) is still in print and a useful guide to creating large scale puppets and giving valuable information about how Welfare State approached their performance projects.

4 Founding artistic director Tim Etchells has penned several books detailing the company’s approach to work (Certain Fragments: Text and Writings on Performance,

1999) as well as musings on art and culture (The Dream Dictionary for the Modern

Dreamer 2004) and several works of fiction, while still contributing to performances and exhibitions.

5 Theatre de la Jeune Lune closed its doors after twenty-eight years in 2008. In 2005 the company was honored with the Regional Theatre Tony Award. I worked with the company from 1996-1999.

Chapter 2: Histories

2.1 An Improbable Tale

Keith Johnstone has been an amazing source of inspiration for

Improbable. I think perhaps the improvised show, which has had

the most influence on our work has been Lifegame. I first did

Lifegame when Keith Johnstone was beginning to play with the

idea in 1987. I did a ten day workshop with Keith and it was the

beginnings of my interest in impro. On this workshop we

persuaded Keith to show us what Lifegame was. He said that he

still didn't know how to do it. It was an unfinished form. I was

knocked out by it, this was impro that was moving and where real

scenes were played not just gags.

Phelim McDermott

“Dreaming Out Loud,” an interview by Caridad Svich (para. 18)

Improbable theatre was not so much formed as it coalesced. Consisting of four friends, Improbable was founded in 1996 as an established theatre company by artistic directors Lee Simpson, Phelim McDermott, and Julian Crouch, along with producer Nick

Sweeting. Before this time, each of these artists worked in a more freelance fashion.

Their partnership was borne out of friendship, admiration, and luck. Simpson and

McDermott worked together before joining up with Julian Crouch on a production of

Doctor Faustus at the Nottingham Playhouse. Simpson and McDermott had just worked together, creating an adaptation of The Ghost Downstairs (2005) for New Perspectives

Theatre Company, where they had created a small puppet to portray the ghostly seven- year-old boy. At about this same time, McDermott attended a production for which Julian

Crouch had designed giant-sized puppets for The Little Prince (2005). When the opportunity came for McDermott to direct Doctor Faustus (2005) for Nottingham

Playhouse he immediately sought out Crouch and, thus, the three creative artistic directors for Improbable came together.

The three worked together on various projects, at other established theatres, but never as their own dedicated theatre company. They felt a resistance to make anything permanent, as though the act of solidifying the relationship would destroy what made it special. However, as the trio continued to work together more and more, it became necessary for them to be able to have more artistic control over the work they were doing.

In an interview with Caridad Svich in Columbus, Ohio following the company’s production of Spirit (2010), McDermott talked about the founding of the company:

Improbable Theatre started in 1997 with 70 HILL LANE [its actual

production date was October 18, 1996 as was the company’s founding] but

Julian and I have been working together for a long time. We had actually

resisted forming a company for years because we didn’t want to scratch

money together and do all that. So, ours was a backward route. We were

working in the repertory companies doing big shows and when we formed

Improbable we went back to doing small shows, partly because we wanted

to do work that was more personal again while we kept the bigger-scale

projects going. (McDermott, “Dreaming” para. 12)

They went the opposite direction that many theatre practitioners take, instead of becoming permanently attached to a theatre company, they stayed as independent collaborators in the theatre community. By forming Improbable the members did not give up their habit of collaborating extensively with other theatres, however, as their own company they could now more easily be the driving force of what was created, rather than take backseat roles as individuals just hired to work on a project. This double theatrical life – small scale works as Improbable, large scale collaborations at major theatre venues – gave them the advantage of both worlds. Forming a company also allowed them to more easily apply for Arts Council funding, which was a difficult feat for a loose collection of artists at the time. Even so, obtaining funding could be a challenge; most Improbable shows were financed per production, with many of them funded through collaborations with other companies, such as The National (Theatre of

Blood, 2005), Lyric Hammersmith (Cinderella, 1998), and the English National Opera

(The Perfect American, 2013).

Unlike many theatre companies, the group continued to do work outside of their company. When starting a new company, significant amounts of time and resources are usually expended working exclusively on the fledgling company. Improbable’s artistic directors, however, continued to work much like they had before their partnership, a move that seemed to have given the group a greater degree of freedom and much greater

26 contact with additional theatre practitioners. Sometimes, when working inside a theatre company, you can find you are closed off from the larger theatre community, particularly when every show that you work on is with the same people and company. This loose arrangement means that the pace of production for Improbable-specific shows is slower than the average year-round theatre company that produces four to six shows annually.

Improbable, to date, has created seventeen shows—roughly one per year. A list of most past productions is on the company’s website (www.improbable.co.uk) along with detailed production information (See Appendix A for a chronological breakdown of

Improbable’s shows).

It should be noted that several of their shows are predicated upon improvisations that create entirely new plays with each performance—and in a more detailed and complex fashion than a formulaic comedy sports improv night. The company’s The Still

(2011-2012) is an ongoing, multi-year project in which “Improbable will be collaborating with a series of unique and diverse practitioners. Each will be an expert in their chosen field, often from outside of theatre. They will range from scientists to therapists, from astrologers to economists” (Improbable, The Still para. 2). Therefore, shows such as The

Still and Life Game (2004) are really multiple shows being performed under the same moniker. Still, their production output is well below the average Arts Council of

England’s “Regularly Funded Organization” program.1

Outside of the Improbable-specific brand, the various artistic directors and company members work on many more productions. In a conversation with Improbable co-Artistic director Lee Simpson, he described to me the structure of Improbable as a

27 cloud. He was referring here to the identity of Improbable and those who work for and with them. A cloud has no clearly defined edges, and what amounts to an edge is thin, fluid, and amorphous. Meaning that Improbable’s loose company structure allows the company to blend in and work with other companies in a way that is not really

Improbable work, but that brings along that identity still to some degree. And vice versa, other companies and collaborators bring in and mix some of their identities with

Improbable’s shows. By encouraging themselves and those they work with regularly to seek outside projects they have managed to keep their work and the process fresh through this cross pollination with other practitioners.

Two years after forming Improbable, and with two devised productions behind them, McDermott and Crouch were invited by Cultural Industries to head up the devising of a new adaptation of Heinrich Hoffmann’s 1845 dark children’s story, Der

Struwwelpeter. Under the pair’s design and direction, the German cautionary tales were spun into a haunting musical production called Shockheaded Peter (1998), which garnered critical claim both in London and abroad. The production earned the Best

Director and Best Designer Awards, and even a Laurence Olivier Award for Best

Entertainment. This collaboration brought Improbable a great deal of artistic cache, despite the fact that Shockheaded Peter was not explicitly an Improbable show. The company began international collaborations and commissions for their unique brand of devised work. The company was commissioned to develop a series of productions in the

United States by the Wexner Center for the Arts in Columbus, Ohio. Such continuing recognition for the creativity, beauty, and poignancy of their work has propelled

Improbable to become a major player in British devised theatre, as well as in the greater theatrical community.

So, what sets Improbable’s work apart from that of other devised companies? Lyn

Gardner, a theatre critic for The Guardian, writes, “It is this willingness to leap into the unknown and create by the seat of their pants that has always characterised the work of

Improbable....Improbable shows are not just different from each other, they are different every single night....Improbable though it may seem, anything can happen and it probably will” (Gardner, “Lifegame” para. 2, 4, 10). Despite the improvisatory nature of much of their work, the shows come across with a polish and complexity not seen in much improvised work, which tends to play primarily for gags. McDermott provides insight into the company’s thinking process, including how they approach their work, in a 2001 interview:

People say that SHOCKHEADED PETER or other work that we do is

really new but I don’t think it is. It’s quite simple, and old-fashioned. It’s

just storytelling: talking to people and telling stories. I think what is

different perhaps is that we are prepared to use anything to tell the story.

(McDermott, “Dreaming” para. 17)

The company consistently places a tight focus on the story as told and shared by the audience and the performers. Many new devising companies have turned to utilizing technology as a defining part of their storytelling, which is apt because in an increasingly digital age, one should use the tools available to accomplish one’s ends. The members of

Improbable spend a great deal of time working with the physical, using every day,

29 normally mundane objects and transforming them into the magical parts of the story.

While the company is adept at using new technologies in their work, what audiences really respond to are how Improbable finds very low-tech ways of achieving their stories.

McDermott continues, giving an example of the company’s use of simple materials to tell a story:

I like interacting with materials and seeing what they can do and how they

can speak. 70 HILL LANE was an exploration of that. In fact, one of the

decisions we made early on was that we were going to make the house

from newspaper stuck onto Scotch tape, so we’d build it like a Wendy

house [a small play house for children]. Then we realised that just the tape

in the space was magical, and strange, because it was there and it wasn't

there, and it left a lot of space for people to read into it, so they could see

their own house. (McDermott, “Dreaming” para. 17)

Figure 3. 70 Hill Lane

Sellotape being bundled to create the poltergeist. Photo © Sheila Burnett, 1997.

The use of tape and newspaper became recurring themes in several other productions, most recently in their collaboration with the English National Opera’s production of

Philip Glass’s Satyagraha (2010), creating gigantic puppets on stage using Sellotape and newspaper—specifically, the newspaper came from Indian Opinion, the paper that

Gandhi was the editor of during his tumultuous times in South Africa. In their 2009 production, Panic, about the great god Pan, the company created their set out of crumpled brown craft paper, onto which various locations were projected to great effect.

Figure 4. Newspaper puppet from Satyagraha

A collaboration between Improbable and the English National Opera. Photo by Catherine

Figure 5. A scene from Panic

McDermott goes on to explain how they use objects, and specifically sets, as vital tools in communicating and engaging with their audience.

We talk about our sets and how we like to have a gap in them: a gap

between what you’re saying it is, and what you’re seeing. So, you say it’s

a tree but it is obviously a cardboard tree, so the audience plays the game

with you and says, “We’ll believe it’s a tree.” This is an opportunity for

the audience to dream. It is in the gap that the audiences [sic] dreaming

process becomes part of a show. We also talk about our sets as being like

puppets. The story of the set in the show is as important as the story of the

actors performing on it. (McDermott, “Dreaming” para. 17)

Their use of the sets and props as a dynamic part of their storytelling, equal in importance to the performance as the performers, is an important difference between Improbable and many devising groups who place the primacy on the personal—the human—and the actor, exclusively. Members of Improbable find inanimate relics and artifacts to tell a story and a life that can be incorporated into their richly layered productions in unexpected and delightful ways.

Simpson is a much sought-after collaborator, as he directs, writes, and creates shows. He also works in television and is a member of the world’s longest-running comedy improv group, The Comedy Store Players (Guinness para. 1). Simpson performs frequently; aside from his regular work as a cast member of The Comedy Store Players and related television comedy improv (he has appeared numerous times on the BBC4 television hit, Whose Line Is It Anyway?), Simpson also acts in television and film.

Again, this ability to have regular work outside of the confines of Improbable serves to increase the company vitality, rather than diminish or minimize the importance of their work in it. Having a varied career outside of Improbable allows those involved with the company to develop their own voices, keeping dialogue and debate fresh in the company.

In his whimsical biography on the Improbable website, Simpson provides a humorous description of his career path:

Unable to get a proper showbiz job, he became an improviser. The money

was bad but there was precious little hard work involved, and the people

seemed nice. Since then, apart from his work with Improbable, he’s

become a member of the Comedy Store Players; he’s written plays;

appeared in some sit-coms; acted in some proper telly drama and some

films; performed a very poor poodle act at the London Palladium and

spent six months as a Breakfast Show DJ. (Simpson,“Biographies” para.

22)

Simpson describes his approach to life not unlike the way in which a deviser approaches improvisation: deny nothing. This motto means that you must take whatever is thrown at you and use it, find a way to make it work for you, and then pass it along.

Simpson concludes his biography with what stands out as a guiding principle behind much of Improbable’s approach to theatre making: “It is this obvious lack of direction that he feels is the real essence of his work” (Simpson, “Biographies” para. 22).

Their process is open and unforced. McDermott echoes this sentiment, “In making a piece there is the sense of following something and not quite knowing what it is until it presents itself” (McDermott, “Deaming” para. 30). Improbable’s shows attempt to break from past practices, trying to reinvent themselves with each show, a struggle that becomes more pronounced as the company continues to gain accolades. McDermott describes the how limiting success can become, an all too common experience for new,

35 and successful theatre groups: “One of the things I get frustrated a bit with is that you can get categorised. People just assume “that's what you do now” (McDermott, “Dreaming” para. 33). Keeping “on their toes” and looking for new stories and inventive ways to tell them remains a mainstay of the company. Each show stands on its own as a one-of-a-kind creation.

2.2 Devoted, but Disgruntled

When I sent the first invitation out to ‘Devoted and Disgruntled:

what are we going to do about theatre’ in 2005 I had no idea if

anyone would come. It was an invitation written from my love for

theatre and performance, and at all the D&Ds I’ve seen people

who have an incredible amount of energy and commitment to make

things better. Now, 8 years on there have been over 100 D&D

events…

– Phelim McDermott

Devoted & Disgruntled 8 Invitation (“Devoted 8” para. 3)

After achieving a certain amount of national and international success with

Improbable and other work, McDermott experienced a mid-theatrical career crisis: “I felt the so-called theatre community wasn’t a community but a series of situations where we were in competition with each other” (qtd. in “A Sea of Troubles”). McDermott wanted to find ways for artists to work together to create a stronger and more vibrant theatre community. In 2003, McDermott was awarded a Nesta fellowship. Nesta is an independent charity organization that funds civic and cultural projects in England and

Wales with the mission “to help people and organisations bring great ideas to life”

(Nesta, para. 1). Following his interest in psychology, McDermott used his Nesta fellowship to support his research and training in finding “new ways of rehearsing and creating theatre using Improvisation and Process Oriented Conflict Facilitation

Techniques”2 (McDermott, Biographies para. 18). It was during this exploration of new rehearsal techniques, “that he had begun to recognise his role as a cultural leader with a distinctive perspective and position in the cultural landscape” (Sweeting 2).

McDermott’s journey led him to try various methods and models of leadership training and mentoring. His work in this vein soon became the work of the entire company:

We see this eldership role as not only an individual one but also a role that

Improbable itself has as an international company, with a particular status

and positioning within the artistic world and as a company that uses

particular techniques such as improvisation and ensemble in development

of creativity for theatre artists. (Sweeting 2)

The company spent three years working with various models and techniques in leadership facilitation, notably Process Work and World Work, both developed by Arnold Mindell, a noted author and psychotherapist. The company first became interested in Mindell’s work with coma patients, work that Mindell and his supporters claim has allowed many in comatose states to communicate with the outside world. Improbable created a show,

Coma (1999) to explore Mindell’s assertions that people in comas are experiencing heightened levels of consciousness through immersive dream states. Mindell’s work is

37 couched in science and psychology, but is more in tune with metaphysical self-help thinking and New Age medicine.

Mindell received his Master of Science from MIT in 1964 studying Applied

Physics and Mechanical Engineering, following this with a Diploma in Analytical

Psychology from the Jung Institute, Zurich, in 1970 (Mindell, “About” para. 8). This training led Mindell to the Union Institute in Cincinnati, Ohio where he earned his PhD in psychology in 1972. Applying his scientific view of the world with his Jungian theories,

Mindell sought to unite the two seeming mutually exclusive fields, seeking a grand unification theory between the physical world and consciousness, a practice he calls

Process Work. Mindell has since written twenty books on various aspects of Process

Work, runs an institute dedicated to teaching these theories, and lectures around the world. In discussing his book Dreaming While Awake: Techniques for 24-Hour Lucid

Dreaming on his website, Mindell summarizes his practice:

Process work is an evolving, trans-disciplinary approach supporting

individuals, relationships and organizations to discover themselves [sic].

PW uses awareness to track “real” and “imaginary” psychological and

physical processes that illuminate and possibly resolve inner, relationship,

team, and world issues. Process Work theories and methods are available

for anyone to experience, and can be tested. (Mindell, “What is PW” para.

Despite his pronouncement that his theory “can be tested,” implying that the work reflects real-world, scientific laws and theories, his melding of Taoism, shamanism, and

38 other religious thinking in Process Work keeps his work form being taken seriously by mainstream scientific establishments. Process Work does, however, have meaning to the many supporters, teachers, and participants. Process Work was initially used as a form of individual psychotherapy/self-help. Later, Mindell applied this individual practice to groups, anything from families to corporate organizations, and created what he called

World Work and its interpersonal, group-dynamic functionality, Deep Democracy

(democracy that takes place on the level of consciousness in and among people) (Mindell,

Deep Democracy 4).

Following study and training in Process Work and World Work while on his

Nesta Fellowship, McDermott began Improbable’s first forays into facilitating group work with a series of workshops called Cooking Chaos. Lucy Foster, an associate director with Improbable explains in detail the goals of a Cooking Chaos session:

Cooking Chaos is looking at our internal conflicts and conflicts with other

people, it processes relationships; why we get drawn back to certain ideas

and obsessions and our own personalities and histories within any of the

work that we do as artists and makers. (Foster, “McCaw Interviews” para.

Cooking Chaos sought to facilitate the teaching and development of creative thinking and creation. The goal was to help artists find ways of bringing their personal stories to life in order to find a more meaningful working process for creating. While the Cooking Chaos sessions were popular, they were not popular with everyone. The sessions worked best with smaller more intimate groups, and the focus was mostly on performers (Foster,

“McCaw Interviews” para. 7)3. On top of these limitations, the New Age methodologies borrowed from Mindell were not to everyone’s liking, either: Cooking Chaos didn’t appeal to some people… I think to some people it didn’t seem to have a tangible outcome that it would produce (Foster, “McCaw Interviews” para. 4).

During this same time, McDermott continued exploring other alternative leadership paradigms and in 2005, McDermott read Harrison Owen’s book Open Space

Technology: A User’s Guide, which inspired him to create the first Devoted &

Disgruntled conference in London in 2006. There are several significant differences between the company’s earlier forays with World Work and Cooking Chaos, the most prominent being that Devoted & Disgruntled has a direct framing question, “What are we going to do about theatre and the performing arts?” Cooking Chaos on the other hand was more personal and was open ended in its methods, specifically seeking out and confronting (processing) conflict. The Devoted & Disgruntled conferences allow the agenda to be created by those in attendance and that agenda is then worked on as a group, usually seeking to disrupt or overcome conflict, not question it. While the two events would co-exist for several years by 2008 Devoted & Disgruntled had superseded Cooking

Chaos. Foster explains the reasoning:

I think that Open Space is more immediately accessible than World Work.

It seems like a working tool for people [who] want to see the point of

something quite quickly. Cooking Chaos appeals to people who are

interested in process and in working on themselves and on relationships

with other people. (Foster, “McCaw Interviews” para. 4)

By employing Open Space principles, Improbable found that they could reach a larger number of people and engage them in a more outside to inside approach (identify an issue and then look into possible solutions). Cooking Chaos by contrast looked inside, at individual motivation and interpersonal conflicts and then sought ways to express them outside through creative output.

This is not to say that Process Work is neglected in Devoted & Disgruntled.

Foster notes that people bring Process Working methods they have learned at Cooking

Chaos and elsewhere with them to Devoted & Disgruntled sessions on their own, and that the two methods are not mutually exclusive. She also notes that Open Space conferences, particularly the longer three day events can actually transition into Process Work to a certain degree on their own, too:

I find that Open Space is much more immediately accessible. In me there

is a person who is interested in processing stuff, and another person who

wants to see a tangible result, an outcome. All of us have this kind of

dialogue within us. I find that for me personally, sometimes it is easier to

start at a level that is quite tangible and to do with everyday stuff, and is,

to borrow a term from process work, 'consensus reality'. Then what

happens over the weekend is that you quite gently work your way down to

a deeper place where the conversations are less about, for example, what

different venues are doing, and more about why we do this and what

motivates us, and what would it be like it that was not there any more

[sic]. We can dream of possibilities. Over a weekend it can become quite

gradual working down to that level. (Foster, “McCaw Interviews” para. 9)

In contrast to Open Space events, a typical theatre conference is very structured: keynote speakers, guest artists, plenary sessions, directed workshops, and moderators.

Open Space takes away the star or celebrity focus that traditional conferences often have, and places the focus on the participants themselves. Co-artistic director Lee Simpson explains the importance of their non-hierarchical approach:

“Open Space therefore says something quite radical which is that we are

our own leaders….We do it to ourselves which is way more powerful than

other people doing it to us. When we do it to ourselves it is really

effective. Changes will occur when people start to listen to themselves.”

(qtd. in Sweeting 5).

Improbable puts the power for change and constructive dialogue in the hands of the participants. Devoted & Disgruntled encourages participants to assume responsibility for taking action on issues that are important to them—and to the larger theatre community.

That these conferences actually work, that large groups of individuals arriving to an empty space with no agenda are able to organize and generate meaningful, passionate discussions on topics of pressing concern, and find actionable solutions to problems and proposals, seemed unlikely to me when I first had heard about Devoted & Disgruntled.

Being naturally a skeptical individual, hearing about the premise for Open Space sounded like a recipe for disaster, that even if it worked once, it would be a gamble that it would not collapse into bickering and whinging the next time. Having experienced these

42 conferences and witnessed how these events work, not by chance, but by thoughtful

(though unintuitive) design, and how these conferences not only accomplish the goals of providing a forum for discussion and action, but also how these Devoted & Disgruntled conferences revitalize the participants excitement and passion for theatre and the performing arts I felt that an exploration of these conferences and their workings merited further study. Much of what follows deals with the source material generated by these conferences, the session reports; however, there is more to Devoted & Disgruntled than the session reports. The process of the conference, as mentioned above, is empowering to the participants. In Appendix B I try to give a more thorough description and analysis of how one three day conference progresses. I would also direct you to the links in

Appendix D for the time-lapse videos that were made of Devoted & Disgruntled 7 and 8 that give a birds-eye view of York Hall and what the ebb and flow of the conferences is physically manifested not only in the space, but by the people as well.

Notes

1 An RFO is an Arts Council England designation for a fully funded, year-round organization that does not have to reapply for funding every year that is part of the Arts

Council’s main portfolio. Such RFOs are among the more distinguished theatre companies in England, and Improbable shares this distinction with other prestigious groups from The Royal National Theatre to the English National Opera.

2 Process Oriented Conflict Facilitation is an expansion of ideas developed by Arnold

Mindell called Process Oriented Psychology (in the US, it is more commonly referred to as Process Work. The goal is to use psychotherapeutic techniques to facilitate new ways of communicating, problem solving, and conflict resolution (both individually and for groups). The work is very controversial in the psychology field as many feel that his work is without evidentiary medical studies. Also, while still active promoting Process

Work, Mindell is unlicensed to practice.

3 While this is true, Foster does point out that, “We have never said that it can only be for artists, for people who work in the arts” (Foster, “McCaw Interviews” 12), citing examples of non-artists who attended, these were still most assuredly exceptions as

Cooking Chaos (and Devoted & Disgruntled) are both mostly publicized to the arts community.

Chapter 3: Politics of the World – Politics of the Body

3.1 Global Conflict – Local Response

If theatre is in service to society, to culture, or to the future, why

then are we not taking more responsibility for that, when we

plainly operate in a golden age of technological privilege, which

makes it easy to do so?

— Robert Pacitti

“Where is the archive for socially engaged practice?”

Devoted & Disgruntled 1, Issue 44

Listening to the discussions and reading the issue reports coming out of the annual Devoted & Disgruntled conferences, the subject of politics and theatre are frequently hot topics of conversation (and, in a few cases, the source of heated arguments).1 A number of sessions called deal directly with the matter of politics and theatre, such as sessions called to draft letters to petition the government over theatrical licensing. Many more sessions deal with politics as an indirect consequence of the problem or issue to be discussed; for example, issues about funding may examine the politics of Arts Council England as well as less political topics such as exploring alternative revenue streams. Of the sessions that question politics’ role in theatre, a

45 common refrain is heard, though it is not until Devoted &Disgruntled 5 that a session –

“Is theatre political?” – is convened to tackle this issue head on (Issue 046). The question is ultimately rhetorical, as the majority of respondents to this session believe that theatre can, indeed, be political (with a sizable majority proclaiming that every piece of theatre is a political act), and the purpose of the question is whether theatre continues to be efficacious in engaging their audiences or their large cultures and communities in meaningful ways. There is also, at times, a sense of nostalgia, with many sessions bemoaning the demise of the overtly political theatre of the 1970s, trying to figure out where that spirit of protest and revolution went, and – more importantly – exploring how we return the fire of political activism and cultural change back to our stages.

The “Is theatre political?” group went about its discussion using the large flipchart pad that is at the center of every D&D session location (along with an assortment of markers, pens, pencils) to write down a word cloud that is created by writing down keywords and phrases as they happen in the discussion (See Figure 1). The words that were recorded were arranged by their relevance to other words, so that their proximity showed their relationships to one another. So, for example, ‘protest’ might have ‘rally’ and ‘march’ written on one side of it and, on the other side, ‘boycott’ and ‘online petition.’ This word cloud consisted of all the ideas the group generated. Part brainstorming, part note taking, the image created by the group fairly represents the chaotic complexity of the subject and the often contradicting beliefs – often held simultaneously – of the group working dynamic at a Devoted & Disgruntled session.

Figure 6. “Is Theatre Political?”

(D&D 5, Issue 046)

What emerged from the discussion is that defining political theatre is problematic in an age where every action (and inaction) is construed as political. Therefore, the group tried to define theatre that is purposefully political. This raised more questions, and the discussion tightened further to what is even meant when using the term “political,” as evidenced in one participant’s question: “When we talk about politics, are we really discussing ideology – the idea that the world should be a certain way and that people should behave in particular ways to achieve that[?]” (D&D 5, Issue 046).

In trying to answer this question, the group looked to political theatre of the

1970s, described as “banner-waving protest art,” which was seen as putting off modern audiences and marketers. There was consensus that the political theatre of the 1970s was about and in response to the politics of government; specifically, about protests and direct, highly visible action. The convener noted that the concept of political theatre in

London today is unfashionable – that such attempts at overt politics in theatre are, by and large, not welcomed by audiences and production houses. However, there were exceptions that the group discussed in which several recent shows that had been overtly political in tone, specifically ENRON and The Hurricane Katrina Comedy Festival, were well received and successful; this gave the group hope that it would be a continuing trend.2

True of this session, and many others, is the notion that the artists did not want to be seen as preaching to their audience, fearing the work would become didactic. On the other hand, many attendees felt a desire for theatre to wield visible political might and, ultimately, to effect political, social, and cultural change. While not explicitly a reconciliation of these two competing ideas, the group did come to a consensus regarding how they believed politics and theatre should work in service of one another, summed up as “the idea of storytelling as a vehicle for politics rather than the other way round”

(D&D 5, Issue 046). Many people from this session noted that working on politically engaged theatre had impacted their own lives and ways of thinking. Political theatre can affect those making it as much as those viewing it. It seems the group touched on a philosophy and political strategy attributed to Mahatma Gandhi, who is purported to have

48 said, “We must be the change we want to see in the world,” and it is this same sentiment that many in the group came up with as their recommendation for how to move forward.

We are political beings, the session concluded, and politics “exists both inherently and explicitly in our theatre.”

This section will explore these topics and how they manifest themselves in the

London theatre community by looking at how various voices view politics’ place in theatre, what can be done to expedite its return, and what is the audience’s role. Then I will consider several sessions from past Devoted & Disgruntled conferences that focused on the particular political issues that resonate around the topics of war and revolutions and how theatre can participate.

While a majority believe that theatre is or can be political in the sessions that ask this question, with a group of 300–400 in attendance at a typical Devoted & Disgruntled conference, there are a wide variety of viewpoints and opinions. While the majority of views trend towards the liberal side of the spectrum, conservative voices are also a part of the London theatre community. Not only do people’s individual political views vary, but the question of politics’ place in the theatre is questioned by a small minority. In a session at D&D 2, this exact question arose in a session entitled, “Does politics have a place in theatre? Agitprop? Any? Or are we all scared/bored of it?” (D&D 2, Issue 71).

This session, widely attended by over thirty participants (and many more butterflies and bumblebees)3 was a very passionate, at times heated, discussion. The session’s convener took notes in the fashion of a dialogue, trying to write down – verbatim – the salient

49 points made and doing his best to credit the speaker (difficult in a large group with no one wearing a name tag).

The session was already heated, with complaints about the lack of political spine in a world perceived by participants as growing increasingly unjust. One person bemoaned, “Politics! Apathy! Community! Britain as a wasteland!” A sound summary of the sentiment (as seems a likely reference) came from the T.S Elliot poem The Waste

Land and its memorable line, “I will show you fear in a handful of dust.” A reference to despair in a crumbling society, in this context it was an exclamation of the disappointment, disillusionment, and the seemingly forever lost political will of the

British theatre.

The session notes captured only the most passionate statements from this obviously raucous discussion. When a voice of dissent was raised, the entirety of the discussion turned on this contention: “Theatre is the wrong place for politics,” one brave soul quipped (D&D 2, Issue 71). The group moved away from its prior complaining about a theatre devoid of its rightful political voice to an assault on this position. “I take exception to that; you’re completely wrong” was the immediate reply to the aforementioned statement from a woman at the session. Following this, an avalanche of plays, playwrights, and practitioners were rapidly cited whose politics play an important role in their theatre. From the recent (at the session’s time) production of Don Carlos and the political graffito of Banksy to the murdered political activist, writer, and playwright

Ken Saro Wiwa of Nicaragua to the forum and newspaper theatre of Augusto Boal, along with a few rough quotes from Chomsky to round things out, the discussion grew more

50 and more heated; the last line of the discussion written by the convener said, “Passion, argument, consensus, more argument, anger” (D&D 2, Issue 71). While this group did not come to a conclusion concerning whether politics has a place in the theatre, it was clear from the passion of the session members for the topic that the discussion was certainly of importance and should continue, with some voicing that Devoted &

Disgruntled is an ideal forum for this type of discussion.

Another session at Devoted & Disgruntled 2 was populated by people who all believed that politics should be in theatre but who also questioned why these politics do not seem to be making any real headway on uniting the people towards change. The session was titled, “If we believe theatre can change lives and attitudes, how can we speed up the process – as the future looks increasingly grim – or are we just all ‘fiddling while Rome burns’?” (D&D 2, Issue 16). Unlike the previous group, which saw this as merely a sense of apathy and defeat on the part of British theatre practitioners, it was seen as a movement that existed, but whose voices were too small. Indeed, much of political theatre, they argued, is made by young graduates in small venues with small audiences – oftentimes seen as merely preaching to the converted. And while some of this work trickled up into larger venues from time to time, the group agreed that this did make a difference, but that it was, “all too slow – there is a real urgency.”

The group decided that the best way to speed up theatre’s potential for cultural change was to attract larger audiences. Three avenues were discussed to accomplish this task. The first was to get the theatre out of the theatre and into found spaces, especially into the streets. The enormous art installation/performance entitled The Sultan’s

Elephant4 by French puppet theatre company Royal de Luxe, who are famous for their ten times larger than life creations (See Figure 2), was noted for how it captured the imagination of far more than the usual suspects who frequent the city’s playhouses. A single performance that progressed through various locations over four days in London in

June of 2005, the piece was likened by the group to a “big anti-Iraq war march, both immensely moving, huge numbers of people, huge impact” (D&D 2, Issue 16).

Figure 7. The Sultan’s Elephant

Photo © George Joseph 5 May 2006 via Wikimedia, Creative Commons Attribution 3.0.

The second strategy, in the conclusion of the group’s session report, listed several tactics for increasing; and, in particular, attracting new audiences: people who seldom attend the theatre. High on their list was marketing strategies, though they did not list it as such. Their first recommendation sounded like advice that would be expected from an outside advertising consultant, not theatre makers: “Find a way of making it sexy, glossy.” Another session from 2007 echoed this sentiment: “Issues are scary and unattractive- seen as the province of wooly jumpers or science bods[.] How do we make it attractive to more people? (artists and audiences)”(D&D 1, Issue 14). Other suggestions from the “fiddling while Rome burns” group included commissioning a television program to promote theatre (“Small Acts with Large Consequences” was a proposed title), and using buzzwords in the advertising of shows:

JOY a key word – join the Order of Joyful Women!

But being joyful does not mean we can’t be angry. (D&D 2, Issue 16)

These notions may seem to run against the grain of what many see as theatre’s job – to speak the truth rather than pandering to audiences and trying to sex theatre content up. It seems that some thought the messages they wanted to convey were important enough for such compromises. They reasoned that, if no one sees the message, what is the point in showing it? It seems likely to the me that, in a time when most people can see that everything we do is a political act, the conclusion that everything we do is also a form of marketing (i.e., we express our politics with the hope of converting others to our way of thinking or to endorse a certain style, method, or way of acting and responding) is a logical one to make.

The group’s final thought on theatre’s (perceived) inability to effect timely change was a matter for the audience itself. While everyone wants large audiences, the question of why theatre is not attractive to large portions of the population in London was more difficult to define. The standard answers that pop up regularly on this subject

(apathy, elitism, cost, theatre sucks, etc…) certainly make the rounds at the Devoted &

Disgruntled conferences and are, generally, quickly moved past in search of solutions rather than dwelling on the (perceived) problems. The “fiddling while Rome burns” group saw potential in bringing a more participatory drive to political work. The group noted that young people are more apt than readers of the Daily Mail to be issue-motivated and asked the question, “how to get at them?” (D&D 2, Issue 16). There was a sense that the only way this may happen is through making more personal connections to the issues on the audience’s behalf in hopes of stopping them from just being spectators in a darkened hall. While not exactly the “blame the audience” stance that some (less mature?) theatre practitioners sometimes take, the group made an interesting connection to what is missing in the audience’s relationship to the issues – a sense of activism. “Stop people just being spectators,” one member exclaimed, “try to get involvement. Self- awareness, take more personal responsibility (like Suffragettes)” (D&D 2, Issue 16). The suggestion is that, until the people come together to tackle issues important to them, the pace of change effected by theatre may remain too slow.

In a drive to build a politically active and effective theatre, the dynamic between the performers and the audience gets a great deal of attention. Just as there is a sense of apathy in the British theatrical community regarding political issues, audiences exhibit a

55 similar apathy according to several of the sessions’ participants. This idea is a refrain in many sessions throughout the seven years of the annual conference, and there are two camps: those who blame the audience for being simple minded and wanting unchallenging works, and those who blame the theatre for not fulfilling its obligations to break the audience out of their apathy. While there is some currency in the former idea, it does not buy very much, for if the audience isn’t game for politically engaged work, then those who hold this notion are doomed to wait around for a change in the masses’ attitudes. And, while a good rant about the current feeling in the community has its validity, this section will examine the more active approach.

“Lets [sic] face it[,] most people don’t give a shit about theatre, the environment or poor people,” said a participant in a very emotionally charged session at Devoted &

Disgruntled 1 conference in 2006 called, “Actors as global citizens addressing global issues” (D&D 1, Issue 14). This group quickly made a list of important global issues from the outset – globalization, climate change, fossil fuel consumption, mass migrations

(Diasporas), and the failing of political systems – but these topics were sidelined by the discussion of how to deal with audiences. Some in the group immediately noted that it is a theatre problem and opined that the audiences will come when theatre has something to say to them. One person noted that the tools to do just this already exist, and have for half a century, but lamented that they “are not celebrated and not profitable” (D&D 1, Issue

14), referring to Boal’s Forum Theatre.

Forum Theatre is a method of theatre creation and conflict resolution developed by Augusto Boal in his book Teatro del Oprimido (Theatre of the Oppressed) in 1974.

The methods that Boal created sought to use theatre to teach people how to take charge of their situations and move towards positive, realistic change. Breaking with traditional divides between audience and actors, Boal made use of what he called simultaneous dramaturgy where the audience, renamed spect-actors to denote the spectators agency

(and to reintegrate and humanize them) in the unfolding drama on the stage, could stop the play and insert new ideas and circumstances. Plays would generally consist of short scenes playing out a conflict, often times dealing with oppression in some form, and the spect-actors would offer different solutions to overcome or overthrow the oppression.

The actors, playing the oppressors, would improvise and fight to keep their power over the spect-actors. If a given spect-actor's solution was deemed to unrealistic, the rest of the audience was empowered to stop the action and the spect-actor would have to modify their answer to make it more a realistic real world solution (Boal 140). Boal sought to create a dialogue with the audience and the performers, instead of supplying a single point of view as dictated from the actors in a traditional theatre production, the goal was to have multiple viewpoints and counter arguments in order that the audience might understand the problem more fully and to find solutions that would be workable in the complex, real world. The proceedings of Forum Theatre are generally facilitated by a person that Boal calls the Joker (Boal 177), who is a neutral facilitator.

It is interesting to note that the structure and methods of Forum Theatre are similar to the format and techniques used in Open Space events such as the Devoted &

Disgruntled conferences, with both having an impartial facilitator who resists setting an

57 agenda, and attendees who are empowered to approach problems that are of immediate concern to them.

Figure 8. Augusto Boal facilitating a Forum Theatre event in NYC

Brazilian theater director and writer Augusto Boal presenting his Theatre of the

Oppressed at Riverside Church in New York City. 13 May 2008. Jonathan McIntosh, via

Wikimedia Commons, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported.

Figure 9. Day three opening circle, Devoted & Disgruntled 7

Facilitator Phelim McDermott is pictured center. Notice the similarity to the physical setup in the previous figure for Boal’s Forum Theatre. © Ian Bradford Ngongotaha Pugh

2012.

Despite the suggestion to promote Forum Theatre, this particular session ultimately expressed concern that such an approach would be too didactic for a staid

British audience and settled on improving the quality of theatre, making it more attractive to audience members, and seeking to make theatre more democratic as part of a 59 conversation between the practitioners and the community. One member noted a positive statistic, “More people watch theatre than live football,”5 implying that the audience is there and that they are vast, but their imaginations and their outrage have just not been tapped.

In a session from the 2011 conference, a participant told the group that the theatre is a “more effective medium in terms of bringing people together to respond collectively” than either television or film (D&D 6, Issue 91). Another view is that, when done well, theatre will attract an audience even if its subject is political in nature. Theatre offers something that is primal and communal, but that has become novel in modern society.

The convener mentioned two very striking and powerful plays that had just such an effect

– The Belarus Free Theatre’s performance of Being Harold Pinter in Leeds in April of

2007, noting the spike in people signing petitions following the performance, and a similar effect that occurred following performances of Lynn Nottage’s brutal play

Ruined, about the plight of women in the civil war-ravaged Democratic Republic of the

Congo. The convener remarked that the performance of Ruined helped Amnesty

International with new members and donations. People can and are moved by political theatre – the audience wants this, craves it – as mentioned above; we just have to provide it.

In this same session, titled, “How can theatre make the world a better place?”

(D&D 6, Issue 91), a new thread developed. The participants turned from trusting that the audience will come when the work is right, when it appeals to the moment, back to the notion that marketing is what is truly lacking. The report said, “BUT we need to get more

(different) people in to make ‘the world [more of] a better place [quicker]’!” This is an excellent example of the collaborative nature of the Devoted & Disgruntled sessions because it clearly shows how the discussion is marked up in the session’s report to show how the discussion went, adding and amending to the statement until a consensus is achieved. Not only did the group want more people to come to see theatre, but there was an acknowledgment that there is an underserved audience that is important if theatre is to help effect social and political change as well as a bit of a realistic expectation that theatre cannot, in and of itself, make the world a better place, but it can certainly help.

The report also followed up from the group’s previous point about the ability of good work to have an effect on people in a way that television and film cannot; theatre has the ability to do this [quicker] because it brings people together.

This group felt that theatre has a bit of an image problem. They cited a few theatres that are doing well to change this perspective; it was described as being something that can only be addressed on the community level. Several interesting proposals were put forward by the group, most of which have been implemented by various theatre companies in London to good success. The group’s question was, “why are more theatres not trying them out?” (D&D 6, Issue 91). The group favored ideas that were not too gimmicky, though the idea that Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube be used for marketing and feedback may always feel gimmicky to many. Other interesting ideas proffered were to make theatre spaces into community places: “Let’s have theatres open all day, places you can hang out in as well as see shows in” (D&D 6, Issue 91), to make them into community centers for the arts.6 The group applauded Northern Stage’s

“money-back guarantee,” which was seen as an audience-enabling policy that tackled two common audience concerns: that theatre is too expensive and that it is hard to commit a lot of money to something that is essentially an unknown experience. The guarantee invites the audience to have an opinion, engage with the material, and be critical. In the end, the group did well to reconcile the need to make good theatre that can make a difference with marketing the material so it can be seen by those who most need to see it.

In the midst of Devoted & Disgruntled 4, an armed conflict known as the Gaza

War (according to Israel) or the Gaza Massacre (Palestine) was taking place. The conflict would end a few days after the Devoted & Disgruntled 4 annual convention, with more than 1,400 Palestinians killed along with three Israelis. One of the sessions called was,

“Why do I only want to think about Gaza and how does that fit in today?” (D&D 4, Issue

33) The session was well attended by more than 20 people and numerous butterflies. The session reports set up its purpose quite well:

Our discussion mainly centred on how we were feeling and how we as

artists could/should deal with that. There was a big sense that people did

not want to think about it as a “metaphor” too much and remember that it

is happening NOW. (D&D 4, Issue 33)

It seemed important for the group to acknowledge that part of a career in the theatre is being aware of current events, especially of being aware of how these events affect us.

Such a notion questions how we, as artists, can then take these events and these feelings and use them in our work. Does doing this cheapen the actual events? And what rights do we have to claim these events in our work in the first place?

Two years later, as the Arab Spring began to blossom, Devoted & Disgruntled 6 was taking place. It would be another ten days before Egyptian president Mubarak would step down from power. The world did not know how such uprisings would be tolerated and no one knew how this movement would grow; indeed, many felt that a massacre of the likes that has been playing out in Syria for the last year was inevitable. Even in the best of situations, the Arab uprisings have cost many protesters their lives. This time around the session was called, “Not just talking about a revolution: showing solidarity with Egypt and Tunisia and artistic responses,” and touched on many similar topics as during the Gaza Massacre. This time, however, the reaction was more cerebral and less emotional. The group wished to avoid arrogance in how it took on these issues; it did not want to seem preachy or to look selfish in assuming someone else’s plight. The group searched for an appropriate theatrical reaction:

In terms of the kind of theatre that would be a strong response to events

such as those in Egypt and Tunisia, it was felt that the events themselves

were more dramatic (and more instantly communicated) than anything that

theatre could portray. (D&D 6, Issue 93)

The group believed that it should be theatre’s role to react and comment on these events, so unlike the group dealing with Gaza, this group favored the use of metaphor. In general, this group had a dimmer view of theatre’s potential, finding more topics outside the purview of theatre. Such a view seems to give credence to one type of experience over another, yet arbitrarily limits who is allowed ownership of a feeling, of a reaction. The group’s final statement of the session ended on an even more pessimistic note. After

63 acknowledging the power and solidarity they felt with the student protesters in Egypt, they came to a conclusion that it is, “…impossible to say whether the political climate was any more or less healthy for the arts today than 5, 10 or 20 years ago” (D&D 6, Issue

93). While it is a qualified statement, it follows the rest of the report, which indicated the group felt impotent to engage with the “enlivening political experience” (D&D 6, Issue

93) of the protesters in a meaningful way in their local communities.

The Gaza group, instead, sought ways to tackle the issue head on. Their biggest concern was their sense of powerlessness to have a timely (or even noticeable) effect on what was happening. They wanted to be a part of the change, not merely commentators on a past event. But they felt a bit powerless to tackle the issue; and, as in the Arab

Spring session, there was concern about claiming ownership of such an event. But it was seen here as a global issue, since they all felt affected by it; however, it was difficult for them to understand how to make a well-informed stand on an issue such as a foreign war.

Their first notion was that they needed to educate themselves on what was happening, because there was an understanding that the issue was far more complex than they likely knew and they were unwilling to trust the PR machines (government and corporate news) for their knowledge. To that end, the participants in this session formed an email list (and announced a sign-up for their new group during closing comments for that day). The group’s goal was to create a resource of links and sources that would be available to the group on issues pertaining to the ongoing conflict. They also posted to the session’s online forum (the first attempt to put the D&D reports on the Web and foster continuing conversation online following the conference). The group concluded its write-up of the

64 session the following day by incorporating many of the resources people had supplied throughout the day and the convener then concluded in the session report, “Being informed is cool” (D&D 4, Issue 33).

In a post on the “Gaza Group” section of the online forums for Devoted &

Disgruntled 4, a user posted a new update on the 9th of January 2009 that was viewed by over 150 readers:

After our many long discussions about Gaza during D&D, notably

whether we as artists had any right to grapple with such a raw and

sensitive subject let alone the expedience of being able to take hold of the

zeitgeist without hitting a practical brick wall, I was amazed to discover

that Caryl Churchill has overcome those two obstacles and has written a

short play about Gaza that will be performed next month at the Royal

Court Theatre! (alanwen 1)

The Churchill play titled Seven Jewish Children – A Play for Gaza is a ten-minute play with free admission to the performances at the Royal Court. During the performance, the organizers collect donations that are given to the charity Medical Aid for Palestinians.

Lyn Gardner, theatre critic for The Guardian, examined the Royal Court’s production and provides valuable commentary. Gardner, also a frequent attendee of Devoted &

Disgruntled conferences, did not review the play in this article, but instead took the time to round out some of the conversation that took place at the Devoted & Disgruntled conference she attended a few weeks prior:

As BAC’s [Battersea Arts Centre’s] David Jubb recently suggested in a

provocation for Devoted and Disgruntled, theatre often feels like too much

of an oil tanker to modernise quickly enough and be really responsive to

21st century life. Jubb argued that with Google and 24-hour news

available at the press of a button, we all have access to the here and now,

but because of the lag time in play-making, it sometimes feels dated,

stuffy, and disconnected. (Gardner, “Caryl Churchill” para. 4)

Gardner took to task the lack of timely responses to current events by theatre and called for exactly the type of bold responses brought up at Devoted & Disgruntled and those like Churchill’s to take a leading role in new theatre development:

Churchill’s ability to leap into action over something she feels passionate

about, and the Royal Court’s willingness to respond, can only be a good

thing. If more playwrights and theatres were prepared to be reactive and

flexible in this way, theatre could genuinely claim its place as an art form

with a crucial role to play in responding to and contextualising the way we

live now (Gardner, “Caryl Churchill” para. 8).

Gardner’s statements echoed the tone of the conversation, but without the hesitance. Her piece called for action, but wrestled with the current problems in the system, many of them the same ones brought up by session participants. The voices at Devoted &

Disgruntled are making their way from the confines of York Hall and finding larger voices throughout the greater community.

3.2 Women(’s) Matter(s)

Q: Did the Duchess of Malfi have a Renaissance?

A: No – Because otherwise she would have been in Act 5.

– Anonymous

DID WOMEN HAVE A RENAISSANCE? Discuss in

reference to the staging of sex and gender roles and

Webster’s The Duchess of Malfi and Middleton and

Dekker’s The Roaring Girl (Help me with my essay)

Devoted & Disgruntled 3 Issue 28

When did female agency first start to tread the boards in England? While many sessions at Devoted & Disgruntled look at how to increase the female presence and voice in theatre, a session from the 2008 conference tries to put a foundation to the movement, borrowing its title from Joan Kelly’s 1977 essay of the same name, “Did Women Have a

Renaissance?” This group explores the possibility that women in theatre are currently experiencing a reawakening, a useful starting point for exploring the discussion of women’s matters and the rallying call I have heard more than once at Devoted &

Disgruntled conferences over the years: Women Matter! While this section will focus primarily on female playwrights, looking at where the discussion starts and how it continues today, much of the information applies to issues that surround the plight of women working in all fields of theatre and performance.

When Amy Letman called the session, “DID WOMEN HAVE A

RENAISSANCE? Discuss in reference to the staging of sex and gender roles and

Webster’s The Duchess of Malfi and Middleton and Dekker’s The Roaring Girl (Help me with my essay)” (D&D 3, Issue 28), she was looking for a starting ground for the portrayal of strong, complex women in English drama (as well as help for her term paper). Specifically, Letman wished to explore whether the Renaissance benefited women in society. The group came to a fairly quick consensus that “The renaissance was mainly to do with MEN and CAPITALISM…The ‘rebirth’ did not benefit women”

(D&D 3, Issue 28). It is interesting to note the quotations the convener placed around rebirth in her session report. That the term ‘rebirth’ is commonly associated with the

Renaissance is an interesting juxtaposition – birth being a female act – but, in this group’s estimation, women are not a genesis of enlightenment, but only a tool used to reach it. It was noted by a participant that “It wasn’t until the Restoration that strong female characters came along. The Renaissance female characters were a result of the idealized

‘male gaze’.” Aphra Behn, considered to be one of the first (possibly the first) professional female writers in the English language, would seem to bolster this assertion, not only with the marvelous plays, but also for her independent life and career amongst the power brokers (all men) of her day. But this conversation of strong female characters still finds that there is, perhaps, a proto-feminist voice (“Albeit through a male pen and through a male voice” (D&D 3, Issue 28)) in some Renaissance drama and that this may have signaled women and women’s issues becoming a more tolerable matter.

The question that then arose was when did women take their place in the theatre – and not just as characters in plays, nor as exceptions to the rule? The group concluded that it didn’t really happen until the 1970s and ’80s, citing Churchill as a founding voice.

The session ended by questioning how successful this late twentieth century renaissance has been, leaving the question “Has the promise for women in theatre which feminism brought ever been fully realized?” as more food for thought.

This group’s knowledge of history, theatre, and feminism was sorely lacking in this discussion; this is a recurring problem in a majority of sessions that touch on women’s movements and equal rights. Very little credit is given to first- and second- wave feminism (or, worse, there is no knowledge of these movements), and it is these shoulders upon which many of these practitioners are standing without seeming to know it. And yet, their lack of understanding is itself an important indicator of how the struggle for equality has slowed or even slipped backwards. Although the statement “knowledge is power” may be cliché, it nevertheless rings true…and, in this case, that power is sadly being forgotten.

Although the general perception is that women in the theatre industry have made considerable headway in the last century, many sessions cite the 1970s and 80s as the last great push forward, though none in the assorted sessions felt that women had reached any sort of parity with men (on the whole) in the industry, and some participants remarked the last few decades have been a backward slide. So the 2007 session titled, “Is there a need for women’s theatre?” addresses a rhetorical question that seeks a more exacting answer to the debate as spelled out in the session subtitle: “If so, what about it is different from other theatre?” (D&D 2, Issue 12). The group covered a lot of ground in looking at the last question; the convener admitted, as such, in the notes for the session, “The discussion raised more questions than it gave answers so read below and add if you feel you have an

69 answer to anything or a comment” (D&D 2, Issue 12).7 What follows are a list of questions that the group grappled with in trying to define what makes theatre women’s

(or men’s).

The first group discussed the problem of funding, noting “funding criteria creates subsets”8 and “Positive discrimination” (D&D 3, Issue 28)..” Many Devoted &

Disgruntled sessions concerning funding issues have noted that the Arts Council England

(ACE) funding policy involves a great deal of “box ticking” – the practice of having to fit your financial proposals to the cultural climate in order to prove how worthy you or your organization is for funding. Therefore, making sure a grant applicant has ticked off the right boxes becomes more important than the work. One session that focused more on disability issues but that tackled this issue of positive discrimination head-on noted that a perfect title for someone applying for funding in the current climate might read something like:

…dyslexic mixed ethnicity minority/ part irish [sic] (vitaligio albino)

lesbian, transgendered woman, completely deaf, dribbeling [sic], single

mother with aids, genetically disabled child with circus skills, tramatic

[sic] background, sixty six years old, no wage, no legs. (D&D 1, Issue 77)

The “Women’s Theatre” group wondered if it is worth playing up the “femaleness of a project” if it can help get funding…or, is a little bit of box ticking okay if the ends are good? The group also remarked, “Women are 52% of the population, yet for funding purposes are treated as a minority group” (D&D 2, Issue 12). This is a powerful statistic and shows a mentality that many of the voices at various Devoted & Disgruntled sessions

70 were rebelling against: the notion that they need to be protected and coddled because they are female. It is again a difficult struggle; on the one hand women are clearly underrepresented in the industry on nearly every level, while on the other hand many actions meant to rectify the situation may only perpetuate the very problem.

The group also noted that failure in playwriting is a bigger issue for women. In the current economic climate, failure is more apt to end a career, and yet it is our failures as theatre artists (and even administrators) that are an important part of our learning process. Women, already woefully underrepresented in the playwriting field, are under enormous pressure to have a hit or be passed over. The convener notes, “If women playwrights were produced more often they would learn faster and produce better plays.

Known playwrights get produced more, get more experience, and get better” (D&D 2,

Issue 12). Women playwrights are caught in a catch-22 situation, according to the convener, and the simple solution is to produce more women playwrights – the problem, however, is about access. Due to their limited access, the group felt that women’s voices were not being heard and, as such, it would seem that women’s theatre is essential to tackling this very issue. As for how, the group had no specific answers, just additional questions; however, the discussion and questions themselves are an important part of any eventual plan of action.

Another session, acknowledging an inequality of female representation on the stage wondered, “What types of women are we not seeing on stage?” (D&D 5, Issue

089). This report was not in the so called, final report, of Devoted & Disgruntled 5, but was submitted electronically after the conference.9 This report’s convener spent time after

71 the conference culling statistics about women’s representation in the industry as a way to help support and understand the issues that were discussed, placing them first as a sort of reference for the discussion the group had. The statistics cited are a depressing, mostly quantitative (some qualitative) expression of precisely how pervasive and troubling the gender gap is. One tantalizing statistic provided by the convener and sourced by Equity, the professional performers and creative practitioners union in the U.K., in a petition to the BBC expresses the union members’ outrage at the inequalities in TV and film representations of women (acting mediums in England are less segregated than in the

United States; therefore, these statistics are presumed to play out in fairly equal fashion for theatre practitioners):

Over half the viewing public is female, yet in TV drama for every female

character, there are two male characters – (36.5% female roles to 63.5%

male roles). Whilst leading parts are frequently played by male actors over

45, women in this age group start to disappear from our screens. The

message this sends to viewers is distorted and distorting. (Equity para. 4)

This petition helped give voice to the entertainment industry for the crafting and passage of the Equality Act (2008–2009 to 2009–2010)10 that is supposed to help ease the imbalances found in all levels of British society. The bill went into effect in 2010; following discussions at Devoted & Disgruntled 7 in 2012, participants suggested that, despite the law, little – if any – tangible results have trickled down to women working in theatre as a result of the legislation.

While the above statistics quoted in the session mostly looked at the makeup of casts, the convener also posted some more positive trends from the Sphinx Theatre’s

“Women in Theatre Surveys,” focusing on playwriting metrics. The Sphinx data is useful because the survey was conducted twice (so far), once in 198311 and again in 2006.12 The information was first released in 2006 and then published in 2009 at the theatre company’s gender equality conference entitled, “Vamps, Vixens and Feminists 2009.”

While the session convener includes these seemingly positive results, not all have quite the same positive reaction to this data:

• In 1983, only 20 out of 620 (3.2%) of plays were written by women,

excluding Agatha Christie. In 2006, out of 140 productions sampled only

13 were written by women (9%), with 22 collaborations (16%).

• Out of 48 new writing productions, only 8 were written by women (17%)

with 10 collaborations (21%).

• Out of 9 new adaptations/translations, 5 were by men, 0 by women, with

4 collaborations.

• In 1983, 7% of playwrights were women, whilst in 2006, 17% of

playwrights are women. (D&D 5, Issue 089)

Lyn Gardner noted – in her 2007 article in The Guardian that refers to the Sphinx’s data

– that, in the 22 years between the two surveys, “women have risen in the workplace, becoming entrepreneurs, leaders of companies, editors of national newspapers, yet the doors to British theatre buildings seem to have remained largely closed” (Gardner, “It’s

Time” para. 4).

Another session also at the 2010 conference actually took up one of the statistics from the Sphinx survey as part of its title: “Why are only 17% of plays produced in the

UK by women?” (D&D 5, Issue 019). This group felt that the climate for women playwrights was improving; as it was described by one participant, “change is in the air”

(a reference to the Equality Act of 2010, most likely), but they felt that, until the situation reaches parity that it is important to keep the discussion open. The group noted positive momentum at the (Royal) National Theatre, Royal Court, and the RSC (Royal

Shakespeare Company) with a sharp increase in commissions for female playwrights, but a participant also pointed out “the commissions do not translate into productions for whatever reason” (D&D 5, Issue 019). It was said that the majority of students enrolled in university writing courses were women (one participant put the number at around 80%); naturally, the group wondered what happens to all these women when they get out of school. The convener noted this disappearance at the end of the session summary: “What happened to all the women in the 1980s and 1990s who may have given up, or not got plays on?” This question was addressed by another woman in the group, a regional theatre producer, who believed that there is likely a whole generation of “lost women” who are still out there. This is an important note to a discussion that started off with a remark that the theatre world is really opening up for new, young playwrights. How can we recover voices that gave up because opportunities were not afforded to them? The group discussion fostered the creation of a website (now defunct – “404 Not Found”) called 17percent.co.uk to serve as a resource for fostering discussion, mentoring new

74 voices, spreading information about this gender gap, and increasing women playwrights’ visibility.

Returning to the “What types of women are we not seeing on stage?” (D&D 5,

Issue 089) session, following the statistics provided by the convener at the beginning of the record, the discussion that actually took place at Devoted & Disgruntled was catalogued. The conversation centered a bit less on participants’ initial question and instead focused on why women were underrepresented in the first place. A big issue that group members mentioned was the difficulty of being a working mother – the mother is still expected to do the daily child rearing at the expense of her career or face social and cultural reproach (a problem that several Devoted & Disgruntled sessions have implied has actually gotten worse). More insidious, however, were the descriptions of women writers being asked to censor or remove things from their plays based on gender. One woman told the group that she was “asked to put more men in the script” (D&D 5, Issue

089) and to use more women under the age of 30. Another participant said she “had been asked to take a female gay relationship out of her script,” noting that gay male relationships were considered more acceptable.

Yet another participant described an article in which the discrimination was not just coming from men, but was too often coming from women with power in the industry reinforcing the system in order to keep their positions at the top. The participant referenced an article she had read on The Guardian theatre blog by Alexis Soloski that looked at the experiments conducted by graduate student Emily Sands of Princeton.13 I

75 will quote directly from the referenced Guardian article itself, instead of the summary in the session report, for clarity:

Sands submitted identical scripts to 250 theatres. Half named the writer as

Michael Walker, the other half as Mary Walker. Sands found that when

perused by a male reader, the scripts were rated similarly – no matter who

the author. But when a female reader scanned them, the scripts attributed

to a male writer scored 15% higher in terms of ‘quality, economic

prospects and audience response.’ (Soloski)

The group felt that issues of confidence and self-editing were a big part of the problem, that in some ways women [in the theatre] have been their own worst enemies.

In a session from the first Devoted & Disgruntled on women protagonist (D&D 1,

Issue 37), Lee Simpson, an artistic director of Improbable, noted in the section of the discussion about money: “We will get more female protagonists when a piece with a female protagonist makes money.” This highlights a reason that may be preventing women from writing for theatre: all they see is a market and industry that prefers the male voice. Lee’s point is a realistic one: the industry, even nonprofits, is still fueled by money, but it is also a circular argument, to which another commentator voiced a response, “[It is a] Catch 22[,] no women onstage = no women in leading roles anywhere

= no money to be made = no roles for women on stage and so on…” (D&D 1, Issue 37).

This statement seems to encompass a great deal of the discussion in this session – how can such a cycle be broken? The consensus from this group was that practitioners must continue to chip away at the establishment – write more female protagonists, keep talking

76 about the issue, and just carry on making great theatre that the practitioners would like to see: another exclamation of “be the change you want to see in the world.”

In looking at topics that address women’s issue, a frequent theme recurs: that of the F-word (feminism), as it is called in several reports. How did feminism become a dirty word, especially in a field that has been a large and active voice in the fight for women’s rights and equality, the rights many practitioners take for granted? The session,

“Can theatre and performance challenge the objectification of women in society and media?” (D&D 3, Issue 74) is a terrific example of this discussion, with the session report reflecting a conflicted feeling about what it means to have agency as a woman. In another session from 2010, another contentious issue was discussed: “How can men contribute to feminist theatre?” (D&D 5, Issue 00714), which drew a sizable mixed-gender audience.15

The question asked by the ‘objectification’ session’s convener concerning the objectification of women (D&D 3, Issue 74) tackled the issue of what one can and can’t do and still be considered a feminist. As one participant articulated this point, “If you want to show yourself sexually what’s the problem with that?” By bringing up such a concept, this question seems to undermine the very real problem that it is not always a performer’s decision to be objectified by pointing out an exceptional case, instead, of what many participants see as misogyny on the London stage.

A bigger issue revolved around identifying as a feminist, the convener bemoaning that many women “Hold feminist views but don’t call yourself a feminist – why?” (D&D

3, Issue 74). This prompt got several responses, the first being about the perception that feminists are too aggressive, which is an association many do not want to be identified

77 with. Another voice expressed the thought that the term ‘feminism’ itself implied a sense of belittlement that identifies someone as being inherently unequal by nature of feminism’s struggle to obtain equality (D&D 3, Issue 74). In this case it was seen that equality was deserved by both genders – not just by women – thus, to label it seemed to create an unproductive battle of the sexes. It is disappointing to come across multiple references (by young women no less) to feminism being sexist and anti-gender equality.

Elaine Aston, an expert in theatre theory, performance, and feminism, and

Professor of Contemporary Performance at Lancaster University, address these same concerns in her 2010 Theatre Journal article, “Feeling the Loss of Feminism: Sarah

Kane's Blasted and an Experiential Genealogy of Contemporary Women's Playwriting.”

Aston notes that in the 1970s there was a high expectation that women playwrights were taking step to becoming on par with male playwrights, feminism was even fashionable.

Unfortunately, the expected explosion of female voices on the stage was eclipsed:

However, the expectation that this somewhat better future for women

playwrights in the late 1970s and '80s would herald the 1990s

as the decade for women playwrights in British theatre was overturned

by the emergence of a new wave of "angry young men," Jez Butterworth,

David Eldridge, Martin McDonagh, Antony Neilson, and Mark Ravenhill

significant among them. (Aston 575)

Aston looks at the situation and explores the how, why, and now what of the situation.

Citing Heidi Stephenson and Natasha Langridge collection of twenty essays by women playwrights, Rage and Reason (1997), Aston notes that much of the problem, as

78 experienced by women playwrights, was coming from male directors. Stephen Daldry, a director for the Royal Court Theatre blamed women playwrights for their failure in,

“capturing the zeitgeist of fashion,” and that, “work within the context of feminism is unfashionable” (qtd. in “Feeling” 576). Aston further quotes Mike Bradwell of the Bush

Theatre, a prominent new works producer, who claimed that women playwrights were,

“battling a false perception that their work is ‘breast-beating, worthy or proselytising’”

(qtd. in “Feeling” 576). Aston pins this slide of feminism fashionability to a number factors: the death of feminism as a political movement (highlighted by the political brutality of The Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher and the Tory party); the reductivist treatment of the category of ‘women’ in the feminist movement leaving no space for difference, and, “widely circulating ideas of postfeminism that unhelpfully foster an erroneous belief that feminism is redundant and over” (Aston 577). It is this postfeminist trap that many participants noted at Devoted & Disgruntled sessions.

Aston’s article does hold out hope, though she refrains from addressing the equality issue, Aston notes that, “Despite these gender limitations, women playwrights continue with their titanic efforts to force their way onto the British stage (Aston 591).

The, “Hold feminist views but don’t call yourself a feminist – why?” group looked at the negative connotations associated with feminism and tried to understand how to turn them around. No one in any of the sessions knew who specifically to hold responsible for these negative connotations, but a ‘blame the victim’ mentality was frequently noted in the objectification session (as seen above). After noting that many young women seem to feel embarrassed to be a feminist, the group noted how this

79 weakening of voice consequently plays out on the stage. They note the resurgence of tropes: women as victims, the whore with a heart of gold, and the increased amount of female nudity and female bondage on London stages. The convener here made an astute observation, “Perception of what is good is driven by men. Where and what your influences are often come from misogyny. Women have to realize this as inherent in them[selves]” (D&D 3, Issue 74). The convener implied that what may be holding back the feminist movement is that women (and men) have stopped questioning gendered constructs that have been conditioned into them by a male-dominated culture. A similar idea is expressed in another session, “Do women have to be knocked before they feel the need for feminism?” (D&D 2, Issue 12). This, too, denotes a sense that women have lost something, in this case an understanding of the struggle that has allowed them to feel that they have not been “knocked.” Both groups feel that there is a strong need for education, that a sense of complacency was pervasive in the theatre.

So what can men do to support feminist theatre? (D&D 5, Issue 007). The first note in the report says, “It is important for men to participate, but not dominate.” I find this an interesting point – what exactly would dominate mean? Can a male artistic director run a women’s/feminist theatre company? Another session had a similar statement, “Desperate for women writers: women must write for women? Why? Because men can’t write for them” (D&D 3, Issue 74). Can a play written by a man, directed by a man, and featuring an all-male cast champion feminist issues? The men’s support for feminism group tried to address this issue:

Feminism is often seen as a polarizing force: women versus men. It should

be about sharing values and enabling men and women to engage with each

other to make a difference. (D&D 5, Issue 007)

A particularly good argument was put forth in this group as to why all-women’s theatre companies should exist. The convener acknowledged some in the group who felt that,

“some vulnerable women might need the security and support of an all-female group for a time before they felt strong enough to face a wide world” (D&D 5, Issue 007). I would point out the important work that the theater company Clean Break does in serving and addressing these exact issues.16

The general sense coming from the sessions at the assorted conferences was that there is a lack of cohesion. On the whole, it was felt to be too difficult to galvanize people around important issues, leading some to the conclusion that the issue just has not touched enough people to gain momentum. Others felt that change was happening, and that it was positive but just moving too slowly. And another group, specifically a session in which the convener asked for advice on how to overcome “patriarchal blocks” (D&D

6, Issue 26) in her path as a performer, noted that, following a passionate and wide ranging discussion the group had “discovered that the ‘blocks’ in question are so multiple

– they are structural, cultural, internal… We were clearly unable to come to a solution in the form of Action Points” (D&D 6, Issue 26). Unable to find a way to express their issue in words, the group opted to create a drawing to represent the way it felt in a field (and world) still dominated by the patriarchal.

Figure 10. A picture of the Massive Phallic Airship of Male ART

(D&D 6, Issue 26).

While the image is fun and playful, it represents the end of a discussion in which the participants felt themselves in a malaise about the subject of female empowerment, a feeling reflected throughout most of the discussions on women’s theatre, women’s issues, and feminism at Devoted & Disgruntled. What kind of incident will it take to unite people to resume the fight for gender equality in theatre (and the world)? Devoted &

Disgruntled continues to keep the space open as this question is continually taken up and examined.

3.3 Politics of a Life Lived Theatrically

You are driven by fear – that someone else will get the work if you

don’t take it, if you don’t take this job then a relationship will be

built with someone else so you won’t get offered work in the future,

that if you speak out about conditions that you will be branded

disloyal, lazy, not advance, not get future work, anger colleagues

in a competitive industry

— Toma Dim

“How to be creative with/ creative about a work-life balance in theatre?”

Devoted & Disgruntled 2, Issue 86

Theatre is a profession that is very demanding of one’s time – it requires work on weekends, holidays, and of course late nights. Unlike some jobs with similar circumstances, in theatre, one never moves up to better hours or an earlier shift; these conditions are a constant no matter how successful one becomes in the field. And even worse, for the majority of theatre makers, there is no long-term job stability as the concept of standing companies and the repertory system has lost way to capitalism’s pressure on limited theatrical funding has forced a type of market efficiency in the supply and demand of hiring actors. Yet, because of this instability, attendance at training institutions continues to rise. This would imply that there is something more to a life in the theatre than the money, so sacrifice is a key part of this career. This section will look at the issues theatre practitioners face in trying to live their day-to-day lives. Many of the sessions in this vein look at the problems of finding work, keeping work, making money,

83 and (especially) intimate relationships (see the quote above for a good example). The emphasis below will, however, try to focus more specifically upon issues relating to the theatre industry itself such as identity, training, and work/personal life balancing.

Working in the theatre can pose some interesting questions about identity on those in the profession – on one level, artists can be seen as creative and inspiring and, therefore, valuable to society and one’s life (this is, however, usually reserved for famous individuals and celebrities), while at the same time the public holds a contradictory view of the artist as being poor, disheveled, a dime a dozen, lazy weird, anti-social – or, worse, as criminals and whores. This can make identifying one’s self as a theatre maker a tricky or awkward experience. Some of this stems from a bit of the mystery that seems to surround the craft of acting (with its exercises and games and [pseudo] psychological underpinnings along with the [perceived] need for deep and brutal self-understanding coupled with its outsider status), but there is also a mystery surrounding what a producer is (even from those working inside the field), what exactly a director does, how a designer works. So, “how do you tell someone you work in the theatre?” becomes a loaded question, one that drew many participants when it was posed at Devoted &

Disgruntled 5 in 2010.

“How do I explain the value of what I do to my Grandad17 and other people?”

(D&D 5, Issue 002) was a session called on first day of the conference in the morning time slot. This came as the arts industry in the UK was bracing itself for the coming of sweeping budget cuts (and a sizable reallocation of funds in the run-up to the 2012

Summer Olympics). Art was already being marginalized, so explaining you were in a

84 field that was not seen as valued conferred this judgment upon oneself. The group doesn’t touch on why they are asking this question, how they are stigmatized by an anti-theatrical prejudice, but they do offer up answers to overcome this obstacle. The big concern the group had was how to “describe what we do to people who maybe haven’t experienced if

[sic] without sounding flaky or esoteric” (D&D 5, Issue 002). From this came an onslaught of people’s personal experiences with trying to creatively solve this.

One person called themselves a storyteller, which would prompt a discussion of what this means, allowing for a conversation of one’s work, avoiding the prejudiced title or actor or performer. A good point was made by one participant he noted that what turned them on to theatre was doing it, that being involved in making theatre removes the negative way of thinking about actors, and so the asked whether we should, “Kidnap and enforce theatre making / /going?” (D&D 5, Issue 002). The ‘kidnap option’ came up multiple times throughout the session, lending some humor to the discussion.

One actor/writer in the group noted the different reactions members get when trying out various job titles:

“I’m an actor” – have you been on the Bill?

“I’m a performer” - ????[confused face].

“I’m a writer” – quiet reverence. (D&D 5, Issue 002)

The actors suggested that, if his colleagues do not like the response they get when they tell people what they do, they should “try out a description of what you do and then gauge the responses until you find a set of responses to your description you like” (D&D

5, Issue 002), It was at this point that I had “bumblebeed” my way to this group, having

85 initially attended the session in the same time slot, “What does theatre have to do with video games?” (D&D 5, Issue 004) and related to this new group an experience that I and my good friend Daniel18 had had a year prior when attending a formal social gathering, a party of sorts, of non-theatre people. At first we suffered many similar issues in trying to answer that simple question, “So, what do you do?” We had the same awkward conversations at our party that this session was discussing. Daniel remarked to me at the party that it was not an entirely serious question, like asking a stranger, “How are you doing?” It was generally a rhetorical question and so need not receive a real answer. So,

Daniel and I tried out a new strategy: when asked what we did, Daniel would say he was an electrician, and I would say I was a plumber. I related to the group that the experiment made for a smoother and more fun evening. Daniel and I occasionally got a raised eyebrow (it was an upscale, stuffy event), but we found that not once did we feel the need to justify what we ‘did’ and that conversations went on without any awkwardness. The group liked the idea, but a few found that doing so was perhaps too dishonest for them; I agreed with them and explained that I had subsequently changed how I answered the question to say that I was a janitor (or a custodian), noting that when I worked as a performer I spent a lot of time cleaning up trash (removing extraneous work and refining the process, as well as often literally taking out the trash) and cleaning up messes

(negotiating conflict).19

This embarrassment in claiming theatre as a profession is traced well in Jonas

Barish’s The Antitheatrical Prejudice (1981). Barish takes on the condemnation of theatre going back to the first known writings on the art form. The prejudice the theatre

86 profession has encountered is wide-ranging and comes in a variety of disguises, including economic, sociological, and moralistic condemnation, and is underscored with what

Barish notes is “a permanent kernel of distrust” (Barish 4) of the mimetic nature of theatre. For example, Barish gives an account of how Plato saw theatre as dangerous:

Imitation is formative – those who imitate will tend to become what they

imitate – it follows that the guardians may be allowed to imitate only

characters suitable as models…They must not imitate women either, or

slaves, or villains, or madmen... They must, in fact, confine themselves to

imitations of members of their own sex, their own social level, their own

professional class and moral outlook. (Barish 21)

The very act of imitation is construed as a lie, making anyone involved in the theatre, not only untrustworthy, but a likely corrupting influence. And yet, theatre’s popularity, despite this ongoing prejudice held fast and continued to grow.

Barish connects this ancient prejudice to contemporary expressions, noting that terms for other art forms are used commonly as compliments: poetic, epic, lyrical, musical, graphic, and symphonic are “nearly always eulogistic” when “applied to other arts, or to life” (Barish 1). Such flattering language is rarely found in association with theatre.

But with infrequent exception, terms borrowed from theatre – theatrical,

operatic, melodramatic, stagey, etc. – tend to be hostile or belittling. And

so do a wide range of expressions drawn from theatrical activity expressly

to convey disapproval: acting, play acting, playing up to, putting on an

act, putting on a performance, making a scene, making a spectacle of

oneself, playing to the gallery, and so forth. (Barish 1)

All terms that deal in one way or another with the authenticity of the person in question and their actions. Barish even finds evidence of an anti-theatrical attitude in the plays of revered theatre makers such as Ben Jonson, Chekhov, and Beckett. For Barish, antitheatricalism is akin to antihumanism, because the theatrical is ultimately and inevitably of the human. As sessions such as these at Devoted & Disgruntled indicate, there is no end in sight for the for the antitheatrical prejudice, but these sessions do allow for practitioners to work through how to live with this cultural bias against them through such discussions.

After struggling with identity, the discussion moved back to the main question of how do theatre practitioners convince those who might think otherwise that there is real, tangible value in what they do. One person pointed out that people are still going to theatre, even in a recession, so there must be something about theatre that is important.

Another participant related an anecdote about the power of stories and theatre in which inmates in Russian labor camps would swap bread for stories, which indicates that stories are, at times, more important and nurturing than food – particularly in trying and deprived times. The group related more stories that illustrated the power of theatre to be a force for good in society. It was then that a participant suggested that one should have, “a range of stories to tell, don’t explain what you do. Do it [Kidnap option at your own risk].” The group ended by trying to bolster the convener on the subject, noting that having confidence is important when describing one’s work. The final statement in the report

88 attempts to convey this sentiment: “Essence – what we do is essential” (D&D 5, Issue

002).

The view that a life in the theatre was a difficult career choice, but a path that still continues to be swelling its ranks, is a common point of discussion in many sessions.

These difficulties were examined at length at the 2007 conference by a session entitled

“How to be creative with/creative about a work-life balance in theatre?” (D&D 2, Issue

86). The group broke down the issues that they saw as problematic and then discussed them in turn. The group started by discussing a key issue: “There is a feeling, mainly unspoken that if you aren’t there all hours then you aren’t committed or not working hard enough” (D&D 2, Issue 86). The cheapness and abundance of labor has always been a problem in the theatre (and is also becoming truer in other professions in the tightening economy) because it enables management to dictate work conditions. Because so many people are attempting to enter the theatre profession and because good, quality talent is not as scarce as some would have people believe, theatre practitioners are easy to exploit.

Add to that people’s view of a career in theatre as a calling, an attempt at personal satisfaction of monetary satisfaction, and it is easy to see how low wages/no wages are also oftentimes endemic in the field. The group noted this as a key point in a list of work condition problems, “Unpaid work experience/roles. There is a definite attitude that if you aren’t prepared to work for free then you aren’t committed” (D&D 2, Issue 86). With these attitudes prevailing from the inside of the profession, many felt there was undue pressure to conform to such practices, making a social life outside the profession nearly impossible. The group closed by looking at issues around having a family as well as

89 being a parent and a theatre maker. Of particular interest here was the difficulty in admitting that one had children (or, as a woman, that you might even be interested in having children), as this was seen as an almost willful dereliction of duty – that theatre comes first and, if it is not entitled to your every waking hour, then you are not committed enough. The group looked at the issues surrounding raising children if one decided to breach this taboo. Theatre has been slower than other industries in the UK to consider child care issues for its working professionals, and the group suggested that more work should be done within the industry to raise awareness that such discrimination is illegal.

Children became an increasingly larger focus in sessions about living a theatrical life, with two separate sessions being called in 2011’s conference and a monthly satellite

Devoted & Disgruntled dedicated to the subject in 2012. Improbable was quick to act on the conference’s participant’s request and childcare was provided at the annual events, taking place in the same hall as the event. Children were even encouraged to participate if they wanted. In a session from the 2009 conference that was attended by Phelim

McDermott and which dealt with who should be invited to the next year’s Devoted &

Disgruntled, the convener asked Phelim, “Would children being here work ?” (D&D 4,

Issue 55). Phelim replied to this query, “Children and young people engage when open space is used; they post sessions – or wander off if it gets boring” (D&D 4, Issue 55).

Many sessions looked at questions around how one manages both a career and childrearing, while others looked at the industry’s bias against mothers and how it could be remedied.

Stella Duffy, an award-winning playwright, novelist, theatre maker, Improbable

Associate Artist, and perennial Devoted & Disgruntled participant, called a session at the first conference titled, simply, “women” (D&D 1, Issue 22). In her session, Duffy addressed what she saw as the two biggest issues affecting women in theatre: children and confidence. Duffy noted:

…women are still dealing with the bulk of childcare, at the very least have

to take some time out to give birth (!), and that theatre – as it stands –

rarely (if ever) makes accommodations for part-time/family oriented/non-

obsessive working practices. (D&D 1, Issue 22)

Roughly a year after Duffy’s session discussing this unfair bias against women with children, a U.K. government-sponsored study bore out the group’s complaint. The 2007

“Fairness and Freedom: The Final Report of the Equalities Review” was published regarding discrimination issues across the country and found a very disappointing result:

Our new research reveals clearly that there is one factor that above all

leads to women’s inequality in the labour market – becoming mothers.

(“Equalities Review” 66)

Having a family and a career is socially, culturally stigmatized in society. Several people suggested that in theatre, with its long (usually inflexible) hours, actors had to choose one or the other. While it is illegal in the U.K. to discriminate against people who have or are planning to have children, the study noted that such discrimination was not only taking place in the workplace, it was being engaged in knowingly and intentionally. The government’s report cited a survey of :

122 recruitment agencies that revealed that more than 70 per cent of them

had been asked by clients to avoid hiring pregnant women or those of

childbearing age. (Equalities Review 68)

The Equalities Review investigated sectors of the industry that are more tightly regulated than the hiring practices in theatre. Several Devoted & Disgruntled participants felt they had to lie about their status as mothers when seeking employment.

Duffy’s group supplied a few solutions – sharing resources was top of their list – but even then there was a feeling that this must be done secretly: “job share, don’t tell men we’re working with that we’re working less hours but still getting the job done!”

(D&D 1, Issue 22). Another idea that was floated was to “do what suits us and they will get use (sic) to it” (D&D 1, Issue 22). While this idea, coupled with other suggestions that educating society of the value in bringing up children are what needs to happen, how exactly to implement these ideas in order for them to have a visible impact remained an unsolved question for the group. Looking at the government’s Equality Review, current laws in the U.K. have been unable to effect significant change despite penalties and litigation. This would be a good issue for the theatre industry to take up, and would serve as a model for the rest of the country (and world).

Two years after that first session about mothers and workplace discrimination, the question about how to handle childcare as a theatre maker was called in another session by Matilda Leyser20 with the provocative title, “Can you have a child and be an artist?

And why don’t the National Theatre have crèche?” (D&D 3, Issue 85).21 Leyser described the purpose of the session as “needing to bring the issue into the workplace.

The issue is still seen and not heard, or sometimes not even seen.” Like Duffy before her,

Leyser saw the best possible solution for individuals in the industry as taking the issue directly and personally to their employers (and prospective employers) to demand respect, equality, and accommodations.

While children have never been excluded from Devoted & Disgruntled, it was at this session that the idea of a crèche was put forward as being an official part of the event. The group’s recommendations were taken up by Improbable and the next year – and each year since – a crèche has been an important part of Devoted & Disgruntled, with space (a few comfy sofas, a nice rug, end tables, lamps, play things, and art supplies) dedicated to this purpose in a prominent, central part of the hall that is staffed with volunteers. Following its discussion about a Devoted & Disgruntled crèche, the group turned its attention to the National Theatre22 and why such an enormous, highly funded organization didn’t have a crèche. At the time of this session, during the 2008–09 year, the National Theatre reported a budgetary surplus of £456,000, (NT 2008, 12) and the

National has maintained such surpluses (despite austerity cuts and an ambitious and needed budgetary outlay for a complete renovation of their facilities), with the company posting a £400,000 surplus in its latest report for 2010–11. In an industry that relies on many different types of professionals whose work for the theatre is very sporadic (actors, designers, interns, directors, etc.), the National Theatre has the position in the industry and the funding to make this needed service available and to serve its leadership role for the theatrical community. To this end, the group thought that a crèche at the National could be open to actors throughout the London area, and not just those working at the

National Theatre itself, giving the theatre an even more prominent leadership role in the industry.

A concern that was most commonly brought up by theatre makers (though in this case most specifically actors) was the issue of aging, expressing participants’ worry and fear about continuing in a career that many seemed to feel favors youth over wisdom.

One poignant session from 2006, “Old Farts’ Terrors” (D&D 2, Issue 24), had the group throw out simple statements to express their feelings on the topic – the session report is thus recorded as a series of bullet points. The group came up with 28 points (some with multiple parts) of things that made these older practitioners fearful – many of these

“terrors” came in the form of discrimination (“Fear of being past your sell-by-date”), others came from self-confidence issues (“Fear of disapproval”), or the feeling that they had nothing considered of value to offer (“Fear that you are young at heart, but the world has moved on”). There were also some who simply expressed the fears that some had about just getting older in general, implying that the very process of getting older brings with it fears that are specific to being older, and that these fears impact their lives as well as their work (“Fear there is no God. Or that there is one. And Stomach cancer. And

Bombs”) (D&D 2, Issue 24). The session ended up closing on a positive note, reaffirming that older voices are important and can offer a lot to younger practitioners and audiences alike. The session’s recommendations to help avoid these terrors are as follows:

• Make yourself interesting

• Learn your history

• And stay physical (D&D 2, Issue 24)

This is actually quite good advice for everyone, old and young alike, in theatre or not!

Choosing a career in theatre is something people do for the love and passion of the work being done, its potential, and its ability to connect with others in a way no other artistic medium can. While there are some stars and celebrities in the industry, few are attracted to the industry to try to become such a luminary. So an industry that is fueled by the practitioners’ passions will inevitably find this work to be life-consuming; and, for many people, it becomes a lifestyle (see, for example, the session from 2006 called “Can theatre be more than a profession?” (D&D 1, Issue 67)). Long hours, low pay, and little job stability, coupled with extremely high competition, can easily make for less-than- perfect working and living conditions. Devoted & Disgruntled enables those working in the industry to share their complaints and fears and come up with ways to deal with these difficulties, be it having a life outside of theatre, romantic relationships, marriage, parenting, or aging. In some cases, the sessions are beneficial in that they can just air a concern and then find out that others feel similarly about the topic, thus normalizing their reaction if not alleviating the distress. Having an outlet to find one’s way through a personal life that is oftentimes indistinguishable from one’s professional life is important for the industry.

Notes

1 See: Darcy, Josh, “Does Politics have a place in theatre? Agitprop? Any?” Improbable,

Devoted & Disgruntled 2. Issue 71, Feb. 2007. This session is particularly heated, but many sessions report on the passion of participants with opposing or competing views.

2 While it may seem odd to cite two performance pieces detailing American, and not

British, politics, it should be noted that ENRON is a British show that transferred to NYC via Broadway and that the issues dealt with had global ramifications in both economics and governmental response to citizens and disasters – issues that have become of greater concern in the post-9/11 world.

3 This is explained in a more detail in Appendix B. Essentially these metaphors describe participants who function like their namesakes: bees flitting from session to session, cross-pollinating the conversations, and butterflies listening in on various sessions and reflecting on them, each enriching the overall conference experience by adding depth and variety.

4 The production was in commemoration of the one-hundred-year anniversary of Jules

Verne’s death. The play’s original French title is La visite du sultan des Indes sur son

éléphant à voyager dans le temps, or “A Visit from the Sultan of the Indies while

Traveling through Time on His Elephant.” – Rough translation provided by Google

Translate.

5 I have not been able to find this statistic specifically, but it is still a stated and believed sentiment by a practitioner at the session, and so warrants inclusion in the discussion,

even if it is apocryphal. But imagining that average commercial West End and Broadway

Houses can accommodate between one and four thousand people, and that these theatre’s run shows six days a week, compared to the much slower football game schedule, it seems that a case can be made to support this claim.

6 While not mentioned in this session, a theatre in London, called Shunt, used to do something very similar to this group member’s suggestion, and with great success – not only for their local community – but in helping the greater theatre community by allowing them to take advantage of their space when not otherwise in use. Sadly Shunt had to close the doors on the warehouse space on Bermondsey Street in 2011 for financial reasons. Shunt, the theatre company, is still producing new plays.

7 “…add if you feel you have any…” is a common refrain in reports. And while this session did not have any added comments, such comments are common. The reports are printed right after they are written up in The Newsroom and posted around the walls of the hall so that people can peruse then at their leisure throughout the day and people can write in comments that will get added by the staff on the final reports. See Appendix C for more information on the process.

8 Reports are rife with spelling, grammar, formatting, and punctuation errors – I will bracket added elements when they are needed for clarity, but will try to leave quoted material in its original form whenever possible.

9 Submission after the fact has always been encouraged, but it was not until Devoted &

Disgruntled 4 that the sessions were posted electronically. The way in which such

submissions have been handled over the years is difficult to trace as many people were involved, so it can be difficult to know which submissions have been received in this fashion. The final report (the printed edition given out to participants in the conferences last day) for D&D 5 had only 100 session reports, while the online version has 112. This particular session (089) was given a placeholder number in the final report but is only included in the electronic version of the reports; this and the copious amount of cited statistics at the beginning of the report (see the repost in Appendix D) makes a strong case for electronic submission after the fact. However, in some cases, a printing error has omitted a report and this has been rectified in the online edition.

10 UK Parliament, “Equality Act 2008-09 to 2009-10.” UK Parliament 8 Apr. 2010.

11 The data was collected during the 1983–84 year and published in 1985.

12 This survey was conducted in early 2006 and published the same year.

13 Sands, Emily Glassberg. “Opening the Curtain on Playwright Gender: An Integrated

Economic Analysis of Discrimination in American Theater.” Princeton: Princeton UP, 15

Apr. 2009. Web. 23 Feb. 2012.

14 Obviously unintended, I found it funny how this session’s number – 007 – represents one of British spy literature’s more well-known misogynistic characters – James Bond.

15 I only mention the mixed genders of this group because, in several of the session quoted so far, only women had been in attendance, an issue that was frequently brought up in those sessions.

16 Clean Break is a women’s-only cooperative theatre company founded by two female prisoners in 1967. The company has produced professional, award-winning plays. Clean

Break’s plays “dramatise women’s experience of, and relationship to, crime and punishment. Our women-only identity is crucial to our history and rationale, and provides us with the most effective model for representing, understanding and meeting the complex needs of women who offend” (Clean Break para. 3).

17 Grandad is a common spelling in the UK.

18 Daniel Kucan is a film, TV, voice, and motion capture artist as well as a prolific writer and designer in Los Angeles.

19 While my tale of disguising identity in a world prejudiced against actors was brilliant and well received by the group, the convener did not record it in the session’s notes (few of the stories told were recorded).

20 Matilda Leyser was a frequent contributor to Improbable’s productions. She she has since joined the artistic leadership of the company in 2010. While not planning on having a child when she called this session (or another session concerning children and family in

2011), she had her first child in 2012.

21 A crèche is day nursery for babies and small children. It differs from day care in that it is not considered a permanent childcare situation, but is there for less regular use (even if the crèche itself is more or less permanent), like for actors’ children while their parents attend rehearsals for a few weeks or while a parent is attending a conference.

22 Also known as The Royal National Theatre or according to The Royal National

Theatre themselves, abroad they market themselves as the National Theatre of Great

Britain (to a little consternation from people in Wales and Scotland…)

100

Chapter 4: “Help!”

4.1 “I Me Mine” - Personal Rants/Selfish Needs

If you are not scared of your dreams, then they’re not big

enough.

– Anonymous

“Am I too old to change my mind?”

Devoted & Disgruntled 4, Issue 45

In the metrics I developed to categorize and organize the many hundreds of issue reports generated by the first six annual conferences, I knew early on that I wanted to track what I had deemed ‘selfish sessions.’ My initial reason for this label was that I had noticed what I saw as a growing trend, from the Devoted & Disgruntled conferences that

I had participated in or helped organize, in the number of personal appeals being made into sessions. My initial reaction to these personal appeals was to label them as ‘selfish,’ as they were sessions that were generally of limited appeal and usually did not carry consequences beyond the convener. Another way to look at these types of sessions, a way to easily categorize a majority of them, is to look for session titles that contained the personal pronouns ‘I’ or ‘me.’ However, as I worked my way methodically through the reports, and later on started to attend these types of sessions as a participant/observer, I came to see that ‘selfish’ sessions were not bad, as the label I had given them initially in

101 my metrics might imply. These types of sessions not only served a valuable purpose – helping someone with a direct need – but also produced reports that were also sometimes more directly useful, since the question proffered is usually directly addressed in an actionable way because the advice and discussions are addressing a personal concern and calling for an immediate answer.

When comparing the types of sessions that were called each year and checking the total number of ‘selfish’ sessions against other years’ totals, an interesting trend developed with more sessions asking for personal help being called each year. In Devoted

& Disgruntled’s inaugural year there were just two such sessions,1 but by 2011 the number of these sessions had grown to twenty-six, rising steadily each year.

140

120

100

80 # of Selfish Sessions 60 # Total Session

0 D&D 1 D&D 2 D&D 3 D&D 4 D&D 5 D&D 6 D&D 7

Figure 11. Selfish Sessions in Relation to Total Sessions by Year 102

In 2010 there was a dramatic dip in the number of selfish sessions, which decreased from twenty-two the previous year to thirteen. Several possible explanations for this 2010 decline exist. It easily could have been a part of a natural cycle with such session types waxing and waning more or less randomly, or the decline may have been a reaction to a perceived excess of these session types the year prior.2

The decline in selfish sessions in 2010 may have continued down as part of a cyclic trend in 2011, but that year’s conference also saw a change to the conference invitation and title, as well as dramatic changes in the economic climate facing arts funding and those whose livelihood depended upon it. In previous years the conference subtitle, after “Devoted & Disgruntled (number),” was, “What Are We Doing About

Theatre?” – but, in 2011, with austerity measures already beginning to affect arts funding dramatically, the conference’s title was reformed:

Devoted & Disgruntled 6

Singing in Dark Times:

What are we going to do about theatre and the performing arts now?

(McDermott, “Devoted 6” para. 1)

The “Singing in Dark Times” part was very much in evidence at that year’s conference.3 Many individuals and groups lost funding they had been receiving for years and so there were many sessions revolving around the consequences of this, since people were desperate for new revenue sources and a large number of people were looking for new jobs or to change their careers. The last word of the conference title, “now,” really captured the urgency that was coursing through the community and that was calling for

103 immediate remedies. The funding cuts, therefore, dominated many of the discussions.

Despite this, the energy and sentiment at that year’s conference was actually quite positive with even the ‘selfish’ sessions including less ‘whinging’ and more discussions on ‘how to get on with it.’ Theatre seems to thrive when faced with adversity; indeed, those passionate theatre makers in attendance at Devoted & Disgruntled 6 were ready to sacrifice and fight to keep doing what they love.

The selfish sessions can be further broken down into three basic types. The first type is personal appeals, in which someone has a specific need that is not being met. This type of session itself takes on two forms – the first asking for help specific to the individual asking, and the second taking the form of a rant about a given topic or situation. The second type of selfish sessions are those calling for help on a project – usually asking for others to come on board – such as to create a show or form some sort of collective. The final selfish session variety is a session that is not related to theatre at all, or is only remotely tangential to a theatrical theme. This chapter will explore these three session types in order to illuminate their importance and purpose in the Devoted &

Disgruntled framework and community.

A very basic personal appeal-type selfish session, one that tends to be called every year (and sometimes more than once a year), consists of appeals for advice on how to integrate into the London theatre community – either as a foreigner or as a new practitioner. In 2006, at the first Devoted & Disgruntled, a session was called entitled, “I still feel like an outsider” (D&D 1, Issue 61). The session was called by a theatre maker who was having trouble feeling like he was a part of the theatre community, despite

104 working regularly in the profession. The session was attended by seven people, according to the session report, and took the form of a short – but concise – bulleted list that traced the discussion’s main points. Reading through the list, the discussion is fairly clear: the people in attendance were specifically offering advice and support to the convener. In some personal appeal sessions, other participants may join the session because they feel they are in a similar situation to the convener’s and a wider variety of advice will generally be given to accommodate the multiple people in need. In the “I still feel like an outsider” session, all of the six attendees seem to be focused solely on the convener and his problem.

It should also be noted that the convener’s bulleted notes are written in all capital letters; which, along with the bluntness of the recorded comments, gives an impression of how important (and frustrating) this topic was to the convener. The rest of the session report is written with normal capitalization rules, further offsetting the passionate feelings displayed during the discussion. Looking at these notes makes it clear that those in attendance were not coming to just give the convener a sympathetic shoulder to cry on.

Despite their bluntness, it is still clear that they came to support the convener. However, the first and second bullet points of the session take a knock at the session’s initial premise:

- OUTSIDE OF WHAT?

- DO YOU WANT TO BE AN INSIDER? (D&D 1, Issue 61)

The theatre community is no more a group of single-minded people than is any other large group. It has many layers and circles, and so the group was curious as to what the

105 convener felt outside of. One general notion of ‘inside’ – when talking about theatre – would be professional, for-profit theatre, such as productions in London’s West End.

Another ‘inside’ could be the coterie of theatre makers who consistently work at the

National Theatre. For many in theatre, keeping on the outside – always feeling you are breaking new ground – can be important. Many practitioners feel that, once you become an insider, your ability to control your work or make controversial choices becomes limited by the group think to which one must subscribe in order to become an insider.

The convener tried to explain that what he meant was that he wants to work in more environments and with different people, in response to which the participants asked if it was necessary to be ‘inside’ in order to accomplish those goals. They also suggested that perhaps the convener would do better to celebrate his outsider status; and, more to the point, one participant, noting that the convener is a working professional and should

“STOP FEELING SORRY FOR YOURSELF!” (D&D 1, Issue 61).

It was not just that the convener wanted to break out and work with new people, but that he was angry that these so called ‘insiders’ were not letting him in; that they were, in his eyes, rejecting him, and he was taking this perceived slight personally. The convener seemed to be taking the suggestions and tough love to heart, noting that, “BY

DEMONISING THEM, I AM EMPOWERING THEM.” Once the convener was willing to admit this, the participants pointed out that feeling like an outsider is normal, one person questioning the convener’s premise and further speculating, “MAYBE THERE IS

NO INSIDE” (D&D 1, Issue 61). Others concurred that being inside was more in the eye of the beholder, with someone asking the convener to “VISUALIZE BEING AN

106

INSIDER…DO THEY FEEL LIKE OUTSIDERS?” (D&D 1, Issue 61), a point that was not lost on the convener, who realized that he was indeed an insider with the group in which he worked regularly. The last note – the final, lone word at the end of the session report, and which was left by the convener – can almost be read with a sigh of relief following the productive discussion: “OK” (D&D 1, Issue 61). While the convener’s frustration may not be dissipated, the new information he received and change in perspective gave him what he needed to hear. Likewise, those attending this selfish session were also able to respond constructively to help a member of their community with a difficult challenge for theatre practitioners in the middle of their careers.

One might suspect that a system like Open Space Technology, which affords anyone a soapbox, may end up with an inordinate amount of personal ranting;4 but, as seen in the chart above, even if all ‘selfish’ sessions were personal rants they still constitute a very small number of the sessions called in comparison to the total sessions that happen each year. This has a lot to do with the structure of Devoted & Disgruntled.

The conferences tend to appeal to people who are passionate about theatre being useful and wanting to find solutions – not that everyone at a Devoted & Disgruntled conference does not have rants (indeed, some of us have a litany of them) – rather, people at the conferences are tired of ranting and complaining and are there to find a way to take action. This is further reinforced by good facilitation, which primes the group to tackle its problems and gets members excited about being the start of the solution to the things they may have been ranting about for years. Nonetheless, rants are still an important part of

107

Devoted & Disgruntled – they can be a barometer of sticky or thorny issues, ones that recur over and over and seem to be unresolved for people in the community.

Another quality that is mostly specific to rants seen in the Devoted & Disgruntled session reports is that, despite good attendance, and what are generally passionate discussions, a given convener’s session report is almost always one sided. The other voices tend to get washed out as the passion of the convener for the topic overpowers the rest of the participants’ direct contributions. Several of the rant sessions I attended bear this out when looking at the session reports that followed the lively debates. This is not to say that the other participants’ voices are ignored, the rants as written oftentimes address the counterpoints brought up, but do not usually give these arguments equal footing.

Interesting rants that have occurred over the years have touched on some commonly heard topics, but also on some very controversial subjects. One rant that was well attended (twenty-seven participants) dealt with a particular convener’s frustration about how the industry and community treats polymaths in her session titled, “If I’m a

Jack of all Trades, Why do People think I am a Master of none?” (D&D 5, Issue 47).

Another, from Devoted & Disgruntled 3, bemoaned the incessant copying of successful productions that leads to an undifferentiated theatre scene in London – “Why do I always have déjà vu whilst watching plays?” (D&D 4, Issue 80). And one actor voiced her irritation about how in order to succeed in the London theatre scene she had to spend more time dealing with activities that, while vital, took up more of her time than what she wanted to do and were trained for – “Do I have to devote my time to administration, producing, funding, funding, funding…. To create art[?]” (D&D 1, Issue 20).

108

A particularly feisty personal rant from the 2007 conference, “Are we addicted to the romance of the suffering artist and our artistic arrogance?” (D&D 2, Issue 17), was among the first sessions called at the first Devoted & Disgruntled conference. The title, already a heavily editorialized rhetorical question, attracted a good number of participants and fostered a lively discussion. The convener started off her session’s notes as strongly as she set up her session title:

The artist has a tendency to latch on to the idea of suffering because they

like to feel special through their being excluded. Is our own sense of

entitlement and supremacy the cause of our own suffering rather that the

surrounding environment being culpable? The ‘them and us’ disease. It’ s

[sic] an easy out. With an addiction to your stereotype you can get away

with complaining and blaming others rather than do something about it

yourself. (D&D 2, Issue 17)

This opening salvo sounds like a well-rehearsed speech, one that has been given in multiple performances. While such people do exist in theatre (and everywhere else there are people), it is an overreaching generalization – and, in my experience, such behavior tends to work itself out with experience and maturity – but there are cases where theatre practitioners are (il)legitimately aggrieved. One need not look too hard to see the inequality of women in nearly every facet of the industry to understand that there are weighty social and cultural factors outside an individual’s personal control that many are marginalized by.

109

Contrary to the convener’s assertion, I have rather the opposite view – it seems that society is enamored with the idea of the suffering artist, and not the other way around. Writer and novelist Tom Robbins penned a perfect example of this societal obsession with the beauty of the suffering artist in his novel Jitterbug Perfume, in which he described the origins of the studio apartment:

It was called a “studio” apartment because art is supposed to be glamorous

and landlords have a vested interest in making us believe artists prefer to

sleep in their workrooms. Real artists almost never live in studio

apartments. There isn’t enough space, and the light is all wrong. Clerks

live in studio apartments. File clerks, shop clerks, law clerks, community

college students, elderly widows and unmarried waitresses such as

Priscilla. (3)

Obviously there is room enough for some to take on the mantle of suffering artists as their way of identifying, but being a theatre artist – particularly an actor – and, even more so, an actress – one must deal with unwanted baggage from those not in the field, and sometimes even from those within it. The convener of the “artistic arrogance” session rant acknowledged this problem around the midway point of her notes, which show that antitheatrical prejudice is an internal problem:

Our artistic arrogance has created a feudal society even within our own

business. We think technicians as lesser creative species, commercially

successful artists are sellouts bla bla bla Why? We live by clichés and are

110

driven by insecurities and paranoia and our desperation to be accepted and

stamped legitimate. (D&D 2, Issue 17)

There is a meta-antitheatricality to this statement, as well, in the convener’s complaining about those complaining about their theatre problems.

There are several elements that can signal one is reading a rant, especially in the digital age of Facebook status updates, blog posts, and hyperlink aggregate/comment boards such as Reddit and 4Chan. A big indicator that one has passed from polite discourse into a passionate rant is the excessive use of random bolding and italicizing, out-of-place CAPITALIZATION, a tendency towards the profane, and a plethora of additional punctuation (the use of all these at once is also not UNCOMMON

GODDAMNIT!!!?!?!!). These sorts of stylistic choices give us an opportunity to see the passion that writer has on the subject, but it is also sometimes a signifier that the writer is outside the bounds of rational discourse and usually unable to take in new information that counters his or her argument. Following several bolded sections (“Out with complaining about the arts council…our sense of entitlement…fuck that shit. Grow up and move on”) and the increasingly heavy use of question marks (“Have you ever heard of a business plan?????????????????????????????” (that is twenty-nine question marks)), the convener concluded her notes, “Why does art give you the god damn right to be vulnerable???????” (D&D 2, Issue 17). The convener is angry, she wants people to take responsibility, and she preaches a more capitalistic mode of operation to achieve this. The convener’s passion is evident from her title to her closing remark, and in all of that thirst for change she did make some legitimate points (ones that are, unfortunately,

111 likely to be missed or ignored due to the tone of such rants). This type of frustration with those in the profession is heard only occasionally at the Devoted & Disgruntled conferences, and rarely in such frustrated and vehemently posed prose, but such voices are encouraged, because such sessions are important for the community – not just the voices of the conference attendees, but for the community as a whole. Theatre deals with the most extreme of situations (murder, torture, and incest, for instance – and that’s just in Hamlet). Passion, as mentioned several times already, is a requirement for undertaking this profession, and Devoted & Disgruntled welcomes anyone who has something they care enough about to have a place to say it. “Whoever comes are the right people” – no one is turned away or silenced for expressing their opinions, and this unqualified acceptance of people and ideas makes the community stronger.

Some very helpful selfish sessions are called that are a combination of a rant and a personal appeal. These sessions do tend to deal with issues with which other people can identify and have more voices in their discussions. A particularly emotionally charged session I attended at the 2010 conference elicited anger, frustration, and bitterness and left several people rather upset at its conclusion. The session, “Is it a problem that, recently, I feel that I do not want to work with, perform for, or even talk to straight people? If yes, are there solutions?” (D&D 5, Issue 16), is the most controversial topic I have attended at a Devoted & Disgruntled, so much so that I found it impossible to contribute directly to the conversation. It was, however, voicing a frustration in the gay community that many felt was taboo to broach outside of queer theatre circles.

112

First and foremost, the question [the session title] was meant to be

provocative. I do not hate straight people, do not refuse to work with

straight people, nor do I find straight people untalented or oppressive. I

even have some straight friends. (D&D 5, Issue 16)

The first note in the session report qualifies all of the heated concerns that were voiced at the beginning of the session’s actual meeting. There were many questions asked for clarification and many accusations made before the discussion moved on to a more productive discussion. It is interesting to note that the convener used a common trope at the end of his introduction that was similar to the stereotypical remarks made by someone who is defending a racist comment or belief: ‘I’m not a racist. I have several black friends.’ The group consisted of “Many queer people, a handful of straight people, and a few unidentified” (D&D 5, Issue 16), and people on all sides of the discussion were frustrated and raw during this introductory discussion, with the convener noting that there was a lot of hurt in the group over this topic.

The discussion of segregated theatre spaces for queer and straight performance helped the group to focus less on the provocative title of the session. Stella Duffy, a prominent gay figure in the London theatre community – a novelist, playwright, director, and performer – suggested to the convener that she “felt the need to constantly engage with the greater community (including gays/straights etc.)” (D&D 5, Issue 16), which was echoed by another participant, who “talked about the limited perspective that might derive from only interacting with and responding to a queer audience” (D&D 5, Issue

16). Both of these comments resonated with the convener, who was incredibly open to

113 criticism and suggestions, tried to build meaningful discussion, and honestly sought a solution to his exclusionary feelings.

Duffy articulated a sometimes unseen problem she herself faces, “the nuisance of having to continually ‘come out’ over and over again as necessity of being a queer performer/writer/theatre maker” (D&D 5, Issue 16). Despite this, Duffy maintained that such a fight was important and should be faced with confidence and perseverance and

“that even though gay liberation happened years ago, the movement is still far away from being through” (D&D 5, Issue 16). The convener’s response to Duffy helped to clarify, to some extent, his deeper concern, that such struggles as Duffy described are inherently hostile and that he felt that there is a need for space(s) for gay performers and audience alike to feel safe and not have to continually ‘come out’ about issues of identity.

The conversation later in the session turned to another concern that not only the convener had, but others in the group also voiced: the fear of “not getting it right” when engaging queer issues. In particular there was concern about “non-queer people writing or engaging with queer subjects/subjectivity” (D&D 5, Issue 16). While there is good reason to think that a truly good representation of gay issues in theatre can be best represented by a person from within that community, it is detrimental to be adamant that this is the only way to achieve such representations on stage. It is also counter to what theatre does, which is allowing people to tell stories about, from, and by people who are not themselves. Should only dentists be allowed to write dentist characters? Can a woman write a play about issues of being masculine? Duffy understood the concern that people

114 outside the gay theatre community may not get it right, but was unconcerned; the convener noted Duffy’s position in the session report:

Stella encourages writers of all persuasions to write lesbian characters –

why? Because there are not enough representations. Even if they get it

wrong, she said, it might be worth the effort. (D&D 5, Issue 16)

Duffy allowed that misrepresentations are valid representations insomuch as they describe a point of view that is held by a part of the community and asks how, without knowing how others perceive us we can gauge where we stand, as well as what problems still exist and must be addressed.

This again touched off a debate about what gay theatre should be. On the one side there was a desire for there to be a safe place for gay theatre, one that the convener described as being exclusionary of straight audiences and theatre makers. On the other side were those who believed that gay theatre should continue to tackle the issues in a larger context, and that – even though gay liberation was well underway – the movement still had a ways to go and that integrated spaces were the best way to achieve this. The convener closed the session with his own astute summary of the arguments:

Basically, much of this boils down to the effectiveness of performance, if

we think we should preach to the unconverted in the congregation. People

come to church to be reinspired [sic], re-engaged, spoken to and riled up –

this is the first thing I like to do. If people can be converted, that’s

awesome too, but not necessarily the main thing… (D&D 5, Issue 16)

115

The convener made a good point, and several in the group who were very much against his segregationist desire at the start were better able to understand it in this context. While a fully integrated safe space for gay theatre may be the goal, until such ideals are achieved there will be a need for separate spaces. However, if the continued need for women’s theatre collectives is any indication, equality, parity, and safety issues are, sadly, still far off.

Personal appeals and rants give a good indication of what is on the minds of individuals at the time of the conference. They are also a place where individuals can blow off steam and/or find the support they need to continue their work. Making theatre can leave people bouncing from one temporary community to the next as practitioners move from one show to the next. This is makes it hard to reach out to the greater community for advice or to get a wider range of feedback. The annual Devoted &

Disgruntled conference brings all these voices together and gives those isolated voices a chance to connect and get vital feedback.

116

4.2 Help Wanted (or to continue the Beatles theme: “Help! I need somebody!”)

I got overexcited at the thought of a theatre on legs – like Baba

Yaga’s Hut – that stalked each member of its audience in turn,

hiding behind trees, following them, before – when they think

they’ve escaped, leaping on top of them and plunging them into a

lurid carnival performance in which they are the lead, before

offering them the chance to join the traveling theatre for the rest of

their lives or return to the real world.

–Tasso Stevens

“Let’s Make A Brilliant Piece Of Imaginary Theatre Now!”

Devoted & Disgruntled 4, Issue 57

Academic conferences are great places to present new and exciting ideas, find likeminded individuals, and to propose new collaborations; this contributes as much to their appeal as presenting a paper or sitting on a panel. The same is true of the Devoted &

Disgruntled conferences, and possibly even more so as the collaborative (devised) nature of the conference self-selects for those who are interested in this particular way of working. Devoted & Disgruntled allows for a greater exposure to practitioners and ideas than the normal course of interaction in the theatre community, permitting those who normally never come into contact with each other to cross-pollinate. These collaborations take many different forms: some are proposals for interested people to come together to work on a specific show or idea, while others are looking to create a new entity or group.

This chapter will examine how shows get made and proposed at Devoted & Disgruntled,

117 specifically the role of the producer in British theatre, as well as look at a few of the projects themselves.

While there are plenty of sessions in which a performer presents an idea for a play in a bid to attract other performers and practitioners (writers, directors, designers), a more common appeal is for a producer. This is very different than the situation in the United

States, where the role of producers in non-commercial, not-for-profit theatre is almost unheard of. Part of this may be due to different cultural ideologies of organization – hierarchical structures are more ingrained, perhaps, in a society that still maintains and honors its traditions such as the monarchy and a self-purposed state religious institution.

Another factor that can help explain the British theatre community’s favoring the use of producers while Americans do not is likely due to the greater availability of funding for the arts in the United Kingdom – especially from government institutions like the Arts

Council England (ACE). The sometimes labyrinthine process of applying for funding is difficult, and just as performers train and learn their roles, or designers study their crafts, the role of a producer is a specialized position that requires skillsets specific to this task.

The bigger question for many – and not just in the United States, but for many theatre practitioners in the United Kingdom – is “what does a producer do?” “Well, they produce, of course…” seems a reasonable response, but if an actor acts, a designer designs, and a director directs are adequate descriptors of these jobs, why is the title of producer is so unhelpful in defining itself? In the United States, a typical ‘Theatre 101’ class may normally define a theatrical producer as the person who “gets the money”;5 i.e., the person who finances the production. In this context, however, a producer is more like

118 an investor6 who generally expects a return on his or her investment, and indeed this description of a producer does work well for many producers in television, film, and for- profit theatre (Broadway) in the United States. However, not all producers actually are involved with financial matters; in many cases a producer can serve as a coordinator of personnel, bringing together the people who make a production happen (designers, actors, directors). In other cases, they may be in charge of coordinating a show’s advertising, PR strategies, and touring schedules. In some situations, a production may have many producers with another producer overseeing them. Such ambiguity in what a producer is and how producers function in theatre are a common source of discussion (and argument); in one session at Devoted & Disgruntled a participant quipped, “Do we spend too much time trying to define what a producer is rather than just doing?” (D&D 6, Issue

71). A producer is generally perceived as being at the top of a show or organization’s hierarchy, but in my experience a producer’s job is the same as that of the production assistant (PA) – the lowest job in a show or organization’s hierarchy. Each is expected to handle whatever tasks arise and need to be taken care of – in employment contracts the phrase, “other duties as needed or required” is common language for both positions.

In the British theatre community, the role of producer is common at all early levels of theatre production. A common view of this is that having a producer for a play or a company frees up the “creatives”7 to do what they are trained for. As devised theatre challenges text-centric theatrical tradition, and as newer theatre groups challenge the traditional hierarchies, methods, and job labels of long established and dominant theatre organizations (i.e., the National Theatre), some producers are also challenging the

119 limitations and perceptions of their craft. Nick Sweeting, a producer, co-founder, and a driving force behind Improbable, described this change in an interview with theatre documentarian Dick McCaw8 in August of 2008:

Phelim has talked a lot about being an outsider as a director, because of

the way that he, Lee, and Julian develop work; a way that doesn’t fit into a

model that would exist at, say, the National or the RSC. I see myself as an

outsider when it comes to producing and leading an organisation that I

would put very much at the top of the Independent Theatre world here in

England. That is exacerbated by the fact that I look at the way these

organisations are set up and find it so alien to my way of thinking. Also in

respect of what is productive. (Sweeting, “McCaw Interviews”)

In the quote above, Sweeting is describing how the way he works as a producer is far more creative than the roles that are commonly found at large theatre organizations.

Instead of allowing all of the people involved in the theatre to shape its direction and focus, many companies are run by a select few to whom the rest of the members are in service. Instead of everyone working for the whole of the organization, people are broken into smaller and smaller units that have no say or even knowledge about what it is that the company stands for. So you may have an artistic director who chooses a play to present and also decides on who will direct that show and assign a producer to help. In such a scenario, neither the director or producer are part of the process of choosing the play or in choosing to work together; everyone is removed and detached from the underlying, fundamental decision making processes.

120

Producers in the United Kingdom are increasingly seen as creatives who contribute to and shape the plays that are presented directly, from the earliest ideas and discussions, throughout the rehearsal process, and onto the finished product. In some cases, they are the instigators of new works and projects instead of coming on board with a project after it has been started. So, it is not surprising to see frequent appeals during

Devoted & Disgruntled from producers looking for people to help them with their projects or offering their experience to those who are in the early stages of work and are looking for collaborators. Other sessions are called by people who have ideas but need the help and guidance of a producer to help realize their projects. Devoted & Disgruntled brings these groups together and gives them time and space to talk about their ideas and see how they can work together and support each other.

An excellent example of a (selfish) personal project session called by a producer seeking help for her own projects was convened by Lucy Oliver-Harrison and entitled, “I have the projects – as a young producer, how do I make them happen?” (D&D 6, Issue

71). This session was attended by more than twenty participants, a mix of actors, other producers, and theatre companies. The issue at hand was to help this young producer connect her projects to interested individuals and parties. Specific projects are not discussed in detail, but the group gave the convener the knowledge and resources she needed to proceed effectively with her ideas. In helping Lucy with her projects, several of the participants asked her how she defined her role as a producer. In setting out to define this for the group, she set down a list of the producer’s responsibilities – “Financial, creative, problem solver, fundraiser” – adding that a concern for her was ending up as

121 nothing more than a full-time fundraiser (D&D 6, Issue 71). Like Nick Sweeting, the convener wanted to work as closely with production, helping to create and build the production, even to lead the entirety of the project. And, like Sweeting, the convener ran into some resistance from other participants about having a producer contributing artistically to production with someone asking, “Is there such a thing as a ‘Creative

Producer’?” (D&D 6, Issue 71). Many of the producers in the group were of the convener’s belief that it is important for them to be intimately involved in the creation of the work in order to find the work satisfying. A director in the group pointed out that this seemed to be a reasonable desire and that the opposite was also happening: people on the traditionally creative side of things have been taking on roles and responsibilities outside of their normal jobs. “Everyone’s role ends up overlapping…We all are having to be more like producers whether as an actor, director or a producer” (D&D 6, Issue 71). Once the group understood what the convener wanted, the discussion turned to advice on how to make her career work the way she wanted – everything from the types of venues to pursue, strategies for raising funds, to producer-specific resources and newspaper articles she should read. The session report, while selfish in its origins to get help for a single person’s projects, ended up as a several-page document with positive, uplifting advice and solid resources with contact information that is a useful guide for producers and new theatre companies trying to learn the ropes in the London theatre community.

Not all producers want to be in a position to contribute artistically to the actual production, as one producer said during a selfish project session, “Some producers want to do just the ‘nuts and bolts’” (D&D 6, Issue 14). In this session, “I’m a producer. Do

122 you have something you want me to produce?” the convener documented at the start the resources and contacts people gave him that would be happy to have him as a producer

(D&D 6, Issue 14). The rest of the session report details the discussion of misconceptions that many in the group had concerning the job of the producer. Many of the performers who come to Devoted & Disgruntled may never have had the opportunity to sit and talk with a producer before, despite most productions they have worked on having had at least one. Even when producers are involved creatively with production, in many cases such involvement may be invisible to production staff below the director as it is uncommon for producers to be active during the rehearsal process. So, when producers call a session to find or create products, it is common for part of the session to involve the producer selling what his or her idea of that job entails to prospective collaborators. As the convener provides his or her contact details at the top of the report, some of the session notes read as a cover letter, doing an excellent job of promoting the producer and his or her abilities, and giving one of the better descriptions of what a producer can do to support a company.

Producers can help you by:

1 developing an “arts culture” and theatre on a wider scale.

2 Helping you take a risk.

3 Being a strategist.

4 Being an administrator.

5 Being a project manager.

6 Facilitating artistic development.

123

7 Most producers do not want to simply find money.

8 Being a mentor and partner.

9 Being a spokesperson for the audience.

10 Providing networking opportunities. (D&D 6, Issue 14)

The convener then explains how a producer can help realize artistic vision and contribute to its creation, seeing it as the producer’s role to provide the scaffolding that supports

(and contributes to) the rest of the artistic endeavor. Despite the prevalence, and usefulness – artistically and otherwise – of producers in British theatre, they continue to be among the least understood practitioners.

Solicitations for producers are also common at Devoted & Disgruntled, even though people reaching out for such assistance may not understand exactly what they want a producer for. Sometimes, people call sessions seeking a producer when they are looking for a manager or an agent. Again, this confusion come from people not really understanding what the producer does – it seems that almost any job that doesn’t have someone with a clear job title attached to it (actor, director, accountant) is often assumed to then fall to the producer. To a certain extent this can be correct; the point at which a producer comes into the project may dictate what other duties he or she provides. For a new piece done by a new theatre group that the producer has been working with from the beginning, the producer may be more directly involved with marketing, press releases, venue selection, etc. But an in-house producer for a larger, established arts organization may only be involved with the generation of the art, serving more as the spokesperson for the audience with other departments in charge of fundraising and advertising. Although

124 being an actor, from one organization to the next, can also be a different experience with different expectations, the general role of the actor is essentially the same; however, this is not true for the producer and so confusion is bound to happen. The helpful thing about events like Devoted & Disgruntled is the ability to bring producers together with other artists where conversations about needs and expectations can be more easily expressed by all parties.

A successful performer called a session asking for a producer to help her with a show that she hoped to tour internationally. Her session was titled, “How do I get a good producer for my show?” and she wrote out what almost sounds like a bio for an online dating site or a playbill bio:

Sophie wrote and performed a solo show, went on tour with it and had sell

out shows in London at Purcell Room and Soho Theatre. The show’s ACE

funding has run out but she is still touring it. She is producing it herself

and has been invited to take it to Canada (and looking to take it to New

York where we potentially have some interest from backers) but she

doesn’t have time to do everything and I’m working on a new show. She

has been told it’s hard to find good producers. She wants to get a longer

London run for the show, too. (D&D 3, Issue 54)

She is advertising what she has, as well as what she wants, and is looking for people who are interested in coming on board or for potential contacts that people can pass along to her. But it is still unclear exactly what this producer will do: the show has been already been picked up by at least one venue in Canada, and a deal is already in the works for the

125 play to travel south to New York, so money and venues are already being discussed. The show itself is already finished, and has performed to “sell-out” crowds. Of course a producer could come in at this late date to help with bookings, but this may be more practical for a booking agency to handle that has experience with the kind of venues that exist in the areas the convener wants to bring the show. One participant expressed this to the convener: “some shows need a tour booker rather than a producer” (D&D 3, Issue

54).

Certainly a producer can help the convener with funding issues, but a lot of that will be the job for the venues that want to book her tour. And while she does mention she is working on a new show, something a potential producer would be ideal to help with, it is mentioned more as an explanation of why she needs the help – not so much to develop the new show, but rather to free herself up to create a new show by having someone else handle the details of her tour. The convener certainly could benefit from having a good relationship with a producer, who would likely take on all the responsibilities described

(and more), but it is hard to bring someone in to do the cleanup work at the end of production. It is easier when a producer has a personal stake, a certain level of ownership in the production; then all the non-creative tasks become a part of the producer’s commitment and desire to see his/her project succeed. Finding a good producer can be hard when one only thinks a producer is merely an office manager and not an equally valued member of the production team. The session gave the convener positive feedback on how best to find a producer willing to work with her – offering up direct contacts to specific people at the Arts Council and to programs run by Lyric Hammersmith, creating

126 a report that serves the convener well, but also lays out a description of what a producer may be more useful for, what other theatre professionals may be more appropriate to a specific job, and providing valuable resources for anyone in a similar predicament.

Moving beyond producers, other types of personal project appeals range from experimental performances created and performed at Devoted & Disgruntled itself to people looking for input on a project they want to start or upon which they are stuck in some way.

The session “Having a sing” (D&D 5, Issue 003) is a good example of an impromptu performance called by one participant to see if his idea of bringing together an ‘audience’ of non-singers and singers could create a satisfying experience for the audience, and also as a way to give people a break from the serious and practical discussions to see what other possibilities the Devoted & Disgruntled format could offer.

These types of sessions, during which a performance is made, have become more common as the conferences have gone on each year. My guess is that such sessions are an initial testing of the waters. While Phelim McDermott opens the space at the beginning of the conference, allowing the participants free reign to contribute in any way they like and creating an environment that removes restrictions and avoids limitations, there is still some initial resistance from participants who still cling to their prior notions as to how a conference is to be attended. The “Having a sing” convener noted:

The participants were (without exception) timid at first but without

exception each construction of our group (different constructions because

127

different people dropped in and out) sounded ‘perfect’ at some point for

each song/sung thing. (D&D 5, Issue 003)

The timidity in this session (which I attended) grew more from a sense that the group was perhaps doing something wrong than out of any purely self-conscious reason. As the singing continued, so did the confidence of the group – no one had come and shut the group down or asked them to be quiet (remember that all sessions are taking place in a single large space). Indeed, the “Law of Two Feet” came into great effect, with the singing drawing those who were still looking for a session to attend. The group was applauded at one point, giving it the encouragement that this was allowed. In some instances this easy acceptance of what might, at other conferences, be considered a disruption can take away a bit of the intended subversive rebelliousness that sometimes arises at when gathering large numbers of creatives together; however, that doesn’t mean that people have given up trying (see next section).

The group sang through several songs, some that were improvised on the spot (a song that consisted of a four note repetition of the word, “yes,” for instance, was particularly beautiful, simple, and accessible), while others came from existing works

(“Senzeni Na” was sung: “that ‘Doo Doo Ba Nay’ one, the central phrase from

‘Frankensinatra,’” as the convener describes it (D&D 5, Issue 003)). The convener noted his happiness with the project and his plans to move forward with the concept, “Now, this choir will go ahead however large or small…people are happy to respond to a casual invitation to sing, which is super. Venue must come first though” (D&D 5, Issue 003).

128

The session report ended with contact information for the convener and a proposed meeting schedule for any interested parties.

Singing is a popular activity for project/performance type sessions; however, many of these sessions go undocumented. Some of these sessions are just for fun; others, like the session just described, are called because someone is looking to create a new project, in this last case a secular choir. Other music sessions have been called for chanting and a few have involved people bringing musical instruments and improvising, and while some information from these session gets created – usually a name of the music, or the idea or inspiration for the session – rarely does the product (or performance) of these sessions get recorded.

As mentioned previously, the 2011 conference had a slightly different theme than any other annual conference in that it directly addressed the coming austerity measure that the theatre community was about to face. The conference title that year was more urgent:

Devoted & Disgruntled 6

Singing In the Dark Times:

What are we going to do about theatre and the performing arts now?

(McDermott, “Devoted 6” para. 1)

“Singing In the Dark Times” is a direct reference to the severe funding cuts, and especially how they were going to affect the smaller, more local community arts organization. This year’s conference title also saw what may seem like minor changes, but they added to the immediacy of the situation – the word “going” was added, implying

129 that a course of direct action needed to be developed, and the addition of the world “now” to the end made such action an imperative.

One group took on the impending inevitability of the coming austerity measures directly by taking the title of the conference literally and calling a session to draft an inspirational song for all to sing. The session, titled, “LULLABY FOR OUR DARK

TIME,” drew in about ten participants who all contributed to the creation of a three-verse lullaby (D&D 6, Issue 054). The conveners of the session avoided talking directly about why they called the session, most likely because it was self-evident to those in attendance at the conference that year. The session notes are primarily a record of muses and acknowledgments:

With the inspiration of an Icelandic Lament called The Seal Woman, and a

Dutch lullaby about a sleeping child and a kitten drinking milk…We have

created our own lullaby for the dark times. With conceptual images from

Steven and lyrical contributions from Ellis we have a three verse lullaby.

(D&D 6, Issue 54)

Following the creation of their lullaby, the group rehearsed it and then performed it during that day’s closing circle. The performances were recorded, placed online at the music sharing site Audioboos, and the links to the inspirational lullaby as well as to the group version are part of the session’s written records.9 The song and performance thereof are beautiful, giving a taste for the level of inventiveness and the professional quality of work that is created at Devoted & Disgruntled, oftentimes specifically – and only – for those attending. Many such instances have been created and performed over

130 the years at Devoted & Disgruntled but leave no trace of their existence, so it is useful to have the few representations, like this one, as a record of the creativity of the people and the process.

Motivated by a play written by Karl Kraus in 1915, a participant at Devoted &

Disgruntled 4 called a session titled, “Let’s Make A Brilliant Piece Of Imaginary Theatre

Now!” (Issue 57). The play, perhaps Kraus’s best-known work, is a satirical and scathing indictment of the First World War in the form of an apocalyptic dream. So what exactly is imaginary theatre? That is the question that the convener wanted to pose, but without specifically stating it. In his notes, which are a commentary and reflection on what happened more than just a mere chronology of who said what and when, the convener observed, “I started by saying I didn’t know how we would make it – although I had an idea in case we got stuck – I was interested in observing how we did” (D&D 4, Issue 57).

Not unlike the Devoted & Disgruntled conference title, the notion of creating imaginary theatre, is open-ended and demands interpretation. The convener then gave his inspiration, describing a moment from the play:

I had been inspired by Karl Kraus writing the Last Days Of Mankind as a

deliberately unperformable play,10 with my favourite stage direction of all

time “enter 1200 horses from the sea, led by a singing flame thrower”

(D&D 4, Issue 57).

The group came to the conclusion that imaginary theatre could not be practically realized, or it would no longer be imaginary. The question still remained as to what imaginary

131 theatre could be; for instance, was it possible to experience imaginary theatre as a group, led by text, narration, or other imagery?

Leaving unanswerable questions unanswered, the group brainstormed some qualities that they thought imaginary theatre should possess, such as focus, intimacy, and epic scale. The group, thus creatively primed, started giving out scenarios and images as fragments of imaginary performance. One participant suggested, “the piece travels around the world with its audience, picking up people along the way.” This led to a discussion concerning Brook’s The Empty Space that was brought up by a newly arrived

‘butterfly’ participant. Specifically, the discussion centered around Brook’s minimalist definition of theatre, which he paraphrased as “a man walks across the carpet with someone watching that action. The gaze makes it performance.” According to Brook, you must have the two parts, performer and observer, or you are not making theatre, and on the whole the group accepted this notion. The newly arrived participant, however, after establishing this point, wanted to show how he felt that this notion may not be entirely true. The convener retold the incident in his session report:

If E [the participant] was to break into my house while I wasn’t there and

walk across my carpet but leave no trace of his entry and never tell

anyone, is that not theatre. We agree it’s not but then E wonders if it might

be and I think there’s an anticipation of discovery which threatens theatre,

particularly if E were to talk to me and fear at any point I’m going to say

“didn’t you break into my house?” If that were to ever happen, it would be

132

theatre, says E. So there is an anticipated threatened theatre at any

moment. (D&D 4, Issue 57)

Threatened theatre is an imaginary moment that takes place entirely within one’s mind; however, the preparations required to achieve the moment are described as not imaginary, but are not strictly theatre by Brook’s definition, either, as the preparations are done alone and without an observer. What the group discussed here could be termed evidentiary theatre, where the performer and the participant need only to have been in the same place, but not at the same time; for example, a crime scene could be seen as a piece of drama, the story of the crime being discerned by following the chain of evidence left behind.

These several ideas build upon each other, culminating in the quote that began this section where the audience member is stalked by the play, caught and made the lead performer, and then offered a chance to join the play and to thus continue the cycle of the performance. The group proposed more ideas and scenarios for creating this kind of theatre with unsuspecting persons roped into being audience members and performers:

Which led to us talking about social chain structures

A mission to recruit a stranger.

A mission to meet a stranger and pair up.

A mission where you are given a target to copy in every single way but

you are also a target to a target etc [sic] to a target who is themselves

copying you.

The great thing about all these is that they are sustainable. The initiation

mechanism. The last audience becomes the performer. (D&D 4, Issue 57)

133

As the group discussed these ideas more, bringing up examples of experimental theatre that had some of these qualities, they settled in on a project – one that was later realized – titled The Feast, and that embodied the ideas of strangers meeting up, telling bits of the story they had been given individually, with the story fully forming and unfolding as these people met for a real meal. In ending the session, the convener humorously remarked, “We need to describe our piece (so that Lyn Gardner can give it an imaginary review)” (D&D 4, Issue 57).

Most projects that arise out of the Devoted & Disgruntled conferences have a selfish quality to them in that they are called by a person or a specific group who is asking for help to realize the group’s or individual’s goal. From these selfish sessions, many more people become involved, connections are made, and other projects are birthed. The kinds of people who call these selfish sessions is varied, from directors or producers who want to take a leadership role in a project to those seeking guidance and direction for an idea by which they are inspired. Part of the Devoted & Disgruntled legacy will be the projects, organizations, and connections that the conference provides its participants, making it a valuable and unique resource for the theatre and performance community.

134

4.3 “Help! Not just anybody,” or “And I do appreciate you being around” – Non-Theatre

Session

I called the group in response to a jaded feeling I had

(temporarily) experienced on Day 1 when I had bumble bee-d

around the sessions and felt tired of all the practical topics being

discussed. I felt old and tired and burdened with all the knowledge

of my 50 years on the planet, and thought ‘I want to hear some

stuff I don’t know.’

- Allison Goldie

“Tell Me Something I Don’t Know”

Devoted & Disgruntled 6, Issue 103

As a three-day-long conference, Devoted & Disgruntled events give participants the time, familiarity, and comfort to go off topic. Sometimes this is done as an act of rebellion against the themes and popular issues, sometimes to parody them, and sometimes just as an exercise in freedom and creativity, but almost always it is an act of socializing, meeting people, and play. And while many of the sessions called in this vein are selfish in nature – being called by a single individual for his/her own personal purpose – these types of sessions often grow and transform beyond the convener’s control, becoming less selfish. A nice consequence mentioned in many of these sessions is that they provide a break from the more serious discussions that take place during the three days and oftentimes one hundred-plus issues called. As with the theatre-related sessions, there is no censoring of what can be called as a session, and any session called

135 is given the same time, resources, and support, making these sessions no less important in the structure and culture of Devoted & Disgruntled conferences than topics that deal directly with theatre issues.

There are two basic categories I have cataloged when looking at off-topic, non- theatre sessions. The first groupings are sessions of a purely whimsical, rebellious nature, such as the sessions, “The Things I Found in My Pockets and My Notebook” (D&D 5,

Issue 39) or “Ideas for keeping warm this weekend” (D&D 4, Issue 3). Others are more serious in tone, like, “How low can you go? What’s been your greatest failure and what was great about it?” (D&D 3, Issue 86) and “How Are You?” (D&D 6, Issue 30). Many of the sessions end up overlapping these two categories, more often starting off whimsically and ending up more serious than the other way around. Some sessions start off as non-theatre sessions but find their way back to theatre topics as part of their normal course; it is harder than one might think to stay off topic when you are at a theatre conference, surrounded by people who spend most of their time immersed in theatre.

How many jobs are as immersive as theatre and performing, where one wakes up to go to work during the day (rehearsals) and then has to go to work that same evening to put on a performance? As has been mentioned previously, theatre can be viewed as a lifestyle more than as a simple job, so it should be no surprise that conversations can easily fall back to performance-related topics. This section will look at a number of these non- theatre topics and how they fit into the Devoted & Disgruntled culture.

There can be a bluntness to many session titles, often attempting to be provocative in order to spark a discussion, such as the session discussed earlier in this chapter, “Is it a

136 problem that, recently, I feel that I do not want to work with, perform for, or even talk to straight people? If yes, are there solutions?” (D&D 5, Issue 16) or “How do we stop directors behaving like wankers?” (D&D 2, Issue 38), for example. Non-theatre sessions have provocative and enticing titles sometimes because the sessions themselves (and especially the calling of the sessions) are performative in nature. Sessions that deal with sex and relationships, outside of theatrical practice, tend to get called every year and are a good example of this performative quality, being a kind of mating or courtship ritual. A year before calling the “Is it a problem…I do not want to work with, perform for or even talk to straight people?” session (D&D 5, Issue 16), the same convener called another provocative (though certainly less controversial) session titled, “Who wants to take an adorable queer performer out for a drink?” (D&D 4, Issue 36). The session notes themselves leave few details of what happened, but an Improbable associate, Robert

Wells, happened to find the session interesting enough to document it with a series of three photographs depicting the before, during, and after stages.

137

Figure 12. “The Drinking Issue: Before”

Photograph © Robert Wells.

The first photograph depicts York Hall and what is a typical setup for the beginning of a session. A ring of chairs, a flipchart (on which the convener writes out the name of the session – not only to help people find the session, but for those exercising the

Law of Two Feet to be able to browse the assorted sessions and know what the topic of

138 the group at hand is), assorted writing and drawing implements, and additional A4-sized blank paper. The convener’s bag and sweatshirt sit on a chair on the left and, on a chair in the center there is a small stack of blank session report forms. The ‘News Room’ can be glimpsed in the background of the picture, a line of tower PCs underneath a series of long tables. The first picture is devoid of people because everyone is currently congregating around the opposite wall of York Hall looking at the schedule and picking which session they want to attend out of the more than twenty that will all be taking place during this timeslot. Calling any session can be a little intimidating: even though you are not necessarily required to lead the session you call (though you are generally expected to be present – though even this expectation is not set in stone), there is usually some anxiety that no one will come to your session, that what you are concerned with and passionate about is of no interest to others. Such concern could easily be even greater for a session such as this that is very personal and specific to the convener himself. But this story has a happy ending…

139

Figure 13. “The Drinking Issue: During”

Photograph © Robert Wells.

The handmade banner, suspended from three long strips of transparent cellophane tape (called sellotape in Britain, similar to United State usage of the brand name Scotch

Tape as a generic for clear plastic tape), a trademark material used by Improbable in several past theatrical productions, hangs at the stage at the front of the hall. The convener is pictured standing at the center in a striped sweater (jumper). Improbable artistic director, and Devoted & Disgruntled facilitator Phelim McDermott sits to the

140 convener’s left, wearing a green hat and striped scarf, along with several standing people, who were bumblebees to the session.

Figure 14. “The Drinking Issue: After”

Photograph © Robert Wells.

141

The last image looks similar to the first image; however, while the session now appears to be over, it is not – it has only moved locations. Appended to the flipchart’s session title is the following message, “We’re @ The Approach Tavern  address on form you were given on entry…” (D&D 4, Issue 36). The form given at entry to the event has the location map for sessions as well as listings for several places to eat and drink in the conference’s immediate area. The Approach is the pub where participants gather to decompress (usually) after each day of the conference has concluded; in this case, people from this session got started early. The session notes are very sparse with only two lines total in addition to the list of participants. One line merely states the name of the pub attended, and the last line of the report concluding, “Not all were sexually interested in

Brian, but one was…” (D&D 4, Issue 36). Nonetheless, the session was documented, not only in the sparse notes of the convener, but also by another participant (and New Room

IT coordinator). The session is a part of the conference’s record, another window into issues that are on the minds of the community.

In a career that can be all-consuming of one’s days and nights, finding time for relationships – or, as is pointed out in some sessions, even just sex – can fall to the demands of work. Many sessions are called on how to balance a theatrical life specifically; others skip the issues of theatrical influence, perhaps taking them as a given, and look for novel ways to tackle these issues or interpersonal connections. Just such a session was called at the first Devoted & Disgruntled conference with the title, “Who We

142

Fancy in the Room” (D&D 1, Issue 58). The conveners, two well-known writers and performers in the London theatre community, spell out the point of their session:

Most/many of us came into theatre for reasons of passion/desire/sex –

fancying people, wanting people to fancy us, lust, interest, desire,

passion – one of the reasons many people continue to begin work on a

new show is the potential of new friends/relationships/liaisons – and,

at base, at least in part to get laid. If/when this goes, the desire, the

possibility, what happens then? (D&D 1, Issue 58)

The convener’s note that the session really was just called, “as a break from the ‘serious’ discussions, as a game, some playing,” but, in the spirit of Devoted & Disgruntled and

Open Space Technology methodology, ended up concluding, “it may be relevant anyway

(whatever happens is the only thing that could have)” (D&D 1, Issue 58). These sessions reaffirm the principle that whatever is important to those in attendance at the conference is important to the conference. And this also shows how non-theatrical issues, at the very least, affect people’s theatrical lives and work.

One session from the sixth annual conference left behind more substantial notes than any other selfish relationship-type session. “My friend Sally is really fit and brilliant.

She would like a boyfriend.” (D&D 6, Issue 75) was called by Sally’s friend, Jamie. The session notes describe the process of calling the session, which gives some insight to how sessions in general are oftentimes created. Sally, who – while not the convener of the session – did write the session notes, tells us how it all started:

143

On Saturday morning when sessions were being called I joked to my good

friend Jamie that I should host one called, ‘Hi, I’m Sally, 32, I would like

a boyfriend…discuss’. Jamie encouraged the idea, but at that point I

wasn’t brave enough to ask the question… (D&D 6, Issue 75)

Being the good friend, Jamie did not let Sally off the hook and took the initiative, calling the session for her.

Many people come with issues that they are passionate to discuss, issues they had known they would call before the conference even started. Others get their inspiration after the conference’s facilitator, Phelim, has described the methods behind the event.

And many sessions come out of comments made to friends and neighbors sitting in the large circle while listening to the names of sessions that others are calling during the thirty to forty minutes in which the initial rush of topics is created at the start of the conference. Sally’s session grew out of such a discussion, reacting and responding to the other types of sessions being called. As people announced their session’s titles, Sally heard the importance and passion people had for their issues, a similar passion and importance seems to have been connected to Sally’s desire for a relationship.

So, Jamie and I met in the circle midday bemused by our slightly odd

decision. A piece of paper was put in the middle with the question clear

for all to see and an arrow pointing to me…admittedly quite embarrassing

and more than a little awkward…and of course, actually hilarious. And

then it all started to happen…in a really quite lovely way. (D&D 6, Issue

75)

144

The session saw an outpouring of support for Sally from friends and strangers alike.

Instead of being a speed-dating session it was a sharing of heartfelt stories, “of our love, partners, family, parents, children, life and all that falls in between” (D&D 6, Issue 75).

While the session ends with a touch of (feigned?) disappointment: “To date, at 3.34pm

[sic] I don’t have a boyfriend and that’s okay,” Sally notes that, “It was, for me, a most excellent way to spend an hour and a half” (D&D 6, Issue 75).

While relationship related, non-theatrical sessions can be quiet forwards in their premises, they never kiss and tell. No lists of who fancied whom are generated, or – as in the first session described above – we never learn the identity of the participant who was,

“sexually interested in Brian” (D&D 4, Issue 36) from the session report. Despite these sessions’ bravado, personal details are uncommon in these sessions – people are more apt to share more personal information about themselves in sessions on theatre related topics

– perhaps because being personal when detailing one’s work is easier than doing the same when seeking a relationship, especially when such seeking is done in the decidedly performative fashion of calling a session at a large international conference. But the sessions of this nature that report their issues leave the conveners optimistic, reassured, and confident, even if – as was the case for Sally – they don’t end up finding Mr. Right.

Issues such as, “Ideas for keeping warm” (D&D 4, Issue 3), “Afternoon Nap”

(D&D 2, Issue 23), and “Lunchtime chanting meditation” (D&D 7, Issue 61),11 serve as examples of sessions concerned with the practicalities of being an attendee of Devoted &

Disgruntled conferences, which are held in the middle of the cold, wet, British winter and consist of an intense three-day-long event that provides practical advice and experience.

145

There are also sessions intended for playing: “The Things I Found in My Pockets and My

Notebook” (D&D 5, Issue 39), and “Wrestling” (D&D 7, Issue 055), and then, like the lunchtime chatting session, there are games played between actual session times, such as the wildly popular ‘lemon jousting’ tournament (or rather free-for-all) that took over half the hall during a lunch break at the seventh annual conference.12

Figure 15. "Wrestling" Session

(D&D 7, Issue 055).

146

Other “non-serious” issues include various types of chat show-style sessions, with a convener serving as a sort of host and interviewing participants. Examples of questions include, “How low can you go? What’s been your greatest failure and what was great about it?” (D&D 3, Issue 86) and, “A Confessional – Share your theatre sins / Speak the unspeakable ? Voice your secret fears and desires” (D&D 5, 96); these types of sessions allow participants to decompress and socialize while at the conference.

Non-theatre sessions can also delve into serious subjects such as issues surrounding death and dying. “‘DEATH, …’ playing dying… How! Please help. What does death/facing your own death mean to you?” (D&D 6, Issue 28) starts as a selfish- project help session, but the stories and experiences shared were personal and real. What the convener intended from the session was to get material for a show she was working on; the session itself avoided the theatrical issues and focused on love and loss in everyday life. In a similar fashion the issue, “Do you miss your pet. Living or alive?

Would you like to talk to me about it?” (D&D 7, Issue 73) was a lovely and cathartic group session that touched on issues of sentimentality versus emotionality. The convener describes her feelings on this subject:

…however intellectually appalled I may be by sentimental reactions,

emotionally I find that I am very sentimental all the same. Sometimes.

Particularly around pet stories. I love hearing about people’s pets. So there

is a conundrum here then…which isn’t necessarily a bad thing but there it

still is.

147

As such, the conversation ranged from beautiful pet stories right

through to philosophical fandango and back again quite freely. (D&D 6,

Issue 73)

The session notes are extensive, covering eight full pages. People told stories of their beloved pets, talking about concerns for the wellbeing and treatment of animals, both as pets and as for food. Throughout the session report’s stories, anecdotes, and philosophical fandangoings, the convener includes illustrations that represent “people’s pets as they appeared in my mind as they were talking about them” (D&D 6, Issue 73). Like the

“Lullaby for Dark Times,” the convener is able to craft creative and artistic responses to the subjects, giving the session reports a bit of the color of the actual event, as opposed to the mostly traditional all-text write-ups typically recorded. What follows is an excerpt from a story told by one of the participants and then recounted by the convener, along with the accompanying sketch:

Julia – Grew up in Indonesia. She had a cat called Manice. Because it was

hot there were a lot of cockroaches and rats. Because of this, there was

always a lot of poison around to try and keep control of these vermin. One

day Manice licked the end of the poison bottle tube and began to die. Julia

remembers holding Manice knowing that the cat was dying and being

heartbroken. She remembers crying. She also remembers that many of her

Indonesian friends, on seeing this, began to laugh. She was horrified that

they were laughing but also remembers that this was the first time that she

began to realize that sometimes people react to events differently and that

148

there is a close relationship between crying and laughing. A release of

tension. She does not think that her Indonesian friends were ‘glad’ that the

cat was poisoned but were expressing their tension seeing her hold her

dying cat. She is still good friends with many of these people today. Here

is a picture of Julia and Manice in happier times before the poisoning took

place:

Figure 16. Julia and Manice

(D&D 6, Issue 73).

Intermixed with stories like this were discussions about anthropomorphizing animals, vegetarianism, and the use of live animals on stage, citing productions of The

Wizard of Oz that used real dogs to play Toto and the use of live chickens in Jez

Butterworth’s recent Tony Award-winning play Jerusalem. This led to an interesting 149 discussion of the use (abuse) of animals in Peter Brook’s play US, a reaction to the atrocities and violence being committed during the US Vietnam War, concerning animal rights on the stage. In their book Directors in Perspective: Peter Brook, Albert Hunt and

Geoffrey Reeves recount the incident:

Nothing was more typical of Brook’s relationship with the actors than the

way he presented them with the ending of the show. Throughout the

summer we had been discussing American happenings, and how some

kind of happening might come at the end. One night, over the usual

working meal, a matter of days before the show was due to open, Brook

introduced an idea: while discussing La Monte Young and John Cage,

Reeves had synthesized two happenings – ‘Why not burn a butterfly to

Beethoven?’ Brook picked up the idea, without the music. The concept

was that an audience would have sat through several hours of accounts

people being burned alive, but that then, in front of their eyes, they would

see something beautiful burned in reality. How would they react? Would

they feel more strongly about the burning of a butterfly than the burnings

in Vietnam? If so, how would this affect their consciousness? (Hunt 119)

One participant at the session, recounting the incident and Brook’s response when asked if they were using a real butterfly, said:

He [Brook] told people he would tell them, but if he did this (whether the

butterfly burnt on stage was real or not) he would burn a real one on stage

the next night if they insisted that he tell them the truth. (D&D 6 Issue 73)

150

No butterfly was burnt alive for the show, but Brook went to great length to keep this secret until after the show closed. The convener drew a nice comic detailing the plight of the poor butterflies in response to the story.

Figure 17. “Here is a picture of Peter Brook mythering his room of terrified butterflies.

Who will be next tonight my pretties?”

Illustration and caption by Emma Adams (D&D 6, Issue 73).

The session concludes with a discussion of loss and how people deal with the death of a much-loved pet. Particularly objectionable to some in the group was the notion of sympathy – not wanting people to feel sorry for them. Instead, the group came to the

151 conclusion that it was respect that people wanted when being comforted, as it was thought that this engendered empathy instead of pity.

We talked about the idea that indulging in sympathy make’s other’s pain

something that is about yourself, while engaging with empathy is about

dealing [with] the reality of that person’s pain, which might be a really

hard / distressing thing to do. This led us to discuss the idea that giving to

charity can be an act of self-interest, which led us to conclude that human

beings are extremely complex creatures. (D&D 6, Issue 73)

The session was called because the convener had recently lost her cat, Frank, and she was looking for an outlet and a way to cope with her loss. The session turned into a wide- ranging discussion about ethics, morality, and theatre practices.

Sick pets, dying friends, loneliness, relationships, and having children all have their effects on people’s lives as much as do Art Council bureaucracy, touring pitfalls, networking, and learning and practicing new skills; Devoted & Disgruntled opens a space for all such issues to be included, not just the more narrow topic of theatre. There is also time and space for people to have social interactions that are playful and fun, silly and outrageous. There is a pervasive adherence to the mantra, “whatever happens is the only thing that could have,” at Devoted & Disgruntled. Such off-topic subjects would not be allowed, nor would they fit, into a traditional conference setting: they would be deemed a distraction; or, worse, they would be seen as making a mockery of the event. Here, they are embraced. Here, such sessions can start off-topic and find their way circuitously back to important ethical issues that face the theatre community. But always, these sessions

152 were important enough for someone to call them and resonated enough with others that they decided to attend, and the convener found the process and outcome useful enough to document.

153

Notes

1 These tables can be found in Appendix C.

2 While I have gone to great lengths to avoid my own bias in categorizing the sessions, there is undoubtedly some error in my counting and methodology as there is not always an absolute distinction on when a session is deemed selfish.

3 The title of this year’s conference really did hit home with many of those in attendance, one session even being called as a creative outlet to the frustration felt for the austerity measures in the arts, using their session time to make a performance piece with the same title as their session, “Lullaby for our Dark Time” (D&D 6, Issue 54).

4 It should be noted that, in this chapter, rants are of a personal nature – i.e., conveners are complaining about an issue as it pertains to themselves and their experience. There are other, less personal, rants at the Devoted & Disgruntled conferences that are about the industry and are not covered here (some are covered in Chapter 3, but not as rants per se), primarily because more general rants tend to attract more participants, foster greater discussions with multiple perspectives, and seek solution in a different manner that is more inclusive. Personal (‘selfish’) rants are not less important, but they are decidedly different, often not seeking a solution, but just airing the convener’s grievances.

5 This example comes from a theatre lecture at The Ohio State University.

6 While a producer in commercial production may indeed be an investor, the producer in this case still has managerial tasks, usually relating to the proper spending and

154

management of the monies – a mere investor usually has no such control of responsibilities.

7 This term has become a popular way to refer to theatre practitioners who create original work in Britain; however, its usage, in my experience, is mostly amongst other theatre practitioners. It is also used by people trying to avoid traditional labels, especially where traditional labels are inadequate to describe what one does. For example, an actor who also contributes to the writing and direction of a show, along with other persons who contribute in similar polymathic collaboration. So, the label “actor/writer/director,” while not only being cumbersome, is also potentially inaccurate. While it is true that this person is an actor and a writer and a director of the play, they are not necessarily the writer or the director of the piece, as others in the production are also contributing to these aspects of the show. While such terminology helps overcome ridged labeling, it does so at the expense of specificity. Depending on whom you ask, this is considered a win-win.

8 These unpublished interviews conducted by Dick McCaw was part of a documentary of the use and evolution of Devoted & Disgruntled by the members of Improbable for use in a grant application to The Cultural Leadership Programme (a program sponsored by the

Arts Council England, Creative & Cultural Skills, and the Museums, Libraries and

Archives Council) . The transcripts of these interviews were provided to me by

Improbable via E-mail as Microsoft Word files.

9 I include the web address where a recording of the song is housed…at least for the time being… . This does

155

not easily come up in a search engine at the time of this writing. The link is in the written session report itself, too.

10 While the convener is correct, Kraus wrote the play – mostly a dialogue – to be a literary work, one that he published in his own newspaper, Die Fackel (The Torch) as a serial in 1919 and that was not intended for performance, the play did receive its first staging in 1991 as a protest against the first Gulf War.

11 Chanting and meditation sessions have been called at every Devoted & Disgruntled conference I have attended, but mostly they were informal, not occurring during normal session times, and so do not usually end up in the official record. It is for this reason that

I am citing Devoted & Disgruntled 7 whose final report included these session notes..

12 The ‘lemon jousting’ tournament came out of a session called by Ph.D. student Rose

Biggin titled, “Would any ‘phd people’ like to hang out? We don’t have to talk about them” (D&D 7, Issue 23).

156

Chapter 5: Making Theatre

5.1 ACE in the Hole

ADVOCACY IS A VITAL ROLE FOR ACE (consensus around this

one) who should aim with all of us to raise the arts in the priority

list for Government and Local Authorities. That should be a goal.

Our audiences are clearer about [the] value of the arts than ACE.

— dee

“ACE new Vision and Goals – Let’s make them better”

Devoted & Disgruntled 5, Issue 59

Just the name – Arts Council of England (ACE) – can cause some people to involuntarily make faces when it is mentioned in polite conversation at Devoted &

Disgruntled. As the largest arts funding body in the United Kingdom, it serves more artists and art organizations than any other source, many of whom depend on ACE for the majority of their operating budgets, thus giving those running the Arts Council the power to shape the artistic climate, culture, and offerings in both the artistic community.

Because so many individuals and organizations depend on ACE funding, it is a heavily represented topic at Devoted & Disgruntled both within and outside sessions. As with most bureaucracies, they have a tendency to take on a life of their own, sometimes becoming about their own organization and the culture that surrounds it and (seemingly)

157 putting the people they are intended to serve second (or third). No doubt, ACE’s job is not easy. One participant at a session critiquing the expediency of funding the English

National Opera to the tune of £18.5 million while cutting grant funds for small artists summed up a primary problem facing ACE: “Isn’t ACE’s position impossible? How would you decide who to fund? Isn’t it simply ‘oversubscribed,’ like so many other aspects of the business?” (D&D 4, Issue 023). Oversubscribed – having more applicants than money to award – is nothing new to the arts – it is more or less the standard operating procedure – but it is still a complicated and thorny issue trying to understand why one project gets approval and funding and another does not. How are these decisions made? What metrics are used? Who gets to make the choice? Is the process rigged? ACE certainly is in an impossible position. In the 2008 “Chair’s Report” in Arts Council

England Annual Review 2008, then-Chair, Sir Christopher Frayling, makes a closing address, his six-year appointment as the head of the Arts Council coming to a close, with

Dame Liz Forgan’s tenure due to take over. Sir Frayling concludes his farewell address by alluding to the very difficulties in doing this job: “You certainly don’t take on a role like this to increase your circle of friends” (03). This section will look at the issues concerning the Arts Council England and its role in shaping the theatre landscape in the

United Kingdom, illuminating the organization’s history and mission, and how the myriad issues surrounding ACE are dealt with by the participants at the annual Devoted

& Disgruntled conferences.

The history of the Arts Council England (ACE) had its beginning during the

Second World War, with the Council for the Encouragement of Music and the Arts

158

(CEMA) having been established with the goal of preserving and promoting British culture in 1940 and initially headed by the President of the Board of Education, Lord De

La Warr (Sinclair 22–26). Following the war, the Council was renamed the Arts Council of Great Britain and the newly created council’s first, and arguably most famous, chairman was John Maynard Keynes of Keynesian economics fame. A proud liberal and staunch supporter of the arts with a particular love of theatre, dance, and opera, Keynes used his strong political ties to secure high levels of funding for the Art’s Council of

Great Britain (Sinclair 37). Keynes worked to have the Arts Council incorporated by

Royal Charter, thus ensuring its long-term sustainability. The charter was drafted in 1946; unfortunately, Keynes died before its realization (ACE, “Who…” para. 6). Following

Keynes’ death, funding for the arts declined slightly, but in 1964 a new chairman (it is not until 2009 that the Council had its first, and so far only, chairwoman) with a devotion to the arts and strong political allies – Lord Arnold Goodman – greatly expanded the

Council’s effectiveness and funding. Presiding over what has been termed the Council’s

“Golden Age” (Sinclair 102) from 1965–1970, Goodman increased the number of arts organizations receiving Council funding from forty-six under Keynes to ninety-two in

1955 (ACE, “Who…” para. 9). Goodman also oversaw the 1967 renewal of the organization’s Royal Charter, which expanded the local government’s role in Scotland and Wales in managing their share of arts funding themselves. By 1975, the number of regularly funded organizations had climbed to two hundred and sixty-two.

Four years later, Margaret Thatcher was elected Prime Minister and the

Conservative Party1 took aim at the Arts Council, claiming it was a bastion of elitism and

159 that the work it funded was politically biased (Sinclair 215). Thatcher’s appointment of

William Rees-Mogg as the new Chair of the Arts Council Great Britain placed a bureaucrat with no arts administration or management knowledge at the helm. During his tenure, Rees-Mogg instituted funding caps on the Arts Council of Great Britain, effectively drastically reducing funding to the arts. The conservative government insisted spending cuts would be easily recovered through the private sector. However, the private- sector sponsorship that the Conservative Party’s administration promised would be there failed to materialize. Rees-Mogg then took to restructuring the organization, further limiting the Council’s ability to achieve the mission Keynes established of “great art for everyone” (Sinclair 27). In protest, Sir Peter Hall – a member of the Council, Founder of the Royal Shakespeare Company, and former head of the National Theatre – resigned from the organization along with other prominent members. Arts funding under Thatcher was cut in half, turning the golden age back to the dark ages for the Arts Council. With the departure of the uncompromising “Iron Lady” of British politics as Prime Minister, a more moderate conservative, Sir John Majors, took the helm. Sir Majors’ Chair appointments for the Arts Council were thankfully more moderate and had the important background and experience in the arts that was (intentionally) lacking in Rees-Mogg.

Under the chairmanship of Alexander Patrick Greysteil Ruthven (2nd Earl of

Gowrie), the Arts Council of Great Britain underwent its biggest transition, including a major increase in public funding. Ruthven set up the scheme for the arts to be funded using a share of the National Lottery’s proceeds and further diversified the Arts Council’s representation across the United Kingdom, overseeing the creation of regional

160 organizations with autonomous control to better serve the needs of their communities. In renewing the Royal Charter, Ruthven had the committees that oversaw Wales and

Scotland become newly formed funding bodies: the Arts Council of Wales and the

Scottish Arts Council, with The Arts Council of Great Britain getting its current moniker: the Arts Council of England. Over the next decade, the number of regularly funded arts organizations would increase from a few hundred to more than 1,100. While the Arts

Council’s funding in recent years has been aggressively cut as a result of the worldwide recession of 2008 through a series of austerity measures, it has not declined anywhere near to Thatcher-era levels.

While the spending cuts that are chronicled in the session reports from the first

Devoted & Disgruntled conference to the present are not as draconian as those enacted during the 1970s and 80s, the impact on the arts is still quite dramatic. And, with funding for the arts having taken such dramatic swings in the last few decades, a certain level of skepticism that the government will continue its funding is certainly warranted

A review of the annual budget numbers for the Arts Council reveals, on average, very flat funding over the seven years that the annual Devoted & Disgruntled conferences have been taking place. What is missing from this data is that this money has to cover more services, and so the net result is actually a decrease in available monies. In 2011, for example, the Arts Council of England was given the responsibility of managing and funding the Museums, Libraries and Archives (MLA), a substantial undertaking, while the overall Arts Council’s budget continued to decline. And what looks like a large increase in spending by the Arts Council in 2010 is actually a funding increase awarded

161 for supporting the 2012 Olympic ceremonies and Cultural Olympiad, which again meant that arts grants and regularly funded organizations actually took dramatic spending reductions despite the overall larger budget.

650 625

600 593 590 588 575 570 2006 2007 550 529 2008 2009 500 2010 2011

450 2012

400 Yearly Spending in Millions of Pounds

Figure 18. Arts Council of England yearly spending data2

If we look at how money was distributed outside the MLA and the 2012

Olympics, we can see just how badly recent funding years have been. The Grant for the

Arts program was cut by over fifty percent while the regularly funded organizations – like The Royal National Theatre or the English National Opera, which are large organizations – also took a beating, with two hundred fifty other such arts groups 162 completely losing their funding. Both regularly funded organizations and those receiving grants received less money than they did in years past, resulting in shorter seasons, canceled projects, layoffs of personnel, and closed doors.

Figure 19. A breakdown of the ACE budget for 2010/11 on £588 million in expenditures

(ACE, Annual Review 2011 08–09). Note: The Olympic Delivery Fund takes its 5.1% share from the Grants for the Arts program, a near 40% reduction.

163

An unnamed Arts Council member (unnamed only because the convener did not catch the person’s name during her session) who attended a session at the Devoted &

Disgruntled conference in 2011 titled, “How Screwed Are We? Please Can Someone

Come And Explain The Funding Cuts?” related to the group that all regularly funded organizations would be required to reapply to the Arts Council to justify their current levels of funding – a new policy (D&D 6, Issue 20). At the same time the Arts Council person told the session, “The application process was opened up for groups that wanted to become RFO’s. The AC received about 1400 applications and can afford to fund about

700” (D&D 6, Issue 20). The final number turned out to be a bit better than the Arts

Council participant related, with an additional one hundred and forty-eight groups being funded, but this meant having to spread the available money more thinly.

164

5000

4000 3000 4355 4682 4781 4334 2000 Regularly 2800 Funded 1000 2700 2795 1100 1100 Organizations 1100 1100 2000 0 880 Grants for the 880 880 2004 2005 848 Arts 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Figure 20. Decline in funding support for of arts organizations and grant projects

The Grants for the Arts program was begun in 2003; the first disbursements took place in 2004 and were highly successful, sustaining well over 4,000 individuals and organizations during the first four years. As austerity measures took hold in 2008, cutting the number of grants by several thousand, the effect has been widespread discontent with the Arts Council in the art community, many of whose members felt the process for determining who would be funded and who was not was biased, unclear, and unfair. So, while funding for the Grants for the Arts program is the same in 2011 as it was for the program’s inception in 2004 at £51 million, the number of grants dispersed has dropped dramatically to an all-time low of just 2,000 with fewer people getting more money and leading one Devoted & Disgruntled participant to lament, “Why should Arts Council 165

England (ACE) give the English National Opera £18.5 million when I can’t get five grand?” (D&D 4, Issue 23). During the previously referenced session from 2011, “How

Screwed Are We?,” the Arts Council member in attendance shed some light on the dramatic cutbacks and gave some hope for the program’s future: “Post-Olympics, all the lottery money being spent on that [the Olympics] should come back to the GfA pot, so if you can hang on til [sic] then, things should hopefully get better” (D&D 6, Issue 20).

Consensus from the group was cautious – hope for the best, but expect the worst. The

Arts Council will be making payments for several years to come (ACE Annual Review

2011 114-5) to cover its share of mandated Olympic expenditures and contributions, an total amounting to £115 million, of which only £30 million has so far been paid (Annual

Review 2010/11 98), so how quickly funding will recover is yet to be seen.

166

90 6000 85 80 82 5000 70 70 67 65 60 4000 57 50 51 51 Funding in 3000 Millions (left axis) 40 Grants for the Arts (right axis) 30 2000

20 1000 10

0 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Figure 21. Funding for the Grants for the Arts program compared with grants awarded

This brief breakdown of numbers helps explain some of the concern, frustration, and anxiety that surrounds sessions called during Devoted & Disgruntled concerning

ACE. There is no simple correlation between the ACE annual budget and the number of sessions called about ACE in a given, as many of the sessions concerning ACE deal with systemic issues in such a large bureaucratic institution, but in years where a proposed deep cut to spending has been proposed, there is an uptick in the number of sessions called about funding, so there is a responsive strategy concerning proposed cuts more than just a grousing about cuts after the fact. It should be noted, though, that after the

2010 funding cutbacks there was a noticeable increase in grousing the following year.

This discontent, however, is threefold: upset at the funding cuts – some of which were 167 enacted midyear – and the complete lack of promised transparency for how such cuts were determined, combined with the continued cuts that extend over the next two years

(and now into the foreseen future), and the continued upset over funding and its reflection in the Devoted & Disgruntled sessions is more understandable. This correlation is seen strongly in 2007 on the eve of a £60 million cut to arts funding, and again in 2010 and

2011 as money was spread thinner due to increased responsibilities and promised 2012

Olympic expenditures.

50 640

45 620 40 600 35 580 Funding 30 Sessions Called (left 25 560 axis) 20 540 ACE Budget in £millions 15 520 (right axis) 10 500 5

0 480 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Figure 22. The (roughly) inverse relationship of sessions called concerning funding and the rise and fall of the ACE annual budget

168

So, with a little history and perspective in place concerning the Arts Council, the issues that are brought up during the various Devoted & Disgruntled sessions will be better grounded. Issues surrounding ACE activities make up a greater percentage of sessions than any other category3 with a total of two hundred and forty-nine documented sessions – that is nearly two entire Devoted & Disgruntled annual conferences’ worth of sessions – or six full days of non-stop sessions devoted to ACE and funding. So what is there to talk about with so many sessions? ACE politics, culture, history, and bureaucracy, along with complaints, criticism, project startups, how-tos, tips, tricks, and rants give a glimpse at the breadth and depth of the discussions. For the rest for this section, I will focus on the issues that expose problems with ACE and potential solutions, including surprisingly prevalent (I would not say necessarily popular) proposals to skip

ACE funding and its problems all together.

While many at the annual Devoted & Disgruntled conferences complain about the

Arts Council England, a large number of the working professional participants are reliant on the Council for some part of their funding. The biggest complaint seen in the conference session reports deals with the issue of fairness; or, at least, perceived fairness.

The session reports are filled with many stories of individuals and organizations who work hard with Arts Council members to conform to guidelines and practices, only to be left with no explanation for what went wrong when their applications were turned down.

A woman who convened the session “Are ‘the right people’ allocating the funding?”

(D&D 2, Issue 45) explains the situation well with an anecdote about her own experience: “Our company used to get on with producing work and for 3 years we’ve

169 been developing business plans and our admin infrastructure at the request of funders only not to get funding…and not be told the real story about why not” (D&D 2, Issue 45).

Another participant at the session told the story about submitting a satirical grant application, pointing out the ‘box ticking’ mentality of the process as a creative form of criticism of the process, only to be told that their action would likely hinder them in the future for grant applications. “Why don’t funders welcome criticism to help them improve?” (D&D 2, Issue 45). Biting the hand that feeds you is not usually a good course of action, but a protest such as this coming from the creative community should at least be considered, and perhaps even discussed with its authors, instead of threatening their future funding possibilities. A session called from Devoted & Disgruntled 4 talks about the problem of treading carefully in dealing with the Arts Council with one participant saying:

You can talk to ACE on a general level, but you need to speak their

language in the application. And translating into ACE language doesn’t

necessarily change the meaning of what you are saying. (D&D 4, Issue

023)

Not everyone in the group agreed with this notion, and a rebuttal was offered immediately following this statement:

But, it was argued, changing the wording to make it ACE-friendly is a

form of imposed self-censorship. We’re being asked to ‘conceive’ of our

[work] in a particular way. It’s a politicized form of control. (D&D 4,

Issue 023)

170

This group remained divided on the issue, but it does seem that feeling the need to tick boxes was problematic and could be helped by building a “lasting and evolving relationship with officers or with ACE in general” (D&D 4, Issue 023).

The session did make some recommendations for improving the fairness of the selection process, namely peer review. This brought up discussion about whether this would be any fairer: “Who gets the decision-making jobs? Are the officers sufficiently involved in the scene to make judgments? How do you evaluate art? It’s like catching something that shouldn’t be caught (D&D 2, Issue 45). One participant also questioned,

“Is it difficult/appropriate for us to review colleagues?” (D&D 2, Issue 45). The session report answers that question with a resounding Yes, acknowledging the difficulties, but pointing out that it is better than a bureaucrat, who is not involved in the theatre, making decisions about organizations and productions they know (and care) little about (or even for).

In 2008, the Arts Council’s budget was slashed by £60 million. Artistic director and Improbable producer Nick Sweeting called a session called, “ACE what do we do about it?” that called the Arts Council to task for its shocking, “lack of communication and transparency,” and questioned the “foundations of support for ACE if it didn’t open out to the industry” (D&D 3, Issue 18). The session report details the myriad of problems that led to this lack of communication and transparency, but places a measured amount of the blame on those who the Arts Council serves – the practitioners – who have become complacent or in many cases, too scared to stand up to bad practices for fear of losing funding. On this last point, Nick makes the case that people who do not stand up for their

171 principles and their industry, because they are scared to lose funding, lost their funding anyway, and thus such (in)action helps no one (D&D 3, Issue 18).

Along the lines of transparency, this group (as well as many other sessions) discusses the “arm’s-length principle” and its importance to the Arts Council and its relationship to the government. A term from English contract law, and part of the Arts

Council of England’s Royal Charter, the goal is to place the Arts Council on equal footing with the government, which provides the funds that the Arts Council disperses.

This is done to prevent the government from having influence over who or what gets the funding, thereby attempting to remove politics from the funding equation. Many in the session believed that politics played a role in the allocation of funds following the last round of deep budget cuts and wanted more transparency from Arts Council on all of its decisions. One solution the group had for this problem was to improve the way appeals of funding decisions were handled, particularly giving longer time to appeal, with applicants allowed to see the information and reasons the Arts Council used for denying funding.

Another solution to ACE transparency issues, as has been suggested before, was to implement some system of peer review, though this group also felt that audience review was important and should be taken into consideration; as the group described it,

“Audience review such as a type of jury service” (D&D 3, Issue 18). Some in the group worried that peer review, while sounding great on paper, might have the unintended drawback of preserving the status quo. This was a risk the group overall felt was still worth dealing with in order to have more practitioners involved in the funding debate. It

172 was also seen as an important obligation to many in the group, particularly for those who receive Arts Council funding:

…peer review is crucial but artists who get public money have to take

responsibility for giving something back to the artistic community as well

as produce work e.g. mentor, have to see other work, look at other

organizations… (D&D 3, Issue 18)

Making sure that receiving public money means that there is a return on that investment, not just the fleeting performance itself, was universally acclaimed in the group. The group also took the idea of peer review a step further, suggesting that theatre practitioners be involved the interview process for new ACE officers.

The other big issue the group tackled was the lack of consistency in the application and review process. Nick notes that the “Relationship with local officers varies from region to region and officer to officer. ACE should look at dissemination of best practices across all regions to improve confidence in ACE officers” (D&D 3, Issue

18). The group worried that not all ACE officers were qualified, and that poor decisions were being made that were “too dependent on individual taste or the [lack of] knowledge of particular officers” (D&D 3, Issue 18). The inexperience of ACE officers was talked about during another session that proposed a reason for this situation: “It’s becoming increasingly rare for practitioners to have jobs with ACE. Now there are more

‘administrators.’ The artists are leaving because they don’t want to work for the dark side” (D&D 4, Issue 023). The many statements that come from the Devoted &

Disgruntled session reports such as this show a disconnect between the artists and the

173 organization that is intended to be the artists’ advocates. Nick Sweeting’s session, “ACE: what do we do about it?” (D&D 3, Issue 18) proposed several solutions, one being the interview process of ACE officers by practitioners as mentioned above, and another to hire ACE officers who have practical experience in theatre making. Their last suggestion was a bit more radical:

A big group of people should come up with their own ideas of how a

future ACE would work. Then we could see how much common ground

there is and put that forward as concrete ideas, so [it] would be a

concensus [sic]. Could be done as a meeting, in writing – whatever.”

(D&D 3, Issue 18)

In essence, the session wanted to have hundreds of people each craft his or her own individual, idealized system for running the Arts Council and then sit down with everyone and find the common-ground solutions that everyone can agree upon. The group supported this democratic idea of developing the guidelines and making those who work under the rules the same people as those who crafted them, thus offering a more fair and transparent system. The group moved forward with its various proposals, suggesting several courses of action and how they could be undertaken. Drafting an open letter was the agreed-upon action of the group, with Nick Sweeting beginning the letter’s first draft, which was addressed to Alan Davey, the then-new Chief Executive of the Arts Council.4

Nick ends the session notes by asking for suggestions from the group on what should be included to the letter, as well as asking for contacts for signatories on the letter (the group

174 hoped to add prominent figures’ signatures to give the community’s concerns better standing).

Many of the participants at sessions over the years have pointed out that part of the transparency problem has been a public relations problem from the Arts Council.

Along these lines, much of the animosity directed at the Arts Council could be cleared up with better promotion and communication. In anticipation of the 2008 Spending Review for the Arts Council England, a session was called at the 2006 Devoted & Disgruntled to discuss how to help the Arts Council to stand up for and advocate for themselves and the importance of the arts and its continued funding. The session, titled, “In the Absence of a

Union how can we lobby DCMS/ACE etc.” (D&D 1, Issue 63), created a wonderful and concise list of recommendations.

The big concern, as seen in the session title, was that – despite the Arts Council serving a large population of practitioners – the practitioners were separate and fragmented, and therefore had no cohesive voice to air their concerns, such as would be provided by a specific lobby or union. The group set out the information it wanted to convey – their talking points – and then looked at various ways and means that it hoped might be effective in delivering its message. The group made the following proposals:

- In view of the forthcoming 2008 Spending Review, we have to help

ACE compile their argument.

- ACE needs to be more proactive in promoting the value of the arts.

- We have to arm the DCMS/our MPs, etc. with the right information.

175

- Various models/organisations [sic] could be used to lobby; e.g., New

Work Network – sources of advocacy and information.

- Many theatre practitioners are very poor at funding-speak and find it

difficult to communicate with the funding bodies.

- This weekend creates the possibility of us acting as multiple voices.

- There was a discussion about the value of sending out a delegation,

which is ongoing. (D&D 1, Issue 63)

The group was concerned about its own voices as artists being heard, as well as about the

Arts Council not being able to make its own voice heard to the government. One way the group hoped to make its voice carry was through the use of celebrity endorsements. The group’s participants suggested Dame Judi Dench and Richard Wilson as good and popular celebrity spokespersons, and then – moving beyond the theatrical – suggested that perhaps Gordon Brown or David Cameron could be even better advocates, since they are able to reach people who might not normally give the arts a second thought (D&D 1,

Issue 63).

The group then focused its energies on crafting specific talking points, deciding to combine its celebrity endorsement with “useful facts or statistics” for it to convey (D&D

1, Issue 63). Participants in the session recommended touting the positive impact of theatre on mental health and suggested that it would be a good idea to get the Department for Health involved in a joint campaign. Another idea was to promote employment figures in the theatre or to demonstrate with numbers the positive impact that theatre has on tourism. One of the points the group made seemed unbelievable: “Theatre makes more

176 in VAT [for the government] than it costs in [government] subsidy” (D&D 1, Issue 63).

Nevertheless, depending on how one defines a government subsidy, the claim has merit.

By subsidy, the group meant money coming to the Arts Council through taxation of people and businesses. The majority of the Arts Council’s budget is supported by The

National Lottery and not from a tax revenue stream. In 2011, West End theatres alone brought in over £88 million in VAT (Brown para. 10). The government actually makes money off theatre, making every dollar spent in its support a profitable investment in both dollars and culture.

The convener also proposed that the Arts Council needed to do more to promote theatre to the general populace, noting that many of the economic arguments fall on deaf ears, but that social arguments would go over better with potential audience members.

The group wanted to “make sure [that] our message in the media and to the powers that be also conveys the fun of theatre” (D&D 1, Issue 63). The participants wanted to create more targeted promotion that matched “the arguments we are making to the sensibilities of those we are making them too [sic]. (e.g. argue for children’s theatre to people with children)” (D&D 1, Issue 63). The group concludes its session with a call for Improbable to host Devoted & Disgruntled-style Open Space conferences with, and or for, the Arts

Council of England. In 2007 Improbable did just that as part of the Arts Council’s Public

Value Programme. Part of the Public Value Programme was the “arts debate,” a series of community discussions and reports to, “harvested the views and opinions of a wide variety of people across the arts sector and the general public” (ACE, “Arts debate” para.

1). According to the description for the event, “The overall theme was both a question

177 and a challenge: If you were the Arts Council, how would you do it?” (ACE , “Arts debate” para. 8). The two-day Open Space event produced a large written document similar to the ones from the Devoted & Disgruntled conferences with over eighty sessions called. Every year at Devoted & Disgruntled, there are calls to make The ACE

Open Space conference a recurring event.

Another session, titled, “Can we do something to change the Arts Council, or should we ignore it?” looked at the lack of transparency, not as a sign of corruption, but again, as a communication problem (D&D 2, Issue 115). Without specific knowledge, the convener noted that it is easy to fill in the blanks in such a way as to interpret everything as some sort of conspiracy. But even without a vast conspiracy (usually involving government control or cronyism) the effect is the same, disillusionment and bitterness with the organization whose job it is theoriotically to advocate and nurture the arts. One participant expressed her frustration:

The time, effort and energy spent applying to ACE could be better spent

on fundraising events with a greater likelihood of success. A great deal of

time is spent chasing funds. Would we be better not doing this and give

the time back to ourselves?” (D&D 2, Issue 115)

Another participant in 2010 quipped about internal changes occurring at the Arts Council,

“ACE re-structuring again (3rd time in 12 years?) – they want new business models for the “industry” when they can’t even work out one for themselves” (D&D 5, Issue 59).

This frustration with the Arts Council and the uncertainty of funding – particularly how

178 funding decisions are made – has led to a surprising number of people at Devoted &

Disgruntled sessions calling for an end to public funding of the arts altogether.

Some participants felt that the amount of complaining about Arts Council funding sounded a bit too petulant. One session convener noted that “self- reliance…produces better theatre because of greater reliance on audience for funding” (D&D 1, Issue 23).

Participants in this session, titled “Entrepreneurial and savvy theatre,” believed that the current theatre model in the United Kingdom was too reliant on what they saw as an entitlement, with such a model serving the artists’ interests instead of in service to the community or audience’s needs. Instead of being in service to Arts Council money, the group implores practitioners to “Create your own economic structure of opportunity and creative freedom instead of moaning about the existing ones…” (D&D 1, Issue 23).

Another session asked the questions, “Should we expect public funding and how could we become more self-sufficient?” noting that reliance on public funding is a form of bondage that keeps artists beholden to their funding masters (D&D 4, Issue 21). This group’s solution was to increase its audiences by making the performances free, done in outside spaces (rent-free), and relying on donations and sponsorships.

The working group, “Money / Funding / Producers” (D&D 1, Issue 31) advocated to eschew most public money. They saw the government funding being used as a support service only: “The idea of the State Sector not making decisions of who gets what, but rather as a Central Body which supports companies with infrastructure, marketing/publicity services, help with space rentals” (D&D 1, Issue 31). While getting the state out of the specific artistic funding decisions, the group does not offer advice on

179 how or how such support services would be distributed. The group’s other solution to getting away from public monies was to create:

A Market Place where investors/producers/grandmothers with ten quid/

meet with those wishing to have their project/s [sic] supported/funded.

And vice versa, those wishing to have an idea realised [sic] meet those

practitioners who think they could realise that project.” (D&D 1, Issue 31)

This would be effectively a modified form of crowd sourcing, where the public could come together and support artists they like, but also would allow the audience to directly shape the shows being delivered to them. One might argue that this is how the West End and Broadway already create their shows, soliciting investors and creating shows that directly appeal to their audience. A more balanced approach, combining public money and better communication with the theatre’s community and audience members seems like a more ideal solution.

Another session, titled “How Can We Make More Money” (D&D 2, issue 36), thought that too many theatre companies have only a single-track solution for raising revenues; namely, through ticket sales. This group felt that theatre companies should expand their sources of income, especially when public funding is denied or unavailable.

The participants looked to the American model for non-profit theatre: corporate sponsorship, feeling that such an arrangement would be mutually beneficial by creating brand recognition for their corporate sponsors. They also felt that merchandising should be aggressively perused: “Thinking of things to sell and canny ways of selling them”

(D&D 2, Issue 36). Not just selling scripts in the lobby, but crafting an experience that

180 would tie into their production, for example having characters from the play running the shops selling merchandise and using “the transaction to enhance the imagined life of your work” (D&D 2, Issue 36). Trying to integrate revenue streams into the performance, or at least as an enhancement to the performance, appears to be a logical and sensible idea, but it seems doubtful that such ploys would go unnoticed as anything but marketing gimmicks at best by audiences and critics alike. Such moves would change the character of a theatre, putting it in a position to where raising money eclipses the artistic vision and integrity of the group.

Arts Council issues are notoriously contentious. Summing up their session’s debate, “ACE New Vision and Goals – Let’s make them better,” the convener noted that overall the group reached, “No particular consensus – the issues are so complicated and the ACE culture so entrenched probably best to fight with devotion to getting on with making theatre” (D&D 5, Issue 59). With so many diverse (culturally, politically, artistically, geographically, etc...) people wanting so many different things from a single organization, it is inevitable that some people will not be happy with the organization’s decisions. To hear it discussed at the Devoted & Disgruntled conference, it would seem that it is not just some people, but a majority, who have issues with how ACE operates.

However, despite the severe, and oftentimes passionate, criticism of the Arts Council’s leadership, there is a sense of pride about public funding of the arts. That criticism is so much easier to find than praise is a testament to how important the resource is and how important it is for those in charge to get it right.

181

5.2 Hit the Road, Jack! (cause it’s understood: you ain’t got no money, you just ain’t no

good) or Touring Troubles

[The] Question has come about for me after [the] experience of

booking a regional tour following a successful Edinburgh.

Although our small company (The Plasticine Men) have a good

outcome, I found the process baffling. Why was so much work

being duplicated? How are you supposed to conduct so many

conversations at once and come up with a coherent schedule at the

end of it? I thought that there must surely be a better way to do

things…

—Simon Day

“How can we make the process of tour-booking

better for artists and companies?”

Devoted & Disgruntled 6, Issue 13

Touring is an important part of many British theatre companies’ artistic practices.

Many new theatre companies in the UK start out with extensive touring, gaining valuable experience on production and learning about the industry from the rapid pace required for development and the never-ending need to adapt work to new spaces and audiences.

Touring also helps develop a larger audience than might be possible in a smaller city or region. In the United States, touring is more of a purview of big Broadway musical hits; however, in the UK, touring shows are often created by small companies presenting original work who get their bookings from theatre festivals. Certainly, larger theatre

182 companies also create tours with theatres like The National being very active on this front, but like America’s big Broadway musicals, these types of companies tend to tour to the larger regions and require larger venues with larger houses to cover their costs. The small- and mid-size companies are able to fill smaller niches and play to audiences that cannot afford, or simply cannot house, grander-scale tours.

At the annual Devoted & Disgruntled sessions regarding tours, hot topics were presented. These hot topics included issues on what is wrong with touring, when and where to tour, how to tour, why touring is important, and whom to contact to book tours, all of which are regularly brought up in many sessions—even those not devoted to the topic. Touring is considered a more normal activity for a theatre company in the UK than it is for a theatre company in the United States, especially for new and small companies.

The topic of touring at the Devoted & Disgruntled conferences provides a good study of eldership in the community—allowing those practitioners with practice experience to impart their knowledge to new practitioners, helping them avoid pitfalls and needlessly reinventing the wheel when it comes to establishing themselves on the circuit.

While there are many discussions and working groups created concerning touring issues, most of the sessions fall into one of two broad categories: problems getting tours into London and the difficulties of touring work outside of London. That is not to say that these are the only, or even the primary, functions of these sessions; indeed, many of these sessions obliquely deal with the geography questions. However, because the annual

Devoted & Disgruntled conference takes place in London, issues concerning these topics tend to come up in nearly every discussion. While many of the sessions focus mainly on

183 sharing information and advice on touring, several tackle issues of touring culture and

ACE funding. In one way or another, though, the advice given or issues raised center around London—if only to push against the London-centric view. There are good reasons to focus so greatly on London; as David Clack mentioned in a recent Time Out London article, “Half of the UK’s theatre admissions (plus a quarter of cinema admissions) happen in London, with box offices taking £528 million from 18,615 performances in

2011” (Clack para. 14). London is where the greatest concentration of theatre dollars is spent in the UK. This section will examine the issues from the annual conferences that pertain to touring that are specific to the United Kingdom, illuminating the troubles (and solutions) of touring into, and out from, London.

Perhaps the more difficult challenge expressed in Devoted & Disgruntled working groups was that of bringing your work to London audiences as a resident of London, especially if one is known for their touring work. In the session titled, “CRISIS IN

LONDON VENUES,” convener Robert Pacitti spells out the frustration: “Robert’s [the session convener’s] passion is to do with being an internationally well-received, core funded London-based company which can’t get a London venue. He commented that he had not met or seen Julia Bardsley’s work till they met in Brussels, despite making their work very near each other in London” (D&D 1, Issue 7). Many in this category expressed frustration with not being able to book their work that they successfully tour outside of

London into venues in London. Art administrators in the group felt that this sounded pretty normal—that with venues serving more as rental spaces, developing an audience for their spaces could prove very difficult. Once a London-based company’s reputation is

184 established as a touring company, London-based venues have little incentive to bring them to their audiences. The art administrator for a venue in the group noted that their audience members are already versed in London theatre companies and go to see those groups on their own; their audience came to their space to see shows from outside of

London.

Performers in the group noted that this is an ongoing problem on both sides:

“When a company does have a profile as a ‘successful’ touring company the danger then is of feeling that the work is ‘dropped in’ from nowhere and that however well it does at the box-office, no meaningful ongoing connection with the audience is created” (D&D 1,

Issue 7). To this, several participants talked about Soho Theatre and their attempt to bridge this audience divide by programming work from companies with whom they have ongoing relationships. This model was viewed positively by the group, but it could be said that such fixed relationships would make it difficult for new companies to emerge.

Another group also believed that a big part of the problem with being able to bring successful tours originating from London into London venues was audience development, asking the question, “Is it possible to do a regional tour entirely within

Greater London?” (D&D 5, Issue 24). This group noted that London is a big place, encompassing some thirty-three boroughs and even more space in outlying areas, and that

London-area audiences are very venue-loyal, in particular. Viewing London as a group of closely aggregated regions seems obvious; this would allow for the internal touring of

London, serving different communities that might not otherwise venture across town to see a production. This idea was attractive to many in the group who wanted to create a

185 system in London that would allow for just such a tour. Unfortunately, following up on this proposal yielded no results. I feel that this would be a valuable project—one that would help to link up the varied communities of London—that merits further discussion.

Another session was used to examine the problem of getting touring work in

London; however, the session found a somewhat different cultural context. “Living here/Theatre in another country,” with the “here” signifying London, looked at the

London theatre scene from the perspective of a foreigner living in the city. The convener lamented that while she loved living in London, stating, “My personal life is in London and I positively make the choice to be here,” she was increasingly finding it easier to find and make work in her home country of Belgium (D&D 4, Issue 09). While such a situation might be agreeable to some, the convener would actually prefer to stay in

London; she claimed, “I enjoy living here to see all these major European companies on tour and to feel the artistic boiling atmosphere of the city” (D&D 4, Issue 09).

Improbable artistic director Lee Simpson tells the convener that their theatre company was facing a similar dilemma when it came to creating new works, noting that the company was increasingly spending more and more time in New York City, and even

Columbus, Ohio, to develop their new plays. The conversation soon switched over to the difficulties of having a family and children and splitting your life between two countries in order to make ends meet. The convener writes in the session notes a possible solution to her problems, which was presented to her by Improbable’s two attending artistic directors:

186

So, again Lee and Julian tell me to find the money and make the people

come from Belgium here to work and rehearse with me. It makes me think

that it could positively inform my work as the artists coming could get

something of the cultural shock of being in the UK away from home. They

could get a freer creativity from it. (D&D 4, Issue 09)

While this solution is appealing in this case, specifically because it would involve bringing non-UK performers to London, akin to bringing in a foreign tour, it would not be as readily useful to native Londoners. As one participant from a different year’s conference noted, London audiences seem to believe that they know and fully understand

British-ness; therefore, London audiences do not feel different regional theatre companies have compelling messages that are not already a part of their cultural conversation in the capital city (D&D 1, Issue 7). Even so, there were complaints that bringing in outside voices (i.e., foreign theatre tours) were similarly difficult in London itself: “The English are suspicious of mystery and complexity,” one session noted, with the primary concern that “the cost of bringing them over [is] prohibitive and they don’t necessarily get audiences” (D&D 1, Issue 6). While, certainly, there is a significant amount of foreign theatre in London, people seemed to think that compared to other European cities, the work in London overly favors locally produced work.

With the annual conference taking place in London, more of the touring conversation typically centers on the issues of London-based companies bringing their work to the rest of the country and the world. Participants consider how the UK figures into the greater theatre community of Europe, how to make money—or a career—out of

187 touring and all that that entails (funding, funding, and more funding—or, rather, more

Arts Council England criticism), and what makes different regions attractive to prospective touring companies; additionally, many sessions offering practical advice on the nuts and bolts of all aspects of touring. With the high population density of Europe, touring is an important cultural export for London, one that receives a great deal of attention.

So, do theatre practitioners in the United Kingdom consider themselves

European? This question was asked at a session during the first Devoted & Disgruntled conference, and the answer, at least in terms of theatre, was a resounding no from the group (D&D 1, Issue 6). The group took this cultural divide and examined what British theatre might be lacking, having set itself apart. The session’s convener felt that one of the biggest hurdles changing cultural practices in theatre in the UK was that “the English still feel that their theatre is the best in the world” (D&D 1, Issue 6). Some felt that the cultural elitism stemmed from Britain’s unique history, having resisted the revolutions that much of Europe had seen, which allowed it to maintain its hierarchies. Others saw the difference as being primarily geographic, as England’s being an island provided it with a different relationship with the rest of the continent, compared to other countries

(D&D 1, Issue 6).

Several people shared anecdotes about how theatre was more widely attended in

Europe because theatre tickets are considerably less expensive, that audiences are more willing to book tickets for entire seasons, and that houses tended to run at higher capacity. One session participant remarked that,

188

There is less consideration of theatre as a form in other countries and

therefore it is less mediated—the audience has the power to walk out

which makes the companies more aware of what their audiences think.

Conversely in Britain audiences can feel that they don’t know enough and

are worried about what they do or don’t understand. We here encourage

and educate our audiences not to interact. (D&D 1, Issue 6)

While this lament about theatre is perhaps over-observed, it is worth noting as an international distinction between the UK theatre scene and much of Europe. There is a (at least, a perceived) preciousness regarding theatre coming from Britain: “Britain is obsessed with issue based work/british [sic] companies have got something to say” (D&D

1, Issue 6). This relates back to the earlier quote about the English being suspicious of mystery and simplexity, as well as provides insight into why it can be difficult for foreign companies to find an audience in London.

Despite the sense of cultural elitism that the group felt was a mainstay of British theatre, the group thought that British theatre was missing the vibrancy of many of its

European counterparts. One participant noted, “It is culturally endemic in Europe that there is more intellectual endeavour. E.g.: in France it is enshrined in the culture

(politicians like to be seen with artists and philosophers rather than footballers and celebrities” (D&D 1, Issue 6).5 People in the group familiar with touring and foreign festival work noted that there is much less hierarchy involved in putting on productions and having fewer middlemen and more co-productions and collaborations (D&D 1, Issue

6). The convener also stated that European companies generally have longer production

189 cycles: “Rehearsal periods in Europe are allowed to be much longer eg: forced [sic]

Entertainment have to go to Germany to make work and then bring it back because they need at least 8 weeks” (D&D 1, Issue 6).

In the session, “HOW DO WE MAKE THEATRE CROSS BORDERS OF

LANGUAGE AND COUNTRY,” (D&D 6, Issue 110), the group tackled international touring issues and ran into some of the same problems described earlier; however, they also offered a host of solutions and resources. Some in the group bemoaned, “The UK funding structure or project funding does not lend itself to UK groups visiting European

Festivals” (D&D 6, Issue 110). This was countered by several participants who noted that there are, indeed, available sources of funding, encouraging those interested to look beyond traditional Arts Council schemes. The Old Vic was mentioned by the convener for their Professional Development awards specifically geared to allowing shows to tour in New York City. Another potential source that one contributor felt was underutilized were groups who taught English as a foreign language (TEFL): “There is a lot of money for theatre abroad that is in English and performed to people learning English—this is an untapped source of funding in many places” (D&D 6, Issue 110). Several in the group also talked about international residency programs, citing the Nordland Visual Theatre

Performance Art Harbour in Norway and the Hoo Yang Theatre International Residency in Korea (D&D 6, Issue 110).

The convener also called the above session to address a second problem that he was struggling with in presenting work to international audiences: language barriers.

Several useful solutions were offered by group participants; however, many of the

190 proposed solutions required that the performance be tailored specifically for touring internationally, rather than trying to take a show created specifically for London audiences and then attempting to sell it abroad. As one participant put it, “To work internationally we have to really want to work internationally” (D&D 6, Issue 110).

Another in the group suggested, “Work needs to be made in true collaboration with international partners—not just parachute in and parachute out. There should be a theatrical conversation” (D&D 6, 110). The consensus reached was to create work that focused more on the physical, such as mime or commedia dell’arte, to tell stories and

“work beyond language” (D&D 6, 110). One person in the group suggested that instead of doing away with language, why not consider producing plays using Grammelot, a type of made-up language consisting of a mix of garbled language sounds and onomatopoeia?

Grammelot was made popular (though not invented) by the Nobel Prize-winning playwright Dario Fo, and it was used in many of his shows’ touring productions. In typical Devoted & Disgruntled fashion, the session answered many questions, provided solutions, and listed useful resources for each of the issues that the convener and others had brought concerning international touring.

At a different session on the same subject, “International touring: looking for some good advice” (D&D 5, Issue 52), a group of session participants gave the session convener a laundry list of helpful ideas and tips for booking international work. Some advice included basic contract negotiations, such as, “The venue should pay for all costs.”

Other advice provided such concerned marketing guidance as, “Propose a package of shows to a venue!” and “Have a nice, clear pitch ready and appropriate marketing

191 materials that reflect your work” (D&D 5, Issue 52). When the convener asked how she should set a price on her touring production, one producer in the group suggested that she

“use BC [British Council] rates but break the costs down” (D&D 5, Issue 52). The British

Council promotes British culture abroad and frequently sends productions overseas; however, in another session, participants noted that British Council funding is difficult for anyone other than large, prestigious companies to obtain: “Mostly established groups go abroad, on British Council tours, a remnant of empire,” adding that there exists in the

British Council, “an exclusivity attitude” (D&D 6, Issue 110). However, developing a baseline for what to charge at least provided the convener with a viable resource to back up her funding requests. The participants also gave a long list of important international festivals that she should bring her work to in order to get it seen by promoters and touring venues, including Under the Radar in New York City, Push in Vancouver, and Australian

Performing Arts Market (APAM) in Adelaide (D&D 5, Issue 52). The session concluded with what was impressed upon the convener as perhaps the most important advice for international touring: “THERE IS NO SUBSITTUTE FOR A FACE TO FACE

MEETING!!!” (D&D 5, Issue 52).

Another aspect of touring was explored in a session titled, “What makes a region attractive to theatre makers either to be based in or to tour to?” (D&D 4, Issue 94). The group talked through their criteria for wanting to create work in a given region in Great

Britain. The top three needs for a region to be attractive, according to this well-attended group, were as follows: money, enthusiastic audiences, and cheap rehearsal space. Given these three necessary qualities, the group felt that any region could invigorate their

192 cultural draw. Not surprisingly, these same three criteria were also on the list of things that make a region popular for companies looking for places to tour their work. Several of the group members suggested that another great quality for a region was the prevalence of theatre festivals. The convener’s notes convey this notion:

Festivals are great as they allow for an influx of diverse, high quality

work. Examples were given of venues that are consistently brining

interesting, experimental work in areas whereone [sic] might not expect to

find interested audiences, chief amongst these were The Point in Eastleigh,

The Drum in Plymouth and New Wolsey in Ipswich. (D&D 4, Issue 94)

Leadership was, therefore, noted as an important gauge of how desirable a particular region would be to touring companies, with one participant citing that each of the three theatres listed above had committed artistic directors with strong national contacts throughout the theatre community (D&D 4, Issue 94). Other helpful resources for a region to have included the region’s commitment to establishing and maintaining long- term relationships with theatre companies and bringing in outside companies on a regular basis. Theatre companies and venues that welcome and support artists to come to and develop work in their spaces and their communities were also seen as desirable. Such arrangements not only benefit the artists, but also serve as a valuable tool for audience development for the venues and communities.

Among the more straightforward topics on touring, some very specific sessions were called with the intention of dealing with a wide array of issues. One session tackled the environmental impact of touring: “How do we tour when the oil starts to run out?”

193

(D&D 2, Issue 53). The participants came up with a number of ideas, from horse-and- carriage transportation to touring using the nation’s railroads with handcars (also called a pump trolley in Britain) that could double as a performance platform (D&D 2, Issue 53).

The group also spent some time considering ways to make traditional, oil-powered touring more efficient, noting that “if touring is to continue, a new system of making theatre which requires the transportation of large amounts of kit needs to evolve” (D&D

2, Issue 53). They proposed two major areas in which the receiving venue could help support this evolution. First, they recommended the standardization of a “versatile

‘staging set’ which can be adapted to fit the staging demands and the ‘usual’ set pieces that touring productions bring to that venue” (D&D 2, Issue 53). Second, they suggested sourcing items locally, not only in terms of properties, but also in manpower, including hiring local actors to fill smaller parts (D&D 2, Issue 53).

Several sessions proposed that the solution to the touring woes many people had was to avoid venues altogether. “If it aint [sic] outdoors or on the street, it aint [sic] worth a fuck” was the first session of Devoted & Disgruntled 2, which was called by Jon

Beedell of the outdoor art company Desperate Men. The Desperate Men started in Berlin in 1980, and they now call Bristol their home and have been creating original street performances for thirty-two years. The session’s provocative title drew many participants, and the discussion covered a wide array of topics, from practical advice for aspiring street artists to eliciting a soapbox for the convener to try and convince more theatre artists to abandon their indoor spaces: “Theatre has to connect. It has to engage and then perhaps it can ‘educate.’ Indoor theatre is limited—in audiences it reaches and

194 the possibilities of interaction, participation, form and structure” (D&D 2, Issue 1).

Advice and ideas ranged from the small-, suggesting the use of iPods to create performance-related guided audio tours in unique spaces, to the large-scale, with fireworks and gigantic multi-story puppets (The Sultan’s Elephant was referenced as a positive step for street theatre in London). The session was geared at inspiring people to think outside of their theatres and to challenge them to engage audiences who may never have previously set foot inside a playhouse.

Another session posed the question, “Why isn’t the Nation Theatre Touring to

Old Peoples [sic] Homes?” (D&D 4, Issue 74). The convener’s notes sum up the major points: “The discussion ranged from the specifics of the question, through issues of age and ageism, international work, working with older actors, overvaluing of youth, and to the broader societal questions raised by an aging population” (D&D 4, Issue 74). While participants at the session were largely enthusiastic about the idea in principle, they asked many questions concerning the practicality of implementing the convener’s vision.

Foremost was the question of whether the National Theatre was the best organization to take on such an endeavor. Others in the session asked why it was necessary to single out just older people, rather than other excluded groups. Another participant suggested that this might be easier to actualize if it was, instead, done through the UK government’s

Department for Education. The convener countered these questions, sticking to his original plan, believing that the National Theatre should be the theatre to undertake this project, as their high profile would lend credence to the idea, helping to “de stigmatize

[sic] old people, care homes and dementia” (D&D 4, Issue 74). For similar reasons, he

195 felt that it was important to go through a prominent theatre, such as The National, instead of having it under the Department for Education; he believed that it was necessary to do so to ensure that the work was of the highest quality and treated as regular professional theatre, subject to criticism and the traditional review process. The convener was also adamant about reaching out to older people, instead of other excluded groups, because he believed that this was an issue that pertained to the broadest audience, noting that “older people are ourselves in 30, 40, 50 yrs time. It asks bigger questions about our humanity and how we are in the world because it is asking us questions about ourselves” (D&D 4,

Issue 74).

Several participants offered the support of their organizations, particularly Ladder to the Moon, which uses theatre and performance to provide “learning, change and development through creative interventions; supporting care management and staff to improve quality of life for both the people who use and the people who work in care services” (Ladder para. 1). Ladder to the Moon works directly with the elderly and their caregivers, with a large amount of their effort dealing with sufferers of dementia.

Additionally, the theatre company Spare Tyre, whose thirty years of work has focused on

“creating theatre with voiceless communities” (Spare Tyre para.1) offered its support, as well. Their current mission, which is stated on their website, explains, “Right now we work with people aged 60+, adults with learning disabilities, and women who have experienced violence” (Spare Tyre para. 2). While The National Theatre has not begun a program for touring rich theatrical experiences to elder care facilities, sessions like this

196 one have kept issues concerning aging alive and prominent throughout the years of

Devoted & Disgruntled.

The sessions called on touring to provide some of the most direct advice to theatre practitioners looking to advance their careers and seek new audiences and experiences.

The information compiled through the years should be considered invaluable as a resource, providing not only advice and tips, but also listing many resources from important festivals to funding organizations that work specifically with touring companies, both locally and abroad. Jonathan Halloway, Artistic Director of Red Shift

Theatre Company held the session, “TOURING: DO WE STILL NEED OR WANT TO

DO IT?” during the looming Arts Council of England budget cuts, which greatly impacted the financial viability of “touring as a career option in its own right” (D&D 4,

Issue 12). The response of the 25 person-strong discussion, which included veteran touring actors, directors, theatre critics, and producers, indicated that they all believed it was still of vital importance. While it can be seen that the nature of funding and opportunity has changed over the years of the annual conferences, it is through the very nature of the annual Devoted & Disgruntled conferences that new information, experiences, and best practices can be translated to the community with great efficiency.

197

5.3 Devising Dilemmas

There has been a huge increase in the teaching of devising, but is

this a good thing? How do you teach devising anyway? – Certain

companies (e.g. Forced Entertainment) become paradigms;

academic writing on devising companies may bear no relation to

their own sense of what they do. Unhelpful and misleading

orthodoxies start to form.

—Chris Goode

“Devising – is there a glass ceiling?”

Devoted & Disgruntled 4, Issue 65

A conference based on democratic, of-the-moment organization and that is hosted by a theatre company known specifically for its inventive, devised works naturally fosters conversations and discussions about the subject. Devoted & Disgruntled conference sessions, while they have a session convener who sets a topic, are not necessarily led by the convener. The sessions allow people interested in a given subject, issue, or project to come together and work collectively on the given topic – no one person’s voice is more privileged than another’s in most session discussions. The direction of discussion, like the initial calling of sessions, is chaotic and difficult to control. Phelim McDermott, in his opening instructions to the conference, warns people to expect to be surprised and to avoid specific expectations from a session. In this sense, nearly every session at Devoted

& Disgruntled is collaboration, a devised performance. The sessions that are created to deal with topics related to creating work in a devised fashion cover a wide range of

198 subjects from how to cast a devised project to questions about what is or is not devised to calls for collaborators for new projects (some of which are developed from sessions and discussions at the conference). Many of the discussions center upon how devised theatre is separate from more mainstream methods of production. This section will look at these

(perceived) differences, casting light on the divide between practitioners of devised theatre and straight theatre, ideas about education and devising practices, and what role playwrights and text play in this new paradigm.

Stella Duffy addresses the strain between devisers and traditional theatre creators in her session, “‘straight’ theatre & ‘made/devised’ theatre – creating a conversation about and between” (D&D 1, Issue 5). Duffy states the session’s goal: “We would like a discussion between ‘straight’ and ‘devised’ theatre. We are missing chances and liaisons and benefits by not talking to each other enough” (D&D 1, Issue 5). The group agreed that the division was the fault of both camps of theatre creators and wanted to find ways to get past the “defensiveness and arrogance on both sides” (D&D 1, Issue 5). The group brainstormed what they saw were the big issues that could be agreed upon and then broke into separate groups to tackle the issues, creating small-scale Open Space sessions within their main session. The groups then came back together and reported their findings/conclusions on their topics to the rest of the group.

The first group report concerned education; and, while education and training will be covered in more detail later, it is included in this section because this session as a whole lays out a good groundwork for issues facing the theatre community on modes of production. The education group’s main conclusion was that theatre is not taught early

199 enough. “We need to start in the beginning,” the group’s reports starts, “in primary schools, so that the audiences learn that theatre can be play and not just learning…”

(D&D 1, Issue 5). There was a feeling that theatre education was focused on curriculum- based goals, and that this is what turned many kids (and eventual adults) away from theatre. Theatre should not be merely a tool of literature and history education. The group suggested a course of action: “Get people (children) to ‘make’ plays before they even start reading ‘plays’” (D&D 1, Issue 5). This is the very idea that The Royal Shakespeare

Company’s Stand up for Shakespeare program espouses in its similar approach, which demystifies the practice of theatre in order to make Shakespeare accessible to students in the primary education setting. Using three simple principles – “Do it on your feet. See it live. Start it earlier” (Stand up 2) – the RSC program has had great success in instilling a love of Shakespeare and theatre to young children. It would be interesting to see if this same approach would be effective with theatre in general in introducing theatre, and not just Shakespeare, to young people.

The second group report looked at the funding disparity between devised theatre and straight theatre. The group took it as de facto that devised companies are not representationally funded by the Arts Council. To make up for this disparity, the funding group proposed a tax on straight theatrical productions (similar to a dead writer’s levy6), with the monies collected to be “redistributed to new work, the amount to be based on the necessities of the work’s creative process” (D&D 1, Issue 5). Other proposals to help close the funding gap included making it so that funded companies “should have the responsibility to take on a made/devised-work company” (D&D 1, Issue 5), or that

200 companies and buildings should be required to support, as part of their mission, an aspect of theatre that they would usually not support. None of the proposals made by the group were particularly workable, especially not as requirements or conditions on funding.

However, some of the ideas are probably workable on a more informal scale, especially developing connections with straight theatre companies to share spaces and resources.

The language group formed because it took issue with the terminology being used: devised and straight. While this subject comes up occasionally, no real satisfactory argument has been put forward to change the commonly used terms. The group noted the preponderance of available terms – “Devised/made/created/free/new and mainstream/old/traditional and new/old writing” (D&D 1, Issue 5) – and decided to try its hand at crafting new terms: Fluid and Specific. These terms seem no better than the ones they replace but strive to be a bit more descriptive: “People making work where the roles are Fluid, and people making work where the roles are Specific” (D&D 1, Issue 5). The language group did realize that getting acceptance of its terms would be an uphill battle, especially with the general public.

The performance and audience group had little to say, concluding, “The audience don’t care how we make it” (D&D 1, Issue 5). In other words, the audience just wants an experience that works for it. While the audience may not care how it is made, the experience delivered by these two broad categories of production do provide different experiences generally, and so audiences may indeed be selecting the mode of production they prefer.

201

While Duffy’s session wanted to create a discussion to bring devised and straight together, other sessions wondered if such relationships are necessary or productive. A pro-devising session called “What is a director and do we need them anyway?” (D&D 1,

Issue 68) asks its question facetiously, taking the stance that traditional, hierarchical, top- down theatre is a dead end. The directors present at the session defended their practice, feeling “they are the audiences’ eye – standing on the outside” (D&D 1, Issue 68). The discussion centered on what a director is particularly useful for, with the group concluding that directors can communicate and unify a production’s vision. However, the group questioned whether it was responsible to allow a single person to impose his or her will on a pre-existing text, worrying that such imposition distorts the work and thus the audience’s perceptions of the work. The group made no mention that the same such imposition can exist in a devised production, nor did it talk about where the boundary might exist concerning artistic vision and license. The session notes wavered back and forth between believing in the utility of directors to declaring that for new, modern, devised pieces the role is antiquated and is holding back new work’s potential. Looking through the issues, the group was rather more anti-authoritarian directors than opposed to the notion of a director, but the heavy emphasis on devised work at this session scored the frustration that devising practitioners have working with a non-devising oriented director. The group’s closing recommendation on the session question concerning the need for directors grudgingly accepted that directors are needed, but even followed up that endorsement with a caveat: “Keep the notion of ‘director’ and be aware of the ‘finds

202 direction’ versus ‘imposes direction’ continuum (veering towards the former) (D&D 1,

Issue 68, emphasis mine).

Another session that looked at the role of the director in devised work, but this time from the other end, took up the issue of ownership in the devised community. “We devised, but I directed? After devising a piece as a group, giving freedom to the actors…the question of ownership and ‘did you really direct [?’]” (D&D 5, Issue 49) sought to help clarify how to give (or take) credit as a director in the devised world. The group concluded that this was a very common problem in the industry when dealing with devised work and reassured the convener that he was not alone. The group also noted that this question of ownership “only happens when a piece is successful” (D&D 5, Issue 49).

The group came up with a few possible solutions to the problem, all of which involved better communication from the outset of the project. The group recommended

“explaining style of direction” as an important starting point, noting: “Sometimes

‘alternative’ style (less directorial, more about creating an environment for actors to explore), causes confusion as if this is directing” (D&D 5, 49). There was also the suggestion that directors make sure their role is clarified in a work contract. There was some discussion about the need for defined roles, and the group noted that “fixed roles become especially important when the devising system starts to interact with outside systems (D&D 5, Issue 49). Indeed, producing houses, touring houses, and especially funding organization want to know who is doing what for marketing and accounting purposes if nothing else. The group came up with a simple test to help find out who the director is for a given production: “ask yourself if the show would have been shit, who

203 would have been blamed?” (D&D 5, Issue 49). The problem is common and the group agreed that, while it is a bit of a nuisance, such issues are a normal process for good devised work.

Many other sessions tackled the divide, sometimes striving to deepen it. Sessions such as, “is blocking the equivalent of match-fixing? Do we root it out? How?” attacked traditional theatre practices, saying, “[Blocking] Fits into a (long?) tradition of co- dependency between actors and directors and [the] infantilisation of artists in general”

(D&D 6, Issue 51). The session “Collaboration: do we have to get along?” focused, meanwhile, on the interpersonal relationship dynamics of devising practitioners with each other (D&D 3, Issue 63). Some of the conflict discussed related to how devised theatre lacks traditional roles and hierarchy and how this can create bad working conditions.

Another session, titled, “Collaborators and Control Freaks – can we work together?” held that traditional theatre practices with hierarchical structures (i.e., directors) serve as a gate, or barrier, to information and communication and have a higher risk of dividing the workforce (D&D 4, Issue 047). The conflict between traditional/straight theatrical production and devised/collaborative theatre making is not likely to go away, but the conversation about the conflict and finding a middle ground, or completely new modes of production, helps keep everyone at the table. As the “Collaboration: do we have to get along?” session pointed out, “It might be that what is right for you is conflict” (D&D 3,

Issue 63).

A number of sessions dedicated to devising discussed the state of training for theatre collaborators. Some question the very notion of formalized education, but most

204 are more pragmatic, like the session above, “‘straight’ theatre & ‘made/devised’ theatre – creating a conversation about and between” (D&D 1, Issue 5) and, therefore, would like to find better ways to not only educate theatre makers, but also audience members, and to do so from a very early age. Other sessions look at how we can combine more disciplines and what transfers of knowledge are needed to facilitate these collaborations. This section will look at a handful of these sessions and the tools, tips, and training ideas they generate.

The session “How would theatre makers like to be trained?” (D&D 2, Issue 28) tackled the question head on and provided three pages of bulleted notes. However, many of the points are fairly common-sense and can apply to many disciplines, even beyond theatre. Points such as, “Be exposed to other disciplines,” or “Business skills need to be taught” (D&D 2, Issue 28) come across as trite. Some of the points moved in directions that, while helpful to any theatre practitioner, were felt to be more apt to be neglected in devised training, particularly concerning the need for better training in business. The group felt that training in how to market yourself and your work was essential and, therefore, more central to devised training. The group also seemed to think that theatre training too frequently demonizes the business world, particularly corporations, and this was seen as counterproductive.

Looking a bit more obliquely at training for devising, a session was called to discuss, “What do you think about collaboration across art disciplines?” (D&D 2, Issue

46) and in so doing, garner advice and support for creating multi-discipline performances.

The convener prefaced his session notes with the following:

205

Conversation started with people talking about their experiences a little

and developed into a conversation as much about the nature of

collaboration as collaboration across artforms [sic]. It turned into bullet

points, but there we go… (D&D 2, Issue 46)

This session of more than twenty participants covered many topics concerning how to prepare for and engage in cross-discipline work, serving as a sort of master class on the subject for those interested. The session report broke the group’s advice, experiences, and conclusions into over a half dozen headings; each, as the convener noted above, was represented as bullet-pointed lists. Some of these sections recorded individual observations on the topic (in the section aptly named “OBSERVATIONS” (D&D 2, Issue

46)). Other sections examined issues that one is likely to face creating new work in new ways: “Exciting but scary thing is to have your discipline challenged by someone who is not versed in it” came from the section, “WHAT HAPPENS THE FIRST TIME?” (D&D

2, Issue 46). Yet another section (“WATCH OUT”) gave advice on potential pitfalls; and, in the case of cross-art form collaboration, the section warns of problems concerning classification that can arise:

How do you get different audiences along to a mixed artform [sic] event?

Tricky. (eg, The Show’s the Thing (David Harradine, Jo Manser and Jed

Barry) not listed by either theatre or art for the opposite reason.7 (D&D 2,

Issue 46)

The session gave resources, advice, and some firsthand experience, arming the convener with the knowledge needed to pursue new work collaborations. The notes serve as a good

206 resource for those entering into cross-disciplinary performance, but also as a potential catalyst for inspiring such collaborations to later readers of the session report.

A session called at Devoted & Disgruntled 3 looked at how non-performance theatre workers are trained and integrated into a devised theatre structure. In “Is there a better way to find/educate/sustain production support for devised work” (D&D 3, Issue

72), the group looks at how to find, attract, and work with theatre technicians and designers – personnel who are often introduced late in the production phases of devised works. The group noted the difference in working methodologies that is inherent to devised work, along with how challenging such an unstructured environment can be to production and technical theatre people. The group described what, as devisers, they would like from production and technical support. Similar to qualities that devisers want from fellow performers, familiarity, artistic integrity, multi-skilled, nurturing a collaborative process, and trust (D&D 3, Issue 72) are all words that fill the opening paragraphs of the session report.

The group came up with a solution early in the discussion it seemed quite excited about (it is under the heading, “First great idea!”): “Engagement with colleges to bring students into devising environment on placement” D&D 3, Issue 72). The notion of placement in the UK differs from its meaning in the United States. In the US, placement usually refers to an education or training program’s service of finding jobs for its graduates. In the UK, placements are more analogous to the US work study practice.8

Placements for theatre students give students practical experience in production and performance work. The group felt that placements more often took place in more

207 traditional theatre environments, and so students, especially technical and production students, were ill prepared for the experience of working with devising groups.

The group also identified another issue that made bringing good production support people to the devising table: student debt post-graduation. The group talked about how “students coming out of college with large debts [are] being lured by the corporate sector because of high pay. By nature of this work, technicians become more technical and les creatively minded…” (D&D 3, Issue 72). They proposed that education should encourage students to be “open to the idea of mixing up incoming streams for production staff” by placing greater emphasis on artistic creativity with technical and production students (D&D 3, Issue 72). It occurred to the group that artistic training is often completely ignored when it comes to technical and production workers: “Colleges often produce techs who need a script, clear plans, rigid direction [,] etc…possibly the opposite of who you want as a making partner in a devised process” (D&D 3, Issue 72). The group noted that, in the technical arts, devising is not even on the curriculum and proposed getting in touch with the Council of Drama Schools to address this failing.

The group talked about reasons why there was an artistic divide between performers and technicians with one participant noting, “[The] Architecture of colleges promote that [division] as well, actors in different buildings than technicians, swipe cards denying entry to eachothers [sic] buildings” (D&D 3, Issue 72). Even when they are not segregated into separate buildings, it is not uncommon for the acting and technical personnel to be physically divided from each other in ways that do not foster interaction

(for example, being on separate floors or opposite sides of buildings).

208

The group’s “Second Great idea!” involved finding ways to incorporate production support sooner into the devising process (D&D 3, Issue 72). The group, in the second half of its session report, focused more on the role of Production Manager (PM), noting, “The search for good PMs usually happens too late for proper engagement, its

[sic] usually too low on the priority list to get sorted” (D&D 3, Issue 72). The group discussed how useful having a production manager begin early on in a devised project is invaluable, noting that, in many larger, established theatre companies, the production manager is part of “the management board and involved in artistic decisions” (D&D 3,

Issue 72). The idea the group came up with asked, “Can independent producers and small companies budget for a PM position that is one day every two weeks? Specifically to get in on early project discussions and not just the dog work” (D&D 3, Issue 72). The group came to the conclusion that having a production manager, even just for one or two days a week in the beginning, would alleviate a host of problems and help keep things running more smoothly:

[They would be] There for pertinent meetings

Educating artists to production language

[Provide] Production input early on

Involved in channeling staff for projects

Inducting SM/project OM/Project tech effectively into the team

(D&D 3, Issue 72)

The group acknowledged that, even at one day every two weeks, there would still exist funding hurdles, and that getting someone to commit to such a schedule for what could be

209 a year-long development process remains challenging. The session convener closed the notes with a commitment to try to meet with producers to investigate the feasibility of implementing the group’s plan.

Similar in fashion to the discussion of the place of directors in devising theatre practice, an even larger discussion about playwrights and their scripts was evident in the session reports of annual Devoted & Disgruntled. Certainly there are many sessions throughout the Devoted & Disgruntled reports that concern playwrights, their issues, and their work in a positive fashion; however, the sessions that take on the playwright in the devised community are a bit less complimentary.9 The devising community’s overall response is not entirely dismissive of playwrights and their text; indeed, most discussions conclude that they can still be valuable members of the production group. What follows is a sampling of three sessions that explored the playwright, one that questioned (and also fought for) the place of playwrights in devised work, and two that sought to limit the primacy of text in the theatrical hierarchy.

The session convener of “Is the written play a dying form? And if so, what can we do to revive it?” (D&D 1, Issue 41) was concerned (perhaps a bit dramatically) about increasing difficulties facing playwrights. The session was attended by nearly twenty-five participants and started with the convener asking each participant to answer the session’s first question – “The response was overwhelmingly: No, the written play is not dying!!”

(D&D 1, Issue 41). The session question solved, the group still found reason to continue the discussion with the qualification to the group’s answer: “but there are calls for change both in subject matter, form, the working practices of playwrights and in the structures

210 and hierarchies of the theatre industry, as they relate to playwriting (D&D 1, Issue 41).”

In closing out the notion that the written play was an endangered species, the group noted that “if the new play died, theatre would probably die with it” (D&D 1, Issue 41). The group went on to list the many issues plaguing playwrights; and, while devised theatre is not the explicit focus of the list, many of the problems can be seen as stemming from work being made without a traditional playwright.

The group came to a conclusion unique in the myriad session reports concerning playwrights, plays, and the devising process. Often the discussions talk about devising without a playwright, or how the actors are also the playwrights; here, the group notes that devised theatre is sorely lacking playwrights.

Playwrights should be encouraged to work more closely with companies

who make and devise work. We felt there was often a great paucity of text

in these works that would benefit hugely from having a playwright on

board. (D&D 1, Issue 41)

The group felt that, perhaps, devising had pushed too hard against some traditional roles and would benefit from returning to the use of trained professionals to help craft new works. The group added that such arrangements would benefit the playwright as well as the devising company, feeling that playwrights would profit from working in much closer collaboration (D&D 1, Issue 41).

The rebellion against the literary text and traditional theatre hierarchies was a defining characteristic of devised theatre. As a rule, this distinction has become less vital, with many devised companies using existing text as starting points, then modifying,

211 adapting, and finally reclaiming the material as their own. Most devised theatres rely on the written word in one way or another, whether written by a traditional playwright or by the actor playing the role. One session challenged its participants to go a step further than most and eschew texts. Why convey information through formalized language when you can express it using other means and senses? The session report started with a description of what the convener, Stephen Hodge, saw as the problem:

Theatre is a minority artform [sic] (a minority of the public goes to the

theatre each year). To some extent, we’re in a TV/multimedia-dominated

age. That’s okay. But in order to survive, perhaps theatre-makers should

concentrate on what makes theatre special/different. This is not necessarily

anything to do with a verbal text, which originates in a different medium –

that of literature (as David Cole10 said in the 1970s, word-based scripts are

only a model for turning what is not theatre into what is theatre… (D&D

1, Issue 74)

The convener went on to add a few examples, most of them from incidents that took place during the conference. Hodge cited Improbable artistic director Julian Crouch’s visual record of the event (done through quick pencil sketches of moments and conference participants). Hodge also referred to the opening remarks and instructions by

Phelim McDermott where, instead of describing an important point to the participants with words, McDermott said, “I’ll draw you a picture. That’ll be better” (D&D 1, Issue

74). Here, however, the session report was cut short, as these small snippets of text served merely as a teaser with the notes saying at this point, “no verbal notes taken, see

212 the 7 visual records (1 made by each member of the group)” (D&D 1, Issue 74).

Unfortunately, these visual records have not survived the years.

A session called to discuss the limitations of devised practices in the larger theatrical production world, “Devising – is there a glass ceiling?” (D&D 4, Issue 65), covers a large spectrum of devising issues from those of working practitioners, public response, and perceptions of devised work to theatre critics and critical response. The session drew a large and vocal audience eager to talk about the issues of bringing devised production to larger venues and more mainstream audiences. Amongst the topics covered, playwrights and written scripts were a sizeable portion of the session’s seven pages of typed notes. Early on, the discussion talked about the problem of gaining recognition as a devised company: “It’s only when devising companies take on classic texts that they start to be seen as legitimate. (Or, devising from well-known films etc., those sources can stand in for a classic text…)” (D&D 4, issue 65). This bemoaned the problem that audiences can be very conservative with their money, and are more likely to spend their entertainment pounds on a show that they have heard of rather than a new performance of a newly devised work. However, this trend is not completely a devised theatre issue; Broadway and the West End also take this route with many new musicals being adaptation of movies (Hairspray, The Lion King, Dirty Dancing); pop music (The

Buddy Holly Story, Mama Mia! (ABBA)); Viva Forever (Spice Girls)); and comics (The

Addams Family, Spiderman: Turn Off the Dark, Annie). While there is a long and rich history of stage adaptation, the group seemed to feel that this was the only route that could bring legitimacy to devising. Until devising could stand on its own merits, and not

213 ride the shirttails of an existing text, the group felt that devised work would not equal (in terms of access, popularity, and profitability) mainstream, straight theatre.

The group further noted, “devisers are evaluated differently. A play that doesn’t work is a bad play; if a devised piece doesn’t work, it’s the whole of the methodology that’s considered to be at fault” (D&D 4, Issue 65). This could also be seen as a problem for devising companies that work with existing plays: is the audience responding favorably to the inventive work of the company, or the Shakespearean script used for the adaptation? This also goes back to the responsibility issue described in the section concerning directors and devised works – who takes the blame (or gets the praise) when the roles in a devised production are not clear? The group acknowledges that some of the

“supremacy of the play [is] because the play text survives” while, for a devised work, the performance is all that is produced (D&D 4, Issue 65).

The group proposed that many of these problems are actually eroding, noting, for example, “There are successful devising companies doing big work in mainstream places”; however, the group also noted that it took considerably longer for these companies to “get as far as midscale touring…” (D&D 4, Issue 65). The session agreed that there is indeed a glass ceiling for devised work – particularly for large-scale devised projects – but not everyone at the session thought that the issue was a particular problem, either, feeling there was no need to pit one theatre practice against another. The session wrapped up with a few remarks by the session convener:

To overdramatize: devisers are oppressed; the literary theatre

establishment are powerful. But (as with many other situations) it’s the

214

powerful who feel vulnerable and attacked. As devisers we need to help

those with the power feel less fearful of us: otherwise a polarization

continues and is reinforced – and devising/playwriting binary is anyway

false…” (D&D 4, Issue 65)

The primacy of text was still challenged, but instead of trying to destroy or dismiss it, this session found, arguably, the more appropriate middle ground. Texts and the people who write them are an important aspect of devised theatre practice, but the notion of the solitary playwright working alone in a room and delivering finished playtext needs to be changed to meet the new needs and demands of a growing devised theatre movement.

Many sessions hashed out similar arguments against the primacy of text or lamented the diminished role of the playwright. “Playwrights: a dying species” (D&D 5,

Issue 028), a session held by a playwright and attended by playwrights, noted the need to change with the times and quit lamenting the good old days (if they ever really existed).

Other sessions tackled issues of verbatim theatre, cutting out a formal writer altogether and instead focusing on editorship. There are issues that look at impro (improvisation) and the spontaneity of created and spoken words by the performer not only as devised work in itself, but as a tool for creating devised theatre (“How and where is improvisation useful within a rehearsal process?” (D&D 3, Issue 059). And a myriad of sessions were called people excited about ideas and looking for collaborators (or sessions with people excited about collaborating and looking for ideas). While no one in the reports was willing to say playwrights and written scripts are a thing of the past, the sessions showed that this creative role was changing, not only for the playwright, but also for the actors,

215 directors, designers, and production staff who – in devised theatre – are given some of the writing responsibility for the projects they inhabit.

Devising issues are a hot topic at the Devoted & Disgruntled conferences. The number of sessions called to deal with the subject directly has grown steadily from a mere five at Devoted & Disgruntled 1 to sixteen at the eighth annual conference in

2013.11 While these issues are prevalent at Devoted & Disgruntled conferences, it should be noted that it is possible that these questions are given more time here because the

Open Space Technology format of the conference format may appeal more to devising practitioners. This does not diminish the importance of Devoted & Disgruntled as a marketplace for ideas, experiments, and discussion about devising and collaborative practices. It may also indicate that devising practices on a whole are increasing in the

United Kingdom and so the topic’s increasing prevalence is merely a reflection of this change.

216

Notes

1 Officially called the Conservative and Unionist Party, but almost always referred to as the Conservative Party even by its own members and sometimes shortened even further to the Tory Party or just Tories.

2 Budget data is culled from the Arts Council annual reviews.

3 See Appendix C for a complete breakdown of categories.

4 Alan Davey became the Arts Council of England Chief Executive in 2008 – appointed by the Department of Culture, Media and Sports – and continues in this position as of

2012.

5 While we are on the subject of France, the session had a “great anecdote about a survey in Portsmouth with 4 yr olds where their greatest fears were strange men, something else and then THE FRENCH” (D&D 1, Issue 6). Though it is not specifically related to theatre and touring, the anecdote does show that there is a strange attitude toward those who are cultural friends (and in the case of 4-year-olds, who are their mortal enemies…).

6 A dead writer’s levy is a proposal made to help encourage new play production by placing a voluntary tax on plays that do not require royalties (generally plays by dead writers) in order to create a fund to help pay the costs of theatre’s that take the risk of producing new plays (and have the added financial burden of royalty payments). Such a scheme would presumably help level the financial playing field, making producing new plays as attractive as producing works of dead writers.

217

7 The Show’s the Thing was presented by Fuel in 2006 at The Theatre at Alexandra

Palace, a Victorian-era theatre that had been out of use and neglected since 1936 (Fuel para. 1). The performance was described by The Telegraph reviewer Dominic Cavendish as

…being plunged into faintly terrifying darkness for minutes on

end, while your senses are further disorientated by spine-tingling sound

effects and phantasmagorical lighting cues. Gradually, more and more is

sensationally revealed, like a strip-tease in which the empty auditorium

itself bares its ragged but beautiful all. (Cavendish para. 11).

While being listed in The Telegraph review under the theatre section and even described by Cavendish in the quote as a performance by the theatre building, he refers to it in his conclusion as an installation as well (Cavendish para. 13).

8 The Imperial College of London sets out guidelines for placements as follows in its document, “Placement Learning Policy”:

1.3 The College defines a placement as follows:

Work experience, assessed project work or a period of course-

based study (for which academic credit is awarded and where the student

remains subject to College student regulations during the relevant period)

where there is a transfer of direct supervision of the student to a third party

for a period of 2 weeks or more. The third party would normally be

external to the College Estate, however, the College may itself serve as a

218

“third party” by providing a placement (e.g. UROP projects undertaken by

students in an area of College other than their home department).

Placements may themselves incorporate a further “placement” elsewhere;

in such cases it would be the responsibility of the original placement

provider to act as the primary supervisor/manager of the further

placement, unless such supervision is formally ceded back to the College.

(Imperial College, sect. 1.3)

9 I mention this because most issues that are common at the Devoted & Disgruntled conferences have multiple voices and easily range many (often opposing) points of view.

This section represents just one voice on the subject of playwrights and playwriting.

10 The session convener is most likely referring to David Cole’s 1976 article in The

Drama Review, “The Visual Script: Theory and Techniques,” (Vol. 20, No. 4., 27–50,

Dec. 1976) in which Cole discusses and explores experiments and theories on creating theatre with visual scripts he describes as “non-representational graphic patterns” (Cole

27).

11 The numbers have grown steadily, though there has been a leveling off in recent years.

Several factors can be imagined – the number flattens at the height of the ACE budget crisis, a small decline in the number of sessions being reported, and in recent years a small decline in the number of participants at the conference; however, this is really only pertinent to the most recent conference in 2013, which saw about 50–100 fewer

219

attendees. Nonetheless, Devoted & Disgruntled 8 had the most sessions on devising to date.

220

Chapter 6: Conclusion – The Future of Devoted & Disgruntled

6.1 Bigger, Better, More

D&D is not just about debate, it’s about authentic conversations: a

place where we can be surprised by as yet unimagined solutions,

relationships and creative collaborations. D&D provides a

genuine opportunity to follow impulses, find support, gain new

insights, share knowledge, make things happen.

– Phelim McDermott

Devoted & Disgruntled 7 Invitation (“Devoted 7” para. 4)

When Improbable hosted the first Devoted & Disgruntled conference in 2006, thrown together rapidly, with little notice, there was no expectation that the event would become a large part of the company’s future output. From a single, one off event,

Devoted & Disgruntled has become, as Guardian critic Matt Trueman calls it, “one of the most vital events in the theatre calendar” (Trueman para. 2). But the annual conference, as large as it is, is only one part of the company’s Devoted & Disgruntled work. With the early success of the first few annual conferences, and with the admonition, “When it’s not over, it’s not over” (the corollary of “When it’s over, it’s over”), the company began to host monthly Devoted & Disgruntled events.

221

These events are smaller in scale, drawing anywhere from twenty-five to seventy- five people, are devoted to more specific topics than the large annual conference, take place in a single long evening, and move around, occurring at various venues in and around London. These monthly conferences are referred to as “D&D Monthly Satellites”

(Improbable “Reminder” para. 1). Past satellite conferences have dealt with venue specific issues, puppetry, acrobatic, impro, etc. These more specialized Devoted &

Disgruntled events compliment the larger annual conference, and often the topics for the monthly satellites come from issues that were raised at the annual conference. However, the reports and materials created at these satellite events is more difficult to locate; the satellite event’s smaller scale means that this knowledge was transferred to fewer people.

Much is lost or at the very least, difficult to find, and yet it this information is important to Improbable’s mission as it continues the important discussions, further planning and actions, and helps bind networks of people together in common purpose. Improbable has in the last year, with input from me and others, implemented new strategies to preserve this material (and all Devoted & Disgruntled materials), and make it accessible to anyone

(with an internet connection, of course).

On top of these regularly occurring Devoted & Disgruntled events, Improbable have been invited to host Devoted & Disgruntled conferences around the world. In

Improbable’s application/evaluation/review for funding from the Cultural Leadership

Programme (a program of the Arts Council England, Creative & Cultural Skills, and the

Museum, Libraries and Archives Council) in 2010, they document the reach and diversity

222 of their conferences giving a list of the Devoted & Disgruntled events that they have conducted:

Coventry University, LIFT, National Theatre of Scotland, the Producers

Forum, Theatre Bristol, Próximo Ato Forum 2007 in Sao Paulo, The

Place, LipService, Stan’s Café, the British Council in London, Romania,

Greece, Bulgaria, Israel, Serbia, the Arts Council, John Lewis, Step

Change (mentoring programme developed by the Young Vic, BAC,

National Theatre and Royal Opera House), the Push Festival – Vancouver,

the Freeword Consortium, RSAMD, the Lyric Hammersmith, Dance

United, The Empty Space – Newcastle. (Sweeting 10)

Since this application in 2010 the company has facilitated many more special topic events for specific organizations. The value of Devoted & Disgruntled conferences and their ability energize the user base and provide actionable solutions is attested to by the continued demand for Improbable to host these conferences.

On top of all these events, Improbable embarked on a new Devoted & Disgruntled endeavor this past fall (2012), called the Devoted & Disgruntled Road Show. Like the popular British (and American) television show, Antiques Road Show, the Improbable version toured the Devoted & Disgruntled conference beyond London to twenty-eight distinct and vibrant theatre communities, expanding the cultural arts conversation across the United Kingdom from Plymouth in the south to Inverness in the Scottish Highlands and west to Enniskillen in Ireland (for a full list of Road Show locations see the map in figure 64 in Appendix D). This first Devoted & Disgruntled Road Show garnered nearly

223

1,200 participants and produced as many reports as the first six years of the annual conferences combined. The number of actions, productions, collaborations prompted by these events, if anything like the annual conferences, will likely be significant. Despite so many different Devoted & Disgruntled events now regularly taking place, the demand for these conferences continues to grow – so much so that the company has a dedicated staff member who deals with all things Devoted & Disgruntled: Kirsty Lothian, whose official title is Open Space administrator, without whom these conferences could not happen. The company is also considering creating another staff position to help make the vast amounts information and reports generated at the conferences even more accessible, an archival position with social networking responsibilities to help build an active community attuned to Devoted & Disgruntled methodologies and activities.

6.2 Change Is In the Air

The future of Devoted & Disgruntled continues to evolve, encompassing many different venues and offering numerous avenues of implementation. From the annual conference to the commissioned events by specific organizations, Devoted & Disgruntled tailors itself to distinct, special needs.

In the last two years some things described in this dissertation about how Devoted

& Disgruntled conferences function have changed. The Devoted & Disgruntled Road

Show, with its incredibly hectic touring pace has made it impractical to have newly made, hand-crafted signs for each conference. Not only because of the time that would be needed to make them, but also in terms of the waste it generates. Instead, reusable signs are now the practice, cutting down on the environmental impact of all that paper the used

224 in previous years. Likewise, the sellotape conference banners have been replaced by a professionally printed (though more generic) re-useable banner that is now tied up at venues (See figure 56 in Appendix D). While session reports are still typed up at the conference in the News Room, the reports are now logged in directly to the online portal

(devotedanddisgruntled.com) and not a property only of those in attendance to the physical conference. This opens the event up (beyond Twitter) to those not in attendance, as they can read the reports the moment they are completed – the same time as those who are at the conference proper – and they can engage in the conversation directly while the discussion is still hot through the comment function available through the website.

While there are many benefits to these changes, there are also some negatives.

The reuse of signage makes each event less personal, less specific to a community; likewise with the pre-printed, generic Devoted & Disgruntled conference banner. And while the use of online posting of sessions does open up the discussions at Devoted &

Disgruntle conferences to larger audiences; I worry that this may result in a slight decrease in the number of sessions that get recorded. Requiring that session reports be completed at the conferences it makes this activity a distinct part of the conference and ensures higher levels of compliance. Shifting reporting to the web makes procrastination easier as there is no time limit imposed and removes the activity from the culture of the events, something that I believe is helpful in building the community at these conferences. Despite these potential downsides, Improbable have made their changes with an eye towards sustainability and access. The changes overall have been good, with

225 the reach of Devoted & Disgruntled expanding not only further into physical space, but also into cyberspace.

Improbable as a company is also evolving, with artistic director Julian Crouch leaving the company to pursue work full time in the United States, the company is looking to overhaul their structure. One change the company has expressed to me is moving their Open Space conference to other sectors, expanding their leadership role to governmental and private sector industries. For example, Improbable have hosted a

Devoted & Disgruntled conference for high-end department store John Lewis. Not only is

Improbable looking at this as a way to finance their work, making the company financially more self-sufficient, but also as a way of engaging the larger culture of

London beyond the arts. By engaging non-arts communities with new ways of working and thinking about their work, Improbable will expand their eldership role, becoming stronger leaders, engaging in the larger societal culture in ways not usually seen from a theatre company.

Improbable’s cultural leadership has proven itself an enduring force in British theatre and beyond. Their inventive, devised performances continue to garner accolades with many prominent performance companies eager to collaborate with Improbable and its company members. Improbable not only produces small, intimate experimental theatre, but also unabashedly takes their working methods into mainstream commercial venues, sites that many theatre devisers consider taboo or see as selling out. Crossing over into commercial practices with their devised work has provided insight that has

226

Improbable bridging cultural divides, not only in the theatre community, but also within the civic and commercial spheres with their Devoted & Disgruntled conferences.

By focusing on the annual conferences where the company first concentrated their effort, this dissertation is the first step in exploring, understanding, and documenting the efficacy of Devoted & Disgruntled and Open Space Technology, creating a foundation for a second wave of investigation. The monthly satellites, and to some degree the Road

Shows, offer an opportunity for more fine-tuned study of the trends, problems, solutions, and projects that Devoted & Disgruntled mediate. These more frequent and more geographically diverse and specific events offer the opportunity to keep attuned to ongoing conversations and events in a more immediate way. As Improbable diversify their leadership work beyond theatre and the performing arts, seeking to benefit corporations, governmental entities, and civic organizations, research into how these deeply non-hierarchical techniques honed in the theatre world are integrated into acutely hierarchical structures in other fields will be of enormous benefit to other arts groups seeking to take leadership roles in the greater cultural dynamic.

227

Works Cited

Adams, Douglas. The Long Dark Tea Time of the Soul. London: Pan Macmillan, 2011.

Print. alanwen (Alan Wen?). “Gaza Theatre – NOW!” Proboards, 26 Jan. 2009. Web. 7 Mar.

2011.

Bicat, Tina, and Chris Baldwin, eds. Devised and Collaborative Theatre: A Practical

Guide. Marlborough, Wiltshire: Crowood Press, 2012).

Oddey, Alison. Devising Theatre : a practical and theoretical handbook. London:

Routledge, 1994. Print

Arts Council England. “Arts debate findings.” artscouncil.org.uk. Arts Council England,

n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2011.

Arts Council England. “Who we are.” artscouncil.org.uk. Arts Council England, n.d.

Web. 21 Jun. 2012.

Arts Council England. Arts Council England Annual Review 2006. artscouncil.org.uk.

London: Arts Council England, 2006. Web. 21 Jun. 2012.

Arts Council England. Arts Council England Annual Review 2007. artscouncil.org.uk.

London: Arts Council England, 2007. Web. 21 Jun. 2012.

Arts Council England. Arts Council England Annual Review 2008. artscouncil.org.uk.

London: Arts Council England, 2008. Web. 21 Jun. 2012.

228

Arts Council England. Arts Council England Annual Review 2009. artscouncil.org.uk.

London: Arts Council England, 2009. Web. 21 Jun. 2012.

Arts Council England. Arts Council England Annual Review 2010. artscouncil.org.uk.

London: Arts Council England, 2010. Web. 21 Jun. 2012.

Arts Council England. Arts Council England Annual Review 2011. artscouncil.org.uk.

London: Arts Council England, 2011. Web. 21 Jun. 2012.

Arts Council England. Arts Council England Annual Review 2012. artscouncil.org.uk.

London: Arts Council England, 2012. Web. 21 Jun. 2012.

Aston, Elaine. "Feeling the Loss of Feminism: Sarah Kane's Blasted and an Experiential

Genealogy of Contemporary Women's Playwriting." Theatre Journal. 62.4

(2010): 575-591. Print.

Barish, Jonas. The Antitheatrical Prejudice. Berkeley: U of California P, 1981.

Bola, Augusto. Theatre of the Oppressed. New York: Theatre Communications Group,

1995. Print.

Brook, Peter. The Empty Space. New York: Touchstone, 1996. Print.

Brown, Mark. “West end theatre cheered by rise in revenues.” guardian.co.uk. London:

The Guardian, 30 Jan. 2012. Web. 13 Sep. 2012.

Cavendish, Dominic. “On the Road.” telegraph.co.uk. London: The Telegraph, 10 Jul.

2006. Web. 22 Nov. 2012.

Clack, David. “Is London getting on top of you, or are you on top of London?” Time Out:

London, 19 Dec .2012. Web. 21 Dec 2012.

Clean Break. “Mission.” cleanbreak.org.uk. Clean Break, n.d. Web. 15 Aug.2012.

229

Cole, David. “The Visual Script: Theory and Techniques.” Drama Review. 20.4 (1976):

27-50. Web. 2 Oct. 2012.

Devoted & Disgruntled 1, Issue 5. Duffy, Stella. “‘straight’ theatre & ‘made/devised’

theatre – creating a conversation about and between.” London: Improbable, 2006.

Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 1, Issue 6. Cunningham, Charlotte. “Are we European? Can we

learn anything from the rest of Europe or elsewhere?” London: Improbable, 2006.

Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 1, Issue 7. Pacitti, Robert. “CRISIS IN LONDON VENUES.”

London: Improbable, 2006. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 1, Issue 8. Roxby, Roddy Maude. “HEALING THEATRE: The

origin of theatre in the cave, connected to health and survival.” London:

Improbable, 2006. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 1, Issue 14. Wynne-Jones, Angharad. “Actors as global citizens

addressing global issues.” London: Improbable, 2006. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 1, Issue 20. Gili, Montse. “Do I have to devote my time to

administration, producing, funding, funding, funding…. To create art.” London:

Improbable, 2006.

Devoted & Disgruntled 1, Issue 22. Duffy, Stella. “women.” London: Improbable, 2006.

Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 1, Issue 23. Dempsey, Michael. “Entrepreneurial and savvy

theatre.” London: Improbable, 2006. Print.

230

Devoted & Disgruntled 1, Issue 31. Dixon, Graham. “Money / Funding / Producers.”

London: Improbable, 2006. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 1, Issue 37. Thomas, Carrie. “Where are the Women

Protagonists.” London: Improbable, 2006. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 1, Issue 41. Buffini Moira. Is the written play a dying form?

And if so, what can we do to revive it?” London: Improbable, 2006. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 1, Issue 44. Pacitti, Robert. “Where is the archive for socially

engaged practice?” London: Improbable, 2006. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 1, Issue 58. Goode, Chris. “Who We Fancy In The Room.”

London: Improbable, 2006. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 1, Issue 61. Wright, Chris. “I still feel like an outsider.” London:

Improbable, 2006. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 1, Issue 63. McGarth, Kate. “In the Absence of a Union how can

we lobby DCMS/ACE etc.” London: Improbable, 2006. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 1, Issue 67. Bock, William. “Can theatre be more than a

profession?” London: Improbable, 2006. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 1, Issue 68. Stephens, Ginnie. ““What is a director and do we

need them anyway?” London: Improbable, 2006. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 1, Issue 74. Hodge, Stephen. “More play, less plays.” London:

Improbable, 2006. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 1, Issue 77. Hammond, Lisa. “positive discrimination – yes or

no?” London: Improbable, 2006. Print.

231

Devoted & Disgruntled 2, Issue 1. B, jon. “If it aint outdoors or on the street, it aint worth

a fuck.” London: Improbable, 2007. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 2, Issue 12. Chaunte, Aleasha. “Is there a need for womens’

theatre? If so, what about it is different from other theatre?” London: Improbable,

2007. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 2, Issue 16. Knight, Judith. “If we believe theatre can change

lives and attitudes, how can we speed up the process – as the future looks

increasingly grim – or are we just all ‘fiddling while Rome burns’?” London:

Improbable, 2007. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 2, Issue 17. Beedell, Jon. “Are we addicted to the romance of the

suffering artist and our artistic arrogance?” London: Improbable, 2007. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 2, Issue 23. Duffy, Stella. “Afternoon Nap.” London:

Improbable, 2007.

Devoted & Disgruntled 2, Issue 24. Bourne, Bette. “Old Farts’ Terrors.” London:

Improbable, 2007. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 2, Issue 28. Wood, Nick. “How would theatre makers like to be

trained?” London: Improbable, 2007. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 2, Issue 36. Kingdom, Richard. “How Can We Make More

Money.” London: Improbable, 2007. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 2, Issue 38. Wright, Tom. “How do we stop directors behaving

like wankers?” London: Improbable, 2007. Print.

232

Devoted & Disgruntled 2, Issue 45. Kidd, Elaine. “Are ‘the right people’ allocating the

funding?” London: Improbable, 2007. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 2, Issue 46. Couldrey, Richard. “What do you think about

collaboration across art disciplines?” London: Improbable, 2007. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 2, Issue 53. Bennett, Adam. “How do we tour when the oil starts

to run out?” London: Improbable, 2007. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 2, Issue 71. Darcy, Josh. “Does politics have a place in theatre?

Agitprop? Any? Or are we all scared/bored of it?” London: Improbable, 2007.

Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 2, Issue 86. Dim, Toma. “How to be creative with/ creative about

a work-life balance in theatre?” London: Improbable, 2007. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 2, Issue 115. Bell, Gerard. “Can we do something to change the

Arts Council, or should we ignore it?” London: Improbable, 2007. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 3, Issue 18. Sweeting, Nick. “ACE what do we do about it?”

London: Improbable, 2008. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 3, Issue 28. Letman, Amy. “DID WOMEN HAVE A

RENAISSANCE? Discuss in reference to the staging of sex and gender roles and

Webster’s The Duchess of Malfi and Middleton and Dekker’s The Roaring Girl

(Help me with my essay).” London: Improbable, 2008. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 3, Issue 54. Woolley, Sophie. “How do I get a good producer for

my show?” London: Improbable, 2008. Print.

233

Devoted & Disgruntled 3, Issue 059. Bowry, William. “How and where is improvisation

useful within a rehearsal process?” London: Improbable, 2008. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 3, Issue 63. Phillips, Pete. “Collaboration: do we have to get

along?” London: Improbable, 2008. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 3, Issue 72. Couldrey, Richard. “Is there a better way to

find/educate/sustain production support for devised work?” London: Improbable,

2008. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 3, Issue 74. Edwards, Alice. “Can theatre and performance

challenge the objectification of women in society and the media?” London:

Improbable, 2008. Print

Devoted & Disgruntled 3, Issue 85. Leyser, Matilda. “Can you have a child and be an

artist? And why don’t the National Theatre have crèche?” London: Improbable,

2008. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 3, Issue 86. Leyser, Matilda. “How low can you go? What’s been

your greatest failure and what was great about it?” London: Improbable, 2008.

Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 4, Issue 3. Lunn, Jen. “Ideas for keeping warm this weekend.”

London: Improbable, 2009. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 4, Issue 09. Van Meerbeek, Veronique. “Living here/Theatre in

another country.” London: Improbable, 2009. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 4, Issue 12. Holloway, Jonathan. , “TOURING: DO WE STILL

NEED OR WANT TO DO IT?” London: Improbable, 2009. Print.

234

Devoted & Disgruntled 4, Issue 21. Andrews, Becs and Alison Mead. “Should we expect

public funding and how could we become more self-sufficient?” London:

Improbable, 2009. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 4, Issue 023. Fionn. “Why should Arts Council England (ACE)

give the English National Opera £18.5 million when I can’t get five grand?”

London: Improbable, 2009. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 4, Issue 33. Lobel, Brian. “Why do I only want to think about

Gaza and how does that fit in today?” London: Improbable, 2009. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 4. Issue 36. Lobel, Brian. “Who wants to take and adorable queer

performer out for a drink?” London: Improbable, 2009. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 4, Issue 45. Christopher, Sally. “Am I too old to change my

mind?” London: Improbable, 2009. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 4, Issue 047. Sharpington, Alan. “Collaborators and Control

Freaks – can we work together?” London: Improbable, 2009. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 4, Issue 55. J, Ed and Jonathan Petherbridge. “Who should we

invite to Devoted and Disgruntled next year PLUS Would inviting children etc to

D&D help theatre ?” London: Improbable, 2009. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 4, Issue 57. Stevens, Tasso. “Let’s Make A Brilliant Piece Of

Imaginary Theatre Now!” London: Improbable, 2009. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 4, Issue 65. Goode, Chris. “Devising – is there a glass ceiling?”

London: Improbable, 2009. Print.

235

Devoted & Disgruntled 4, Issue 74. Gage, Chris. Why isn’t the Nation Theatre Touring to

Old Peoples Homes?” London: Improbable, 2009. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 4, Issue 80. Sharpington, Alan. “Why do I always have déjà vu

whilst watching plays?” London: Improbable, 2009. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 4, Issue 94. Querol, Natalie. “What makes a region attractive to

theatre makers either to be based in or to tour to?” London: Improbable, 2009.

Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 5, Issue 002. Langford, Anne. “How do I explain the value of

what I do to my Grandad and other people?” London: Improbable, 2010. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 5, Issue 003. Holdbrook-Smith, Kobna (Kobs). “Having a sing.”

London: Improbable, 2010. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 5, Issue 004. Fleetwood, Alex. “What does theatre have to do

with video games?” London: Improbable, 2010. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 5, Issue 007. Whitlock, Paul. “How can men contribute to

feminist theatre?” London: Improbable, 2010. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 5, Issue 16. Lobel, Brian. “Is it a problem that, recently, I feel

that I do not want to work with, perform for, or even talk to straight people? If

yes, are there solutions?” London: Improbable, 2010. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 5, Issue 019. Hall, Sam. “Why are only 17% of plays produced in

the UK by women?” London: Improbable, 2010. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 5, Issue 24. Elliot, Christina. “How do we make touring pay?”

London: Improbable, 2010. Print.

236

Devoted & Disgruntled 5, Issue 028. Grochala, Sarah. “Playwrights: A dying species?”

London: Improbable, 2010. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 5, Issue 39. Cant, Peter. “The Things I Found in My Pockets and

My Notebook.” London: Improbable, 2010. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 5, Issue 046. Mansfield, Tom. “Is theatre political?” London:

Improbable, 2010. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 5, Issue 47. Cobb, Zoë. “If I’m a Jack of all Trades, Why do

People think I am a Master at none?” London: Improbable, 2010. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 5, Issue 49. Wolff, Myro and Samal Blak. “We devised, but I

directed? After devising a piece as a group, giving freedom to the actors…the

question of ownership and ‘did you really direct.” London: Improbable, 2010.

Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 5, Issue 52. Paintin, Gemma. “International touring: looking for

some good advice.” London: Improbable, 2010. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 5, Issue 59. dee. “ACE new Vision and Goals – Let’s make them

better.” London: Improbable, 2010. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 5, Issue 089. Fenton, Mandy, “What types of women are we not

seeing on stage?” London: Improbable, 2010. Web. 7 Mar. 2011.

Devoted & Disgruntled 5, Issue 96. Goode, Chris. “A Confessional – Share your theatre

sins / Speak the unspeakable ? Voice your secret fears and desires.” London:

Improbable, 2010. Print.

237

Devoted & Disgruntled 6, Issue 13. Day, Simon. “How can we make the process of tour-

booking better for artists and companies?” London: Improbable, 2011. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 6, Issue 14. Cabrelli, Paul. “I’m a producer. Do you have

something you want me to produce?” London: Improbable, 2011. Print

Devoted & Disgruntled 6, Issue 20. Sarah. “How Screwed Are We? Please Can Someone

Come And Explain The Funding Cuts?” London: Improbable, 2011. Print

Devoted & Disgruntled 6, Issue 26. Taudevin, Julia. “How do I overcome the patriarchal

blocks to my development/nurture/journey as an artist.” London: Improbable,

2011. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 6, Issue 28. Chen, Li E. “‘DEATH, …’ playing dying… How!

Please help. What does death/facing your own death mean to you?” London:

Improbable, 2011. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 6, Issue 30. Goode, Chris. “How Are You?” London:

Improbable, 2011. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 6, Issue 51. Short, Conor. “is blocking the equivalent of match-

fixing? Do we root it out? How?” London: Imrpobable, 2011. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 6, Issue 054. Lewis and Zoë. “Lullaby for our Dark Times.”

London: Improbable, 2011. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 6, Issue 71. Oliver-Harrison, Lucy. “I have the projects – as a

young producer, how do I make them happen?” London: Improbable, 2011. Print.

238

Devoted & Disgruntled 6, Issue 73. Adams, Emma. “Do you miss your pet. Living or

alive? Would you like to talk to me about it?” London: Improbable, 2011.

Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 6, Issue 75. Jamie and Sally. “My friend Sally is really fit and

brilliant. She would like a boyfriend.” London: Improbable, 2011. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 6, Issue 91. Graham, Abigail. “How can theatre make the world a

better place?” London: Improbable, 2011. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 6, Issue 93. Neicho, Josh. “Not just talking about a revolution:

showing solidarity with Egypt and Tunisia and artistic responses.” London:

Improbable, 2011. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 6, Issue 103. Goldie, Allison. “Tell Me Something I Don’t

Know.” London: Improbable, 2011. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 6, Issue 110. Downie, Ewan. “HOW DO WE MAKE THEATRE

CROSS BORDERS OF LANGUAGE AND COUNTRY.” London: Improbable,

2011. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 7, Issue 23. Biggin, Rose. “Would any ‘phd people’ like to hang

out? We don’t have to talk about them.” London: Improbable, 2012. Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 7, Issue 055. Lunn, Jen. “Wrestling.” London: Improbable, 2012.

Print.

Devoted & Disgruntled 7, Issue 61. O’Connor, Lawrence. “Lunchtime Buddhist Chanting

Meditation.” London: Improbable, 2012. Print.

239

Dymphna, Callery. Through the body: a practical guide to physical theatre. London:

Routledge, 2001. Print.

Equity. “Equal Representation of Women in TV/Film Drama.” gopetition.com, 6 Feb

2009. Web. 7 Mar. 2012.

Etchells, Tim. Certain Fragments: Texts and Writings on Performance. London:

Routledge, 1999. Print.

“Fairness and Freedom: The Final Report of the Equalities Review.” Norwich: Office of

Public Sector Information, Feb. 2007. Web. 13. Mar. 2012.

Fuel. “Projects. Past Performance. The Show’s the Thing.” fueltheatre.com. Fuel, 2006.

Web. 14 Dec. 2012.

Gardner, Lyn, “It’s time we got angrier,” The Guardian, 3 April 2007. Web. 7 Feb. 2012.

Gardner, Lyn. “A Sea of Troubles.” The Guardian, 30 Jan. 2007. Web. 19 Oct. 2010.

Gardner, Lyn. “Caryl Churchill's play for Gaza is a prompt for theatres to react quickly.”

The Guardian. 26 Jan. 2009. Web. 13 Feb. 2012.

Gardner, Lyn. Program Notes. Lifegame by Improbable. London, England. April 2004.

Web. 27 Mar. 2011.

Govan, Emma, Helen Nicholson, and Katie Normington. Making a Performance:

Devising Histories and Contemporary Practices, London: Routledge, 2007. Print.

Graham, Scott, and Steven Hoggett. The Frantic Assembly Book of Devising. London:

Routledge, 2009. Print.

240

Guinness World Records. “Longest Running Comedy Show (Same Cast).” 1 Jan. 2010.

Web. 16 Jan. 2013.

Heddon, Deirdre and Jane Milling. Devising Performance: A Critical History.

Houndmills, England: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. Print.

Hunt, Albert and Geoffrey Reeves. Directors in Perspective: Peter Brook. Cambridge:

Cambridge UP, 1995. Print.

Imperial College London. “Placement Learning Policy.” workplace.imperial.ac.uk.

Imperial College London, May 2001. Web. 12 Jan. 2013.

Improbable. “Reminder: D&D Monthly Satellite Tomorrow.” Invitation to Improbable

subscribers. 4 Mar. 2013. E-mail.

Improbable. “The Still.” Shows. Improbable.co.uk. Improbable, n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2010.

Kelly, Joan, “Did Women Have a Renaissance?” Becoming Visible: Women in European

History. eds. Renate Bridenthai and Clandia Koonz. Massachusetts: Houghton

Mifflin Co., 1977. Print.

Kraus, Karl. The Las Days of Mankind; a tragedy in five acts. New York: F. Ungar Pub.

Co., 1974. Print.

Ladder to the Moon. “About.” laddertothemoon.co.uk. Ladder to the Moon, n.d. Web. 8

Jan 2013.

Lamden, Gill. Devising: A Handbook for Drama and Theatre Students. London: Hodder

Murray. Print.

McCaw, Dick. “McCaw Interviews of Improbable – Unpublished.” Microsoft Word file.

n.p., 2008. E-mailed.

241

McDermott, Phelim. “Biographies.” improbable.co.uk. Improbable, n.d. Web. 30 Apr.

2010.

McDermott, Phelim. “Devoted & Disgruntled 6: Singing in the Dark Times.” Invitation

to Improbable subscribers. 13 Jan. 2011. E-mail.

McDermott, Phelim. “Devoted & Disgruntled 8: January 26-27-28.” Invitation to

Improbable subscribers. 18 Dec. 2012. E-mail.

McDermott, Phelim. “Dreaming Out Loud.” Trans-Global Readings: Crossing

Theatrical Boundries. Interview by Caridad Svich, ed. Manchester: Manchester

UP, 2004. Web. 13 Oct. 2011 via Improbable.co.uk.

Mermikides, Alex and Jackie Smart, ed. Devising in Process. Houndmills, England:

Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Print.

Mindell, Arnold. The Deep Democracy of Open Forums: Practical Steps to Conflict

Prevention and Resolution for the Family, Workplace, and World. Newburyport,

Massachusetts: Hampton Roads Publishing, 2002. Print.

Mindell, Arnold. “What is Process Work?” www.aamindell.net. n.p., n.d. Web. 6 Mar.

2013.Nesta. “About us.” Nesta.org.uk. Nesta Trust, n.d. Web. 27 Aug. 2011.

Oddey Allison. Devising Theatre: A Practical and Theoretical Handbook. London:

Routledge, 1994. Print.

Owen, Harrison. Open Space Technology: A User's Guide. San Francisco: Berrett-

Koehler, 2008. Print.

Robbins, Tom. Jitterbug Perfume. New York: Bantam, 1990. Print.

242

Royal Shakespeare Company. “A Manifesto for Shakespeare in Schools: Stand up for

Shakespeare.” rsc.org.uk. Royal Shakespeare Company, n.d. Web. 31 Feb. 2013.

Sands, Emily Glassberg. “Opening the Curtain on Playwright Gender: An Integrated

Economic Analysis of Discrimination in American Theater.” Princeton: Princeton

UP, 15 Apr. 2009. Web. 23 Feb. 2012.

Simpson, Lee. “Biographies.” improbable.co.uk. Improbable, n.d. Web. 30 Apr. 2010.

Sinclair, Andrew. Arts and Cultures, The History of the 50 Years of the Arts Council of

Great Britain. London: Sinclair-Stevenson Ltd., 1995. Print.

Soliski, Alexis. “Gender bias exists in the theatre, but not in the way you might think.”

The Guardian. 29 Jun. 2009. Web. 23 Feb. 2012.

Spare Tyre. “About Us.” sparetyre.org. Spare Tyre, n.d. Web. 8 Jan. 2013.

Sphinx Theatre Company. “Sphinx Theatre Women in Theatre 2006 Survey.” Sphinx

Theatre Co., 2006. Microsoft Word file, 5 May 2006. Web. 19 Mar. 2011.

Sphinx Theatre Company. “THE STATUS OF WOMEN IN THE BRITISH THEATRE:

1982-1983.” London: Sphinx Theatre Co., 1985. Microsoft Word file, 7 Jun.

2010. Web. 19 Mar. 2011.

Stephenson, Heidi and Natasha Langridge, eds. Rage and Reason. London: Methuen,

1997. Print.

Sweeting, Nick and Improbable. “Embracing Chaos, Provoking Change.” Evaluation

template for Work-based Opportunities – Networks. Grant evaluation/renewal to

the Cultural Leadership Programme. Microsoft Word file. n.p., 2010. 20 Apr.

2012.

243

Theatre Topics. 14.1 (2004). Print.

The National Theatre. “National Theatre Annual Review 2010–2011.”

nationaltheatre.org.uk. London: The National Theatre, 2011. Web. 24. Aug.2012.

The National Theatre. “The Royal National Theatre Annual Report and Financial

Statements 2008 – 2009.” nationaltheatre.org.uk. London: The National Theatre,

2009. Web. 24. Aug.2012.

Training Executive Exchange. “Training Executive Exchange: An Interview with

Harrison Owen.” Open Space World. 31 Mar. 2008. Web. 16 Jun. 2011.

Trueman, Matt. “Are you Devoted & Disgruntled about theatre? You're not alone.” The

Guardian. 24 Jan. 2011. Web. 4 Mar. 2013.

UK Parliament, “Equality Act 2008-09 to 2009-10.” UK Parliament, 8 Apr. 2010. Web.

11 May 2012.

Unfinished Histories. “Home: Unfinished Histories.” London: Unfinished Histories, n.d.

Web. 27 Feb. 2013.

244

Appendix A: Improbable Production History

Animo 1996 70 Hill Lane October 1996 Lifegame March 1998 Cinderella November 1998 Collaboration with The Lyric Theatre Hammersmith Coma March 1999 Sticky May 1999 Collaboration with The World Famous Spirit May 2000 Co-production with The Royal Court Theatre Co-production with The West Yorkshire Playhouse, The Hanging Man April 2003 Wexner Center for the Arts at The Ohio State University, and the Walker Art Center Theatre of Blood May 2005 Collaboration with The National Theatre Stars Are Out Tonight June 2005 Collaboration with AMICI Dance Theatre Company The Wolves in the Walls April 2006 Co-production with the National Theatre of Scotland Satyagraha May 2007 Collaboration with the English National Opera No Idea September 2009 Improbable Associate Artist Project Panic March 2009 The Devil & Mister Punch September 2011 The Still September 2011 The Pirate Project April 2012 Improbable Associate Artist Project The Perfect American January 2013 Collaboration with the English National Opera The Bear April 2013 Improbable Associate Artist Project

Table 1. Improbable Production Chronology

245

Appendix B: Devoted & Disgruntled - How It Works

I seldom end up where I wanted to go, but

almost always end up where I need to be.

The Long Dark Tea Time of the Soul

Douglas Adams

I. Intentions

Open Space events are very organic in their nature, but by and large this organic structure is still used primarily in corporate or governmental settings. It is, perhaps, the break from rigid structures that make Open Space events positive experiences for those used to being involved with bureaucratic enterprises. An Open Space event must seem almost like a carnival experience; to those steeped in bureaucracy, in Open Space events, traditional roles are upended and an atmosphere of anything goes prevails. Such events also offer a new vantage point for their participants from outside the hierarchy of their regular work routines. But of course, like carnivals, the event eventually ends and everyone returns to their cubicles. Therefore, most Open Space events are group specific

– a business, a university planning committee, a city road planning commission – and the people responsible for the event taking place – the sponsors – are looking for specific answers to specific queries. As such, the sponsors hire companies who specialize in running Open Space events for profit to ensure that the event runs smoothly and

246 predictably. It would seem that Harrison Owen has found an enterprising way to take grassroots, counter-culture, community-based events, and make them tools of government and corporate culture.

While using such techniques in a bureaucracy was revolutionary in 1984 when

Owen started implementing his ideas, much of the philosophy that is central to Open

Space Technology had already been put into practice in the communal theatre scene of the 1960s. Practitioners such as Peter Brook, Jerzy Grotowski, and Joan Littlewood all advocated the toppling of hierarchies, the breaking of specificity in practitioners’ skill sets, and the establishment of democratic, communal rule in the governing of an ensemble and in bringing productions to fruition. These ideas were built upon by companies such as Frantic Assembly and Welfare State and refined further by companies like Punchdrunk and Complicite. In the Open Space mindset, a problem is identified – be it personal, social, or political – and the company works together organically as a group to come up with some form of solution, reaction, or exploration to create a performance that conveys these ideas to their audience, their peers, and their community.

Nevertheless, all these initial efforts were more individual in scope, the labors of smaller groups working primarily in isolation. Many of the theatre/performance companies that started out as purely communal, leaderless organizations found that hierarchy inevitably establishes itself even as it is fought against. In many cases, this disparity between ideology and human nature tore the companies apart. The more refined methods employed by longer-standing devising companies acknowledge leaders – usually even retaining the traditional title of artistic director (or having multiple artistic directors). But

247 in these new companies the assorted responsibilities shift frequently, giving people many different experiences and thus allowing them the opportunity to give input from a variety of different viewpoints – a melding of the best of traditional theatre production with the more flexible theatre commune ideology of the 60s. Open Space Technology occupies this same hybrid space – part traditional conference, part (controlled) chaos.

Thanks to the short duration of Open Space events, and through careful design, overbearing hierarchies do not have time to establish among the participants and thus destroy the working environment. By harnessing the initial enthusiasm and strong sense of community that occurs when people are given the freedom and creativity to engage in issues that are important to them personally, Owen is tapping into the similar gestalt that was present in the avant-garde theatre of the 1950s and 60s. So it is interesting that a system for devising a conference to address and solve pressing issues has come full circle, having made its way from grassroots, community endeavors to be appropriated by corporate culture and then finding its way back into the theatre community in the form of the Devoted & Disgruntled conferences.

Devoted & Disgruntled is not only the first implementation of Open Space

Technology in the theatrical community, but Improbable has introduced its own spin in how it conducts its conference. The next section will examine in detail how the conference is organized and run, as well as compare some of the differences between

Owen’s Open Space Technology: A User’s Guide and the Devoted & Disgruntled conference.

248

II. First Impressions

While the format and content of a Devoted & Disgruntled conference are decided upon by those who attend, the key to the success of the event is in the facilitation and the organization of the space. The following descriptions and critiques of Improbable’s Open

Space event come from my personal experiences as a participant-observer for three years of the event. This accounting is also only a look at the annual event in London.1 And while on the surface there are many similarities to a traditional conference – groups of participants gather together at allotted times and places, information is presented, criticism and debate occur concerning assorted topics – the important difference is in the process of the event: the establishment of purpose, the building of relationships, and the creation of community, along with doing so in a way that gives each participant a voice in the dialogue. While the goal is to find solutions to problems facing the theatrical industry, it is vital that the people in attendance are able to form a community whose framework will be essential to carrying on the discussions once the conference is over so that solutions can be implemented and problems addressed in the real world. This is no small feat, as those in attendance come from every facet of the London (and beyond) theatre community, from amateur experimental makers2 to commercial West-End directors. Getting so many disparate people together and keeping everything moving involves more work and planning than an initial description of how Open Space

Technology works from a participant’s perspective. A great deal of attention is paid to the space itself and how bodies will be interacting in it. Time spent outside the scheduled sessions is equally important as the sessions themselves, and so the arrangement of space

249 to accommodate “down time” is vital. Therefore, considerations regarding the availability of toilet facilities, handicap accessibility, smoking areas, and refreshments – not to mention all the office supplies, signs, and technical equipment – are all important factors that need to be solved, thus allowing the participants to focus on the issues instead of the facilities.

Creating this space starts with an invitation that is sent through email and encouraged to be forwarded and distributed to anyone and everyone who might be interested. While a traditional Open Space also works on an invitation basis, its invitation list is a little more selective; for instance, all members of the marketing department may be invited to an event, or all the doctors, nurses, and technicians at a V.A. hospital may be invited, but not the entire corporation or everyone from the hospital. Owen does think that diversity is important to the event, but seeks to invite people who are in the chain and who are directly affected by or responsible for the issue at hand. With Devoted &

Disgruntled, everyone who might want to come is encouraged to attend – including people who are not professional theatre practitioners (and, in one case, I encountered an elderly gentleman who was strolling by on the day of the conference, saw the signs announcing the event outside York Hall, came in to find out what the event was all about, and decided to stay, contributing to the discussion as a Tower Hamlet resident).

The current invitation is sent out using Improbable’s own email list, but more ways of learning about the event, such as the associated blogs and the ning.com social networking site for Devoted & Disgruntled are also popular. More recently, Improbable’s

250

Twitter feed and Facebook page have been employed to make such announcements and for individuals to participate in ongoing discussion and commentary.

Figure 23. #DandD6

A picture of the twitter feed that is projected live in the hall during Devoted &

Disgruntled conference. Each conference is given its own hashtag to make it easy for people to find and post information on the event, in this case, the hashtag is #DandD6 for

Devoted & Disgruntled 6. Photo © Ian Bradford Ngongotaha Pugh 2011.

251

In late 2012 Improbable created a dedicated web presence for all things Devoted &

Disgruntled (devotedanddisgruntled.com), separate from their company’s website

(improbable.co.uk). For Devoted & Disgruntled 7 in early 2012, Improbable invited anyone who had attended a previous conference to create and send out their own invitation, encouraging a more grassroots, participant lead effort. Registration is handled online through a popular event-planning company (eventbrite.com), but registration is also available at the door. The event sold out rapidly for the first two years at the

Battersea Arts Centre (BAC), reaching the building’s capacity and resulting in people being turned away. For the 2008 conference a larger space was found in York Hall, a community center in Bethnal Green, in order to accommodate the demand for participation in the event. What follows is a description of how the event proceeds that draws on my experiences from attending three of the annual conferences and that gives an overview of the process and the workings of the conference.

After getting off the tube at the Bethnal Green station, it is a short walk down

Cambridge-Heath Road along the picturesque Victoria Park Gardens to the York Hall

Leisure Centre. Outside, taped to doors, poles, pillars, and even the ground as you approach are a myriad of colorful signs pointing you in the right direction and serving as the first touchstone for the establishing the tone for the event.

252

Figure 24. A sign outside the front doors of York Hall

253

Signs like this are placed all around the area where the hall is located letting participants know that they have found the right place. Devoted & Disgruntled 8. Photo © Ian

Bradford Ngongotaha Pugh 2013

The signs are all handmade – something that carries on throughout the entire event. The signs are personalized and are made by volunteers who are also participants (volunteering to help set up and run the conference is one way to attend on the cheap for people who cannot afford the registration fee). These are not photocopied or made on computers, but are made by hand with colored markers, paper, and a dash of creative whimsy. The signs convey help take away the officialdom and seriousness of a traditional conference, suggesting a more laid-back event. Owen’s User’s Guide does advocate making signs by hand: he calls for just two copies of a single sign (with the size of Devoted & Disgruntled four sets of the main signs and dozens of other more incidental signs are created), which are placed inside the convention hall, laying out the conferences, “theme, behavior, and expectations” (70). The scale and creativity that is seen in the Devoted & Disgruntled signs convey the spirit of creativity that is part and parcel of the theatre community, but also mirror Improbable’s own hand-crafted work, as witnessed in its performance work, which breaks the traditional boundaries, expectations, and relationships between people and spaces. In the case of their theatrical work, it is the divide between the audience and the performer; here, it is an indication that the conference space begins outside the building and extends out onto the public walkways. It firmly implies that Devoted &

254

Disgruntled is not merely a room in a building, but an idea and way of thinking that has already extended itself outwards into the community.

Figure 25. A sign making party

Volunteers and staff hand craft the signs that will festoon the hall. Photo © Ian Bradford

Ngongotaha Pugh 2012.

Following the signs and arrows up the steps to York Hall, there is a person (or two or three) to greet new arrivals during the morning’s registration period. The greeters 255 are cheerful and help steer attendees through the correct doors to registration, answer any questions, and inform everyone where to find the concession table with coffee and bacon butties (while recipes vary, this is essentially a buttered roll layered with bacon – a very common breakfast item in London) after they have gone through the registration process.

Through the elaborate wrought iron gates and down a long corridor, more signs point the way to the toilets, water fountains, registration, the meeting hall itself – and, most importantly – concessions. Upon arriving at registration, attendees give their name to a volunteer, who checks off names against a list and then hands out the conference materials, consisting of a single sheet of paper (more on this in a moment). Devoted &

Disgruntled is made possible through Arts Council England support as well which helps keep registration fees, amounting to between £10–20, incredibly reasonable considering some theatre conferences can run well in excess of £100. The fee really just cover expenses – renting the hall and associated bills (cleaning, security, insurance), renting equipment (computers, sound systems, projectors, heaters), buying supplies (markers,

Post-Its, drawing pads, tape (lots of tape)), and paying for translators (British Sign

Language interpreters, specifically, as there is a regular showing from the Deaf community, and other languages as requested). By contrast, a typical Open Space event is free to participants, as the sponsor of the event is footing the bill in the hopes that it will be money well spent in knowledge gained.

So, after receiving one’s registration materials (and a complimentary stubby library/golf-style pencil should you need something to take notes), participants heads into the hall itself where several large rolling costume racks have been set up for people to

256 hang up their winter coats and stow their backpacks and purses. Looking around the hall and seeing all the people milling about, smelling the coffee and bacon, and unburdened from heavy coats and bags, it dawns on many first-time attendees that registration did not give them a nametag. This is the second important touchstone for preparing people for an

Open Space event. In an attempt to democratize the event, and place all participants on equal footing, dispensing with names and titles so that the focus is on the issues and the group dynamic, and not on the “important” persons in attendance is a key component to many Open Space events and of vital importance for frank discussion at Devoted &

Disgruntled. On several occasions, I have found myself in heated debate with people who, if I had known they were the artistic director at the Royal National Theatre or the theatre critic for The Guardian newspaper, I might have found myself treating them with more reverence. No one is told to keep his/her identity a secret (though some do try in order to avoid the “holding court” effect that sometimes plagues “higher-ups” at traditional conferences), but also no one demands to know your identity either – one can participate nearly anonymously if one chooses. Such an arrangement also encourages people to introduce themselves instead of relying on glancing at a badge in order to size someone up. In my opinion, removing the wearing of rank and allowing everyone to speak candidly and without filters (or at least fewer of them) is one of the ingredients that are essential to the success of these events.

After dropping off their coats and bags, participants are left standing in a small lounge area – a couple of sofas at right angles to each other around a small rug and a coffee table. Scattered about the rug are toys, which also spill over into the hall itself a

257 little bit. It is here where children are looked after, there being volunteers to assist parents attending the event. Beyond the daycare lounge is the concessions area. This is a major hub of activity, especially in the mornings as everyone is gathering to get warm and enjoy a hot beverage. Tea, coffee, and juice are all free, and food – from the bacon butties to bagels, fruit, and beans and toast are available for purchase (the actual selection changes each year, though I have always seen the bacon sandwiches on the menu). Surrounding this is a large seating area equipped to look like a café with tables, which are covered with tablecloths, and seats. These two purely social areas are important to the atmosphere and to the idea that the conference is about people and relationships. Families are important – not just parents and their children, but the family of theatre workers – and so this area takes over nearly 20% of the space in the hall.

III. Spaces

Having warmed to a nice “cuppa” and grabbed a seat at one of the café tables, one can take in the large space of the rest of the hall. York Hall was once Britain’s best known boxing venues, and it is a fitting repurposing of the space for a conference where people will hash out ideas, and fight for the thing they are most passionate about: theatre.

The hall is a large, rectangular space with a blond, wooden gym floor. At the far end is a stage of sorts with an old mustard-colored, blue-bordered velvet curtain that is drawn across its proscenium arch. Hanging in front of this curtain are a series of parallel lines of sellotape (the British equivalent of Scotch tape in America)3 onto which a series of A4- sized pieces of paper have been affixed – one letter per page – spelling out the conference

258 name and the major dramatic question of the conference, “What Are We Doing About

Theatre?”4

Figure 26. “Devoted & Disgruntled 5: What are we doing about theatre?”

Also pictured is Robert Wells, a perennial (and indispensable) staff member at the annual

Devoted & Disgruntled. Photo © Ian Bradford Ngongotaha Pugh 2010.

259

Most striking is the large ring of chairs circling the hall, in two or three rows and which occupy the entire space, some 300+ chairs all facing each other. In the middle of this circle is a small table with paper and markers on it and a wireless handheld microphone.

Along one wall, just outside the chairs, is a bank of about 20 computers anchored by a laser printer under the banner, “The News Room.” Along the wall opposite is a large poster covered in Post-It notes with times and names on them, and next to this are more large, though Post-It-note-free, posters with a succession of session numbers (1–7) across their headings that stretch down the entire wall. People are milling about: some are claiming chairs in the big circle, while others are catching up with friends and acquaintances. The starting time is a few minutes away and the hall is alive with activity.

The overall mood is excitement – no one here is stressed out or worried about the paper they are about to present… as no one will be doing so. There is definitely a relaxed atmosphere, but there is also a curious uncertainty one has when first attending that such a laid-back endeavor will produce any meaningful results. Serious skeptics tend to choose not to attend.

One looks back over the registration materials – the lone sheet of paper. On one side, it announces each event along with a breakdown of times and events spread out over the next three days; these seem to correspond to the numbered session posters along the wall. Around the margins of the conference flyer are various slogans that are hand drawn and correspond to many similar slogans and signs hung on the walls of the hall. Some include: “The law of two feet,” “Whoever shows up are the right people,” and “When it’s over, it’s over,” along with cartoon pictures of butterflies and bees. Like the signs leading

260 into York Hall, the profusion and the creativity invested in making these signs go beyond the simple flip chart with all the slogans hand lettered onto a single page prescribed by

Harrison. While Owen’s User’s Guide does not prohibit professionally printed signs, he does give a good rationalization for going the handmade route:

Beyond the fact that no small amount of money and effort are saved, there

are added benefits. The first is a graphic statement that this occasion is a

working situation – no frills, just people with a common concern gathering

to get something done…these signs build the case that anybody with a

good head and good heart can do it. Creating a positive, productive

working environment in Open Space is not something that takes a large

budget, an army of support staff, and weeks of advance preparation. (69–

70)

On the reverse side of the paper is a hand-drawn map of the space, with locations clearly marked. The names of the locations this year are famous theatres, but each year they change them up. One year it was famous British actors’ names; another year it could be playwrights. In 2011 it was theatrical innovators (Peter Brook, Viola Spolin, Jacques

Pierre Lecoq, etc.). Looking around the space, one can see more handmade posters taped to the floor that correspond with the names on the map – these are where the sessions’ individual groups will take place once the conference has decided what those individual groups will be about (In 2013 the location markers were no longer confined to the floor, but rather attached to poles and flown as flags, making finding locations easier). When the conference begins, a meditation bell chimes and a voice is heard over the PA system

261

– it is Phelim McDermott asking everyone to please come and take a seat in the big circle.

Open Spaces are run by a facilitator, who explains the concept, brings the group together, and reassures the group that they are the right people, at the right time, to address the issues that are troubling the group. The facilitator for the Devoted &

Disgruntled annual conferences has always been Phelim, a self-help book junky. One of

Improbable’s previous shows, Panic, made direct reference to this fact with a scene in which paper grocery sacks filled with self-help books are brought onto stage and dumped upon several large tables, eventually overflowing their confines and piling up on the floor as Phelim tries to read their titles to the audience and falls desperately behind the avalanche of pop psychology. Phelim tells the audience that these self-help books are indeed his own, personal book collection. So, as Phelim speaks to the assembly of participants, it is in the hushed, calming tones (despite the microphone amplification) that one might expect at a self-help seminar.

This inspirational speaker/enlightened guru quality of Phelim’s personality makes him an exceptional facilitator because people believe he is open to and accepting of whatever (harebrained and outlandish?) ideas and comments they may have to offer, and also setting the examples that others should follow in this respect. Most importantly, people need to feel free to bring up anything, to get to the root of the problems, which may be a result of someone being harebrained and outlandish. The other required quality in good facilitation, according to Harrison, is that facilitators should be present but invisible. This is a little trickier for Devoted & Disgruntled than it would be at a

262 corporate event, where the facilitator is often a complete stranger to the participants.

Everyone (mostly) is at Devoted & Disgruntled because, through some number of degrees of separation, they are connected with the Improbable and their work; therefore, it is difficult for Phelim to be completely invisible.

IV. Opening Space

So, in this capacity, Phelim welcomes everyone. Once everyone is gathered, seated, and watching him, Phelim rings a pair of meditation bells again. The notes are pleasant and resonate in the space, causing everyone to become quiet and listen to the moment – everyone’s attention on the same thing at the same moment. The bells are rung deliberately; and, without explanation, the group now instinctively knows that the bells will be a gentle way of centering everyone’s focus. Phelim lets the ringing fade away and then welcomes the assembly and asks all participants to take a moment to look around the circle and make eye contact with each person in the room for a moment. The circle is important on many levels to Open Spaces, as Harrison puts it:

My experience tells me that the circle is the fundamental geometry of open

human communication. A circle has no head or foot, no high or low, no

sides to take; in a circle, people can simply be with each other – face to

face. After all, we do not have a square of friends, and on a cold winter’s

night it is nice to be part of a family circle. (5)

Harrison further explains the necessity of the circle beyond the ability to connect by contrasting it with the arrangement of space at more traditional conferences:

263

Place people in rows (classroom or theater-style), where they all face the

source of power and authority, and it is clear who will talk and who must

listen. In squares and rectangles, there is separation that may be useful to

keep combative parties apart, as in negotiations, but genuine, free

communication tends to occur only at a minimum. Circles create

communication. (5)

It is interesting that Owen should remark on the inherent power hierarchy of theater seating – pitting the audience as subservient to the power and authority of the actors – as it is indeed a topic that becomes a recurring issue called throughout each year the Devoted & Disgruntled conference has been held. Phelim explains that we are the right people to come and address the conference’s overarching question, “What Are We

Going to Do About Theatre?” by deciding to attend the event, and that we have already conquered one of the larger hurdles merely by coming together for a common cause.

Whether members of the Arts Council are in attendance or not is immaterial: if it were important to have their presence, then they would be at the conference. This sentiment keeps people from dwelling on things beyond their control and recognizing that they have the power to move forward with things themselves. For example, if an issue pertaining to the Arts Council is brought up, then the question becomes about how to engage with them when the conference is over – not to complain about their lack of presence.

V. One Law, Four Principles, and Two Bugs

Phelim starts by explaining the rules – in fact, there are none per se. However, there are some guidelines that we can follow if inspiration alone does not provide

264 guidance; the process is equally important to finding solutions. Phelim then explains how the conference will organize itself. He explains how sessions may be called by anyone at any time and on any subject and gives several examples of sessions. While a session could be called at any time, Phelim suggests that the best way to let people know about a session would be to announce it now, while everyone is paying attention in the big circle.

Before the sessions are actually called by the eager participants, Phelim goes over the other structural underpinnings of Devoted & Disgruntled. These are more affirmations to encourage people than rules to mold the event. Indeed, there is only one “law” in the entire conference…

…and this is “The Law of Two Feet.” People are actively encouraged to leave a session they do not like – to get up, walk away, and find another session that is interesting or engaging (or go have a tea, or a walk, or anything the participant would rather be doing). The emphasis is on how this is accepted by everyone and actually expected and that those wishing to do so are in no way doing anything wrong or disrespectful…on the contrary, doing so brings us to the next important rule, “Whoever

Comes Is the Right People.” Phelim notes that people who are not interested in a given discussion (for whatever reason) rarely have information to contribute to the topic at hand; and, by exercising their rights under the law of two feet, groups will tend to have the people there who want to be there and who are passionate and willing to work towards a solution. These two rules take away much of the pressure and dread that can accompany going to a problem-solving session and helps keep the discussions going in a positive direction. If one does not believe there is a problem with the way the Arts

265

Council allocates funding to devising companies, instead of hanging around for the discussion, he or she is encouraged to find a topic more to his or her liking instead of sitting through the session and telling the group that it is wrong (not to say that there is not a fair amount of disagreement at Devoted & Disgruntled sessions; it’s just not as adversarial in my experience).

A number of additional slogans are discussed as the last of the initial round of sessions are called. Phelim reminds people to let go of their preconceptions of what they want this conference to be or what they expect to get out of the session – especially the sessions one calls oneself. “Be Prepared to Be Surprised” is an informal motto for the proceedings and is displayed on large signs throughout the hall. It is a call to not get too rigidly set on a goal and to let the conversation follow new paths as they arise during discussions; unexpected turns in tracing a problem may lead to unconsidered or unseen solutions. Following this is the slogan, “Whatever Happens Is the Only Thing that Could

Happen.” Again, this tries to remove pressure from the participants to have to produce results. Just having the discussion is a start and, if nothing further happens, then it must not be the right time for action to take place, Phelim tells the crowd. That does not mean it’s not important: only that it is not time yet. This rule also harkens back to the first rule,

“Whoever Comes Are the Right People.” If no one comes to the session, the convener is reminded that her or she then has a nice, quiet hour and a half to devote to his or her issue

– something that few people do on their own – and, therefore, he/she should take advantage of the structure and come up with a way to address his or her issue. Since the conveners are ultimately the one with the passion and need to have called the session in

266 the first place, they are ideally suited to solving the problem and thus are the “Right

People” for the task.

That there is a disregard for the schedule is not surprising for an event run by a company known for its innovation. Most devising companies have a keen interest in process, and as such, giving ideas time and space to evolve is important. For Devoted &

Disgruntled, Phelim reminds attendees that while we have a schedule, with times and places listed, they are far from definitive, and that he himself has had some of his best experiences outside the listed times and places while drinking tea and discussing projects between sessions. So, “Whenever It Starts Is the Right Time” calls people to be ready for the right time to be anytime; in other words, inspiration can strike without concern for clocks. This is also important concerning the conference sessions, too, in the example above where someone called a session and no one came. Because of the “Law of Two

Feet,” it is quite possible to have no one arrive for your session at the appointed start time. So, although one should not wait around hoping attendees should come along, it is not uncommon for people to join a discussion well into a session’s start time. This also means that if the session never starts, then that is okay too – it just was not the right time for the issue. The corollary to this principle is “When It’s Over, It’s Over.” While sessions are officially given one and a half hours’ time – they can go shorter or longer, and participants are encouraged to take as much time as is needed – there is no sense in stopping a fruitful planning session just as it is picking up steam. Likewise, there is no reason to beat a dead horse, either. Also, when sessions end early, the “Law of Two Feet” comes back into play and people set out to find new sessions to join; therefore, that lone

267 session convener may find additional voices coming to his or her session as a result. I have yet to see a session go completely unattended if the convener stays at his/her location the entire time and is giving their topic thought as he or she waits. I have seen plenty of people give up after five minutes and thus miss out – and even occasionally I have seen these sessions happen despite the convener’s absence – so, while the subject may have been deemed over by the initial convener, each person is able to make this decision for him/herself.

Before turning everyone loose to examine the session boards and to choose which ones they will be attending, Phelim talks about two types of bugs: butterflies and bumblebees. The above laws and principles all interrelate. “The Law of Two Feet” relates not only to “Whoever Comes Are the Right People,” but also to “When It’s Over, It’s

Over.” “Whoever Comes Are the Right People” can also relate to “Whenever It Starts Is the Right Time,” which might lead to “Whatever Happens Is the Only Thing that Could

Have.” Everything is circular. The introduction of the two bugs is used to further connect these principles with the people who exercise them. Phelim explains to us that Bees are people who flit from one session to another, adding their voice and presence to a group before moving along to other interests. These people, who religiously exercise the “Law of Two Feet,” can be seen as bees who hop from flower to another, cross-pollinating ideas from one group to another. The other kind of bug Phelim introduces is the Butterfly

– these people also exercise “The Law of Two Feet,” but are observers who never really join a group but, instead, watch, listen, and think from the periphery. While a butterfly may just be standing quietly by, watching and looking pretty, they often attract other

268 butterflies (and bees) to sessions – just being present contributes to the dialogue – and during butterfly-led gossip and small talk during and after sessions, new ideas may come to light, new themes emerge, and meaningful conversations can take place. Thus, not only are there many ways the conference can unfold in terms of how issues are approached, the different ways individuals approach these issues are also validated here.

So after situating the event and preparing people to be surprised, Phelim “opens” the space and invites people to come to the center of the circle, where paper and markers are arranged on a small low table. People can then write down their question or concern – which serves as the title of the group session they want to call – and are then passed the microphone to introduce themselves and to read the question/title of their proposed session. There is an initial flurry of people proposing issues, some people calling several sessions at a time. The space around the table is thick with people on their hands and knees who are writing their gripes, concerns, and proposals and then waiting their turn for the microphone. During this time, Phelim continues, with his slow and soothing voice, to encourage everyone to participate in calling sessions, but also lets it be known that calling a session is not a superior act, and that attending other people’s sessions is equally as important. This goes on until everyone who wants to call a session has been given enough encouragement and opportunity. There is no time constraint on this organization phase of the conference – and, despite the printed timetable, there is little concern for adhering to it at all at this point.

269

Figure 27. Calling Sessions

A crush of participants on their hands and knees writing/drawing up their proposed sessions with a line of people standing to call (announce) their just penned sessions over the P.A. system to the other conference attendees. Devoted & Disgruntled 5. Photo ©

Robert Wells.

As session conveners finish announcing their issues, they go to the big

“Space/Time Matrix” poster, which is covered in Post-It notes. Here they choose one of the labeled Post-Its, each of which contains a day, a time, a location, and a session. They

270 are free to pick from any Post-It available, and can thus schedule their issue’s discussion for any day or time of the conference they choose.

Figure 28. Time/Space Matrix - Devoted & Disgruntled 8

Time is marked out horizontally and locations spaces are mapped vertically. Photo © Ian

Bradford Ngongotaha Pugh 2013.

271

The Post-It is adhered to the issue sign the convener made just prior and is then posted on the appropriate poster down the wall that corresponds with the session number. This way, attendees can go look at the wall and choose what issues are of interest to them, note the time and location, and schedule their day accordingly. On average around 150 sessions are called, and perhaps another 50 more are proposed that merge with other called sessions or fizzle out with no attendance.

In Owen’s User’s Guide, he models this phase on his observations as a photojournalist regarding how community needs were negotiated in The West African village of Balamah. The village used a system to organize needs and give them structure.

He appropriates this system and names its elements, respectively, the bulletin board and the marketplace.

The bulletin board provides a convenient, low-tech means for identifying

what people are interested in. The marketplace provides a means of

bringing interests together in an orderly way. Both mechanisms are so

ancient and ingrained in human experience that explaining the rules is

unnecessary (9).

The terms commodity, ideas, and time serve as, perhaps, a metaphor that is useful for corporate or government entities. Such commoditization of ideas is not conducive to the free flow of information in a Devoted & Disgruntled conference, unlike a traditional

Open Space conference where the sponsors are seeking knowledge to further their organizational agendas or bottom lines, Devoted & Disgruntled is not solely concerned about outcomes, and certainly does not have a set outcome objective, so it does away

272 with these terms and instead replaces the marketplace with “Session” boards. These are small changes, but it is a concerted effort to keep terminology (and ideology) more neutral, as well as prevent economics and social ideas regarding ownership of knowledge from becoming the issues, and therefore detract from talking about theatre.

VI. (a)Typical Session(s)

When everyone who wanted to call a session has had a chance, Phelim brings out the meditation bells again and rings them, signaling a start to the sessions. The atmosphere is electric by this point, and despite Phelim’s slow, calm, and soothing voice during the opening, he has managed to convince people that they are about to participate in something fantastic that they can change the world, and that it is only by deciding to tackle the problems and not just complain about them that things will improve. Phelim successfully unites the participants, most of whom are strangers to each other – a great ability, and one vital to Devoted & Disgruntled’s success. From the time Phelim opens the space to this point, about an hour has passed, and in that hour the conference has organized itself not only in setting the agenda and topics, but also as a group united with common purpose. Despite Phelim’s adept role as the leader of the event, once he has dispensed his wisdom to the group he quietly gets out of the way and becomes just one more participant in the conference.

Attendees scour the session wall posters, looking for issues that interest them, and volunteers busy themselves with breaking up the big circle and distributing chairs around the signs on the floor to demarcate the session locations. Unlike a traditional conference that sequesters each session and panel into separate rooms, isolating the

273 participants from one another, Open Space Technology preferences the use of large, open, auditorium-like spaces. This is important as, without such an arrangement, the rules and principles laid out above would prove disruptive – people entering and leaving rooms through doors, for example, when exercising “The Law of Two Feet” would not be able to fulfill their roles as butterflies/bumblebees. There is also the dynamic of being in contact with the rest of the group throughout the day, reinforcing the sense of community that Phelim facilitates among those in attendance.

After setting up the chairs, the volunteers circulate to each grouping of seats to distribute the tools and supplies for the sessions – giant flip pads, stacks of blank white paper, pens, pencils, and a pack of colored markers – to each site. Seats begin to fill up slowly for the different sessions – some have no one, not even a convener – while others are overflowing with dozens of people, but most average between 3 and 20 people to begin with. It is usually 15 or 20 minutes past the official start time for the session – some people are still arriving at registration, while others are still trying to get coffee or tea sorted and old acquaintances are reacquainting – but no one is complaining or concerned. The sessions that follow through the rest of the conference are a bit more by the clock, but the first session invariably starts late – an unintended occurrence, but one that certainly helps people settle into a more relaxed atmosphere right from the start.

274

Figure 29. A portion of the session board (Marketplace) for Devoted & Disgruntled 7

Photo © Robert Wells 2012.

275

As people choose their sessions and sit down and introduce themselves, it is immediately evident that what is to happen will be very informal proceedings, with no set agenda and no true leader. The discussion is conversational; the feel is that of a group of friends at a pub who are engaged in a spirited discussion. What might have started out as a talk on one issue can easily change into something different or split up into multiple issues (with people breaking away and forming ad hoc groups on the spot). Without speeches to set up arguments, the issue is generally addressed right from the start without any beating around the bush. Notes may be taken, names of those in attendance for the issue may be jotted down, diagrams and sketches are used to keep track of issues or to explain hierarchies, and a great deal of critical discussion takes place. People come

(Bees) and go (The Law of Two Feet), and some stand around the periphery (Butterflies), sometimes situating themselves between several groups and following multiple conversations while chatting with others drifting about doing the same.

The atmosphere of the sessions reminds me of how conversations happen at the end of really engaging panels at a traditional conference. Following the official presentations and the question-and-answer period, when the session is in fact officially over, people who are really interested and passionate about the topics presented sometimes stay behind to talk and to engage in a less-formal dialogue. This is the general feeling of sessions during Open Space events – those most interested and engaged in a topic coming together to talk about the issues and what can be done. Like many pub conversations, the point can get talked around and repeated often; and at some point this gets noted, and if people have nothing more to add, the group breaks up, with people

276 scattering to see what other groups could possibly be still talking about. Sessions rarely last the entire hour and a half, and so as the official end of the session approaches most of the room has been converted to butterflies and bees – or people taking advantage of the time to file their reports in “The Newsroom.”

The documentation of sessions is not required, but it is encouraged. No firm guidelines are setup for how such documentation should be carried out, and this lack of rules leaves plenty of room for the attendees to be creative. From reports that are done as poems to reports made into word searches, nothing is rejected (though for practical purposes there is an attempt made to get everything in a digital format). There is a bank of computers, with a sign calling the area “The Newsroom” along the wall opposite the session boards, and this is staffed with volunteers who assist people in using a word processor to enter whatever data they wish to convey into the conference’s final report. In recent years people have been including more unconventional forms of reports: from cell phone cameras and digital audio recordings to Tweets and YouTube videos. In some cases, instead of typing up the notes taken in the session, perhaps the most common type of report – akin to notes taken during a university lecture – conveners have scanned or photographed the physical notes themselves to upload. The notes, reports, and documentations of the sessions are the performance, while the session is the process – the notes, therefore, put the session into production/devising terminology. It is hoped that the

“news” of the sessions will help those who could not attend to understand the issue better; and, depending on the responses, serve as a basis for bringing people together into action on a given issue. As each report is recorded, and an elaborate system of backups

277 and data sequestration is developed, the report is printed up and posted on the wall near

“The Newsroom,” under the Newsroom’s own banner that refers to these printed reports as “Breaking News.” This allows people to have immediate access to the session’s data as soon as it has been entered. Oftentimes, people will then append the news reports – sometimes just to add their name to the list of attendees, and sometimes to add to what was discussed – a bit like posting replies in an electronic forum (every effort is made by the event’s staff to make sure these comments make their way back into the “official” copy of the report).

VII. “Close of a long day.”

Since a large part of the morning on the first day is spent in registration and instruction, there is only one session before lunch. The concession people have switched over to luncheon fare and most people stay in the hall to socialize and continue their discussions. Three more sessions follow lunch. At the conclusion of the session time,

Phelim once again rings his meditation bells; and, despite the high levels of noise due to all the sessions and conversations, the place quiets down fairly quickly (sometimes it takes three or four chimes to get this effect). Volunteers begin to move the chairs back into the large circle, and participants jump in and help; after a few minutes, everyone is seated facing Phelim, who is once more holding the microphone in the center of the group. Continuing his role as the facilitator, Phelim congratulates the group and offers encouragement, while challenging people to go further. He reminds everyone to keep the space open (the metaphorical one – the actual space is about to lock up for the night), to continue to explore the ideas that have been presented, and to let the conversations keep

278 affecting them. A few announcements are given – follow-ups about email lists/exchanges proposed in various group sessions or the location of the pubs people are planning to attend that evening. Phelim then passes the microphone around the group, allowing everyone a chance to comment (or not) about the(ir) experience. Then he offers a few more sage words and rings the bells once more, closing the day. At this point the circle breaks up, but people linger to continue discussions and socialize while volunteers help clean up the space, getting it ready for the start of the next day.

While most people head home or out to shows or dinner in small groups, a large number of attendees now make their way to the Approach Pub down the street and around the corner from York Hall. As would be expected (even without having just attended a conference regarding theatre-related issues), a group of theatre practitioners tends to talk passionately about theatre when drinking. Such discussions are outside the purview of this paper, but when the occasional session is called the next morning to talk about hangovers and what to do about them (the usual answer to this query in these sessions is, invariably, sleep), it can be understood that such references come from this social drinking enterprise and are not serious questions facing the London theatre industry and its drinking problem (at least not in this case anyway).

Like other conferences, there is a fair amount of reshuffling that takes place on the second day, since no one is required to present, one day does not lead specifically to the next, and – owing to assorted schedules – a sizeable number of people do not return for the second day. For the same reasons, a sizeable number of people join the conference on the second day, keeping attendance overall the same although probably a few

279 participants lighter. Because of this, the day starts very much the same as the first – registration, coffee, tea, bacon butties, and getting settled. The bells ring, people take their seats in the big circle, and announcements about shows and followups to initiatives from the day before are mentioned quickly; Phelim’s introduction is also more abbreviated. The rule, principles, and bugs are briefly explained again, and then Phelim opens the floor for new sessions to be called. While some sessions from the day before were called and scheduled for the second day, for the most part people tend to call sessions to happen on the day they are called. So, at the beginning of the day, most of the schedule is undecided. Not surprisingly, a fairly equal number of sessions get called the second day.

The second day is also when more substantive topics get called. There are still plenty that happen on the first day, but the first day is used also as a sounding board. It is also when the group is performing for each other the most, trying to stake out some territory, and for those so inclined to try to draw attention to themselves. This is not frowned upon; rather, it is a part of the dynamics in a large group, and it seems that letting such things play themselves out deals with these situations faster than trying to mediate them, in line with “Whatever Happens…” Thus, issues called on the second day tend to have more serious tones – or at least try to. This is not to say that the content of these sessions is superior, just that the tone is more staid. The reports from the Day Two sessions tend to be longer and better organized. While not conclusive as to quality, a fair number of these second-day sessions, with longer, more detailed reports, are convened by people who had also attended the first day’s sessions.

280

The second day is a little shorter as two sessions are held before lunch and two more after. As before, the bells ring again to signal the closing of the day and the chairs are put back into their big circle. General announcements are made again before Phelim talks a bit about what has been accomplished. He encourages people to file their reports in “The Newsroom” if they can before they leave or to email them in if they cannot. Then a brief accounting of inspiration moments are given, starting with Phelim, but continuing around the circle, as each person is given an opportunity to respond to the event. Phelim talks about the next day, and there is an acknowledgment that not as many people will be able to attend the third day (it falls on Monday), but that their ideas and their reports will be a foundation for the sessions that are to be called for the final day. So, even if one cannot attend, their prior presence has still made a difference. So this part of the conference is treated a bit as an end to the event, giving people the space to talk about their experiences along with a chance to plug their causes, shows, or initiatives they are trying to start. This moment of sharing is intended to strengthen the connections and sense of community built by the group. Following all the related experiences, Phelim talks about the ability to be able to change the profession for the better, to help others just getting started in the business, and challenges the group as they go back to their work to share the ideas and information gleaned over the weekend with their peers and find ways to continue to keep the space open.

Fewer people head to the pub.

281

VIII. Convergence and Action Plans

Fewer people come the next day, but there are still a sizeable number in attendance. My first year at a Devoted & Disgruntled there were some two hundred people at the closing day. Most of the people in attendance on the third day have been at the conference for the entire run. Although two hundred people is a lot, having half the previous day’s numbers makes the hall feel bigger, emptier, and quieter. Because of this, the day feels much more solemn (this may be due to the aforementioned pub and/or to the fatigue that sets in from the considerable energy expenditure of the previous two days).

There is also much more familiarity amongst the final group members as well, everyone having had more opportunity to interact and get to know one another. Just as on the previous days, the bells ring and the circle is filled, announcements are made, and then

Phelim talks about what is to happen next. In the center of the circle with Phelim are several tall, tottering piles of bound reports. All the materials submitted to “The

Newsroom” that are now hanging along the walls of York Hall, stretching around the room’s entire circumference, have been printed up overnight and are now made available to all in attendance. Those not in attendance were told that they could sign up to have the master document of the conference emailed to them and, for the last three years, the sessions have been placed onto the Devoted & Disgruntled blog or the newly created

Devoted & Disgruntled website.

Phelim directs people to come up and take a copy of the reports and to read through them – to look for issues that resonate, that seem to be of vital need for action.

To this end, the group is broken up and an hour and a half is devoted to allowing people

282 to quietly go through the session reports. People spread out and the hall is the quietest it has been in two days as people take in the information in earnest. Once this time is over, the bells chime, calling everyone back to the circle where Phelim explains the next and final stage of the event.

In a conventional Open Space symposium, participants would now vote on what issues should now be tackled by the larger group, based upon the issues written up in the bound report. In small groups, people accomplish this by going around and placing little colored sticky dots on the session signs they found most urgent or important. With larger groups – those over a hundred – a paper ballot is usually printed that lists all the session titles and allows each participant to rank his or her top ten issues. For Devoted &

Disgruntled, however, neither approach is used (though in the early years these systems were tried, they were discarded as being too biased (tyranny of the majority). Instead, after everyone has been allowed to carefully pore over the session reports, Phelim opens up the space again for people to call new sessions. These sessions can be based upon issues or trends people have found in the session reports, or they can be wholly new sessions. This is, in part, due to the nature of Devoted & Disgruntled in comparison to other group’s uses of Open Space Technology. Instead of deciding on how to manage a highway development project or to reconfigure an economics master’s degree program – groups that have a fairly defined goal to accomplish – Devoted & Disgruntled is more open ended. There is no one task that needs to have a solution by the end of the conference. So the closing is not a distillation of the best ideas to solve a common goal, as in the cases above. While it would still be possible for Devoted & Disgruntled to end

283 itself this way, it would be artificial and possibly devolve into a popularity contest. So instead, during what is termed the “Convergence and Action Plans” part of the Open

Space event Phelim explains that – while any session topic may be called –there are a few things participants may want to keep in mind when thinking about the final session.

First is that issues should be of general importance to the group (though Phelim does not rule out issues of limited scope). Issues should be called by people who are eager to take action, to step in as a leader on the issue (though, again, it is emphasized that important issues will find a leader and so people should not be afraid to bring up a topic just because they are not able to lead). Additionally, Phelim notes that those participating should actively seek out group sessions to attend to which they can lend their direct support in terms of knowledge, experience, connections, or resources. Phelim reminds everyone that they are the right people, that this is the right time, that whatever happens next is the only thing that could happen, and to take responsibility for being a part of the solution. Participants are then invited up to call sessions and, in the intervening thirty minutes, about two dozen sessions get called.

In a traditional Open Space event, these sessions would be the equivalent of the ones voted on by the group for further discussion. After the voting is done, each of the issues is written up on a large flip chart and participants are then allowed to go up and write in related issues below the main issues the group had selected. In the case of

Devoted & Disgruntled, Phelim invites a similar course of action, but instead of asking all assembled to write in each issue’s related topics, he asks those who have called

284 sessions to confer and see if any sessions called can be combined. The two dozen topics boil down to, perhaps, a dozen.

The session then meet as in the days before, with people bumble bee-ing from group to group until they find the issue and discussion that is most attractive to them.

Problems are presented and discussed. The prior reports are looked over and old discussions noted. Solutions are proposed (or not). Plans for action are drafted (or not).

Many new email lists are made for the assorted final groups to enable people to keep in touch and help coordinate future action. Unfortunately, the notes for these final meetings do not make their way into the written records, and so it is hard to know exactly what sessions were called and what actions were proposed or taken (the last three Devoted &

Disgruntled conferences have attempted to solve this problem by publishing session reports directly online, however the systems are piecemeal and not well attended by participants yet.

It is now mid-day on Monday. The group comes back into a circle for a final time.

There is a flurry of announcements concerning action plans and email lists before Phelim takes to the microphone to close out the show. There are expressions of gratitude for the energy and work that everyone has brought to the event, as well as admonitions to keep the energy and the enthusiasm of the last few days alive, to keep find ways to keep the space open, and to follow through on plans made. Once again the microphone is passed around and everyone is given the opportunity to speak. Following that, Phelim holds the space in silence for a moment, turning about and looking at everyone in turn before ringing the chimes a final time: Devoted & Disgruntled comes to an end.

285

Volunteers and staff start to take down posters and session reports, and begin to stack chairs. The computers are struck, the sound system carted off, and the flip charts and markers boxed up for next time. Some participants take signs and scribbled session notes as souvenirs, but most items end up in the trash. The crowd thins rapidly as goodbyes are said. A few die-hards head over to the pub, most assuredly for civilized conversation and a spot of lunch.

In a traditional Open Space event, the facilitator(s) then have a series of meetings with the sponsors of the event to go over the issues and plans that have been proposed by the participants and try to find ways to implement solutions that the client/sponsor likes.

In the end, it is still the client who ultimately decides on the solution or course of action, and not the participants (Owen 19–22). No such meetings take place following Devoted

& Disgruntled – it is up to the participants to take action on issues of importance to them.

There is no agenda that Devoted & Disgruntled is supposed to specifically address, and any and all problems and solutions have the ability to be acted upon by any individual in attendance – the same cannot be said for participants of an Open Space event that is, for instance, convened to solve complex business zoning regulations for a local municipality.

Devoted & Disgruntled goes a step further then than Open Space and places complete control over outcomes in the hands of individuals and groups who choose to take action – even if groups choose to take actions that oppose one another. Instead of the insights, creativity, and knowledge created becoming the property of a select few decision makers, the participants of the Devoted & Disgruntled conferences break away from the knowledge producing apparatus of the industry to use this knowledge to exercise power

286 for themselves This is perhaps the largest single difference between Harrison’s Open

Space Technology and the implementation by Improbable Theatre – that the clients in the case of Devoted & Disgruntled are also the participants.

Owen imparts another useful example that typifies reactions to Open Space conferences and their “continuing benefit.” These same benefits and ideas are found in the theatre community, and the same feeling of resolution and achievement is generated by Devoted & Disgruntled.

Several days after this particular gathering, one of the participants called

to say that for two years he, as president of a local school organization,

had been attempting to get the people involved in creating their own

future. Nothing worked. They sat like bumps on a log. Then he tried Open

Space Technology, and his problem reversed. The people became

involved, and he had but one option: get out of the way. (Owen 9)

Devoted & Disgruntled gets people involved – gets them excited about being involved – and is able to inject that excitement back out into the larger community.

287

Notes

1 New York City has also started an annual Devoted & Disgruntled conference in 2010 that was sponsored by Improbable during its first year while artistic directors Phelim

McDermott and Julian Crouch were working in the Big Apple directing and designing the

Broadway musical The Addams Family. Improbable also hosts monthly satellite Devoted

& Disgruntled conferences that focus on more specialized issues and which are held throughout London and outlying communities as well as a few other one-off Devoted &

Disgruntled conferences in cities and countries.

2 The term ‘maker’ is a common term in London theatre that generally signifies people creating new work, but also is a label the attempts to remove some of the hierarchy that is associated by describing one’s self as an actor, writer, or director – and is also used by those who exercise multiple skills sets to avoid having to describe one’s occupation with a preponderance of hyphens and dashes.

3 The use of sellotape has also found its way into many of Improbable’s shows – used to create stage effects during the performance – for instance, structures such as a house or a cell, or puppet characters ranging from a poltergeist (70 Hill Lane), a horse (Sticky), and even the monstrous, towering embodiments of political authority (Satyagraha). However, in recent years the sellotape sign has given way to other methods of proclaiming the conference title and goal. Currently a large, professionally printed banner now takes up the stage, a convenience born from the sheer number of conferences Improbable have been hosting.

288

4 The title of the annual event changes slightly from year to year, but is always a broad, open-ended question that prompts an action-based response.

289

Appendix C: Session Stats

I devised the following categories for this study. These categories are imprecise as is the work of placing each session into various groups. However, as a way of picking out trends and important issues this methodology provided valuable data. Although most of the categories in the tables are self-explanatory, I have provide a brief description for clarity:

Academic: sessions concerning academic pursuits or topics dealt with at the academic

level through the use of theory, criticism, and history;

Audience: sessions that deal with any aspect of theatre audiences;

Business: a category broadly construed to be any session that dealt with the day-to-day

business of the theatre (for example, finding space, dealing with problems related

to company members, marketing a performance);

Complaints: sessions in which the convener voices a complaint about anything

concerning the theatre;

Education: issues related to education on the theatre for theatre makers, the audience,

and children;

Gender: sessions that delve into gender concerns;

290

Industry: sessions concerned with the theatre industry and how it works, such as

discussions on how the West End operates or issues concerning inequity in

women’s pay compared with that of men in Regularly Funded Organizations;

Initiatives: denotes sessions that made concrete plans to address their issue, including

specific meeting dates, specific websites created, groups formed, and letters

written;

Metaphysical: sessions concerning religion or other intangible topics of faith, belief, and

mysticism; for example, one session was called “HEALING THEATRE: The

origin of theatre in the cave, connected to health and survival (D&D 1, Issue 8),

which looked at the mystic healing energy that live performance contains.

Money: any session that dealt with issues of funding or finances;

Non-theatre: sessions that in no way deal with any aspect of the theatre; and,

Performing: sessions in which performing issues were part of the discussion;

Quotable?: sessions with clear, well thought-out ideas, observations, and insights.

Race: a session that discusses racial issues in any fashion;

Selfish: any topic called by the convener to deal with a problem or issue related to their

own specific needs;

Social: sessions concerned with social issues, including politics, civil rights, equal rights,

disability rights, and others;

Solutions: as a counterpart to the complaints category, these sessions propose solutions

to the problems or complaints expressed.

291

I. Devoted & Disgruntled 1

Devoted & Disgruntled 1 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocial solutions 1: ISSUES WHAT ISSUES? 1 1 1 2: Theatre can compete with film as an exciting artform (get more people out of cinemas and into theatres) 1 1 1 1 3: MONEY MONEY MONEY (WORKING FOR FREE) 1 1 1 1 1 1 4: How to get more people into theatres. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5:“straight” theatre & “made/devised” theatre – creating a conversation about and between 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6: Are we European? Can we learn anything from the rest of Europe or elsewhere? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7: CRISIS IN LONDON VENUES 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8: HEALING THEATRE: The origin of theatre in the cave, connected to health and survival. 1 1 1 9: RACIALLY INTEGRATED THEATRE 1 1 1 1 1 292 10: Why don’t we share useful information with each other? 1 1 1 1 1 11: Theatre for all the senses. 1 1 1 1

12: America 1 1 1 1 1 13: HOW CAN THEATRE LEARN FROM OTHER, MORE SUCCESSFUL FORMS OF CULTURAL EXPRESSION? 1 1 1 1 1 14:Actors as global citizens addressing global issues 1 1 1 1 1 15:The Primacy of Imagination 1 1 1 16:How can we dissolve disciplines and Hierarchy in the established theatre? 1 1 1 1 17: Where is all the “provocative” street theatre? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18: Should We Measure Artistic Success and if so, How? 1 1 19: How to get more disabled people into theatre 1 1 1 1 1 1

Table 2. Devoted & Disgruntled 1 Reports Breakdown (2006)

continued

292

Table 2. continued

Devoted & Disgruntled 1 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocial solutions 20 :Do I have to devote my time to administration, producing, funding, funding, funding…. To create art? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 21:New Forum where Conventional Theatre meets Community Theatre 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22:Women 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23:Entrepreneurial and savvy theatre 1 1 1 1 24: What puts you off going to the theatre? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

25:How Being Marginalised Can Be Celebrated and Used to Good Effect 1 1 26: Too Many Careerists Have Spoiled Our Broth. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 27: OPEN UP SPACE SO THAT MORE PEOPLE CAN HAVE A GO. 1 1 1 1 1 1 28: Why is there still such a division between the mainstream and the experimental? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4 293 29: Why do you need to go to college to do theatre? 1 1 1 1 1

30: Audience... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

31: Money / Funding / Producers 1 1 1 32: Is theatre all about contacts or can you make it on your own? 1 1 1 1 33:Use of the Theatre-Making Process in Personal, Social and Organisational Development 1 1 1 1 34: What are elements that would encourage people to join in a large scale work? 1 1 1 35: Why do we need a separate theatre for Black work? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 36:The Mainstream does not exist 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 37: Where are the Women Protagonists? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 38: How can we establish mentoring systems for theatre practitioners? 1 1 1 1 1 1 39: Less Actors; More Practitioners 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Continued

293

Table 2. continued

Devoted & Disgruntled 1 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocial solutions 40: What positive relationships can exist between film and theatre? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 41: Is the written play a dying form? And if so, what can we do to revive it? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 42: Censorship are there things that we should not be allowed to do/say on stage? 1 1 1 43: Directors sharing skills and working practices. 1 1 1 1 44: Where is the archive for socially engaged practice? 1 1 1 1 1 1 45: Relationship between artist and audience 1 1 1 1 1 1 46: How do we take ‘it’ to the outside world? 1 1 1 1 1 47:How can we create more quality experiences of theatre for children and young people? 1 1 1 1 1 1 48: Not knowing what group to belong to. 1 1 1 1 1 49: Where are we at Now? (How does this Influence where we are

294 Going?) 1 1 1 1 50:How do we break up cliques and stop the same people getting all the work? 1 1 1 1 1 1 51: IS THEATRE REALLY NECESSARY? 1 1 1 1 52: Mentor registration form. Connects to issue 38 53: Who profits from theatre? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 54: THEATRICAL THEATRE 1 1 1 1 1 55: Making directors work harder to make auditions for actors worth the train fare. 1 1 1 1 56: What can audiences do? 1 1 1 57: Conflict Management 1 1 1 58: Who We Fancy In The Room 1 1 1 1 59: TO GET NEW AUDIENCES INTERESTED IN EXPERIMENTAL THEATRE 1 1 1 1

continued

294

Table 2. continued

Devoted & Disgruntled 1 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocial solutions 60: How can practitioners who work with people with challenging and volatile behaviours be better prepared and supported? 1 1 1 1 61: I still feel like an outsider. 1 1 1 1 62:Theatre for Adults & Children / Get Them When They’re Young. (no notes) 63: : In The Absence of a Union how can we lobby DCMS/ACE etc 1 1 1 1 1 1 64: We make too much shit theatre and that’s why people don’t come. How can we raise the bar? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 65: Making a space/place for continued play/learning/development 1 1 1 1 66: Is theatre speaking to ‘real’, people? 1 1 1 1 1 1 67: Can theatre be more than a profession 1 1 1 1 1 68: What is a director and do we need them anyway? 1 1 1 1 1 69: Pimp Theatre for Pissheads 1 1 1 1 70: Working Class Audiences 1 1 1

4 295

71: Issues Facing Mankind : Future Shock : Man and the Machine – Can

Theatre Help Us Deal With Change? 1 1 1 72: Benefits and Pitfalls of ensemble working methods. 1 1 1 1 1 73: What would happen if there were no proscenium arch theatres for 15 years? 1 1 74: More play, less plays 1 1 1 75: Spiritual Theatre in a Materialistic Age 1 1 76: WHAT ARE WE DEVOTED TO? 1 1 1 1 77: Positive discrimination-yes or no? 1 1 1 1 1 78: WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE REPLACED CRITICS (OR KILLED THEM)? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 79: Why are the only black people here serving coffee? What does this mean? 1 1 TOTAL 21 24 46 48 18 2 28 10 15 28 3 28 37 4 2 45 39

295

II. Devoted & Disgruntled 2

Devoted & Disgruntled 2 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocial solutions 1. If it ‘aint outdoors and on the streets it ‘aint worth a fuck 1 1 1 1 1 1 2. Theatre programmes, blurb in theatre brochures… 1 1 1 1 3. What questions did you have that you didn’t speak out? 1 1 1 1 1 4. Free theatre for all 1 1 1 1 1 1 5. What is now about now? 1 1 1 6. Is it ok to produce so much bad theatre? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7. Does training in theatre promote elitism? 1 1 1 1 1 8. How do we encourage outsiders? 1 9. How can we get government to believe in theatre and are therefore worth supporting? 1 1 1 1 1 1

4 296 10. Why are we doing it now? What are we.. 1 1 1 11. What can we learn from other art forms? 1 1 1 1 1 12. Is there a need for women's theatre? If so, what about it is different from other theatre? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13. How to put theatre at the heart of the community and get paid? 1 1 1 1 1 1 14. What is the point of a literary manager? 1 1 1 15. Continuity in the theatre 1 1 1 1 16. If we believe, can theatre change lives and attitude, how can we speed up the process - as the future looks increasingly grim - or are we just all 'fiddling while Rome burns'? 1 1 1 17. Are we addicted to the romance of the suffering artist and artist arrogance 1 1 1 1 1

Table 3. Devoted & Disgruntled 2 Reports Breakdown (2007)

continued

296

Table 3. continued

Devoted & Disgruntled 2 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocial solutions 18. Should the National Theatre represent the nation 1 1 1 1 19. The future of the theatre museum 1 1 20. Guerrilla Theatre: Can we use our numbers to take back control from underneath? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 21. Site Specific: the practicalities and legalities 1 1 1 1 1 1 22. Passionate about creating original theatre 1 1 1 1 23. Afternoon nap 1 1 1 24. Old Fart Terrors 1 1 1 1 1 25. Start Anew 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 26. How should the Arts Council support national touring? 1 1 1 1 1 1 27. Is child a four letter word? 1 1 1 1 1 1

4 297 28. How would theatre makers like to be trained? 1 1 1

29. What is the point of a theatre union? 1 1 1 1 1 1

30. How do you stay creatively healthy when you have a job? 1 1 1 1 31. Why does everyone have to move to London? 1 1 1 1 1 32. We can do theatre but what does it mean to be theatre? 1 1 33. Why is there so little recognition of theatre outside of London and the major cities? 1 1 1

34. How can we best manage being friends, colleagues and competitors? 1 1 1 1 1 35. THE AUDIECES JOURNEY - Can service design principle help make theatre better? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

continued

297

Table 3. continued

Devoted & Disgruntled 2 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocial solutions 36. How can we make more money? 1 1 1 1 37. Small live collaborations (What is it that we can go in collaboration ( Live Theatre) that isn't possible for T.V. and Film?) 1 1 38. How do we stop Directors behaving like wankers? 1 39. Does anyone have a daily creative theatre practice? 1 1 1 1 40. Is there space for fun and adventure in theatre today? 1 1 1 1 1 41. Does the closure of Dartington College matter? Does it matter to theatre? 1 1 1 1 1 1

42. Why does so much new theatre preach and preach to the converted? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 43. Why is commercial a dirty word in the theatre? 1 1 1 1

4 298

44. Is colour-blind casting a good idea? 1 1 1 1

45. Are the right people allocating the funding? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 46. Are people interested in collaborating across art forms? 1 1 1 1 1 47. Has any other creative been bitten by an elitist snake? 1 1 1 48. Silence 1 1 1 49. Professionals and non-professionals - Paid professional performers performing with non paid community performers - how can it work best if at all 1 1 1 50. Might there be a way to elect theatre critics? 1 1 1 1

continued

298

Table 3. continued

Devoted & Disgruntled 2 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocial solutions 51. How to stop mental paralysis and a mortal fear when invited to come up withan IDEA (or a question for discussion in this Open Space) 1 1 52. Who’s for giving up flying? / Should we have an environmental audit for theatre? 1 1 1 53. How do we tour when the oil runs out? 1 1 54. How do we make the devising process easier with no outside eye? 1 1 55. Are we training too many artists or too few? 1 1 1 56. How to make training and personal development as exciting as the work we have the potential to make. 1 1 1 1 1 57. Theatre is predominantly a western tradition – why is it assumed other cultures should want to join in? 1 1 1 1 1

4 299 58. What can the cat really teach us? And who do we do theatre for? 1 1 1 1 1

59. 2012 1 1 1 1

60. Is football better than theatre? 1 1 1 1 1 61. What is the place of faith in theatre? 1 1 1 1 62. Where are all the funny women? 1 1 1 1 63. How can we help the press help us develop audiences for contemporary theatre? 1 1 1 1 64. How can we wrest the money from the administrators and beaurocrats and give it to the artists? 1 1

continued

299

Table 3. continued

Devoted & Disgruntled 2 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocial solutions 65. What risks are you taking? 1 1 1 66. Audience and effect: what ways can we develop the role of the audience with performance? 1 1 1 1 1 1 67. Working creatively with the elderly in care 1 1 1 68. What big ideas have not been explored in our theatre yet? 1 1 69. Cultural quarters – arts by postcode or a good idea? 1 1 1 1 70. Non verbal session 1 1 71. Is there a place for politics in modern theatre? (Does Politics have a place in theatre? Agitprop? Any? Or are we all scared/bored of it?) framed as a dialogue… 1 1 1 1 1 72. How can we measure the intrinsic value of theatre? 1 1 1 1 1 1

4 300

73. What is physical theatre today and did it ever really mean anything? 1 1 1 1

74. Why are actors on the whole at the bottom of the hierarchy of the traditional theatre system? How can this be fundamentally addressed? 1 1 1 1 1 1 75. How can we use new technology in theatre? 1 1 1 1 1 76. Queer Theatre - discussion and stories - initiative part of post show discussion… 1 1 1 1 1 1 77. Theatre as research 1 1 1 78. Theatre can be watched. Ritual must be enacted. Why does this feel risky? How are the two connected? 1 1 1

continued

300

Table 3. continued

Devoted & Disgruntled 2 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocial solutions 79. How can designers and makers in theatre (including puppet, prop, costume and set designers gain more access to technical knowledge, in and outside of formal training? 1 1 1 80. Can theatre ever influence on the same scale as TV/film? 1 1 81. Documentation 1 1 1 1 1 82. BAC 1 1 1 83. Why don’t audiences throw tomatoes anymore? 1 1 1 1 1 1 84. what are we going to do about climate change with theatre now? 1 1 1 85. Considering everything going on is it time to start making smaller, quieter, more intimate performances? 1 1 1 86. How to be creative with work life balance? 1 1 1 1 1

4 301

87. D and D 1 year on still so few black faces why? 1 1 1

88. What do we love about the arts? 1 89. Away forward 1 1 1 90. How do you stay creatively healthy without a job? 1 1 91. What stops us doing exactly what we want to do? 1 1 1 92. The ethics of verbatim performance – hear recording…? 1 1 1 1 93. Should a ballet dancer be able to vote for BNP? 1 1 1 1 1 94. Are we stuck inside our buildings? 1 1 1 1 1 95. Has anyone seen Foust and adored too? 96. Has the arts council taken its eye off the ball? Et al…. 1 1 1 1

continued

301

Table 3. continued

Devoted & Disgruntled 2 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocial solutions 97. Do you have to be a bastard to run a building? 1 1 1 1 1 98. Why is disability arts so shit? And why can’t we say that? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 99. Are we given what we want or do we take it? 1 1 1 1 100. When does anger become counter productive? 1 1 1 1 101. A mentoring scheme 1 1 1 1 1 1 102. Say no to cannon and ball – help the cultural situation in Torquay 1 1 1 103. Is what you are doing exciting? 104. Is the role of production manager creative? 1 1 1 1 105. How to get a basic wage for all artists? 1 1 1 1 106. Should all theatres be pay what you can? 1 1 1 1

4 302

107. Am I crazy to get a mortgage? 1 1 1 1

108. How do we enable creative technicians to break free? 1 1 1 1 109. Where does humility end and weakness begin? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 110. How do we convince audiences to join us on our imaginative journeys? 1 1 1 1 111. There seems to be too much in the way between actors and audiences 1 1 1 1 1 112. Performance art / live art 1 1 1 1 1

continued

302

Table 3. continued

Devoted & Disgruntled 2 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocial solutions 113. Spaces for inter-human communication 1 1 1 114. Can sleeping be creative and can we give it a go? 1 1 1 115. Can we do something to change the Arts Council, or should we ignore it? 1 1 1 1 1 1 116. Butterfly wing actions 1 1 1 1 1 117. What is an actor? Should an actor be sacrificing? And what should he sacrifice? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 118. How to be creative using your imagination when all the time doing administration 1 1 1 119. Employment exchange 1 120. Is Opera still relevant? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4 303

121. How do you solve a problem like Maria? Are TV talent

shows a valid way to cast theatre? 1 1 1 1 1 TOTAL 16 26 63 63 21 8 29 7 24 44 9 22 58 7 10 46 62

303

III. Devoted & Disgruntled 3

Devoted & Disgruntled 3 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocial solutions 1. Song. 1 2. How do we achieve an objective critique of our work? 1 1 1 1 3. New models for regional theatre. 1 1 1 1 1 4. Does the arts sector have its own dialect and is it marketable? 1 1 1 5. Does anybody know what’s happening in Theatre overall? Is it shrinking, growing or changing? 1 1 1 1 6. Theatrical revolution. 1 1 1 1 1 7. What can we do about the post-colonial imperialism that means British theatre thinks ‘international’ only means not-in-English? 1 1 1 1 1 8. Making and creating work is exciting. Selling it is a nightmare. How can we make this possible? 1 1

4 304 9. Deaf access. 1 1 1 1 1 1 10. Climate change-what is our responsibility to this issue as art makers and communicators? 1 1 1 11. How do we celebrate more the things we do? 1 1 12. The Future of Touring 1 1 13. The Aesthetics of Casting 1 1 1 1 14. Health and Safety is a Killer!!!! 1 15. How do we create comedy on purpose when most funny things happen by accident 1 1 16. How do we create communities as solo artists? 1 17. What have you said No to 1 1 18. ACE what do we do about it? (lyn) 1 1 1 1 1 1

Table 4. Devoted & Disgruntled 3 Reports Breakdown (2008)

Continued 304

Table 4. continued

Devoted & Disgruntled 3 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocial solutions 19. How do we unite art forms to create better theatre? 1 1 1 20. Why are there no black people in this room? 1 1 1 1 1 1 21. When is a small person NOT a small person 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22. Why aren’t there more disabled people in all areas of theatre? 1 1 1 1 1 23. I am thinking of retiring. Can you convince me that theatre is worthwhile? 1 1 1 24. Queer Theatre: What is it? Do we still need it? Are the Arts Council right to cut it? 1 1 1 1 1 25. Universal theatrical entertainment: is it behind you? 1 1 26. Is it the right time for a Lab of research and development that impacts on practice and works with children and young people? 1 27. What about hidden disabilities and theatre? 1 1 1

4 305 28. DID WOMEN HAVE A RENAISSANCE? Discuss in reference to the staging of sex gender roles and Webster’s The Duchess of Malfi and Middleton and Dekker’s The Roaring Girl. (Help me with my essay) 1 1 1 29. Hierarchal training leads to Hierarchal theatre: what can we do about it? 1 1 1 30. What’s happening in independent & student film in London? Seeking partners & projects. 1 1 31. Tensions between devising and planning 1 1 1 1 32. How is fear useful in your working process? 1 1 33. How can we be more effective using art as a tool to communicate across cultures diverse political issues? 1

continued

305

Table 4. continued

Devoted & Disgruntled 3 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocial solutions 34. Who decides? What do we think of peer assessment 1 1 1 1 1 35. Edinburgh Fringe: What’s right? What’s Wrong? 1 1 1 36. Web 2.0 Theatre Too? 1 1 37. How can we be creatively entrepreneurial and diversify our income streams – without a building? 1 1 1 38. Creating for a living but only little. How can I find the help to grow and not die? 1 1 1 1 39. Can you have a relationship (when you’re an artist?) 1 1 40. How do directors co-direct? What is the best way to collaborate? 1 1 41. Is there a place for God in the theatre? 1 1 1 1 1 1 42. What are you afraid of? 1 1

4 306 43. DIRECTOR’S THEATRE (Actor’s Theatre?) -- (The) Changing

relationships between Actors, Writers and Directors 1 1 1

44. How can I play when I’m so desperate to impress? 1 1 1 45. Handy cap do you know why? 1 1 1 1

46. Pulling teeth: ‘Does anyone have any useful and inovative Audience Feedback Models – for use in scratch/work in progress performances?’ 1 1 1 1 47. Why are people so intent on nudity on the theatre? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 48. WHY AREN’T THERE ENOUGH EARLY 20’S GOING TO THE THEATRE? 1 1 1 1 1

continued

306

Table 4. continued

Devoted & Disgruntled 3 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocial solutions 49. Cutting of established theatre companies. Is it out with the old and in with the new? 1 1 1 1 50. London need politicians who love theatre? 1 1 51. Is ‘community’ such a dirty word? 1 1 52. Learning on the job – is that the best way? 1 1 1 1 53. What do Actors want from Directors? 1 1 1 54. How do I get a good producer for my show? 1 1 1 1 55. Will You Ever Respect A Juggler? 1 1 1 56. Why do we slam the door in each others’ faces? 1 1 1 1 1 57. Is poetry, poverty without the V? 1 1 1 1 58. How much of theatre is purely a left-wing pursuit (i.e. run by a left-

4 307 wing dominated establishment). 1 1 1

59. How and where is improvisation useful within a rehearsal process? 1 1 60. Who are you? Do you like your label? 1 1 61. Should we have an agenda when we create forum theatre? (see picture?) 62. Why do I feel like I’m bluffing? 1 1 63. Collaboration: do we have to get along? 1 1 1 64. How do we not force audiences into passivity or even falling asleep without embarrassing them with “audience participation”? 1 1 1 1 65. Why won’t they just say no? (producers and programmers in conversation). 1 1 1 1 1

continued

307

Table 4. continued

Devoted & Disgruntled 3 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocial solutions 66. Can Television and Theatre be partners? 1 1 67. Making and promoting work at the same time without having a nervous breakdown… 1 1 1 1 68. Are people who love theatre, theatre’s biggest problem? 1 1 1 1 1 1 69. ‘Physical theatre’ clichés: What are they and how/ whether to avoid them’ 1 1 70. AUDIENCES 1 1 1 71. Have actors and drama schools abandoned theatre?? 1 1 1 1 1 72. Is there a better way to find/educate/sustain production support for devised work? 1 1 1 1 73. Creating Outdoor Theatre 1 1 1

4 308

74. Can theatre and performance challenge the objectification of women

in society and the media? 1 1 1 1 1 75. Sex(y) onstage? 1 1 76. Why Sport, not Art? An Olympic Debate 1 1 1 1 1 77. Are we all too white and middle class? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 78. Is (or are the higher echelons of) theatre still controlled by an Oxbridge mafia? 1 1 1 1 79. can film and theatre share ideas in terms of production and distribution 1 1 1 1 80. Has modern theatre degenerated from ‘Rebel Without a Cause’ to ‘Perv Without a Purpose’? 1 1 81. Anyone fancy a chat? 1 1 1

continued

308

Table 4. continued

Devoted & Disgruntled 3 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocial solutions 82. silent masked impro 83. Committed and Contented. Are we really that disgruntled? 1 1 1 84. Northern Exposure 1 1 85. Can you have a child and be an artist? And why don’t the National Theatre have a crèche? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 86. How low can you go? Tell me your greatest failures and what was great about them 1 1 1 1 87. Props pool - could small companies share, loan, store and keep a central database 1 1 TOTAL 9 14 24 50 11 5 16 5 31 10 3 23 3 12 25 56

4 309

309

IV. Devoted & Disgruntled 4

Devoted & Disgruntled 4 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocial solutions 1. I’ve just moved to London- I want to be in theatre, I feeloverwhelmed- where do I start? 1 1 1 1 2. Why are there no schemes for mid-range practitioners? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3. Ideas for keeping warm 1 4. Uncertainty How artists/practitioners can remain working in the condition of uncertainty in professional environment? 1 1 1 1 1 1 5. Labels- a useful tool for portfolio practitioners? 1 1 1 6. Why does new opera only include classical voices? 1 1 1 1 7. If theatre is to develop, should we look inwards for a bit rather than using our audience as a measure of success? 1 1 1 1 1 1

4 310 8. Financial uncertainty: how can we now share our experience with the rest of te world (and what should we charge)? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9. Living here / theatre in another country 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10. What tools can we use to enhance the process of collaboration 1 1 1 11. Is ‘Theatre Design’ too limited a term? 1 1 1 1 12. Touring- do we still need/want to do it? 1 1 1 1 13. What makes European theatre “European” & not just theatre? 1 1 1 1 1 14. What can an education department bring to a theatre? 1 1 15. Are networks still relevant and needed? 1 1 1 16. Is interactive theatre a fad? 1 1 1 1 1 1 17. How can we collaborate with Europe to produce theatre for young people? 1 1 18. What is social enterprise, and how is it relevant to the arts? 1 1 1 1 1

Table 5. Devoted & Disgruntled 4 Reports Breakdown (2009)

continued

310

Table 5. continued

Devoted & Disgruntled 4 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocial solutions 19. How can the wisdom, power and mystery of mature women theatre makers be more VISIBLE 1 1 1 1 1 20. If theatre was outlawed, would you surrender? 1 1 1 1 1 1 21. Should we expect public funding and could we be more self- sufficient and can we ever have a truly free theatre? 1 1 1 1 1 22. “What are we trying to say?” 1 1 23. Why should the English National Opera get 18.5 million from the Arts Council when I can’t get five grand? 1 1 1 1 1 24. Youth Theatre: why is it different? Is it? 1 1 1 1 25. How do you cross art form designers meet collaborators (without using Facebook/Myspace shite) 1 1 1

4 311 26. Is there a supportive environment in the theatre for someone entering the industry late in their life? Ie- people can be intimidating. 1 1 1 27. Does theatre need to be responsible to anyone or anything? 1 1 1 28. How can theatre dodge the credit crunch bullets? 1 1 1 1 1 29. I want to make theatre. I don’t want to have a nervous breakdown. Can you help? 1 1 1 1 1 1 30. Monkey tennis - how can we make the work we want, rather than what we think someone else wants? 1 1 1 1 1 1 31. Performance poetry 1 1 1 32. Why do old dogs need new tricks to be noticed? 1 1 1 1 33. Why do I only want to think about Gaza and how does that fit in today? 1 1

continued

311

Table 5. continued

Devoted and Disgruntled 4 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocial solutions 34. How do we create a world where more people want to go to the theatre. 1 1 1 1 35. What does devotion feel like? Does it help us when we’re disgruntled? 1 1 1 1 1 36. Who wants to take an adorable queer performer out for a drink? 1 1 1 37. Open play- a planning session 1 1 38. To risk or not to risk 1 1 1 1 1 39. How do we integrate community theatre into more mainstream theatre? Should we? 1 1 1 1 1 40. How do I make important/ validate being an artist/ theatre practitioner while being a mother/breadwinner + life organiser 1 1 1 1 1 1 41. Does London need another fringe theatre? 1 1 4 312 42. “” A session in suspense, could D+D perhaps gather around a

question not asked? 1 1

43. Why is Burlesque so boringly unpolitical? 1 1 1 1 1 44. Characters who don’t believe! What can, does, and should theatre have to say about religion? 1 1 45. Am I too old to change my mind? 1 1 1 1 46. Customers or audience? How do we reclaim creative language? 1 1 1 1 1 47. Collaborators and control freaks- can we work together? 1 1 48. What is music theatre? 1 1 1

49. How do we use BSL for its aesthetic rather than just for its’ access? 1 1 1 1 1 1 50. Edinburgh Fringe Festival, a risk assessment 1 1 1 1 1

continued

312

Table 5. continued

Devoted & Disgruntled 4 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocial solutions 51. Feeling like a fraud: can you get on in theatre if you’re no good a schmoozing? 1 1 1 1 1 52. Factory Farming: making use of London’s vacant spaces during the recession 1 1 1 53. Original music in theatre 1 1 1 54. How to make theatre in unlicensed venues? 1 1 55. Who should we invite to D+D5? 1 1 1 1 1 56. What is an actor? 1 1 1 1 57. Lets make a brilliant piece of imaginary theatre now 1 1 1 1 58. Can a tug-of-war be theatre? Or when does art become not-art? 1 1 59. I suspect we can definitely learn something from the music industry.

4 313 I’m not sure what those things are… 1 1 60. How can we create more politically engaged British Theatre? 1 1 1 1 1 61. What is the most exciting theatre happening now? (what should I see?) 1 1 1 62. New models for doing it 1 1 1 1 1 1 63. Who wants to play in 2009? 1 1 1 64. Theatre & ecology/feral theatre 65. Devising- is there a glass ceiling? 1 1 1 1 66. Elder-younger- can we talk to each other? 1 1 1 1 67. Delight 1 68. How can performer/writer/directors become better producers and administrators? 1 1 1 1 1

continued

313

Table 5. continued

Devoted & Disgruntled 4 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocial solutions 69. Journals 1 1 1 70. My boyfriend wants to put on an opera in an alternative way- he needs help- any suggestions? 1 71. Pot noodle- the musical 1 1 1 1 72. How can we market theatre in new ways? 1 1 1 1 1 73. Ideas for a scratch night for an interactive theatre 1 1 1 74. Why isn’t the NT touring to old people’s homes? 1 1 1 1 1 1 75. What platforms are there for work that includes actors and physical circus performers outside the corporate zone? 1 1 1 1 76. How dull is the London fringe? 1 1 1 1 77. How can theatre be used in conflict resolution? 1 1 1

4 314 78. Isn’t funding boring? Where are the creative entrepreneurs in

theatre? Can we make a sustainable business? 1 1 1 1 1 79. A mentoring scheme for deaf and disabled producers 1 1 80. Déjà vu whilst watching plays 1 1 1 1 1 81. Dear Andy Burnham 1 1 1 1 1 82. What forums are there for people who produce music for theatre? 1 1 83. Time planning 1 1 84. Anyone interested in cowboys? 1 85. In the age of cross-multi-slash-intertextual media, is theatre short- changing itself? 1 1 1 86. ‘60s spirit in contemporary theatre 1 1

continued

314

Table 5. continued

Devoted & Disgruntled 4 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocial solutions 87. What can theatre companies do to help artists? (National Theatre Wales) 1 1 88. Integrated casting 1 1 1 1 1 1 89. It was never illegal for women to act. Does this knowledge make a difference? 1 1 1 90. How can we use the Power of Now more consciously in our performance practice? 1 1 1 1 1 91. Why is verbatim theatre so often lacking theatricality? 1 1 92. How can we make better theatre? 1 1 93. How important is “who you know”/nepotism in creating successful theatre, and do we care? 1 1 1 1 1

4 315 94. What makes a region attractive to theatre makers either to be based

in or to be toured to? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

95. Where can we (women and men) get some of the arrogance/chutzpah/youthful pushiness of young men? 1 1 1 1 1 96. Do agents take away your agency? 1 1 1 1 1 97. Fun 1 TOTAL 6 23 39 54 11 6 18 2 12 37 8 11 31 2 22 24 69

315

V. Devoted & Disgruntled 5

Devoted & Disgruntled 5 issue list academicaudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocialsolutions 1. Collaborating with members of the public 1 1 1 2. How do I explain the value of what I do to my Grandad and other people? 1 1 1 1 3. Having a sing 1 1 1 1 4. What does theatre have to do with video games? 1 1 1 5. How do we keep theatre directors creative? 1 1 1 6. Is it more fun to make theatre than to watch it? 1 1 1 1 7. How can men contribute to feminist theatre? 1 1 1 1 1 8. Difficult times ahead? 1 1 1 1 1 1 9. Theatre, film, television, digital media, (radio!): what do we have

4 316 to learn from eachother – Do we want to? 1 1 1

10. Politics and content in outdoor theatre 1 1 1

11. What is culturally diverse about theatre? 1 1 1 12. Why are so few creative jobs ever publicly advertised? 1 1 1 13. Free mask workshop 1 1 1 1 14. Response ability 1 1 15. Does experimentation depend on access to technology? 1 16. Is it a problem that, recently, I feel that I do not want to work with, perform for, or even talk to straight people? If yes, are there solutions? 1 1 1 1 17. Stories and learning 1 18. Staging a last tango in paris 1 1 19. Why are only 17% of plays produced in the UK by women? 1 1 1 1

Table 6. Devoted & Disgruntled 5 Reports Breakdown (2010)

continued

316

Table 6. continued

Devoted & Disgruntled 5 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocialsolutions 20. Where do all good theatre sets go to die 1 1 1 21. Outdoor theatre in the winter 1 1 1 1 22. Hw can we use web technologies to help generate communities that love theatre? 1 1 1 1 1 23. What is the role of science in theatre? 1 24. How do we make touring pay? 1 1 1 1 1 25. Running a company: where are our support networks? 1 1 1 1 26. What are directors for? 1 1 27. What BIG things do SMALL groups of people do best? 1 1 1 1 28. Playwrights: a dying species? 1 1 1 1 29. Solo show sharing 1 1 1 30. Would you like to work with me? 1 1 1

4 317

31. How do you go about communicating “NON-SENSE” ideas to

people who would likely not know what you mean? 1 32. How can we move beyond novelty in the use of pervasive media technology in theatre 1 1 1 1 33. Can you design without some idea of the budget? 1 1 1 1 1 34. Circus theatre, an oxymoron? 1 1 35. Queer theatre 1 1 1 36. How does deaf and disabled theatre attract a mainstream audience? 1 1 1 1 1 37. Are there any anarchists in thetare? 1 38. Babies in theatre 1 1

continued

317

Table 6. continued

Devoted & Disgruntled 5 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocialsolutions 39. Things I found in my pockets and notebook 1 40. How to get a job in an hour and a half 1 1 1 1 1 41. I’d rather be down the pub 1 1 1 1 1 42. Canada in theatre or vice-versa 1 43. Gate-keepers or obstructions to involvement 1 1 1 1 44. To let: one state secondary school. What would you do? 1 1 45. Writing theatre about writing plays. Playful writing. 1 46. Is theatre political 1 1 1 1 47. “if I’m a jack of all trades, why do people think I’m a master of none? 1 1 1 1 1 1 48. Stage management – what’s the point? 1 1 49. We devised, but I directed? 1 1 1 1

4 318

50. Bunch of purves? – criticism 1 1 1 1 1

51. How does the phrase “Britain’s finest!” grab you? 1 1 1 52. International touring – looking for some good advice 1 1 1 53. National Theatre. Too much public money? 1 1 1 54. Live music in theatre 1 1

55. When are we going to stop scratching and make a proper show? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 56. How is Edinburgh no impossible? 1 1 57. Is art just a way of filling out time or can it change the world? 1 1 1 1 58. What one idea from outside theatre has most changed your practice inside theatre? 1 1 1 1

continued

318

Table 6. continued

Devoted & Disgruntled 5 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocialsolutions 59. ACE: new vision and goals. Let’s make them better? 1 1 1 1 1 60. Does theatre still have a social and moral responsibility? 1 1 1 1 61. Dreamtime: what do you want to create? 1 1 1 1 62. Is street theatre a pile of rubbish? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 63. Producers 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 64. London Fringe, Edinburgh Fringe, too much fringe? 1 1 1 1 65. Empty theatre spaces after the recession. What inspires you: we have the space. (not finished - participant list only) 66. How can we create permanent ensembles and survive? 1 1 1 1 1 1 67. Why are playwrights discouraged from acting in or directing their own plays? 1 1 1

4 319

68. How might we think about desire in relation to theatre? 1 1 1

69. Where audience are responsible for creating their own performance – what is the role of the artist? 1 1 1 1 70. Open space buildings 1 1 71. Access – how do we get better? 1 1 1 1 72. Lost and found: exploring experiences of loss on stage 1 1 1 73. Are we all saying the same thing? 1 1 74. One-on-one theatre: who’s in charge here? 1 1 1 1 75. Can the D&D networking site support and work better? 1 1 1 1 1 76. Blame the audience 1 1 1 1 1 77. The sectors: commercial vs. subsidized 1 1

continued

319

Table 6. continued

Devoted & Disgruntled 5 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocialsolutions 78. Intergenerational work: how do we make and produce? 1 1 1 79. Youth theatre – how to get them involved? 1 1 80. Ethnic theatre? 1 1 1 1 1 1 81. Artists and freelance producers – How to being and build a relationship that works. 1 1 1 1 1 82. Should actors (and other artists) be running companies and buildings? 1 1 1 83. What do actors really need to learn? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 84. I’m not from here – where do I fit? 1 1 1 1 1 85. Process vs. outcome 1 1 1 1 86. New musical theatre 1 1 87. Playwright as scientist 1 1 1 1

4 320 88. Can you still be an artist and be in musical theatre 1 1 1 1 89. What types of women are we not seeing on stage 90. Open space – good way to engage with disability? 1 1 1 91. Political correctness – can it be too much? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 92. A show about antisocial behavior and claustrophobia 1 1 1 93. Which job should I do? 1 1 1 1 1 94. Transition towns and theatre 1 1 1 95. What has D&D done for you? 1 1 1 96. A confessional 1 97. Walking and listening in the city (soundwalk)? 1 1 1 98. Session without words but full of passion for theatre 1 99. Mythology 100. Where are today’s theatre visions for a better tomorrow? 1 1 1 1 TOTAL 6 11 31 58 8 6 17 5 13 23 5 9 37 2 13 28 73

320

VI. Devoted & Disgruntled 6

Devoted & Disgruntled 6 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocial solutions 1. Wildflowers real and metaphorical pioneers? 1 2. How can you be a parent of young children and a theatre maker? 1 1 1 1 3. Branding: Help Me! 1 1 1 1 4. Where the hell do we begin? The graduate dream 1 1 1 1 1 1 5. How to get in the industry as a foreign actor 1 1 6. How do we keep theatres and arts centres in Darlington and Barnet open… 1 1 1 1 1 7. Dr theatre: theatre arts and the healing arts: Possibilities and stuff to discuss 1 1 1 1 1 8. Singing off key: the beauty of failure 1 1 1

4 321 9. Who will study the arts at school now that the English Baccalreureate is success 1 1 1 1 10. Motley Theatre Design Course is closing down: what are we going to do about it? 1 1 1 1 1 1 11. Big plays. Big casts. Where have they gone? 1 1 1 1 12. Practical composition 1 1 1 13. How can we make the process of tour-booking better for artists and companies? 1 1 1 1 1 14. I’m a producer. Do you have something you want me to produce? 1 1 1 1 15. International crisis/ the whitest room 1 1 1 1 1 16. Making work that is taboo, a little bit naughty 1 1 1 1 1

Table 7. Devoted & Disgruntled 6 Reports Breakdown (2011)

continued

321

Table 7. continued

Devoted & Disgruntled 6 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocial solutions 17. I have a big idea but I don’t feel “big” enough to make it happen… 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18. Training directors. Is it possible? 1 1 1 1 19. How can theatre support artists without dictating to them? 1 1 1 1 20. How screwed are we? Please can someone come and explain the funding cuts? 1 1 1 1 1 21. We all have resources – how can we share them? A resource sharing network 1 1 1 1 1 22. Surfing or opera? 1 1 1 23. Theatre and fashion: what can we learn from each other? 1 1 1 1 24. Can we still find new ways to communicate on stage? 1

4 322 25. Spaces + places + funding in the East Midlands and the

North 1 1 1 1 1

26. How do I overcome the patriarchal blocks to my development/nurture/journey as an artist 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 27. Performing instructions 1 1 28. “DEATH, …” playing dying… How! Please help. What does death/facing your own death mean to you? 1 1 1 29. Remaking and restaging. How to make it as big an adventure the second time around? 1 1 30. How are you? 1 1 31. Cut the arts, save the day centre. How do you defend yourself against this argument 1 1 1 1 1

continued

322

Table 7. continued

Devoted & Disgruntled 6 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocial solutions 32. Ok, lets rant, really rant, rant til we’re blue in the face, red in the gills ‘cos that’s where our creativity o’erspills 1 1 1 33. How can I have an ensemble and make it work over a long period? 1 1 1 1 34. Crowd funding is here. Resistance is futile. 1 1 1 1 1 35. Does theatre need age badges? 1 1 1 1 36. Theatre and games 1 1 1 1 37. Can telly help, or would it balls things up even more? 1 1 1 1 1 38. What is theatre going to do about closing libraries? 1 1 1 1 1 39. Ritual in theatre: can theatre learn anything from religion? 1 1 1 1 40. Such tweet sorrow – how can we stop it from ever

4 323 happening again? (or, what can we learn from it) 1 1 1 1 1

41. Theatre and astrology 1 1

42. A theatre with glass walls: how can we let the world in? 1 1 1 43. Who is going to cut the umbilical cord? 1 1 1 1 1 44. “I am young, theatre is not cool enough to go to.” How can we inspire young popele to see theatre as cool? 1 1 1 45. Form filling: have you had enough? 1 1 46. We reallya re all fucked or the death of thinking 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 47. How do we best nurture and encourage the next generation(s)* of playwrights? 1 1

continued

323

Table 7. continued

Devoted & Disgruntled 6 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocial solutions 48. What do I do with this theatre company I have lying about from September to July? (what options do new theatre companies have outside of the Fringe?) 1 1 1 49. Site-specific theatre and theatre in non-standard spaces – practicalities 1 1 1 1 1 50. Artist and organizer over 60 – how does it work 1 1 1 1 51. Is blocking the equivalent of match-fixing? Do we root it out? How? 1 1 1 1 1 52. ‘how do you solve a problem like Peterborough;” Ode to Peterborough: Not in the South, not in the North, Not in the East, not in the West. Not in the fucking Midliands 1 1 1 53. How do small organizations get big organizations to play with

4 324

them? 1 1 1 1 1 1

54. Lullaby for our dark time 1 1 1 55. Touring to Bosnia and the Balkans 1 1 56. Is there anyone else here from Cardiff? 1 1 1 57. IT’S NOT ALL CHEESE – why do people look down on musical theatre? 1 1 1 1 1 1 58. What does punk theatre look like now? 1 1 59. How do we reclaim a space in society for art for its own sake? 1 1 1 1 60. Is it fair to ask people to work for free? 1 1 1 1 61. Hackney Empire – not just for pantos? 1 1 1 62. Marrying an artist: HOW DO YOU SURVIVE? 1 1 1

continued

324

Table 7. continued

Devoted & Disgruntled 6 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocial solutions

63. How can we support the next generation of theatre makers? 1 1 64. What is your elephant in the room? & “We’re not talking about what really matters.” Well, come on then. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

65. Are correspondence courses that promise to help you become a successful writer any good or are they a waste of time? 1 1 66. Theatre and outer space 1 1 1 67. Theatre in the public sphere: are we making a good account and could we do more? 1 1 1 1 68. Calling all the dreamers 1 1 1 69. The burning man festival: immersive theatre for 50,000 people? 1

4 325 70. Audience as agent – what ca theatre learn from video

games? 1 1 1

71. I have the projects – as a young producer, how do I make them happen? 1 1 1 1 1 72. ‘Our ideas are in everyone’s heads’: performance and destroying capitalism 1 1 1 73. Do you miss your pet? Living or alive? Would you like to talk to me about it? 1 1 1 1 74. I’m often working alone – what about peer review or peer mentoring? 1 1 75. My friend Sally is really fit and brilliant. She would like a boyfriend. 1 1 76. Archives and archivists: dust and paper 1 1 1

continued

325

Table 7. continued

Devoted & Disgruntled 6 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocial solutions 77. Does theatre have a role in climate change awareness? 1 1 1 1 1 1 78. Science and art 1 79. Change: react or create? What do we want to make? 1 1 1 1 80. Theatre, therapies and religion: can there be a dialogue (IF so, how and where?) 1 1 1 81. The kids are alright – don’t dismiss youth theatre as bad theatre 1 1 1 1 1 82. What can we sell apart from tickets? 1 1 1 83. How best to integrate and delineate the roles of writer and director 1 1 84. Isn’t the time ripe for Good comedy? 1 1

4 326 85. Theatre companies can sometimes feel as though they exist

in a vacuum, how can we encourage them to work with one

another to challenge/build upon their practice? 1 1 1 86. Pan B: you have just lost funding. What next? 1 1 1 1 87. How creative can access get in theatre 1 1 1 88. Artist led performance platforms: what can they be? 1 1 1 89. Tea and tax returns 1 1 90. Can you help me make a movement choir? 1 1 1 91. How can theatre make the world a better place? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 92. D&D National Roadshow 2012 and WOSonOS (World Open Space on Open Space) 1 1 1 1 1

continued

326

Table 7. continued

Devoted & Disgruntled 6 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocial solutions 93. Not just talking about a revolution: showing solidarity with Egypt and Tunisia and artistic responses 1 1 1 94. DO IT WITH STRANGERS! (or, I’ve always depended on the kindness of strangers) 1 1 1 1 95. I want to get on the international touring circuit. Help! 1 1 1 96. If I find spectacle dull, have I worked in theatre too long? (ian) 1 1 1 97. We are a venue! We would like to help support and develop artists. What is it that artists want/need? 1 1 1 1 98. Deaf theatre – integration and moving forward in the artistic sector 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 99. How can theatre as a place be more real than the lives we

4 327 find ourselves living? 1 1

100. How to survive success 1

101. Unassigned number 102. What can we do with Forum Theatre? 1 1 103. Tell me something I don’t know 1 1 104. Sit com 1 1 1 105. Brainstorm – what does an un-capitalist mode of performance look like? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 106. Actors and writers collaborating live; anyone interested in helping me make it happen 1 1 1 107. Making theatre happen in gig/club environments – any ideas? 1 1 1

continued

327

Table 7. continued

Devoted & Disgruntled 6 issue list academicAudiencebusinesscomplaintseducationgenderindustryinitiativesmetaphysicsmoneynon-theatreperformingquotable?race selfishsocial solutions 108. NON STUDENT ACTORS UNITE! How can a dram school reject find work as a performer? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 109. Theatre for development 1 1 1 1 110. HOW DO WE MAKE THEATRE CROSS BORDERS OF LANGUAGE AND COUNTRY? 1 1 1 1 1 TOTAL 9 10 35 49 18 5 13 3 18 42 10 10 40 2 26 35 90

4 328

328

Appendix D: Photographs from Devoted & Disgruntled

In the following I provide a number of photographs taken at assorted Devoted &

Disgruntled conferences I have attended. I am also including some photographs of events

I did not attend, partly to show contrast between past and current practices, but also because such documentation of the first few years of conferences is important to this study and because these materials are increasingly difficult to find having never been purposefully archived. While many pictures surface directly after a Devoted &

Disgruntled event, many of the places those images are hosted expire and the evidence of these events erodes. Improbable themselves did not document the early conferences, as they saw no need, initially believing these conferences were of a moment. The focus was on those attending, not about posterity or creating an archive. Most of the pictures presented here attempt to give a glimpse of the size and energy of these devised conferences and how their participant created content is generated and presented. I also include links to time-lapse videos of Devoted & Disgruntled 7 and 8 made by my friend and Improbable associate, Robert Wells. These time-lapse videos show a view of the entire York Hall from the beginning of the conferences through to the end, and provide a glimpse of how the actual conference comes together and how it is run. These videos compress several days of the conferences into a few minutes, but provide clear details of the flow of people and events. If you have never been to an Open Space event, these

329 videos will definitely give insight into exactly what is happening and how. The time- lapse videos of Devoted & Disgruntled, taken and uploaded by Robert Wells, are located on his YouTube channel (user: weaselspoon):

Figure 30. http://www.youtube.com/user/weaselspoon/videos

330

I. Devoted & Disgruntled – New York City

Figure 31. Devoted & Disgruntled NYC Logo.

The first Devoted & Disgruntled conference I attended was in New York City in

January of 2010. The conference was sponsored by Under The Radar, an annual theatre festival that spotlights international artists, and hosted by Improbable. This was a great opportunity for Improbable who were doing increasing amounts of work in the United

States – Phelim McDermott and Julian Crouch were opening The Addams Family musical at Broadway at the Lunt-Fontanne Theatre while putting together the New York City

Devoted & Disgruntled. It was hoped by many in attendance that the New York Devoted

& Disgruntled conference would become an annual event. The hope was that the New

331

York City community would take control of the event; however, a second large scale gathering has not happened, though smaller ones have taken place.

Figure 32. Devoted & Disgruntled NYC Graffiti

Photo © rashbre 2010 via Flickr, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0

Unported.

332

Figure 33. Devoted & Disgruntled NYC Graffiti

Photo © rashbre 2010 via Flickr, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0

Unported.

333

Figure 34. Participants at Devoted & Disgruntled NYC

Photo © Ian Bradford Ngongotaha Pugh 2010 - Phelim McDermott and actors Alan Cox and his father Brian Cox giving advice and support to a disgruntled young New York

City actress who had called the following session:

334

Figure 35. “Passion, or lack of”

This session started off with just me and the convener who was feeling out of place in the theater community in New York despite having had a modicum of success. Over the course of the next hour the session grew slowly until ending up with nearly thirty people giving recommendations to the young actress. Photo © Ian Bradford Ngongotaha Pugh

2010.

335

II. Devoted & Disgruntled 3

Devoted & Disgruntled had outgrown the Battersea Arts Centre after the secod

Devoted & Disgruntled conference and moved to a famous London Boxing venue, York

Hall. The annual conference has been hosted at York Hall ever since.

Figure 36. Devoted & Disgruntled 3, York Hall, Bethnal Green, London

Photo © Alex Eisenberg 2008 via Flickr, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0

Unported.

336

Figure 37. Time/Space Matrix - Devoted & Disgruntled 3

The “Space” locations for this year were all Shakespeare characters. Photo © Alex

Eisenberg 2008 via Flickr, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported.

337

Figure 38. "Whoever Comes Are the Right People"

Photo © Alex Eisenberg 2008 via Flickr, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0

Unported.

338

Figure 39. Typing up a session report - Devoted & Disgruntled 3

The session convener creating a session report in the Newsroom, surrounded by notes taken on the large flip pads supplied for each session space. None of these original notes are saved… Photo © Alex Eisenberg 2008 via Flickr, Creative Commons Attribution-

Share Alike 3.0 Unported.

339

III. Devoted & Disgruntled 4

Figure 40. Newsroom view of Devoted & Disgruntled 4

Photo © Robert Wells 2009.

340

Figure 41. Devoted & Disgruntled temporary tattoos - Devoted & Disgruntled 4

These were passed out with registration materials. Photo © Robert Wells 2009.

341

Figure 42. A view down the Newsroom - Devoted & Disgruntled 4

Photo © Robert Wells 2009. 342

Figure 43. Volunteers at registration - Devoted & Disgruntled 4

Photo © Robert Wells 2009.

343

Figure 44. Sessions in progress - Devoted & Disgruntled 4.

Photo © Robert Wells 2009.

344

Figure 45. Marketplace - Devoted & Disgruntled 4

Several of the sessions in this marketplace are discussed in detail in this document. Photo

345

IV. Devoted & Disgruntled 5

Devoted & Disgruntled 5 was the first annual London conference I attended,

February 2010. Unfortunately due to a catastrophic failure in my digital camera, most of my pictures form this event were destroyed. I worked as a volunteer for this conference having just experienced the New York Devoted & Disgruntled a few weeks earlier as a participant. All pictures here were provided by Robert Wells.

346

Figure 46. Volunteer taping a "space" location name in place – Devoted & Disgruntled 5

347

This year’s space names were theatrical objects – in this instance “Skull” refers to

Shakespeare’s Yorik. Other place names this year included: Codpiece, Wig, Gel,

Curtains, and Footlights. Photo © Robert Wells 2010.

Figure 47. Bumble Bees Poster - Devoted & Disgruntled 5

Despite my poor drawing skills they set me to creating various butterfly and bumble bee posters for the hall. Somehow my bees ended up with stingers on both ends… Photo ©

Robert Wells 2010.

348

Figure 48. Butteryfly and Bumble Bee - Devoted & Disgruntled 5

Photo © Robert Wells 2010

349

V. Devoted & Disgruntled 6

Figure 49. Devoted & Disgruntled 6 Singing in the Dark Times: What Are We Going To

Do About Theatre and the Performing Arts now?

Also Pictured are a full set of posters:

“Whoever Comes Are the Right People”

“Whatever Happens Is the Only Thing that Could Have”

“Whenever It Starts Is the Right Time”

“When It’s Over It’s Over” 350

“The Law of Two Feet” and “The Law of Mobility”

Bumble Bee, Butterfly, and the admonition, “Be Prepared to Be Surprised”

Photo © Paul Whitlock 2011.

351

Figure 50. Breaking News Poster – Devoted & Disgruntled 6

“Breaking News” is where all the session reports are posted after they have been typed up and printed. This allows participants to read about sessions they were unable to attend and to add comments to those reports and engage those conversations. Photo © Ian

Bradford Ngongotaha Pugh 2011.

352

Figure 51. “Lullaby For the dark Tymes” - Devoted & Disgruntled 6

353

This year the place locations were famous innovators in Theatre. This session took place at Gordon “Craig.” Photo © Ian Bradford Ngongotaha Pugh 2011.

Figure 52. Tweet Here - Devoted & Disgruntled 6

A computer with internet access was included this year, dedicated to Twitter. Participants could log in to their Twitter accounts and share their experiences, even without a smartphone. Photo © Ian Bradford Ngongotaha Pugh 2011.

354

VII. Devoted & Disgruntled 7

Figure 53. Devoted & Disgruntled 7: Whate are We Going To Do About Theatre & The

Performing Arts?

Photo © Ian Bradford Ngongotaha Pugh 2012.

355

Figure 54. Phelim McDermott creating the "Space/Time Matrix" - Devoted &

Disgruntled 7

Photo © Ian Bradford Ngongotaha Pugh 2012.

356

Figure 55. Spaces Map - Devoted & Disgruntled 7

The map of the hall locating the various session locations. This year’s location theme consisted of fictional locations. Photo © Ian Bradford Ngongotaha Pugh 2012.

357

Figure 56. Lemon Jousting - Devoted & Disgruntled 7

A break from serious discussions. Lemon jousting is played with each participant having two wooden kitchen spoons. On one spoon the player balance a lemon. With the other wooden spoon the player tries to knock other player’s lemons to the ground. Photo © Ian

Bradford Ngongotaha Pugh 2012.

358

Figure 57. A young participant watches a session

A small child watches the wrestling session. Children are encouraged to integrate into the day’s activities and a crèche is provided to participants in the same hall with the rest of the conference. Photo © Ian Bradford Ngongotaha Pugh 2012.

359

VIII. Devoted & Disgruntled 8

360

Figure 58. Phelim McDermott creating the Devoted & Disgruntled 8 "Space/Time

Matrix" 361

This year the conference’s theme has been replaced by a more generic banner for

Devoted & Disgruntled (on stage) that came into use following a “Devoted &

Disgruntled Roadshow,” where the company toured the conference to twenty locations around the U.K. Photo © Ian Bradford Ngongotaha Pugh 2013.

362

Figure 59. Space Flags - Devoted & Disgruntled 8

This year locations were no longer taped to the floor, but instead affixed to bamboo poles and attached to chairs. The laminated flags feature original art by Phelim McDermott.

These flags are easier for people to see and thus locate a given session. They were also made it easier to setup during the “Roadshow” and at the same time being a bit more environmentally friendly. Photo © Ian Bradford Ngongotaha Pugh 2013.

363

Figure 60. Robert Wells

With the conference taking place in the middle of winter, the large hall needs to be heated. A large number of space heaters are hired for the occasion, and for safety purposes area around each heater is taped off. As a playful joke, this photo was tweeted

364 to the Devoted & Disgruntled 8 group (#DandD8) becoming a part of the online discourse. Photo © Ian Bradford Ngongotaha Pugh 2013.

Figure 61. Day Three Opening Circle - Devoted & Disgruntled 8

The microphone is passed around the group allowing everyone a chance to comment on anything they find pertinent. Following this, the final, printed reports are distributed to the participants and after an hour to look them over another round of sessions are called with the goal to take some kind of direct action to solve a problem or create projects and collaborations. Photo © Ian Bradford Ngongotaha Pugh 2013. 365

Figure 62. Day 2 Sessions in the Marketplace – Devoted & Disgruntled 8

Photo © Ian Bradford Ngongotaha Pugh 2013.

366

Figure 63. Breaking News - Devoted & Disgruntled 8

A look down the line of created session reports. By the end of the conference the breaking news can stretch around half the hall’s perimeter. Photo © Ian Bradford

Ngongotaha Pugh 2013.

367

IX. Devoted & Disgruntled Roadshow

Several years in the planning, in 2012 Improbable took the Devoted &

DIsgurntled conferneces on the road. The event was hosted in twenty differenct places through the United Kingdon, engaging with paractitioners and their communities directly.

It is likely that additional “roadshows” will happen and will encompass new communities.

Figure 64. Locations of Devoted & Disgruntled Road Show 2012 conferences 368

Image of the interactive Devoted & Disgruntled map available at devotedanddisgruntled.com

Figure 65. Devoted & Disgruntled Road Show 2012 stats

(from the new, dedicated Devoted & Disgruntled website – devotedanddisgruntled.com)

369

Appendix E: Cited Sessions

All session reports cited in this dissertation are included here in their entirety. The first four years of Devoted & Disgruntled reports are reproduced form the printed final reports using the original computer files created by Improbable. The next three years (5-

7) are taken from the Devoted & Disgruntled blog and give an example of how

Improbable is trying to shift the discussions to a larger audience outside the conference hall. Starting with the Devoted & Disgruntled Road Show Improbable unveiled a new dedicated web portal for all things Devoted & Disgruntled (devotedanddisgruntled.com) which will likely have longer life than the third party webhosting solutions the company has used to host some Devoted & Disgruntled materials (Proboards and Google’s

Blogger), but even it will not stand indefinitely. While many people consider content placed online to be eternal, in reality it is unlikely that these assorted internet resources will remain available once Improbable ceases, or even if they change priorities and projects, and much of this information will become increasingly fragmented.

370

I. Cited Sessions: Devoted & Disgruntled 1

371

Devoted and Disgruntled

Issue number: 5

Issue: “straight” theatre & “made/devised” theatre – creating a conversation about and between

Convener(s): Stella Duffy

Participants: Stella Duffy, Annie Lloyd, Moira Buffini, Mark Wakely, lily Pendes, Trisha Lee, Kirsty Lothian, Susannah Clapp, Michael Spencer, Jeff Teare, Kathy Jayce, Chloe Lomford, Lewis Barfoot, Anthony Bliss, Paula Jones, Kirstie Davis, Lucinda Loxon, Laura Cubitt, Tassos Stevens, Chris Wright, Lynn Forkes, Lian Bell, Robert Bathurst, Sara Jane Bailes, Carrie Thomas, Richard, Amelia Bird, Jim Pope

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

We would like a discussion between ‘straight’ and ‘devised’ theatre. We are missing chances and liaisons and benefits by not talking to each other enough. We don’t like those terms. “Straight’ theatre usually means theatre in which practitioners have assigned roles. Devised theatre usually means those roles aren’t so set. We think there is defensiveness and arrogance on both ‘sides’. We wish there weren’t sides. We would like both ‘sides’ to be accorded the same respect/funding.

We realised there were subsets of this discussion and broke into four groups : education, funding, language, and a more amorphous concept of audience/performer-performance.

These groups reported : Education : We need to start right at the beginning, in primary schools, so that the earliest audiences learn that theatre can be play and not just learning, that it need not be curriculum-based, and that there are various roles within the making of theatre from the beginning. We, as practitioners – and audiences – need to understand what different jobs/roles there are. Less mainstream curriculums would be very useful. We need to re-educate established theatre figures in other less traditional models. The writer needs to take more responsibility for integrating themselves in the process of making work. 372

Get people (children) to ‘make’ plays before they even starting reading ‘plays’

Funding : Could we have a voluntarily paid/openly declared tax, somewhere between 1- 1.5% of income of any production that is paid into a big pot, redistributed to new work, the amount to be based on the necessities of that work’s creative process. (from the dead writers’ levy idea) And unsold tickets to be given free to a theatre practitioner, on the agreement that that practitioner will write and publish a review of that show. Reclaim the commercial – start calling panto (etc) made or devised. Funded companies/buildings, doing more traditional work, should have the responsibility to take on a made/devised-work company. All buildings should take on a company/practitioner/artist-in-residence that does what they usually don’t. (eg. Donmar supports a made work company, BAC take on a writer in residence …)

Language : The language we currently use is problematic. Devised/made/created/free/new and mainstream/old/traditional and new writing/old writing etc etc We need a new language that will (eventually, no doubt slowly) filter through – we suggest : Fluid and Specific. People making work where the roles are Fluid, and people making work where the roles are Specific. With an awareness that even within those groups, the roles may change. These terms, as with all the ones we currently use, still need to find a way to be understood by the general public – the audience.

Performers and Audience : The play (show/end product) is the thing. Whatever version of theatre we come from, as an audience we are all the same. The audience don’t care how we make it. What they care about is that it works for them.

On the whole we feel positive, that change does and has happened, and that we can make it better. With developments in education, funding, language and as practitioners and audience.

373

Devoted and Disgruntled

Issue number:6

Issue: Are we European? Can we learn anything from the rest of Europe or elsewhere?

Convener(s):Charlotte Cunningham

Participants: Judith Knight, Phil Errols, Richard Hayhow, Mark Courtle, Patrick O’Kane, Jo Beedell, Helen Ainsworth, Moutse Gili, Shon Dale-Jones, Lisa Hammond, Nathan Curry, Chloe Smith, Ruth Holdsworth, Martin Sharp

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations: Notes taken during discussion It is culturally endemic in Europe that there is more intellectual endeavour. Eg: in France it is enshrined in the culture (politicians like to be seen with artists and philosophers rather than footballers and celebrities) There was an ongoing debate about the role of history in the differences and the fact that many European countries have had revolutions while England has stayed with its hierarchies. Also the ISLAND ISSUE in relationship to the rest of Europe. (Great anecdote about a survey in Portsmouth with 4 yr olds where their greatest fears were – strange men, something else and then THE FRENCH.)

The English still feel that their theatre is the best in the world. Theatre in the UK is about Showbusiness. Unfortunately we are more aligned to America. There is a saturation of work here! The British are literal people – wit rather than wisdom. They like to put things in boxes eg: small scale , middle scale etc. There is a Victorian model for the structure of our theatre industry. Loads of independent companies here working without relationships with venues or other companies. Autocratic theatre practitioners.Things start here but flourish elsewhere. Problems with trustees who do not understand the work or the audiences but have a huge amount of power. The country is London centric and that causes problems. The English are suspicious of mystery and complexity.

Out of London – where is the international work? Answer – the costs of bringing them over are prohibitive and they don’t necessarily get audiences

In Europe there is a culture of state theatres around the country ( good and bad) there are less middle men in Europe than here. More Co-productions and collaborations. Theatre tickets are cheaper in Europe. There is less consideration of theatre as a form in other countries and therefore it is less mediated – the audience has the power to walk out which makes the 374 companies more aware of what their audiences think. Conversely in Britain audiences can feel that they don’t know enough and are worried about what they do or don’t understand. We here encourage and educate our audiences not to interact. A discussion about whether work is seen as interesting because it comes from abroad - both ways ie we have a better experience in Europe or elsewhere but do the companies there have similar problems. Answer – less so. There are more audiences abroad and they book tickets for whole seasons – lots of anecdotes about 98% audiences for all work and full festivals etc Britain is obsessed with issue based work / british companies have got something to say Rehearsal periods in Europe are allowed to be much longer eg: forced Entertainment have to go to Germany to make work and then bring it back because they need at least 8 weeks.

375

Devoted and Disgruntled

Issue number: 7

Issue: CRISIS IN LONDON VENUES

Convener(s): Robert Pacitti

Participants: jeni draper, jacqui bedeford, helen stern, mischa trwirchin, liz tomlin, dan rebellato, carl miller, peter Edwards, jon spooner, mike bernardin, jenny sealey, lucy foster, george perrin, bia olivera, daryl beeton

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Robert’s passion is to do with being an internationally well-received, core funded London-based company which can’t get a London venue. He commented that he had not met or seen Julia Bardsley’s work till they met in Brussels, despite making their work very near to each other in London. There was a strong feeling from the outset that venues exploit companies who want to bring their work to the attention of London audiences and critics. Several people reported similar lack of response from venues. Arts Admin says that’s normal. Snobbery and pigeon-holeing of companies’ work seems to be a part of the problem. Venue executives deciding what “their audiences” are or are not ready to see. It was acknowledged that venues tend very much to be rental spaces and not artistic spaces. So they have very little audience development that links in any productive way to the work that comes to the venue. Also that throughout the industry, work is too often seen in terms of its transferability, as a product distinct from the place and the processes that went into its making. Shunt’s ownership of a specific space was a founding company decision. When a company does have a profile as a “successful” touring company the danger then is of feeling that the work is “dropped in” from nowhere and that however well it does at the box-office, no meaningful ongoing connection with the audience is created. Robert feels a strong need to contextualise programming, to let audiences know that they are walking into a carefully constructed season/space. This brought several people to talk about the soho theatre’s programming of a season with five companies (graeae, paines plough, frantic, atc etc) which seemed to achieve just this. The ICE for a while achieved this too. The BAC was acknowledged to have a sustained and coherent policy of working with specific emerging companies to develop their work. The Drill Hall has shown willing but has a funding crisis of its own which prevents the open availability of its theatre space. The Unicorn, with a new building, is seeking to form relationships with companies to co-produce, especially companies with no home of their own, but 376 acknowledged that some people will be simply unable to do so because of their financial imperatives. Venues can’t/won’t take any risk. And clearly the principal risk is seen as financial. Venues are almost exclusively run by executives or accountants and hardly at all by an artistic director with an artistic agenda. What are the desired qualities of these “gate-keepers” who hold such decision-making power? Is it possible to be more proactive and urge our friends to take the important jobs that otherwise go to the wrong people? Is it possible for the excluded companies to “take-over” the venues? Can the Riverside be hired/bought out by a collective of companies to produce a Festival of work which otherwise will find it difficult to place? Finally after a website was mooted for naming and shaming obstinately unapproachable venues, it seemed that a more imperative challenge was to establish the basis for any corporate dialogue between companies, given that they are often competing for the same spaces and the same artistic acknowledgement in London. We need somehow to share successful models of practice, timeframe for bookings, finances, But perhaps the more open dialogues can happen between companies whose arena is vastly different. Unfunded and working only in the London Fringe circuit, one company may well have a lot to talk about with an internationally touring company whose work is consistently funded. The New Work Network was established to promote this kind of exchange, and to help companies to define their own work and relate to other companies outside established definitions and forums.

CONCLUSIONS/RECCOMENDATIONS

CHANGE THE HIERARCHIES – NO MORE LABELLING, BOXING, SIZING

LONGER REHEARSAL PERIODS TO BECOME PART OF THE CULTURE

RELATIONSHIPS WITH VENUES AND THEIR MANAGERS FOR COMPANIES AND MORE INSPIRED MANAGERS (LESS BUREAUCRATS)

MORE ARTISTS ON THEATRE BOARDS

DEMOCRACY AND BEING HONEST IN DEALING WITH THE INDUSTRY (SEE IMPROBABLE WEBSITE)

ARTISTS WOULD BENEFIT FROM A GREATER SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC AWARENESS

377

NAME PEOPLE’S PREJUDICES POLITELY

ALLOW ARTISTS INTO EMPTY BUILDINGS

CONNECT WITH THE LOCAL COMMUNITY – CREATE A SENSE OF LOCAL COMMUNITY

MORE COLLABORATIONS AND CO-PRODUCTIONS

EDUCATION

FUNDING

378

Devoted and Disgruntled

Issue number:8

Issue: HEALING THEATRE: The origin of theatre in the cave, connected to health and survival.

Convener(s): Roddy Maude Roxby

Participants: Philip Osment David Jackson Lucy Morrison Oliver Senton Alan Cox Juliet Knight Luzita Fereday John Hoggart Joanna Woodward Adi Luver Michelle Frost Patrick O Kane Jude Kelly

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

I felt the exercise we were given raised my awareness of the group and calmed me down and relaxed me- what came to mind was how important group ethics are and how this will help people survive in the theatre world and help theatre itself survive in a world dominated by materialism and cheap kicks entertainment.

Good to have active participation in exercise alongside discussion as integral ways of communicating, exploring, catalyst for discussion.

We have values that matter to us. We need to be brave enough to look for our own path that acknowledges that being an artist is a life choice- not an industry job.

The discussion was about where we fit in as individuals- how do we bring our ‘own self’ and use our own pain/ issues/ concern to unite/ heal communities through the medium of theatre. It is about HONESTY

The Essence of theatre having healing as its centre and creation. The understanding that as an actor/practitioner director/ leader being ready to accept your responsibility to lead and influence by just existing in an authentic and 379 honest way. The risk and fear of following one’s ‘calling’ or ‘belief’ is the challenge that takes any session or rehearsal.

The idea that the healing has to start among the practitioners themselves- sharing, being friendly, not being embattled. Recognising that we are the industry- it is not some external enemy but an internal construct.

The ‘different stages’ exercise; very useful in clarifying intent. From the work of the anthropologist; Gregory Bateson, Stepping through the logical levels employing Seeing, Hearing and Feeling Environment – Where and When Behaviour – What’s going on Capability – How do you do it Beliefs and Values – Why Identity – Who am I Beyond Identity – Spirit; ultimately for whom

Feel that healing practices in a rehearsal process is a rehearsal process- i.e meditation, yoga, breath work can bring a depth to the work itself and help to open up the company.

The idea of bringing a ‘Field of concern’ written down in your back pocket (eg America, terrorism) when you go to a piece of entertainment and then finding that something in the event has a healing effect on that concern was a very intriguing one. It was interesting to think back to the origins of culture and how humanity communicated itself, cave painting, storytelling, dance and that these modes of expression had a healing function that was commonly recognised. The effect of these rituals might be considered to make the unconscious conscious

Roddy’s note; I was drawing on NLP ( Neuro Linguistic Programming) which in my opinion would be as useful if it were taught in drama schools at the Alexander technique for the same reasons.

380

Devoted and Disgruntled

Issue number: 14

Issue: Actors as global citizens addressing global issues

Convener(s): Angharad Wynne-Jones

Participants: Peter Collins Patricia Kane Helen Ainsworth Angharad Wynne-Jones

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations: (with apologies to my fellow participants for misquotes.)

The big issues: Globalisation/climate change/end of fossil fuels – mass migration/break down of political systems

How do we as artists respond, how to we effect change? Do we have a responsibility to engage?

Process of making theatre brings up issues around: Ownership of ideas,(as a collaborative process) and the sustainability of the practice (environmentally and financially)

Issues are scary and unattractive- seen as province of the woolly jumpers or science bods How do we make it attractive to more people? (artists and audiences)

These processes do exist , but are not celebrated and not profitable (Theatre of the Oppressed)

Should we develop an ethical theatre?

Bu is that didactic ? we know we react badly to being told what to do. 381

We need to inform ourselves as artists But even when we know sometimes we still don’t care. Is the role of theatre to convert people? Or is to ask questions or to answer them? It reflects the human condition.

How important is it that the process is democratic? We should stipulate the process or the system

Back to the issues… Are all changes we imagine are going to happen as a result of climate change going to bad, and bad for whom? Bad for humans maybe but the world keeps turning? Why should we focus on that? Because we are concerned for our children, for future generations, for our fellow human beings.

If the end is nigh, lets die with our eyes open rather than being watched on CCTV.

Transformation comes from within, and might effect others We need educated ourselves and others to be socially responsible, to be civil To rehearse new behaviours for the future Is theatre fit for the job, why aren’t more theatre artists engaged with these issues as visual artists are …where’s the theatre’s Cape Farewell project?

Theatre deals with personal and epic stories, allegorical, not aesthetically suited to engage with issues like the environment. What could be more dramatic that the global climatic disasters we are living through? But is it digestible?

Can we suggest and rehearse different ways of living, re-organising and creating new structures.

382

Lets face it most people don’t give a fuck about theatre, the environment or poor people. (what about all those issue bracelets like make poverty history) More people watch theatre than live football Morally arrogant to imagine art can change people.

Bu theatre can empower an audience to act, from reflection and or participation.- interactive theatre Watching can be interactive theatre

But it has to be good – the finished product that matters

No the process and context is more important

What is good theatre?

A good director helps What is the role of a leader in a democracy?

What is the role of a director in the theatre?

Lets make these theatre processes that are more democratic more accessible.

I’m a terrible idealist.

383

Devoted and Disgruntled

Issue number: 20

Issue: Do I have to devote my time to administration, producing, funding, funding, funding…. To create art

Convener(s): Montse Gili

Participants: Michael, Peter Edwards, Michael Achtman (Peter’s creative enable

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

We want to create, be in the rehearsal room… we are artists… But We can’t just be an artist! Or can we?

Why? Because we want to eventually have a say/control of where our career goes we need to learn production skills.

Usual complaint: All I want is to get on with it but I can’t… the admin part of the work gets all my time.

It’s almost as if we need 2 careers: - artist - business/fundraiser

We need a formal training to be a businessman/woman, to fundraise, to draw an effective budget… why we are struggling? Why is this being ignored. Let’s get that training…

Negative side of doing your own producing/admin: - time consuming - less time to spend in the rehearsal room - “I don’t know how to do it” I was trained to act/direct/write

Positive side of doing your own producing/admin: - you have control over your work - find a balance in life - helps you to clarify your own ideas (putting them on paper for AC or other funding)

384

- budget skill = helps you being realistic about the project and where to go with it creativity.

WE WANT TO DO OUR OWN PRODUCING… SO WHY ARE WE STRUGGLING? WHY DO WE HATE IT SO MUCH?

DON’T STRUGGLE – EMBRACE IT!!!

LEARN THOSE SKILLS AS PART OF BEING AN ARTIST, NOT A SEPARATE THING. SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN DRAMA SCHOOLS

In other careers (i.e. Architect) you are being taught to write a budget… why is then not taught in Drama schools?

In some arts schools they are teaching marketing skills as a fundamental tool of being an artist… Should we be taught marketing skills in drama school? YES

We should CHALLENGE the conception of an artist as only an actor/director/writer/producer –different roles… We learn all of those and receive and integral training from the beginning. Then we will just learn to accept the writing of an application form as a part of your job!

OTHER WAYS:

For those of us, already out of the Education System, in what other ways can you learn to raise funds and produce your work

- More venues to provide support for companies (rehearsal space, advice, marketing support, etc) - Fund those venues! - Apprenticeship - Mentoring system (individuals, or with other companies) - Arts Council Helpline

ITC has a helpline but your have to be a member a pay for their advice… how do you get that money in the first place?

385

Devoted and Disgruntled

Issue number: 22

Issue: women

Convener(s): Stella Duffy

Participants: Stella Duffy, Sharon Kean, Trisha Lee, Annie Lloyd, Carrie Thomas, Lewis Barfoot, Moira Buffini, Juliet Knight, Kim Gladston, Al Anderson, Elgina Field, Fiona Lesley, Sarah Kane, Anna Newell, Kirsty Lothian

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

There are two main issues affecting women in theatre right now :

CHILDREN/FAMILY/OTHER LIFE – that most women are still dealing with the bulk of childcare, at the very least have to take some time out to give birth (!), and that theatre – as it stands – rarely (if ever) makes accommodation for part- time/family oriented/non-obsessive working practices. While acknowledging that our state is better than that of women in film right now, there are still many places that can be improved. Potential solutions : job share, don’t tell the men we’re working with that we’re working less hours but still getting the job done!, do what suits us and they’ll get used to it, help society to understand more the value of bringing up children (potential audiences!!), find a way to get away from the obsessive culture that insists we work all hours.

(nb – why is it that when a woman writes/makes a play about family, it’s ‘domestic’, but when Mike Leigh does it, it’s ‘universal’?)

CONFIDENCE – Why don’t we have it? How can we get it? Why are we afraid to show it when we do have it? Potential solutions : find a way to mentor each other, mentor young women, celebrate ourselves for what we are, IF we do work differently – that’s fine, stop worrying about alienating our employers, stop putting our ambition aside (from fear among other reasons) And … we’re going to have a salon!! It may become a monthly thing, it may happen once and never again, it may become huge or small or not at all. It will be what it is. But the first one will be within the next month. (apologies to anyone who would also like to attend, who was not in that meeting, the choice is to keep it to the size of that group for the FIRST one simply because that’s as many people as can fit in Stella’s lounge. Thereafter we’ll find how many of us there 386 might be and see what sort of space we need to have. It will be the space it needs to be. Devoted and Disgruntled

Issue number: 23

Issue: Entrepreneurial and savvy theatre

Convener(s): Michael Dempsey

Participants: Me, Sinead and Polly

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Only 3 of us – significant as theatre people perhaps suspicious of enterprise.

Can we depend on the arts council? Should we?

Theatre is a business too. Questions of creative compromise are relevant here.

Alongside self-reliance which, arguably produces better theatre because of greater reliance on audience for funding.

Theatre has to be scavenging, opportunistic and street clever! In the service of creative purpose and our audiences.

Make money any which way to buy back rehearsal and performance time.

Bartering resources with whoever has got something to give theatre, and getting them to pay too when possible and appropriate.

Create your own economic structure of opportunity and creative freedom instead of moaning about the existing ones…

387

Devoted and Disgruntled

Issue number: 31

Issue: Money / Funding / Producers

Convener(s): Graham Dixon

Participants: Louise Blackwell, Jamie Smith Katherine Lamprell, Cheryl Pierce, Jen Lunn, Gerard Bell, Kate McGrath, Nikki Hinksman, Sinnead MacMAnnis, Nicki Sweeting, Judith Faultless, Tiffany Ball, Philip Beavan, Anys Tawaull, Mantse Gili

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

QUESTIONS/CONCERNS:

Why do we think that the worlds owes us a living

When talking about funding is it possible to look at other avenues other than State and /or Corporate Funding?

Is there a concept of Free Gift money with tags? Can Funding be free of criteria and box-ticking?

Why do people/individuals/corporations/institutions, the state give money.

Can we look at the American model of Not-for-Profit companies adapting to corporate models?

Quality control – who says what is good or not?

Should there not be a personal/living relationship between the money provider and the money recipient? - relationship to the idea/ideal of the project?

How do we communicate to the Corporate sector the value of Theatre to make a change?

Do we not undervalue ourselves and undersell our worth as theatre practitioners?

Do not funding institutions cost money?

388

SUGGESTIONS:

Get rid of the State!

The State funding sector needs a new model. The existing one does not work.

The idea of the State Sector not making decisions of who gets what, but rather as a Central Body which supports companies with infrastructure, marketing/publicity services, help with space rental.

A Market Place where investors/producers/ grandmothers with ten quid/ meet with those wishing to have their project/s supported/funded. And, vice versa, those wishing to have an idea or project realised meet those practitioners who think they could realise that project.

IMAGINATIONS

The Money Pot - Is not Funding, of any sort, like a big pot with money coming in at the top and going out at the bottom.

Can we not facilitate in a better way the free flow of money through the pot.

Is not the pot itself taking over and has become and industry in it self? The pot then becomes an institution and a dictator.

389

Devoted and Disgruntled

Issue number: 37

Issue: Where are the Women Protagonists

Convener(s): Carrie Thomas

Participants: Natalie Schwartz, Ellie Zeegan, Judith Sharp, Lee Simpson, Bisera Stevanoska, Nikki Hinksman, Natasha Betteridge, Morvan Macbeth, Phelim, a bloke whose name we didn’t get……

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

 Why did only one person sign up?  Why are there only four of us at the start? (We grew!)  Are we marginalising ourselves with this title?  Counting female leads on stage? Where are the parts for women? Finding scripts for women?  Women making work/ women’s companies: Sphinx, Scarlett women, Clean Break.  Are women not doing anything worth writing about?  Where are they?  Are they kept quiet? Are they being quiet?

HEROES/HEROINES, MYTHS/JOURNEYS The hero’s journey is linear….male form? Children’s books – where it starts, Phillip Pullmann (strong female leads on ajourney of discovery), Ursula Le Guin (revisited her tales from a feminist perspective and the 4th book on has caused some controversy as she noticed how she was sidelining females in her own work and she sought to address), JK Rowling (a woman choosing to centre her tale on a boy) Antigone, Electra

Penelope – female archetype…WAITING (passive) ?

FAIRYTALES The originals, without sugary additions, more frightening and often driven by girls/women Dorothy in Wizard of Oz – linear heroine. FILM NOIR Garbo and Dietrich , going back to the 40s for strong leads Going back into history to look for active and powerful women 390

WHAT”S THE ISSUE WITH SELF EMPOWERMENT? Those women around the table who found when the work was not there began to write it themselves but might then question themselves “I don’t think I’m good enough” – confidence, courage, shame, worth, value. Asking for help, support….. GUILT for taking up space/ Wanting to claim the space. THE PARADOX

“It’s all so serious with women!” – the complexity of relationships, compared with the simple and light-hearted transactions between men. Women’s friendships/betrayal/sensitivity/women in conflict at work– are these not subjects for theatre?

There is work happening – around the table, nikki is working on actor led piece (eduction) 3 female actors working with male writer and various directors so protagonists will be female, ellie’s own company writing and performing work.

MONEY Lee - we will get more female protagonists when a piece with a female protagonist makes money.

Film writer in group informed us that it is IMPOSSIBLE to get funding for a film with a British female lead. Only two actresses can command leading status: Kate Winslett and Kiera Knightley, they are too expensive and you wouldn’t get a male leading actor to work as support. i.e. YOU CAN’T RAISE MONEY FOR FILM WITH A FEMALE LEAD. Catch 22 no women on stage = no women in leading roles anywhere = no money to be made = no roles for women on stage and so on……

ENSEMBLE Only strong female pieces are TV ensemble: Sex and the City/Desperate Housewives.

DYNAMICS FOR WOMEN GROUPS Women in the group spoke about getting quieter in groups dominated by men until they became voiceless and silent. Lee said women in his impro comedy group tended to come and then disappear, suggesting there was something about the dynamic of male working style which was off-putting and led us to ask the question: HOW MANY MEN DOES IT TAKE TO MAKE A WOMAN DISAPPEAR?

One participant said she recognised in a meeting with all men that she would change her style. 391

It was suggested by one woman that in a male working environment (the city) that the only women who survive are those who ape men.

Two young women in the group reported that being married had evoked negative responses from potential employers who had questioned there commitment present and future which the group felt would not have occurred with a male performer.

WOMEN AND HUMOUR. Why do women have to be unattractive or age up (Mrs Merton/Katherine Tate) to be funny? Why are men dressing up as women to be funny/grotesque (Little Britian).

HOW DO WE GET THE WRITING DONE AND OUT THERE?

ARE WOMEN SELF-CENSORING?

How do we encourage male and female writers to write female protagonists?

The need for more women directors was mentioned and what happened to the ones who used to be around? (Annie Castledine; Hettie McDonald )– in TV or abroad or given up to do something else)

ACTIONS

1. Experiment: How many men does it take to make a woman disappear? You can try this at home and at work!!! Please report back. 2. Project: Form a collective to make a piece of theatre work possibly exploring women in fairytales and/or female relationships.

VOICE

392

Devoted and Disgruntled Issue number: 41

Issue: Is the written play a dying form? And if so, what can we do to revive it?

Convener(s): Moira Buffini

Participants: Lucianne McEVoy, Patrick O’Kane, Dawn Keeler, Ciaran O’Driscoll, Sheila Hannon, David McGroartz, Ginnie Stephens, Philip Osment, Stella Duffy, David Swift, Carl Miller, Amelia Bird, Paula Jacobs, Dan Rebellato, Sharon Kean, Gerard Bell, Alan Cox, Michael Kustov, Maddy Costa, Mark Courtier

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Each participant was asked to answer the first question. The response was overwhelmingly: No, the written play is not dying!! - but there are calls for change both in subject matter, form, the working practises of playwrights and in the structures and hierarchies of the theatre industry, as they relate to playwriting. However it was generally felt that if the new play died, theatre would probably die with it.

A crisis of subject matter was very strongly felt. Writers are not willing or able to take on the big issues: ‘Politics, Gods and War’. New writing was accused of being small in scope. In an age of uncertainty, in an age of such change and confusion, it is hard for a playwright to have a strong ‘world view.’

- Writers are feeling isolated and underconfident

- Unusual plays can be neglected if they don’t fit into a perceived current theatrical fashion - We discussed the debasement of language. Are TV and verbatim theatre partly to blame? - Risk. Are playwrights afraid to take it? Are managements afraid to take it? ‘when looking for a new play you mustn’t be afraid to kiss a lot of frogs. Only then will you find a prince.’ - Where has the danger gone from new writing? - Faults in the development process. The teaching of writing, the nurturing process of new writers, the working methods of literary managers and dramaturgs were all held up for inspection and found wanting - Youth versus ‘new’. There are fewer openings for work from older new writers

393

- Literary adaptations are appealing more to managements and marketing departments and fuelling the myth that the novel is the only form in which a writer can truly create a work of depth and scale. - The philistinism of the critics - The crisis of skill and the loss of craft that playwrights feel, despite the new proliferation of teaching. The play of scale is being lost as a form.

We felt that there was a hunger in audiences (we being the audience) for depth and complexity in ideas and language. We find it very hard to listen to poetry on our stages - and by that I mean language that is not naturalistic – unless it has been plundered from a novel or written by somebody who has been dead for a long time.

Michael wanted to see plays that were ‘volcanic’. We liked the term.

I asked the question ‘what would be the ideal conditions for writers to produce these volcanic plays?’

Most funding for new writing centres around a very few buildings. This leads to much writing that is similar in character. Some buildings were accused of ‘churning out’ new plays simply to secure their funding. Funding needs to be more evenly distributed.

Playwrights should be encouraged to work more closely with companies who make and devise work. We felt there was often a great paucity of text in these works that would benefit hugely from having a playwright on board – and that playwrights would benfit hugely from closer collaboration.

Michael suggested that the ideal theatre would be The Hackey Empire with proper funding; a cross-class, cross-cultural audience that would really challenge writers.

We discussed to dreadful relationship between playwrights/literary departments and marketing and press departments. A literary department can nurture a play that can confound a marketing department. These departments must learn to talk to each other. Good marketing can transform the life of a play. An audience is often fearful of something new. The whole theatre building should focus its work towards dispelling this fear.

We felt that In Britain particularly, there is a snobbery about ‘entertainment’ vs ‘art.’ Something with intellectual merit and artistic integrity cannot possibly also be fun. I think there is a myth that ideas that are complex are inaccessible. Writers should embrace the challenge of writing for a large audience and luring them into places they don’t expect to go. 394

The fringe theatre used to be a great training ground for playwrights. Now it is too expensive. But the freedom that the fringe offers should be celebrated. No one is ‘nurturing’ writers on the fringe. They are their own bosses. I feel very fortunate that my own ‘training’ was here.

We sometimes feel a bit like the children of the theatres who have ‘discovered’ us. This does our confidence no good. And a nation needs adult playwrights to write its plays, not children.

Playwriting is a very hard subject to teach. Most courses centre around structure and the formal elements, rather than exploring and freeing the imagination. How do we find a different way to teach creative arts and cross- fertilise art, music, theatre?

School age students love new plays. But the majority of them are taken to see classics. We need to get new plays on the curriculum and concentrate on celebrating the living, as well as revering the dead.

Writers must take responsibility for changing things. They must make efforts to communicate with each other and to change the negative conditions of their job.

In all, this was an enormously positive, exhilarating discussion. People feel passionately about plays!!

WE WANT TO SEE VOLCANIC, POLITICAL, POETICAL, EPIC, CHAMBER EPIC, COMPLEX, UNIVERSAL, EPHEMERAL, VISUALLY SPECTACULAR, EPHEMERAL, TIMELESS PLAYS.

395

Devoted and Disgruntled

Issue number: 44

Issue: Where is the archive for socially engaged practice?

Convener(s): Robert Pacitti

Participants: Dan Ribellato, Phelim McDermott, Nick Sweeting, Lee Simpson, Beccy Smith, Patrick o’Kane

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

This session was convened to explore and discuss the lack of a coherent catching strategy for new work, in particular those processes and outcomes which identify themselves as politicised, either by form, content or context. This session was motivated by concerns that younger makers all too often don’t know what went before, and that the hard won ground gained and/or explored previously is all too often lost, left or ignored. How does this help us accumulate new practice? How does this ensure that every generation we aren’t just reinventing the wheel?

Surely it is a truism that the civil rights movements (as an example) did indeed manage to impact directly on the positive ways in which our contemporary lives are lived, and much of the activity undertaken during that seminal period within the 20th Century occurred within cultural practice. And yet it would seem that much of the work from that time is nigh-on impossible to trace now, outside of highly partial witness accounts or poor quality film and photographic documentation. But of course we now operate in an unprecedented age of digital processes through which to record and distribute cultural activity. So why don’t we seem to be working towards that, coherently or collectively?

Through the session it became clear that maybe the use of the word ‘archive’ was possibly misplaced. It seems to automatically suggest an academic application. So we discussed other forms of catching strategies, what they might be, how they might be accrued / stored / shared / accessed.

We also acknowledged the still useful roles that can be played by ‘the dodgy video’, those tapes often shot from the back of the space that, whilst usually crumby, still manage to record the moment. But plainly they are not enough, not least because the only really describe the moment of ‘outcome’. 396

Dan has an idea for a series of artist / writer collaborative DVDs which carry examples of a practitioners / company’s work alongside elements of the making processes: texts, music, social commentary etc.

Members of Improbable discussed an evaluation model that they had been involved with. Originating from a marketing background this was, at first, not fully trusted by the Company as an appropriate mechanism for assessing an event, but in fact proved very useful, by offering up a talk-shop group format for audience members before and after a show. This system, used by commercial sectors to explore the ‘value’ of a product was applied very successfully and is now viewed favourably by members of the Company as “an alternative way of recording a live event, which includes audience testimonials as a key element.”

We had a discussion about the need to find strategies for recording making processes and public outcomes which retained the ‘essence’ of the time in which they were made, and indeed the social conditions of their production.

We also discussed the need for clarity around what we archived, and how, when mid-flow in the generation of work, it was often hard to know what might prove useful later.

Diaries were raised as a method of engaging other forms of writing around practice, as separate from review based testimonials. And dramaturges we also posited as a way in which makers might collaborate through the construction process with other viewers or witnesses.

Conclusion:

This session affirmed the desire to examine how we self-store our processes and practices for future use, either by ourselves or by others. It acknowledged that whilst, for many of us, there is power in the ephemeral nature of our public outcomes, our making methodologies are often strategic and based on clearly made decisions that may prove useful to share. We agreed that all too often we still rely on the occasional, partial review and last minute video strategy for recording live events.

If theatre is in service to society, to culture, or to the future why then are we not taking more responsibility for that, when we plainly operate in a golden age of technological privilege, which makes it easy to do so?

The case continues… 397

Devoted and Disgruntled

Issue number: 58

Issue: Who We Fancy In The Room

Convener(s): Stella Duffy and Alan Cox

Participants: Lee Simpson, Kate McGrath, Tassos Stevens, Louise Blackwell, Guy Dartnell, Oliver Stephen

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations: Yes this did start as a break from the ‘serious’ discussions, as a game, some playing. But it may be relevant anyway (whatever happens is the only thing that could have) : - Most/many of us came into theatre for reasons of passion/desire/sex – fancying people, wanting people to fancy us, lust, interest, desire, passion – one of the reasons many people continue to begin work on a new show is the potential of new friends/relationships/liaisons – and, at base, at least in part to get laid. If/when this goes, the desire, the possibility, what happens then? - When the passion goes, are we only left with artistic integrity? - (and, why are there not more pretty girls at the National Theatre?)

398

Devoted and Disgruntled

Issue number: 61

Issue: I still feel like an outsider.

Convener(s): Chris Wright

Participants: Helen Stern; Liz Tomlin; Michael Dempsey; Joanna Woodward; Moutse Gili; V. van Meerbeek;

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

- OUTSIDE OF WHAT? - DO YOU WANT TO BE AN INSIDER? - NO, I WANT THE CHOICE AND SUPPORT TO WORK IN DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTS WITH DIFFERENT PEOPLE - DO I HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING ON MY OWN, ALL OF THE TIME? - THEN CELEBRATE BEING AN OUTSIDER - STOP FEELING SORRY FOR YOURSELF - MAYBE I DON’T WANT TO BE AN INSIDER - BY DEMONISING THEM, I AM EMPOWERING THEM - I WILL ALWAYS FEEL LIKE AN OUTSIDER… GOOD - IT IS NORMAL TO FEEL OUTSIDE - MAYBE THERE IS NO INSIDE - IT’S ALL ABOUT PERCEPTION AND EXPERIENCE - IT’S IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER - VISUALISE BEING AN INSIDER…DO THEY FEEL LIKE OUTSIDERS? - THERE ARE ALWAYS OBSTACLES AS WE PROGRESS IN OUR WORK… WE WILL ALWAYS FEEL LIKE AN OUTSIDER - OK

399

Devoted and Disgruntled

Issue number: 63

Issue: In The Absence of a Union how can we lobby DCMS/ACE etc

Convener(s): Kate McGrath

Participants: David Jubb, Kirstie McKenzie, Nick Sweeting, Stella Duffy, Cheryl Pierce, Lynette Moran, Oliver Senton, Robert Pacitti…..PLUS

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

- In view of the forthcoming 2008 Spending Review, we have to help ACE compile their argument. - ACE needs to be more proactive in promoting the value of the arts. - We have to arm the DCMS/our MPs etc with the right information. - Various models/organisations could be used to lobby, e.g. New Work Network – sources of advocacy and information. - Many theatre practitioners are very poor at funding speak, find it difficult to communicate with the funding bodies. - This weekend creates the possibility of us acting as multiple voices. - There was a discussion about the value of sending out a delegation which is ongoing.

Action points: There are two groups of people we need to take a message to: 1. People we have contact with already 2. People we don’t have contact with We are not making our case to the second group e.g. government. There is currently no clear communication about the argument as there is for e.g. sport. We need to find the right levers and buttons. One idea is to do an Open Space Event with ACE to find those arguments together. Artists and members of ACE coming up with the new big arguments.

Celebrity and Expert Endorsement We need to approach and recruit celebrities who could help the profile of the argument e.g. Judi Dench and Richard Wilson Also experts who could help us formulate the argument e.g. Frank ??? at De Montfort Uni.

It would be useful to find 10 useful facts or statistics and 10 people with influence to further the arguments. Facts: 400 e.g. Theatre makes more in VAT than it costs in subsidy e.g. positive impact of theatre on mental health (find) e.g. employment figures in theatre (find) e.g. positive impact of theatre on tourism (find)

People: e.g. Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Menzies Campbell, David Lammy, Peter Hewitt, Mark Bukowski, Sandi Toksvig… and who works at the DCMS.

Note: We have used the economic arguments so do we need to also use the social arguments?

The Fun Factor We need to make sure our message in the media and to the powers that be also conveys the fun of theatre. We need to match the arguments we are making to the sensibilities of those we are making them too (e.g. argue for children’s theatre to people with children)

Other organisations who can help create the argument for theatre include Arts & Business and the Department for Health.

Direct action point: A direct proposal to ACE to do an Open Space Event with them and the other organisations who can create an argument for theatre. Note: We must view ACE as our partners and part of the same community.

401

Devoted and Disgruntled

Issue number: 67

Issue: Can theatre be more than a profession

Convener(s): William Bock

Participants: Laura McDermot Michael Twaits Richard Hayhow Oliver Senton

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

My question came out of the feeling that sense of community in the city was .John Fox recently announced that he was leaving his position as artistic director of the Welfare state theatre company saying that there was no space in the current social climate to create ‘theatre as a way of life’. I was concerned about the state of theatre and the disparate nature of the arts generally in London. I want to see if it is possible to create a sustainable creative community to share and inspire new work.

Our Problems: what is happening and what is wrong:

England not a supportive place for create communities.

‘Theatre has lost its location’ theatre institutions not as in touch with the locals living around them. More ‘venues’ but could be anywhere. All the same - homogenus

Criticised BAC for sometimes not being relevant to the local community. Blamed funding cut. But also a very social place – bar gives audience opportunity to meet performers. Not all bad!!

De La Warr Pavillion – Refurbished becoming figure head for contemporary art in SW England except in doing so alienating its older audiences not sympathetic to locals tastes Was variety venue now more of a bleak white art gallery?

Education doesn’t offer basic skills of self publicising yourself essential if you are making theatre more a way of life.

Ideas for improvement of situation and Solutions: 402

Theatres need to take responsibility to make contact with colleges, institutions to bring new talent to work in every area.

Finding a neutral space to meet - a hub where contacts can be recorded and serve as a data base.

Open west end theatres after their opening times and allow more use of their spaces to the public.

The Insomniacs café ……… an open house open 24 hours a day work a week at a time? Library, work studio, living room. Venue - as well as meeting place. Is it practical or too idealistic?

The general consensus was that theatre is more than a profession.

403

Devoted and Disgruntled

Issue number: 68

Issue: What is a director and do we need them anyway?

Convener(s): Ginnie Stephens

Participants: Roddy Maude-Roxby, Tom Wright, Charlotte Cunningham, Patrick O’Kane, Helen Stern, Laura Cubitt, Chris Wright.

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

What if the director went away? Bill Gascoigne (Royal Court): “Like an army without a General”. Some directors feel they are the audiences’ eye- standing on the outside. Can you be impartial/ truly able to be ‘outside’ as someone with a vested interest in a show though? What about the notion of a dramaturg- do we agree with Howard Barker’s ‘All dramaturgs are cunts?’. Dramaturgies exist regardless of employing a dramaturg, though this person could serve as an impartial outsider eye. Helpful to have external input free from institutional agenda. Nobody really knows what dramaturgs are, although those who’ve worked with them think good ones are invaluable. Do we need a more European model?

Actors like to have directors because they can’t see from inside the show and have to rely on someone else. Good as long as they are not too controlled.

Where does/ should the power lie?

‘Visions’ v. directorial signatures- people opt to pay and see a show because of the idiosyncracies of its creators/ director; although some directors are wilfully extreme. Is it the right of a director to impose a ‘vision’ onto a pre-existent literary text, or distort that of the audience? There need to be gaps for all- most especially the audience- around the director’s bubble. Actors end up doing things on their own if they’re not given enough or too much direction, but then many directors lose interest in a show once it’s ‘up’ anyway because it becomes owned by the actors. Control. Ego.

Need more room for impro.

Devised work can easily become leaderless and fluffy rather than democratic.

‘Autocratic democrat’?

404

Big difference between something that feels good in the rehearsal room and then works well onstage. How to have perspective?

Can you study to be a director?

Most felt the idea of the autocratic director is now outmoded/ antiquated; though working situations in some performance pieces outside buildings necessitate the director taking on role of health and safety officer etc etc.

The people least being actor-managers should play lead roles- an unhelpful clash.

Relationship between theatre and wider world of arts imperative.

Broken rules and running free. With Theatre Machine, all had a go at things and it worked. We shouldn’t be afraid of putting ourselves into other/ scary roles occasionally.

Jazz- Miles Davis analogy as the master director. ‘How do I know how to play? Just listen’.

Conclusions: ‘Director’ is used to cover the role of the person who facilitates; who gets a piece of theatre working in the rehearsal room and then manages to translate this to actually working on the stage.

We quite like directors but, especially with devised work, this is a function within generating a piece of theatre and not necessarily one fixed person’s role (though the person wearing the hat should imbue the requisite qualities of a facilitator/ caring parent/ someone who finds and draws on the best available input from the others). Interesting sparks occur when more than one person assumes the hat at once…

Generosity Good at casting Nurturer

Recommendations: Keep the notion of ‘director’ and be aware of the ‘finds direction’ versus ‘imposes direction’ continuum (veering towards the former).

405

Devoted and Disgruntled

Issue number: 74

Issue: More play, less plays

Convener(s): Stephen Hodge

Participants: Mark Conway, Dan Rebellato, Carl Miller, Michael Dempsey, David McGroarty

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Starting points: - Theatre is a minority artform (a minority of the public go to the theatre each year). To some extent, we’re in a TV/multimedia-dominated age. That’s okay. But, in order to survive, perhaps theatre-makers should concentrate on what makes theatre special/different. This is not necessarily anything to do with a verbal text, which originate in a different medium – that of literature (as David Cole said in the 1970s, word-based scripts are only a model for turning what is not theatre into what is theatre, and there are others, e.g. the visual script). - Julian’s visual record of the event. - Phelim said to us all this morning: “I’ll draw you a picture. That’ll be better.” - Huizinga wrote something like: “Play is of a higher order than seriousness. Seriousness seeks to exclude play, whereas play can very well include elements of seriousness.” - Lots of talk about people drawing of gaming structures in their works in yesterday’s sessions, comments like “we play a lot with the audience”…

Record of the sessions: - no verbal notes taken, see the 7 visual records (1 made by each member of the group)

406

Devoted and Disgruntled

Issue number: 77

Issue: positive discrimination-yes or no?

Convener(s): lisa hammond

Participants: Veronique van meerbeek,marvan mcbeth,charlotte Cunningham,Michael twaits, stella duffy,Helen stern,david jubb,phill eddolls,elgiva field,chris wright,katherine lamprell,lewis barfoot,mick martin

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations: this discussion was on a wide range of topics it was felt that as the group was held by lisa Hammond who has a disability tha the group tended to focus more on talking about the issue of positive discrimination in relation to disability in particular. it was mentioned that it is easy to organise a sense of diverisy in all ways when it comes to personal “living” in the world but as you move into the area of organisations the water becomes a lot muddier.. policies,quotas and mission statements are when things seem to be difficult..

one man told a story of the national theatre ( from working at the box office) of a “black show” being marketed for black audiences in particular-in magazines etc.. when a potential audience member who happened to be white wanted to buy a ticket they were turned away but then a black potential audience member asks to see the same show they are given a ticket-and that ticket if in conjunction with a “black” magazine offer was marked as B for black.. im just goin to type some bullet points of the session because its really hard to write a conversation why do we need black/disabled/gay theatre? over representation of non whites on tv. WHITE STRAIGHT MEN is it good or bad? Permission to say what you think/feel instead of holding back everything as if we don’t trust ourselves with diversity and talking about it. don’t try and do it all at once.. all disabled all black all gay decisions being made on behalf of minority groups instead of listening to individuals proving yourself in order to be respected preaching to the converted 407 hippocracy within language “reclaiming” words selling tickets to only target audiences funding-more likely to get funding because of being disabled black gay how would things move on without positive discrimination is it needed frustration with policies and ticking boxes positive decisions from within the core of a company rather than organisin funding for separate projects that are more ghettoised somehow. attractive theatre has to have a wide range of stories,bodies,people telling those stories what is positive discrimination taboo subjects say what you mean how to review theatre with people with disabilities-don’t be patronising those artists need to know when you think its shit. celebration…eeek celebrate the difference….eeek treat it like any piece of theatre positive discrimination makes me feel funny

worst case scenario…dyslexic mixed ethnic minority/ part irish (vitaligio albino) lesbian, transgender woman, completely deaf, dribbeling, single mother with aids, genetically disabled child with circus skills, tramatic background, sixty six years old, no wage, no legs. what makes us do this? naughty, purging, exciting, taboo, human, we enjoy it, we can’t talk about it

Is it funky tobe different? post modern? are you black enough? brown enough? disabled enough? black enough? lesbian or gay enough?

408

II. Cited Sessions: Devoted & Disgruntled 2

409

Issue number: 1

Issue: if it aint outdoors or on the street, it aint worth a fuck

Convener(s): jon B, Desperate Men

Participants: Catherine Pinhorn, Josh dary, louise platt, dan koop, laura cubit, neil filby, martina v horn, chris gage, raymond, mandy

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Theatre has to connect. It has to engage and then perhaps it can ‘educate’. Indoor theatre is limited-in audiences it reaches and the possibilities of interaction, participation, form and structure.

Outdoor street theatre and street arts is better possibilities for wider connections with wider audiences, in wider context and for better developments of new forms and structures

- Audiences can leave - Street artists are confined to funding…still have to prove themselves…how do you start? - Strategies to market yourself; ipods! Downloads…sound or film files and or use it as performance, “audio guided tours” and download stuff for audiences. - How to crack the shopping centre? People are hostile because they don’t want to stop shopping; local churches have held congregations in shopping centres. - Theatre needs to be reinvigorated, have balls in the twenty first century. People want spectacle. The sudden rise in firework displays and the big finale. Take it out of the buildings and grab the people\ - How do you make people stop – techniques of keeping the audience, the challenge of the streets – audiences can walk away - The elephant-change the way the big people think - A big shared communal experience - Taking it really out to the people who may not be interested in theatre - Getting the art back to where it belongs –mystery plays of old - Taking someone on the adventure they didn’t know they were gong to have - Inherently political and dynamic relationships with audiences-egalitarian - Not funded non box office economically tricky but politically important - Discussed training - Psychology of it you can only learn by doing it - General perception: everybody can do it – this is not the case - The audience is part of the thinking process right from the beginning of the making; design, performance, traffic flow, building, all considered EARLY.

410

Issue number: 12

Issue: Is there a need for womens’ theatre? If so, what about it is different from other theatre?

Convener(s): Aleasha Chaunte

Participants: Alys Torrance, Rosalie Nickerson, Stella Duffy, Zoe Klinger, Darren Abrahams, Eva Liparova, Richard Couldrey, Hannah Quigley, Wendy Buckley, Riitta Itakyla, Lian Bell

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

The discussion raised more questions than it gave answers so read below and add if you feel you have an answer to anything or a comment.

Funding criteria creates subsets/ Positive discrimination. Is it worth playing up femaleness of the project in order to get money from funders. The term “Womens’ Theatre” sounds old-fashioned. Is it worth dropping the phrase in order to get recognised as good theatre makers? Women are 52% of the population, yet for funding purposes are treated as a minority group. Do men go to see “Womens Theatre”? Is this a marketing problem? Is there a “Mens Theatre” ( Matthew Bournes Swan Lake, All male company at the Old Vic.) Do women go to see “Mens’ Plays” (Seafarer all male cast. What is the make-up of the audience?)

Women comedians find it incredibly hard to break into Stand-up because there is an expectation that they won’t be funny. (this view is held by both men and women?)

Are the problems faced actually the fault/responsibility of women to sort out or is it something both men and women need to actively address?

Is feminism now a dirty word?

Women haven’t had roles of power for very long (the vote, the right to publish your work using your own name) so maybe we are just playing catch up and it’s just a matter of time before we achieve equality.

Margaret Thatcher Syndrome (women behaving like men to get to the top) 411

Few men cite a woman as their role model wheras women may cite men or women. Margaret Thatcher is the exception. Some men have her as a role model.

There isn’t enough encouragement for new female artists/practitioners from the women currently at the top.

Are women presenting themselves well? Do we resort to traditionally female ways of feeling powerful (eg looking nice) in order to gain power on the stage? Maybe we should encourage young actresses at drama school to cut off their hair. Do women approach things too “Forensically”?

Does “Womens Theatre” Alienate men? Do men feel alienated by the concept of Womens theatre? Womens theatre isn’t necessarily an attack on men.

Are women getting satisfying reflections of themselves in the theatre world?

Is it a question of style? Do men and women have intrinsically differing ways of approaching tasks. Are these fixed and can we change them?

Women aren’t the only ones needing new reflections of themselves in the art world. Images of both men and women are becoming increasingly sexualised. Are we reducing the ways that we can imagine ourselves. What role can theatre play in this and how?

Not all women feel the need for a separate type of theatre to express their world view. Have we reached a point where we have enough opportunity to do whatever we want so we don’t need a separate day for it.

Do women have to be knocked before they feel the need for feminism? If they are never knocked they never need it.

How many women are running major theatres? Are women writing good enough plays? Are they begin commissioned for the big stages? Yes but few of them write plays that make it into production. Theatre is very slow (resistant?) to change. Current systems don’t allow for failure. We can learn a lot from what we did wrong. If women playwrights were produced more often they would learn faster and produce better plays. Known playwrights get produced more often, get more experience, and get better faster.

412

Is there a problem with youth as a whole. Women are growing up into women that can be role models. Cult of youth is infantilising maleness. Maybe the problem of misrepresentation is more than just a womens issue.

Problems with old models and structures that support only a certain way of working. Are women following the model or breaking new ground?

We talked about a particular woman director who took on the running of a theatre festival. Her first year she followed the model suggested by her male predecessor, but in her second year she decided to do things her way. By then she had the confidence to follow her own instincts. We then, for the sake of argument, made lists of what we though were male ways of problem solving and getting things done and what we thought were female ways of doing it. Male Spatially aware They keep more control Top Down Zoom out Presidential Immediate, in the present End goal orientated Pride Seen to know everything expected to know everything Power from structure

Female Collaborative two-way communication zoom in (forensic) Details Prime ministerial Process orientated ask for help

The group acknowledged that actually good managers (male or female) will use a mixture of these and the fact that we felt able to make a list like this, arbitrarily, pointed up the fact that some of the changes that need to be made are in women’s and men’s perceptions of themselves and their place in the world they are working in. These can change and it is possible to be more adaptive in our working methods and try new ways of doing things.

413

We then made a list of things we thought were barriers for women getting what they want out of the industry.

Barriers: gendered thinking Institutionalised craft. (old plays representing old value systems still dictate the ratio of male to female students in anyone year of drama school) Possible role models not passing on information and confidence to younger generation Not enough networking to see who else is out there or not enough forums for networking. Women performers not making their own work new voices not being used to articulate their own experience. Performers not being developed into artists. Theatre is slow to change. Lack of confidence Not feeling you have the freedom to make mistakes. Decision makers who are not aware of how they make decisions and therefore following old patterns unconsciously. Perspective

It was then acknowledged that the barriers weren’t just limited to women’s voices, but applied to anyone who wanted to say something new and that actually, after having a discussion about women’s theatre we had actually hit on ideas that applied to anyone wanting to make a change.

414

Issue number: 16

Issue: If we believe theatre can change lives and attitudes, how can we speed up the process - as the future looks increasingly grim – or are we just all ‘fiddling while Rome burns’?

Convener(s): Judith Knight

Participants: Sally Cowling, Gerry Pilgrim, Tamzin Griffin, Lucy Neal, Nick Sweeting, Ruth Ben Tovim, Mary O’Connor, Laura McDermott, Aaron Minnigan, Leanne Cosby, Emma Rees, John Jack, Ric Watts

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Agreed that theatre can make a difference but all too slow – there is a real urgency. But if we don’t do anything, then may as well give up. Human creative spirit shows itself in dire circumstances. Creativity will survive no matter what. But too often preaching to converted – eg National Theatre Stuff Happens – all audience agree anyway.

But a lot happening – often not in mainstream – small local projects can make a huge difference. Young people taking issues on board. But not Daily Mail readers – how to get at them? Do we drag them into see political work? More chances of making change through participatory work, one to one. Try to get fusion between personal and political, what people do in their personal lives IS political. Stop people just being spectators, try to get involvement. Self awareness, take more personal responsibility (like Suffragettes).

All this positive, but too slow. How to reach greater numbers, more quickly. Eg Sultan’s Elephant – likened to big anti-Iraq war march, both immensely moving, huge numbers of people, huge impact.

Programmers have to take responsibility for making change. Artists are ingenious, communicative and articulate and can get messages across. They have a responsibility to get message across. Does create a chain reaction.

What do we do about international work – carbon off-setting? More lateral thinking needed. Use technology in new ways.

Optimistic that performing arts courses are over-subscribed. But what are they going to do with it when trained? Supersize Me a great example of making a huge difference – can we get small projects moving into film and TV and have that sort of influence?

415

A lot of political theatre is ‘verbatim theatre’ – what about new plays? Moving political work into the west end. Climate change really on the agenda now. Often starts with just ‘guts’ and instinct. Artists need time to react to political events/situations. Not much time left! Creative thinking – snowball effect.

What about responsibility of audiences? How to mobilise them to act?

Recommendations: Keep doing it, it does make a difference But work to get this work BIGGER and MORE VISIBLE Find a way of making it sexy, glossy Commission a television programme ‘Small Acts with Large Consequences’ JOY a key word – join the Order of Joyful Women! But being joyful does not mean we can’t be angry.

416

Issue number: 17

Issue: Are we addicted to the romance of the suffering artist and our artistic arrogance?

Convener(s): Kerry-Jayne Wilson

Participants: Justin, David McG, Sarah Jean Congers, Peter Jen Lunn, Elanor, Gavin O’Carroll, Adeel Akhtar

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

The artist has a tendency to latch on to the idea of suffering because they like to feel special through their being excluded. Is our own sense of entitlement and supremacy the cause of our own suffering rather than the surrounding environment being culpable? The ‘them and us’ disease. It’ s an easy out. With an addiction to your stereotype you can get away with complaining and blaming others rather than do something about it yourself.

Why are commercial, mainstream, money making all dirty words in art? Are we essentially just jealous at their success to make a living from what they love? And are we just making excuses for our lack of business sense to get our shit together. And make it happen.

We as artists at the grass roots level need to be multi-skilled, thinking of the business, marketing, financial ends as worthy AND AS ARTISTIC as the creation of art in the literal sense.

Our artistic arrogance has created a feudal society even within our own business. We think technicians as lesser creative species, commercially successful artists as sell outs bal bla bal Why? We live by clichés and are driven by insecurities and paranoia and our desperation to be accepted and stamped legitimate.

Out with complaining about the arts council and lack of benefactors. And our sense of entitlement to be given money. Fuck that shit. Grow up and move on. We are living in an age when more and more people are becoming self-employed across the board, changing jobs several times in a lifetime. Work independence is a growing phenomenon. Artists need to catch on more to this idea of independence and seek less support on the outside. The power is in us. Tomorrow is in our hands.

Maybe art and all that goes with it is MEANT TO BE HARD. Like an evolving species we need to adapt to the changing environments in order to survive and therein lies the beauty.

417

Maybe we have a lot to learn from the no nonsense attitude of the corporate type. They have the bollocks to pursue what they want and get it. If we took a lesson from this we would do a hell of a lot more and suffer less.

Have you ever heard of a business plan?????????????????????????????

Vulnerability is NOT AN ACTOR OR AN ARTISTS PRIVILEGE. Ever heard of Darfur, Tibet, the single mum on a strict budget, the middle aged banker crying like a baby with chronic depression, the kid that just lost the pet dog. Vulnerability does not just start when you decide to paint these stories, write them, perform them, sing them and bla bla bla. Vulnerability happens every effin day when every human being across the world opens their eyes in the morning to get through another day. Why does art give you the god damn right to be vulnerable???????

Added: Note from Gavin O’Connor (present at the group): This write up is extremely one sided and not representative of all the groups tone. While we agreed with most of the points this was made of a discussion - a rant in reality

418

Issue number: 23

Issue: Afternoon Nap

Convener(s): Stella Duffy,

Participants: Victoria Willing, Julian Crouch, others

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations: I was feeling post-lunch tired, so wrote Afternoon Nap on a piece of paper and lay down. Others joined me. Naps were had. Then I left. Other naps were had.

419

Issue number: 24

Issue: Old Farts’ Terrors

Convener(s): Bette Bourne

Participants: Various

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

The group shared their ‘old fart fears’:

 Terror of artistic arrogance  Fear that you have a love/hate relationship with theatre  Fear of old age and isolation  Desire to control  Falling out of love with theatre  Fear that you are young at heart, but the world has moved on  Fear of physical breakdown  Fear of being past your sell-by-date  Fear of disapproval  Fear there is no God. Or that there is one. And stomach cancer. And Bombs.  Fear that theatre is really important after all  Fear there is no politics in theatre  Fear there are no career prospects  Fear of not working  The need to have a talent for talent  Can people make their own work? It’s either bollocks or hogwash, depending on which camp you’re in . If you’re a lighting designer you can’t always make your own work.  Fear that competition is unhealthy  Commercial skills are not transferable into the arts  What is the career path of a manager?  Should we expect a career path?  Be an old theatrical fart – at least it means you’re working.  Why are young people so angry? The old farts aren’t.  Perhaps it’s all about phases – when you’re young, you’re hopeful, then move into a despairing middle age, then become a carefree old fart.  Bette was asked how he stayed successful – but after a stint at the RSC, he’s now out of work.  IF YOU’RE NOT WORKING, YOU’E NOT IN THE INDUSTRY  We can learn a lot from the old farts.

420

 Only connect? We should share expertise.  Terrified of being forced to do bad writing to pay the rent.

So the gospel of St. Bourne reads …

 Make yourself interesting  Learn your history And stay physical.

421

Issue number: 28

Issue: How would theatre makers like to be trained?

Convener(s): Nick Wood

Participants: Jennifer, Ros, Michael, Alyn, Catherine, Jen, David, Denise Please add your names

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

In discussion the following recommendations were made for theatre training:

 Environment in which possible to move at your own pace

 Be able to change direction when I wanted

 Be exposed to ideas

 Be exposed to other disciplines

 Learn to do it my way

 Feel I’ve made choices, have ownership over training choices

 Ability to be influenced by a large collective and work through ideas with other people

 Good one-to-one tutors advising you, drawing you out, not telling you what to do

 Meet people with life-time’s dedication – inspiring in their discipline

 Ability for teachers to learn from their students

 Learn to be pro-active, make a living

 Recognition that you’ll be going in to a business environment

 Learn that theatre can happen in more places than theatres

 Learn where you are going to take your skills

 A good course would create a lot of needs … leading to self-sufficiency 422

 Mix time in School with time in practice (EG one year training, then five years practice, then two years training)

 Learn that you never stop training

 Learn to be self-motivated

 Placements – do a walk on role as part of your training

 Be in front of an audience

 Be protected

 Learn to make transition from protected world to being vulnerable in front of a whole load of people

 Personal growth

 Business skills need to be taught

 Less of a culture that the business world is not for them

 Learn to take theatre in to the corporate world

 Learn to stop running away – build a symbiotic relationship with corporate world

 Learn to engage with corporate world

 Learn methods of evaluation from corporate world

 Train for more than one thing

 Promote the right degree of expectation – not too high, not too low. It’s work, it’s straightforward

 Learning to be an artist rather than director, lighting designer etc.

 A course for theatre-makers (covering all disciplines)

 Training which doesn’t hamper you by defining what you do too tightly

 Training which prepares to go on training yourself 423

 Even more freedom, tutors saying they’re sharing their knowledge – not telling you what to do or how to do it

 It’s about being in an environment with a whole lot of people doing something every day for three years

 Leave with a peer group, not isolated

 Company that graduates can go straight in to

 Today feels like being at drama school again, feels safe like being at college again

424

Issue number: 36

Issue: How Can We Make More Money

Convener(s): Richard Kingdom

Participants: …we didn’t write it down…

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Looking at how we can get more money in. Think about the end product and how you might be able to get there (ie in reverse): I want to make an international-touring-multi- award-winning-financially-block-busting-show – how do I do that?

No get rich quick schemes here but some good advice:

Money saving strategies: visit “moneysavingexpert.com” or freecycling (online community getting rid of old things for free – good place to find equipment)

Sponsorship: ethical considerations (tobacco, arms and fast-food are blacklisted) All about building relationships Commission-based (eg offering 50p per ‘click through’ sale – this worked with an energy company who were encouraging people to switch to green energy and offered sponsors 50p for everyone who came to them via the sponsee’s website) Large sponsors covering a number of events eg Perrier and Becks – even once the sponsorship stops, the brand recognition continues (i.e. “Perrier winner Daniel Kitson”) and this can have a significant impact on PURCHASE DECISION and that’s what it’s all about. Model your audience – banks are interested in getting young people to sign up for instance Invite potential sponsors to events etc – groom them! Blanket sponsorship for festivals with a wide base of artists also carrying branding in their marketing “5 whys” – Why should I sponsor you? Answer. Why should I support great theatre? Etc etc. Get to the bottom of it! Also think about it from the opposite perspective – from the point of view of the sponsor. If we make relevant work then the money can’t be far away…

Friends schemes and Donations: regular donations, different amounts; can also relate it to things such as sponsoring studio space from 5mins to 5weeks

Creating Merchandise: Thinking of things to sell and canny ways of selling them. Soundtracks, scripts etc etc. Give your mailing list a free download of a song from the 425 show and then offer to sell them the album. If the album is then brought from a website which is the fictional shop of a character from the show then you can use the transaction to enhance the imagined life of your work (this idea comes from the Gorilla theatre session).

Audience Development: “money is the symptom, audience is the goal” Centralisation of mailing lists etc but without abusing the inboxes of your followers – beware the media fatigue of a post-email society! Building mystique – making people feel like their privy to something (text messages about location for instance – rave style!)

426

Issue number: 38

Issue: How do we encourage directors not to be wankers?

Convener(s): Tom Wright

Participants: Lots of people

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

- INTERESTING POINT: More directors than actors turned up. - Distinction between being ‘wanky’ ie pretentious and a ‘wanker’ ie abusive. - Difficulty of drawing a distinction between ‘wanker’ behaviour which genuinely pushes performers to be better and abuse. - KEY QUESTION: Does the end justify the means? - REASONS FOR WANKER BEHAVIOUR - Fear of the actors as people - Fear of the production failing and taking responsibility for that. - Love of power for power’s sake. - Difficulty of being a different kind of director according to each performers’ needs. - The more in control a person feels the less they feel the need to be a wanker. - There are certain situations in which being authoritarian is perfectly acceptable and definitely not wankerish. The problem is who decides this? Where and how is the line drawn? - The importance of good dialogue between cast and director, starts at audition (Do they really want to work on the project? Do they really want to work with/know about the director?) Be clear at audition. Director training courses spend one afternoon on casting technique. - KEY POINT: Difficulty of honest dialogue because of imbalance of status between most directors and their cast. - Directors may be less wankerish if they received more emotional support from outside the rehearsal room. - Is there a system of supervision/mentoring/feedback that would pick up abusive behaviour? Could assistant directors or artistic directors take on this role? - Directors (and actors) need to accept that they are engaged in a process of life- long learning. - It requires great conscious effort to make actors feel that they can be honest with directors in rehearsals. - KEY POINT: The onus is on the person with the status to ensure that there is good communication. - Ego gets in the way of art. - Don’t assume actors know how well they are doing – praise.

427

- What is more important – doing great work or being a director people want to work with? - Always keep back some anger (don’t go to emotional extremes as it leaves you no place for negotiation.) - Post production feedback – discussions? Forms? Actually it’s ongoing and instant feedback (of the kind that actors receive) that’s important

- FUTURE ACTIONS - A name and shame system were abuses are publicised. - KEY POINT: A code of conduct or good practise for directors – if you have an idea on how to take this further please contact [email protected] - As director, acknowledge your fear to the group.

428

ISSUE NO. 45

Are ‘the right people’ allocating the funding ?

Convener: Elaine Kidd

Participants: Darren Abrahams, Adam Bennett, Ken Turner, Gillian Hambling, Danny Braverman, Ed Collier, Penny Francis, Sinead MacManus, Caroline Giammetta, Sam Howey Nunn, Lisa Hammond, Jennifer Gunstone, Wendy Buckley, Sharon Kean, Roger Hartley

EXPERIENCES: Our company used to get on with producing work and for 3 years we’ve been developing business plans and our admin infrastructure at the request of the funders only not to get funding (early years project money already allocated) and not to be told real story about why not. (Preston-based)

SW Area v inefficient. Did a satirical application as a creative form of criticism and was told I wasn’t helping myself. Why don’t funders welcome criticism to help them improve ?

Grant system now much better - simpler, fairer. Like absence of deadlines.

I miss the deadlines. Don’t know when project is ‘perfect’ enough to apply now. bac’s best box office is on the Pay What You Can nights

GRIPES

ACE criteria stop young people expressing themselves Criteria make artists into the instruments of govt policies

Company’s survival at risk if it becomes about jumping through funding hoops

Northumberland has no government arts funding whatsoever

It’s often easier to get business developed – get grants to improve business/admin – rather than do the theatre itself

429

Young people just starting out as theatre-makers often have no idea how to go about getting funding. It isn’t (and perhaps rightly so) on their radar.

Arts Council veers people away from being genuine artists. Stops them asking questions like ‘What is an artist?’ and makes them instead ask questions like ‘How do I raise money?’

NT is a mafia – not open to new work. Should be a conditioning of its funding.

QUESTIONS and DEBATE

If we agree that we need some kind of organisation to allocate funds from government, is the Arts Council the right body to do this? What about a smaller grass roots body to allocate funds on their behalf who are more in touch with current practice and emerging artists ? What happened to use of panel of practitioners reporting on their peers ? – ACE officers can’t get everywhere to see everything.

Who gets the decision-making jobs ? Are the officers sufficiently involved in the scene to make judgments ?

How do you evaluate art ? It’s like catching something that shouldn’t be caught.

Why government funding at all ? What about American model of private sponsorship. Would it work in UK ? (No – people don’t dig that deep)

Could more earned income be generated ? Creative Partnerships have made a big difference to companies with their work in schools for example.

How do we get LEAs to value artists ? They’ll happily pay £700 for a consultant or legal expert – why not for art ?

What percentage of GDP do the Arts get in the UK? Under Laing in France the French get 1 % - lots by comparison to us.

How do we get more savvy about raising money to do a show ?

430

What does value for money mean ? Does it have to be about reaching large numbers ? Isn’t true value for money about a quality experience which leaves participants in some way changed by the experience ?

Is it difficult/appropriate for us to review colleagues (peer assessment on behalf of ACE) ? Yes if one tries to be objective, and, with freedom of information, has to give named assessment.

Is an RFO a good model for theatre ? Salaried people often can’t find funding for the actual projects or spend the whole of their time tracking down stuff for free. Doesn’t it mean that people are paid to sit around not doing much ? How can they be encouraged or even coerced not to sit on their haunches and to refresh themselves ?

PROPOSITIONS

Cost of Iraq war cf the Arts. Blair shouldn’t be debating whether or not we should be a world power militarily, but a world power in terms of the Arts.

Reallocate money from new Trident to the Arts

We need more platforms for new work. RFOs need to be pushed to present new work.

Need radical movement of artists who stop asking for ACE money and get on with own work to own agenda

Have an ACE dept who specifically gives money for radicality

Function of group like ours needs to be to lobby and support the Arts Council

Make theatre free, or get people to pay BEFORE and AFTER they’ve seen a show. Harks back to street theatre. March 27th – Free Theatre Day. Make it a funding criteria that theatres facilitate this.

Rather than just giving grants, couldn’t an Arts Council officer work with individual companies to support their fundraising ? – get to know their work, and help them to identify funding opportunities and to draft applications.

Pedal-power ! 431

Fulfil government’s anti-obesity drive by getting audience’s to generate the electricity for the performance. Sit ‘em all on exercise bikes with a hooter and a bell for audience participation. If they like the show, they keep pedalling. If they don’t, the lights go out.

Treadmill power. What happens to all that wasted energy in the gyms that could be harnessed for something ?? And kiddie-power. Attach a generator to kids running around in theatres.

Theatre buildings are a waste of space when not used. So are big corporate buildings, often with health and safety conforming performance spaces within them – let’s use these. Perhaps for the Olympics.

Encourage ethos of development time.

Use the Law of Two Feet at the theatre more.

Do an open space process with the military.

Lottery tickets – use percentage of company’s grant to buy a grand’s worth and open them in front of an audience who choose where the winnings go – variety of buckets at the front of the stage for different charities. See if win back more than what it cost to buy tickets and put that back into the company.

INPUT FROM MR ARTS COUNCIL

ACE v different to 20 years ago – advocates early years projects, diversity, access

93 theatres funded in London to tune of 43 million, about 20 of which goes to National Theatre. Need to look at subsidy-hungry theatres. NT probably the most progressive of them.

ACE in regular conversation with local authorities. Speaks daily with the newly Tory-run boroughs like Wandsworth and Hammersmith to advocate for the Arts. Scary that H’smith wants to ‘out-Wandsworth Wandsworth in offering lowest council tax in the country’

There aren’t any gender-specific funds anymore – no discrimination of this kind allowed.

432

Regional arts boards are now a part of ACE. London Arts Board for example is not Arts council London. They employ experts with a track record in different artforms as development officers. There’s an increasing flow of practitioners into the ACE. Majority of officers passionate about the Arts and want to do a better job.

Need a mixed ecology of offering value (quality) and value-for-money (numbers). There are comparatives that work e.g. if A can produce B for C amount of money, why can’t Z do it ?

Peer type review is coming back with independent assessors.

Emerging artists become known through radar organisations who support them and are known to ACE e.g. Lyric, bac Harder to be known without this kind of venue partnership

Young Vic supports emerging artists. David Lan model of ‘enlightened self- interest’ a good one. ROH Linbury projects have also been successful in supporting new work.

ACE not necessarily responsive enough to entrepreneurial young people e.g. 17 yr old hip hop artist who took over a shop front in Soho. How can it become a more light-footed funding organisation and stop drowning in paperwork ?

There’s a new programme for youth theatres (participatory work).

ACE has to prepare for different financial scenarios in 08/09. If there were to be, for example, a 5% cut from the Treasury, how should funds be reallocated. Group agreed that an across board 5% cut not useful as the impact of that would be unequal. Felt important to bring in new blood, if necessary, at expense of existing funded orgs, in order to constantly refresh the Arts. Importance of looking at individual cases.

There has been discussion about whether ACE would be subsumed within the DCMS, but no-one in government wants to do something this thorny now

DCMS does want to know how to encourage the creative health of the nation

To what extent should ACE be coercive. e.g. Disability Access now law, but what about things like Racial Equality Action Plans ?? 433

Issue number: 46

Issue: What do you think about collaboration across art disciplines?

Convener(s): Richard Couldrey

Participants: Leslie Forbes, Dafne Louzioti, Tanya Cottiutti, Brania Evers, Joe Bull, Sharon Smith, Liz Moreton, Sam Jones, Rachael Spence, Sam Jones, Aleasha Chaunte, Lian Bell, William Wong, Mandy Trains, Mark Grimmer, Annette Mees, Fiona Watt

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Conversation started with people talking about their experiences a little and developed into a conversation as much about the nature of collaboration as collaboration across artforms. Its turned into bullet points, but there we go:

MAKING STRUCTURES:

 An outside eye. There was number of cases of a two way collaboration with a third person associated with that team occasionally coming in during the making process  Conversation around the idea leading to independent work being brought back to the group, tweaked and returning to independent work. Break the cycle to open the show.  A writer / director structuring the process and then shepherding a democratic making environment  Make a piece with not a lot at stake – a one week making process? A work in progress showing?

OBSERVATIONS:

 Its also interesting for individuals to bring multi-discipline skills to the mix. Does that mean that you bring a more open and flexible approach to making?  How do you make it an even collaboration if one of the collaborators has “the loudest mouth” or is the strongest character… moved on…  Collaboration of any sort needs a sensitivity to the other people involved  Leave your ego at home but come in with self-confidence in your own skills  Need to have a clear understanding of your own skills that you are bringing to the table.  You don’t need to understand everyone else’s disciplines, just the reason why you’re collaborating ie the show

434

KEYWORDS / PHRASES:

 Persistence  Trust  Risk  Rigorous self editing  Willingness to be challenged at a fundamental level  Clarity of intention  Honesty  Prepare to be surprised and be changed  Understanding how someone else ticks  Understand how much or how little you need to tell people about your discipline  Know when to stop talking and complete the show  Translation of language

HOW DOES COLLABORATION BEGIN?

 From a deep understanding of the artistic idea – the foundation  With the right chemistry – almost across the board, collaborations grew organically out of casual conversation.  Circumstance  The right time at the right place  Through lots and lots of conversation  Someone needs to instigate  Mutual respect and awareness of where someone else artistically comes from  Complementary skills  With patience

WHAT HAPPENS THE FIRST TIME?

 It’s likely to contain a lot of self-doubt and self –questioning for everyone  Exciting but scary thing is to have your discipline challenged by someone who is not versed in it.  Be prepared to be challenged to work outside your comfort zone.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN COLLABORATIONS CONTINUE?

 A shared language is developed.  The total becomes greater than the sum of its parts  Great things

435

WHY DO IT?

 Human experience contains all the senses, why do shows need to be boxed to contain few senses or disciplines?  The show’s the thing – respect that and artistic boundaries fall  Seemingly exclusive artforms can influence eachother (a dancer can influence a writer, a musician can influence visual art)

WATCH OUT:

 Work hard to find different ways to communicate if communication is not good  Beware feeling or making someone feel undervalued!  The $£$£ devil. Transparency is needed with the core collaborators about how the budget is divided. CONTENTIOUS!! Should this come down to sober contractual agreement – it was found this depended on the size of the team / scale of the show. In larger teams, yes, keep fees away from the making environment, in smaller shows, transparency is needed. Be aware, we all need to make a living  How do you get different audiences along to a mixed artform event? Tricky. (eg, The Show’s the Thing (David Harradine, Jo Manser and Jed Barry) not listed by either theatre or art for the opposite reason)  A lot of effort needs to be put into energising and opening your audience

436

Issue number: 53

Issue: How do we tour when the oil starts to run out?

Convener(s):Adam Bennett

Participants: Ywan Brioc, Josh Darcy, Natalie Querol

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

After discussing alternatives to diesel ( bio-diesel, vegetable oil, ethanol) the discussion moved to alternative forms of transport.  Horse and cart  Horse and barge  Sailboat or rowboat  Using public transport  Using the rail network with your own little push-powered platform that can convert into a stage!  Bicycles ( which can convert into electricity generators for lighting and sound when you arrive.  Don’t tour. Make local work.

Whatever the form of transport, if touring is to continue, a new system of making theatre which requires the transportation of large amounts of kit needs to evolve.

Ways in which receiving venues can support this process are:  Providing a standard very versatile ‘staging set’ which can be adapted to fit the staging demands and the ‘usual’ set pieces that touring productions bring to that venue. The advantage is that there is very little wasted and no skipping of sets once the production has finished.  Working with companies to acquire the resources (either extra performers locally, extra time to finish rehearsals or teching once arrived sourcing unusual bulky items locally.  Touring companies will have to tour work that can be put together onsite. Using local resources and support performers. The less they need to bring with them, the more they can tour without burning fossil fuels.

437

Issue number: 71

Issue: Does Politics have a place in theatre? Agitprop? Any? Or are we all scared/bored of it?

Convener(s): Josh Darcy

Participants: Louisa Norman, Dan Coleman, Shelley Silas, Jane Edwards, Claire Fariington, Morven Macbeth, Oladipo Agboluaje, Steven Hoggett, Emma Bernard, Sharon Smith, Polly Moseley, Gemma Paintin, Katherine Maxwell-Cooke, Danny Browerman, James Stenhouse, Maddy Costa, Adeel Achtar, Kirsty Lothian, Mark Price, Leonie Dodd, Richard Kingdom, Darragh McKean, Hazel Maddocks, Vicky Ireland, David Rosenberg, Louisa Norman, Justin Audibert, Penny Dimond, the cat.

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Politics! Apathy! Community! Britain as wasteland!

“It’s all about Rage” Vicky Ireland.

Politics is in the form.

“They didn’t just kill Ken Saro Wiwa because of his political plays” Oladipo Agboluaje

“Theatre is the wrong place for politics”

“I take exception to that, you’re completely wrong!” Penelope Dimond.

“Don Carlos was the most political play I saw last year”

Caryl Churchill, David Hare, David Edgar.

The Madness of George W

“Community! What is Community?”

“Audiences like to be asked what to think, not told what to think” – Shelley Silas

Watch Black Watch

Boal and the theatre of legislation

The way the DCMS has obliterated the Arts Council. 438

Chomsky “The manufacture of consent”

Verbatim theatre

“The most powerful tool is the metaphor”

Banksie and white bicycles.

Hey! Nicaragua.

Free speech leads to apathy and complacency.

It’s about the conversations afterwards.

Passion, argument, consensus, more argument, anger.

Conclusion:

There may or may not be a place for politics in Theatre, but there’s certainly a place for it at Devoted and disgruntled.

439

Issue number: 86

Issue: How to be creative with/ creative about a work-life balance in theatre?

Convener(s): Toma Dim

Participants: Sophie, Michael Spence, David Mc Groarty, Zoe Pickering, Mary, Louise Platt, Vicki Willing

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

There was a general recognition that work-life balance was not just an issue for the theatre but for many industries in Britain and that many of the factors that contributed to the difficulty of getting it right weren’t unique to the arts.

Having said that, it was felt that the underfunded situation in which much of the sector operates (lack of money, time and people resources) makes it especially vulnerable.

Aspects of the theatre industry that affect the work-life balance  Unsociable Hours – evening and weekend work as standard  Touring  Wages - relatively low for most, both for creatives and administrators  Workload - (even part-time jobs seem to take fulltime hours) due to self employed nature or under-resourcing  Job security – lots of people after the same jobs, also freelance nature of much of industry and the unpredictability of acting work  Change in communications – mobiles, email and text means you can be available 24hrs a day

Discussions (rearranged according to theme)

Hours, conditions, pay  There is a feeling, mainly unspoken that if you aren’t there all hours then you aren’t committed or not working hard enough  Bullshit myth that theatre has to be 24 hours,  Bullshit myth of artist as person consumed emotionally and mentally by the art 24/7 – pressure (maybe internal to conform to that or hold it up as ideal.  Unpaid work experience/roles. There is a definite attitude that if you aren’t prepared to work for free then you aren’t committed. - this means you lose out on a class of people who can’t afford to do it (class and ethnic diversity). - it also means that the sector loses out on people with a richer life experience.  THEATRE IS NOT A MERITOCRACY, though we’d like to believe it.

440

 Pressure from Directors who seem to think that the work is better for working 12 hour days  Freelancers are a large part of the industry pros – you might be able to shape your work around your family commitments cons – no job security or financial support structures for them  The working hours can create pressure on relationships, can be difficult to sustain when you are rarely at home or thinking about work when you are at home, you can find that you only have relations with those inside the industry

Fear  Do you burn out if you don’t maintain a balance or do you fade out of sight if you prioritise it?  Discrepancy between perception of the arts as a caring, sensitive industry and the reality of a hard-nosed, financially pressured deadline driven reality.  You are driven by fear – that someone else will get the work if you don’t take it, if you don’t take this job then a relationship will be built with someone else so you won’t get offered work in the future, that if you speak out about conditions that you be branded disloyal, lazy, not advance, not get future work, anger colleagues in a competitive industry.  In an industry based on networking how do you cope with taking a career break (to recharge or be a carer) when you get forgotten when not ‘on the scene’

Balance  Everything else that you do as a person feeds into your work as an artist  Emotional investment needed both at work and at home, but not the sort of job where it’s easy to switch off when you get home. How can you make sure you’ve the energy /headspace for both?  How do you earn money and yet sustain yourself (emotionally, creatively, managing other responsibilities)? Idea is to be choosier about the work you do but is this possible for all?

Family/childcare

 Women who want a family and to stay in and succeed in the industry but keeping being told (in particular by other, older, successful women) that you can’t do both.  Question: Can you be a successful artist/administrator and a successful parent?  Taboo of even being seen to want to have children – not discussed at work in case people don’t invest in you (either as in your career opportunities or in trusting you in case you ‘leave them’ to have kids.  Why does it have to be a choice between family and work?  All the work life balance stakes are raised when children are involved  Being with children can inform your own work ‘open up your third eye’, teach you to play, teach you about who you really are 441

Suggestions  Change in culture needs to come from top down – managers, artistic directors, directors need to lead by example or by supporting reasonable work practices  Affordable childcare for all – potentially tiered by income ie low income pay less and at very least tax deductable  Community childcare in arts spaces – way to integrate further into local community, arts from cradle to grave, artistic release for people to be able to do story readings/learning from children’s play, in built audience for workshopping theatre for children and young people. Big institutions should lead the way  Treat all your relationships with respect, making them work is all about negotiation and dialogue.  Maintain informal networks with other who might be in a similar position – play readings coffee mornings  Arts training bodies (universities, drama school etc) to teach strategies for coping with work-life balance within the industry (starting a family as well)  Raise awareness – its illegal for people to consider your family situation in relation to your employment.  Why can’t we bring children to work?

General feeling that it was nice to feel that others were worried by the same issues – it can feel like you are the only one.

Balanced lives are crucial to better art!

442

Issue Number: 115

Issue: Can we do something to change the Arts Council, or should we ignore it?

Convener: Gerard Bell

Participants: Alex Parsonage, Penny Dimond, Richard Kingdom (+ Rob Hales)

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

…. The conversation is put down meanderingly fairly much as it happened. Some of what may pass as recommendations have been given the benefit of a different font size….

‘They follow (behind) govt. edicts’. And there is a suspicion that they know the institutions (or people) they are going to give funds to. Qu: is there the political will in GB to support the arts? Should public money be used? ‘ …the arts aren’t a necessity…’. Arts have to be combined with sports to be categorized and for funding purposes. [ as to necessity it was generally agreed that the arts were a necessity - and though it is good for us to ask this question we should make the case.] The necessity of the arts is not so obvious (or quantifiable) as health provision, food – it is ‘spiritual’, to do with ‘soul’ or those other words. (But it was asked that Faith for example is also to do with these and should that be supported by funding { Because of the words used there was a distinction here we perhaps needed to but didn’t get to make – Convener’s note}

Qu: What was Keynes’s original argument for setting up Arts funding?

We always have to justify the arts in terms of something else. (But) in an integrated society the arts would be integrated.

(With regard to the initial question) ‘We should ignore them – or bomb them’ . Tho’ we decided there were certain ethical considerations for not enacting the latter suggestion.

Their (the Arts Councils’) bureaucracy is very hard to penetrate. Qu: Why is the approach to them so daunting (for artists)? It was noted, too, anecdotally how many clerical and administrative errors they make in dealing with applications, raising the question as to how they were operating? It was also noted that it is not even money from people’s taxes now (much of it is lottery money).

To ignore them is good because it gets rid of a lot of hassle and angst.

Things could be improved if they were more open as to who makes each decision and how they are made. ACE should be much more transparent (because they 443 would become more intelligible and more accountable – to practitioners that is, rather than to govt.) ‘There was no-one from theatre on a theatre decision panel’. And ‘you feel that they’re not really interested or informed’. ‘No-one who believed in art for art’s sake would go to work for the Arts Council’.

The more people (applicants etc) who give them feedback (on how their process is working) the better: ie we should write to them; inform them.

When you apply you’re up against a monthly expenditure budget and if you apply in a busy month, by chance, you are more likely to be unlucky. Is there a better way for ACE to organize this then – the relationship of availability of funds to decision-making. It should be said that the objection is not to being turned down in funding applications – that has to be expected – but the hoops you have to go through to make them, the way they are made, and the arts Council’s understanding of art in general.

At a meeting recently a representative from ACE said that in 3 yrs time there will be no money for the Arts because it will go to the Olympics. WATCH OUT FOR the OLYMPICS-EFFECT. ( In Greece, after the Athens Olympics, arts projects were cancelled, reportedly, to pay for the Olympic overspend).

We should write now to MPs, London Assembly Members, Ken to ask what they are doing to safeguard against this? Get avowals.

Qu: Is what is popular precisely what is uninteresting in art? Not necessarily – look at The Sultan’s Elephant. This, of course, was not made in England – it was made in France. Welfare State have finally called it a day because of the tedium of meeting Arts Council criteria – the social-worker justification of the arts etc.

More trust should be put into artists and makers; fund them and interesting work will be made. Funding is very much for projects which is short term, unsupprtive and means constant re-applications and justification.

Moving to another country is the solution . The amount of well-funded theatre in several other European countries were instanced. And that, as artists and performers, you were treated naturally with some respect.

It is not the Arts Council’s fault: it is the political will and background culture of the country { it could be said the Arts Council is pusillanimous – Convener’s comment }. There is no Arts Minister in the Government any more. It is included under sport. Sport is not the same as the arts.

We all want to move to Europe!

444

Qu: what do we think of the American model of funding? And is it likely here?

We have no voice as a body. ACE represents government to us rather than us to the government. They self-censor out of fear of the government over their shoulder. In this way the arms-length principle is over-ridden.

Either: someone (not one of us three) sets up a powerful lobby group or we ignore the lot and move to Europe. ( It is part of our cultural heritage that we’ve always been marginal low-lifes – that is actors and performers who, naturally don’t have much brain between them. They apart, anti-intellectualism is respected here).

The time, effort and energy spent in applying to ACE could be better spent on fundraising events with a greater likelihood of some success A great deal of time is spent chasing funds. Would we be better not doing this and give the time back to ourselves.

A comparison with how musicians/bands establish themselves was suggested. This may not be so possible in theatre but the idea of independence is valuable.

A question was also put that either because funding made it possible to present some work very cheaply ( the cost of seats being subsidised) or necessitated that it was presented cheaply it might be valued cheaply both by the audience and by the makers – if people were paying £30, or £60, to see our work it would have to be good. This effect might quickly adjust itself were we used to having plenty of money to spend.

PROVISO: The conversation continued with …… …. (name withheld, in case I’ve misrepresented him), beginning in the gent’s toilets. His experience of dealing with the Arts Council had been pretty positive. It is worth saying that if you are thinking of applying the more time you give yourself in advance the better. There is then time for them to appraise your application and make all the additions that will help it meet with approval, and they do help to do this. It is a matter of listening, of understanding their process, and being pragmatic. They, actually, don’t mind if you don’t fulfil the criteria (they don’t bind you in that way) but it should look like you do. This is, of course, admitting an unofficially endorsed practice of ‘bullshit’. There is a lot of money, and for new people, though this may all be at the lower end of the award scale.

445

III. Cited Sessions: Devoted & Disgruntled 3

446

Issue number: 18

Issue: ACE what do we do about it?

Convener(s): Nick Sweeting

Participants: James Stenhouse, Richard Couldrey, Ric Watts, Josh Neicho, Jo Crowley, Jade Gany, Grainne Byrne, Lyn Gardner, Ellie Beechham, Angela McSherry, Dee Evans, Rob (couldn’t read your surname – please add), Jonathan Holloway, Sara Perks, M Samuel, Pip Nash, Tassos Stevens, Andy Field, Chloe Deichery, Sebastian Warrick, Frank Bock, Morven Macbeth, Vo Stendall, Emma Stenning, Jon Spooner, Sophie Woolley, Jonathan Petherbridge.

Nick opened with summary of recent cuts and expressed shock at lack of ACE communication and transparency and questioned foundations of support for ACE if it didn’t open out to the industry. Interested in process to suggest a better model.

Notes from ensuing discussion:

ACE not accountable – only such organization and could only happen in the arts.

ACE originally set up to represent artists and ACE and artists were on the same side. Decisions now politicized with input from government with worrying implications.

ACE should distribute funding from arms length principle separate from govt influence. Increased involvement from DCMS.

Relationship with local officers varies from region to region and officer to officer. ACE should look at dissemination of best practice across all regions to improve confidence in ACE officers. Biggest gulf ever between ACE and practitioners.

Most people won’t stand up to ACE because they are scared of loosing their funding. Current round shows that they might as well as 447 doesn’t seem to have helped.

ACE should be clear about it’s role and less dependent on individual taste or the knowledge of particular officers. NS believes that ACE should exist, but without change and support from arts community and with interference from DCMS it could disappear with the next government.

People who have received funding uplifts this time are keeping their heads down. Should stand shoulder to shoulder with cut orgs as could be them next time. Should speak out. In the past there have been bigger protests, with people willing to stick their necks out. If e.g. Nick Hytner, Peter Hall etc and all of us made a proper campaign it would make the papers and have an effect. We shouldn’t passively accept these methods of financial control as nothing will change if we don’t make a fuss.

Companies in latest round have to apply for the evidence used to judge their financial futures – not offered or included in letter informing them of funding decision. Unfair particularly to small organizations.

Emma Stenning said there had been 2 grounds for these decisions – some companies had been involved in long term discussions about ACE concerns about them. Some are involved in a prioritizing of funding. If new companies need to be funded they may be prioritized over an existing company to make funds available. Normally ACE would make these changes over 12 months but this was not possible this time because of delay in spending review.

Parent/Child or equal adults – sometimes child (the company) can know more than the parent(ACE) because of years of practicing experience.

SOME RECCOMMENDATION

For funding decisions should there be panels including peers and 448 audience members?

- Peer review as in scientific fields? Would that lead to preservation of status quo.

- Audience review such as a type of jury service.

Do we believe ACE should be a partnership with practitioners. What form would such a partnership take?

- Felt peers review is crucial but artists who get public money have to take responsibility for giving something back to the artistic community as well as produce work e.g. mentor, have to see other work, be self critical, look at other organizations as below.

- Should be shadowing or secondment system for practitioners and ACE employees to go into each other’s organizations and learn about them.

- Future funding decisions should come from a combination of peer scrutiny, officer recommendation, transparency of process and time to review decision – then ACE facilitates decision.

- Should practitioners be involved in interviews for ACE officers? ACE regarded as bureaucrats making decisions about us.

- Should there be a ‘shadow’ arts council to be conduit between artists and ACE?

- Should new members of ACE board be from artistic community?

- ACE should give more credence to advice from regional arts organizations.

- A big group of people should come up with their own ideas of how a future ACE would work. Then we could see how much common ground there is and put that forward as concrete ideas, so would be a concensus. Could be done as a meeting, in writing – whatever. 449

SUGGESTED ACTION

Should be letters.

Short term about this particular crisis

Agree ACE can withdraw funding but organizations should have long enough to appeal, and there should be transparency about the process and decision making.

Suggestion that current round of cuts be recinded while a transparent process is implemented properly.

Long term

Letter for long term vision of how we would like ACE to be. Should go as soon as new CE of ACE arrives. Someone needs to take responsibility for finding widest concensus for this.

Lyn asked Emma – ‘does the potential collapse of this funding round mean new clients won’t get funded’ Emma – yes Lyn – Would this mean the end of ACE Emma - ?

Emma would welcome response and feedback after the heat of the moment has passed. ACE would have liked to announce all changes including potential new clients but were told they legally could not.

NB Meeting Weds 9th Jan at Young Vic at 11am with Peter Hewitt about cuts. Organised by Equity. Contact [email protected]

450

NICK TO START DRAFTING OPEN LETTER TO ALAN DAVEY – ANY SUGGESTIONS; CONTACTS FOR SIGNATURE – PLEASE ADD BELOW………

451

Issue number: 028

Issue: DID WOMEN HAVE A RENAISSANCE? Discuss in reference to the staging of sex gender roles and Webster’s The Duchess of Malfi and Middleton and Dekker’s The Roaring Girl. (Help me with my essay)

Convener(s):Amy Letman

Participants: Lots

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations: Although women may have had some kind of renaissance they were not allowed to participate in it. One lady argued that it wasn’t until the 1970’s and 1980’s that the female renaissance truly began.

Quote for essay: “Did the Duchess of Malfi have a Renaissance? No – Because otherwise she would have been in Act 5.”

The Renaissance, a period of so-called political, intellectual and artistic development. This ‘rebirth’ did not benefit women.

The renaissance was mainly to do with MEN and CAPITALISM

It wasn’t until the restoration that stronger female characters came along. The renaissance female characters were a result of the idealized ‘male gaze’

452

Was Queen Elizabeth a powerful woman? In order to be taken seriously she had to act like a man. She was always surrounded by men (Like the |Duchess is in the play!) Elizabeth never married. She did not want to hide behind a mans name. Women in power was a predicament at this time. The Duchess of Malfi is a play about what can happen when women are in power. (The Duchess is killed)

Cross-dressing and Transvestism: During the renaissance female characters were only played by young boys or men. Today we sometimes see this the other way round, as in King Lear or Richard III. Cross-dressing in Cloud 9 (Churchill being one of todays predominant female writers)

For Conclusion: If the female renaissance didn’t happen until the 70’s and 80’s with writers like Churchill, this is extremely worrying for the situation of women in theatre today. Has the promise for women in theatre which feminism brought ever been fully realized? Many would argue no. Now that feminism is often seen as a ‘dirty word’ where do women stand in theatre today? Has female energy ever been truly realized on stage?

Are characters like Moll in the Roaring Girl and the Duchess early voices of feminism? Albeit through a male pen and through a male voice. Are they hope that new material was beginning to be tolerated? Did this come from audience need? (There would have been a lot of females in audiences)

Why the need for disguise? All’s Well That End’s Well: Helena does not need to take on manly persona or disguise in order to execute her desires: ‘My intents are fixed and will not move me’ ‘Our remedys, often in ourselves do lie’

453

Issue number: 54

Issue: How do I get a good producer for my show?

Convener(s): Sophie Woolley

Participants: Lisa Wolfe, Angela Clerkin, Amy Howard, Catherine Hoffman, Annette

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations: Sophie wrote and performed a solo show, went on tour with it and had sell out shows in London at Purcell Room and Soho Theatre. The show’s ACE funding has run out but she is still touring it. She is producing it herself and has been invited to take it to Canada (and looking to take it to New York where we potentially have some interest from backers) but she doesn’t have time to do everything and I’m working on a new show. She’s been told it’s hard to find good producers. She wants to get a longer London run for the show too

Suggestions and comments:

 Speak to Jo Hemmant at ACE  Get producers down to see the work in progress  We don’t know how to find producers in first place to invite them  There is a producers forum in London but this is a network for producers themselves rather than a network people can use to try and recruit a producer for their shows  Build good relations with venues assists expanding the show’s run and finding producers

454

 Lyric Hammersmith are doing a Lyric Firsts programme and they invite producers to see developing work in progress  Fuel Theatre a good place to look for producers, some sort of hub in Brighton as well?  No reason a show can’t return to London again after doing a few dates there already  People doing solo shows can end up feeling like they do everything when they are the writer, actor and producers and tour booker – it comes to a point when you need help!  Maybe some shows need a tour booker rather than a producer  There don’t seem to be many freelance producers out there  Producers have to take on lots of different jobs to keep going  Producing is a precarious job, they have to be real risk takers as part of role is to raise money and if you can’t get backing/funding then the producer don’t get paid. Many producers seek relative safety in salaried ‘in-house’ producer jobs

455

Issue number: 059

Issue: How and where is Improvisation useful within a rehearsal process.

Convener(s): William Bowry

Participants: Hanna Woolf, Laura Hooper, Fiona, Maryam Ouji, Vic Llewelyn.

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

This discussion centered on the role ‘improvisation’ (defined as the process of spontaneously creating action without a script), has within a rehearsal period.

It was clear that improvisation can be a powerful, explorative tool that can be effectively utilized within a rehearsal process. All the actors, who participated within the discussion, believed that improvisation was a crucial and fundamental process within rehearsal. It allowed an actor to embody a character’s back-story, flesh out the identity of the character and give freedom from the constraints of a script. Every well-conceived performance, utilizes improvisation at every moment, so it is naturally a crucial element to rehearsal. It was agreed that almost every style of theatre could accommodate improvisation, from new writing to classical texts; it allowed a re-translation of the scene or script.

However, in order for improvisation to be a successful and useful process, the actor must have a sense of trust and safety within the group he is working. They also must be trained in the skills and 456 structures of improvisation. Those mentioned included the: three- time rule, image is gone, search further, go shallower and always accept ‘yes’. It was conceded that improvisation is actually a revealing exposure for the actor and this must not be manipulated.

If an actor feels unsafe within an environment, this is often due to a conflation of the actor and the character, at the fault of the director. Within improvisation, there is a symbiotic relationship between the actor and the director and there is a danger this can become abusive. An actor must be pushed to different boundaries (especially when grappling a difficult text), but this must occur in a protective environment. There must be clear parameters set, that an actor feels comfortable with; the danger occurs when an extremity of emotion strips the actor of the confidence to perform. The blurring between the reality of the actor and the reality of the scene/play can not be transgressed.

Otherwise, improvisation is an incredibly useful tool for an actor to ‘play’. It utilizes their imagination, expression and explores the multi- faceted spectrum of performance. However, it must occur within a environment of safety and confidence.

457

Issue number: 63

Issue: Collaboration: do we have to get along?

Convener(s): Pete Phillips

Participants: James Stenhouse, Jodie Hawkes, Matthew Austin, James, Alex Eisenberg, Matt Trueman, Richard Smith, Jo Cawley, Gemma Paintin and others…

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:  Is Hierarchy useful?

 Making work takes ages and is frustrating when we make work collaboratively/democratically.

 Individuals grow up/apart and find it harder to meet on a single vision. Perhaps the process is too collaborative; there is a lack of conflict.

 Is it harder to make work with friends?

 Good things of working with people you know well are; short hand, understanding but maybe you could get too cosy?

 What about a disruptive, aggressive model with rules of engagement. Chip away at each others ideas, forward motion through challenging each other.

 Challenge as a methodology for collaborative practice.

458

 Long processes can accommodate more elaborate journeys to get to the end point. (some later discussion about “end points” and how useful they are…)

 What does the number of people have to do with it?

 Practicing to find the right balance in a group – the dynamic is discovered not prescribed.

 Deadlines can sometimes be helpful; it can be good to drive towards something. (Less so in the early stages of idea development.)

 Finding the right collaborators and finding a common ground – positive or negative.

 Being prepared to fail, in the process of developing a collaborative relationship.

 Bringing in outside influences/specialism can be a difficult process or negotiation.

 Is it helpful to have someone to manage the relationship between collaborators? Does that dilute it?

 Ego

 The key is trusting even if you don’t get along

 We don’t have to agree on anything as long as we are open about our disagreement.

 Important to have conflict out in the open.

 Do we have a need for a consensus that isn’t helpful? Do we need to leave it open? Not to worry about agreeing. 459

 The role of dramaturg or designer or manager as an overview or a mediator.

 Ear wigging or silent outside eye changes the way you work. Can you have a collaborator who just listens without your knowledge? Secret feedback from a spy! If you aren’t conscious of the outsider.

 Fear of other people, of having an outside presence, a watching presence in the process.

 Can you collaborate with a director?

 A director can be a collaborator. Bringing in someone under the banner of a role ‘director’ or ‘designer’ who has responsibility is that hard for an artist to give up that portion of responsibility?

 Perhaps they don’t have a role – just bring in a person.

 An outside eye?

 An inside eye?

 Weather reports – what does it feel like for you out there?

 With outside eyes it’s difficult to negotiate responsibility.

 What’s the difference between an outside eye and an inside eye?

 An outside eye can still be an integral part of the process. An outside eye comes in without baggage and is untainted by the previous journey. But needs to have an understanding of the process. It has to be the right person.

460

 How you want to work is a vision in itself? A vision can be process driven rather than product driven.

 A director can have a vision for a process and collaborate on that vision with the other artists involved.

 Trust…. Be intelligent.

 Some people see personal and work as two separate things and some people see it as the same thing. Is this a difference between devised and scripted work?

 Deep Democracy – understanding how groups work.

 Sensitivity, easier to be open with people you get along with

 It might be that what is right for you is conflict.

 Personal differences can block creative process but creative process can alleviate personal differences.

461

Issue number: 72

Issue: Is there a better way to find/educate/sustain production support for devised work?

Convener(s): Richard Couldrey

Participants: Jo Crowley, Caroline Routh, Malcolm Rippeth, Robert Wells, Sara Parks, Katherine Maxwell-Cook, Lisa Markem, Natalie Querol, Peoder Kirk, Charlie Megrick, Hayley Radford

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Intro: I think its really valuable to have production support that is tuned into a devised process in a way that is very different to tuning into a “modern traditional” way of theatre making. It’s not just about ticking jobslist boxes and job description but is a lot more about tuning into the project artistically and feeding production possibilities into the creative process.

But its really difficult to find that type of person…

Notes from session:

Its about letting non-performers into the creative process demanding a multi-skilled person with artistic integrity nurturing a collaborative process.

This position requires a large amount of familiarity with the company which I guess touches on a need for trust extending to the production person.

462

This is something you learn on the job, it can’t necessarily be trained or taught.

First great idea!

Engagement with colleges to bring students into a devising environment on placement

If placements are mismanaged it can unfortunately promote the myth of theatre not costing very much to make.

Good management of placements is essential, which is very difficult in the heat of making a show, however the idea is dead in the water if placements become nothing but a long list of menial tasks.

Post College:

There are difficult realities for students coming out of college with large debts and being lured by the corporate sector because of high pay. By nature of this work, technicians become more technical and less creatively minded…

Education at college level could be great to open the idea of mixing up income streams for production staff rather than wholesale going into high paid corporate work.

Change tack: Is it the different application of a “traditional” technical theatre skillset?

Colleges often produce techs who need a script, clear plans, rigid direction etc… possibly the opposite of who you want as a making partner in a devised process.

Advise - talk to Council of Drama Schools – get devising onto the curriculum!!! Its not on the curriculum now, so techs and SM are not “taught” it!

463

Dynamic contacts between Colleges, Independent producers, producing houses, freelance PMs, all those contact points with devising processes.

It addressed the idea of feeding graduates into the “supply chain” (ugly phrase)

A creative role requires:

 Artistic understanding  Pro-active engagement  Instilling of confidence, particularly for students / recent graduates.

Are stereotypes preventing this from happening? The black t-shirt techie versus the camp actor?

Architecture of colleges promotes that as well, actors in different buildings than technicians, swipe cards denying entry to eachothers buldings.

Is there a way of pooling good PMs, creating a dynamic black book (tossy language) of names and numbers with new people coming in…

The search for good PMs usually happens too late for proper engagement, its usually too low on the priority list to get sorted.

Also PMs are bad at committing 1 year out to projects.

Balancing books is a big thing, smaller teams are more empowering, but generally lower paid…

Also, getting PMs in early is not in line with funding lead times etc.

464

In bigger companies, PMs are on the management board and involved in artistic decisions, how can we achieve this on the smaller scale?

Second Great idea!

Can independent producers and small companies budget for a PM position that is one day every two weeks? Specifically to get in on early project discussions and not the dog work.

There for pertinent meetings Educating artists to production language Production input early on Involved in channelling staff for projects Inducting SM/ project PM/ Project tech effectively into the team

Regionally the old chat over a coffee system works because everybody knows eachother.

Observation: Good PMs didn’t get formal training! The whole group thought this… Interesting…

Its all about financial priorities really…

Action points:

Meeting between the convener and Central School of Speech and Drama to investigate the placement idea more and look at effective way to educate

Meeting between the convener and producers to investigate the feasibility of “1 day every two week” PM model and managing placements…

465

Issue number: 74

Issue: Can theatre and performance challenge the objectification of women in society and the media?

Convener(s): Alice Edwards

Participants: Heather Taylor, Martin B, Anne Tipton, Kirsty Lothian, Mary O’Connor, Lian Bell, Gemma, Morven Macbeth

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

THIS WAS TYPED UP BY ALICE, BUT WE LOST THE DOCUMENT. SORRY ALICE! THIS IS TYPED UP FROM HER NOTES. I HOPE YOU CAN GET SOME SENSE OF IT! I’M SURE IT WAS MUCH MORE BRILLIANT THAN IT SEEMS FROM THE NOTES.

How can objectification be represented/deconstructed without becoming objectification itself?

If you want to show yourself sexually what’s the problem with that? Because it may be partly to question assumptions.

Hold feminist views but don’t call yourself a feminist – why?

Feminism seems aggressive.

Deserve equality.

It’s not a battle of the sexes.

Humanist.

Don’t want to make a fuss. 466

Feminism has different interpretations.

There is not a cross generational feminism.

Women blame themselves.

If you come into a man’s workplace do you need to be like a man?

Equality of same cultural value – should be as of value to be a woman as it is to be a man.

Are there female playwrights? They need to be taken in their own right.

Embarassed to be a feminist.

Art has a problem with being issue based.

Desperate for women writers: women must write for women. Why? Because men can’t write for them.

We can’t complain until we’re doing something about it.

Quality of the work – what is considered to be of value is not what women want to write about.

Are women being objectified in theatre?

Canon/Text work is male.

Haven’t seen a piece of theatre that deconstructs the objectification of women – ever!

Androgyny – Equality.

Women’s stories – not female versions of stores.

467

If it doesn’t matter if it’s a woman or a man’s story it will be a mans. If it’s a woman’s story then it’s women’s themes/issues.

T of S amazed women. Angry about way women are treated.

Director – line from the vagina to the eyes.

Another girl who walks around in their underwear.

Not taking man’s name – bit weird – bit feminist. That’s still normal. That’s what getting married is. Celebrity women taking men’s names. Ms/Miss divorced, etiquette. Ms seems bit posh. Miss = available to get married.

Straight 8 – film making (3 mins) edit in camera.

Women being naked, being victims, being tied up. Have to change it.

You have to believe it is different.

Women in roles of victims, the whore with a heart.

Bourne – refreshing, soft, helping, celebrated.

Heroes – save the pretty blonde one.

Perception of what is good is driven by men. Where and what your influences are often come from misogyny. Women have to realize this as inherent in them.

Something missing in the theatre – onus is on me to create it.

Traditional role of women is not valued in our society. We are therefore not telling that story.

Same sex oppression – perception of each other re: having children. I have to make you feel inadequate. Theatre and performance can change or reflect. 468

Need to check in because illusions of equality means people don’t think about decisions re: women.

Curly hair = flappy. Straight hair = jobsworth.

Don’t want it to be worthy.

Reclaim feminism. From perceptions/negative connotations.

Should be able to say freely I’m a feminist.

Difference in what is thought of as rape. Rape needs to be linked to stripping. If we’re saying this is okay to take our bodies.

Women being performitively sexual where men aren’t.

T + P part of the problem. Misogynist piece of theatre.

469

Issue number: 85

Issue: Can you have a child and be an artist? And why don’t the National Theatre have a crèche?

Convener(s): Matilda Leyser

Participants:

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Leap and the world will catch you

Needing to bring the issue into the work place. The issue is still seen and not heard, or sometimes not even seen.

Can you have a child and be an artist?

Discussion of the idea of a crèche at D&D. We’d enjoy also incorporating children in sessions. They can participate.

When being an artists and a parent there is a BIG difference between having a child and having children. More than one child is much much harder.

What happens when you take children on tour with you?

Can you be an artist and put your child first? Why does it have to be a choice? Why does anyone have to lose out? Could you and the child both gain?

Children make you better at time management. Disciplines you to use your time well. And the experience expands you. 470

It’s a privilege being with small children.

There’s the personal struggles but there are also public struggles – difficulties encounter in the industry because of having children. Assumptions made about mothers. Attitudes to Dads are different – they are sweet, whereas mums are seen as incompetent or problematic. Still gross inequalities about how men and women are seen in work context around issue of children.

Issue of whether to tell people or not, as a woman, in job interviews, that you are also a mother.

On the other hand children can be used as a way for a woman to escape her career with dignity whereas for a man children mean you have to do BETTER and earn more money.

Single parenting very very very very hard as an artist but not impossible!

And the pay off is enormous. Children can galvanize you.

Doe tour work become secondary when you have children or is your work ‘who you are’ in a way your children can never be?

Children need space. They can be apprentices to an adult life. Possible your partner is actually harder work than your kids?

How much is child care shared between partners? Importance of being honest about this and what you want.

Why not have a crèche at National? Could be subsidized by Theatre’s budget. Universities have crèches. There used to be a crèche at BAC.

Should there be more crèches nationally in all work areas? 471

Could be open to actors working everywhere not just at national. Important to try to change the present culture. Often women are forced to stop their acting work to be mothers as makes no economic sense. All of an actor’s wages go on child care.

Difficulty of ‘net-working’ or socializing side of the job with kids.

In Welfare State’s work were children hanging round – different culture. In this country we’re not even v good at having children in restaurants let alone in rehearsals!

Cultural denial of presence of children in social environment.

As a parent to be- can you adjust your life in readiness? Or do you deny it and the just deal with it.

It’s a leap of faith: Leap and the world does catch you. Perhaps you are a better parent if you are brave and passionate. No-one can be unchanged by the experience.

So, yes, it is possible to be a parent and an artist – (but watch out, you may embarrass your kids!).

472

Issue number: 86

Issue: How low can you go? Tell me your greatest failures and what was great about them

Convener(s): Matilda Leyser

Participants:

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

A great big failure is better than a mediocre one. It’s like death. Failing gracefully is very beautiful.

How low can you go? What’s been your greatest failure and what was great about it?

What’s so bad about failures? Is it the shame? Guilt?

How do you get over being crushed? Crying, chocolate, alcohol…. Ask do I want to continue? YES! and the get on with it.

Have to fail otherwise would never aim to do the impossible. Great to fail as then you go on to make more work. If there is no space between what you want to do and what you do then probably making boring work! Fulfilling expectations.

Fact that things go wrong is creative. Coping is creating. You find a way through.

Can have a lot of fun even while you fail. 473

Camaraderie of failing together.

Failures are memorable, more so than successes? Success can be bland and disappointing even.

The idea of failing can be rather exciting! RISK. Don’t be precious. let it go. It’s only theatre! Who cares?

But the shame can be a bottomless pit. Is it worse to le your self down, or is it about the public? Maybe the failure is not the thing going wrong, it is how you take it, if take it ungracefully – this is the real failure.

I might have my greatest failure yet to come!

Being a bit wrong is terrible, being VERY wrong can be liberating! And how high can you go? Fears of success also!

The older you get the easier it is to let go of failures. There is a forever-ness when young, but as you age you realize things just pass.

Failure is like death. An ally. Die gracefully. Go through the process of resurrection.

If people fail gracefully it can be very beautiful. Much more so than arrogant success. A disabled actor said had never had a failure as had never had a bad review – they didn’t dare. This means that the day he gets a bad review he will know he has succeeded.

Better to have boos than applause – can take something form it.

Can you fail to learn? Can there be an ultimate failure? The only real failure is when you do not have courage, realizing that if had had a bit more courage you could have been better. 474

Having the balls to risk all. Pushing ourselves. There is too much theatre that is OK. Failing in our duty as an artist if not take risks.

Then, just as the session had officially closed down… then the personal stories of failures finally began to come out….

475

IV. Cited Sessions: Devoted & Disgruntled 4

476

Issue number: 3

Issue: Ideas for keeping warm this weekend

Convener(s): Jen Lunn

Participants: various

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

TEA

Bring Cd’s –on the hour dance breaks

Chigung sessions?

Think warm thoughts

Cuddle a lot

MORE TEA

477

Issue number: 09

Issue: Living here / Theatre in another country

“Is there anyone else here living here but developing his/her theatre in another country?”

Convener(s): Veronique Van Meerbeek

Participants: Lee Simpson, Julian Crouch, Jason Ho, Stephen Sillett

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

If I asked this question it is because I first came to London to study theatre. I then worked hard during several years to produce and direct a show here to finally end up feeling that London was maybe not the place where I could or would better develop my theatre practice. When at the same time, I got invited in my home country to work. And the other artists involved and the audience seemed to better respond to my work. Still, my personal life is in London and I positively make the choice to be here. I also enjoy living here to see all these major European companies on tour and to feel the artistic boiling atmosphere of the city. I am in the situation of enjoying being involved in projects in my home country and I enjoy that outsider position living in London gives me. Still I feel disconnected from the theatre community in London but like we said it later most people somehow feel that way.

Lee says that Improbable is currently addressing a similar issue. They are working more and more in NY and they don’t know where it will lead them as a company. There are more demanded there and their profile is higher. It is maybe due to the fact that theatre in the UK is still very much perceived as a branch of literature, when they do a different type of theatre. What would it be like to have a company in two countries?

Julian joins in and says that his personal issue with himself working more and more in NY is deciding where to raise his kids? He -like Phelim -very much work in both countries and he would like to feel more security in better structuring what is already happening. His feeling is that in arts artists only are a small number of people in the group and that they are the ones traveling from one group to the next. It is the nature of the profession, of being an artist. 478

We all agree that being away a long time informs a lot our personal life and specially our relationships. It is always a strong choice whether to decide to travel much or not.

As a father, Julian is fine traveling away from his children for work. But as a mother, I do not feel that fine with it. There is certainly often a difference between men and women on that subject.

Then Lee and Julian both get the solution for me: by the time my girl gets to primary school, I should just find a way to raise money to make a team come here to rehearse in the UK –close to where my family is, like Jos Houben does in Paris –and then take the piece to Brussels or wherever. It is happening in the UK when actors from London go and rehearse in Birmingham! Lee insists that just outside London it is easy to find at European prices places where to rehearse and get support.

Improbable was of the first companies to go to NY to present their work. It is now more common.

Julian dreams of an ideal world that would integrate what is somehow already there in theatre: global theatre. He things that it would be nice to have a place where to go to rehearse and have the facilities for schools…

I personally enjoy having time off rehearsal, not even rehearse everyday and I would be frightened by a rehearsal camp…

So, again Lee and Julian tell me to find the money and make the people come from Belgium here to work and rehearse here with me. It makes me think that it could positively inform my work as theartists coming could get something of the cultural shock of being in the UK and away from home. They could get a freer creativity from it.

Still Julian also says that we shouldn’t worry too much about the scares we would do to our kids. They are able to cope much but also society needs people to have suffered things like the early death of their father. Lee also mentions that better is for my daughter not to see me for a week but find me happy than see me frustrated everyday. I absolutely agree with that and I would go for taking her off from school for a month, or for home education but I get much warnings not to do it. I also remember that I know Romeo Castellucci and his sister always took their kids (11 in total) with them around the world as they worked. Like Julian says, the more they are the easier somehow.

And Julian to summarize that reading the title of this discussion he wouldn’t have 479 guessed it was a parental issue, when in fact it is.

Then Jason joins in and Lee leaves.

Jason’s family is from Hong-Kong but he was born and always lived in London. He notices that he only is interested in theatre from Europe (Germany). Julian continues on the Ldn-NY issue and say that there are 15 years that Phelim and him are doing it. And his now lives differently in NY and in the UK. In NY he feels lonely and is always out and when he is back in the UK he enjoys staying home with his family.

We always have reasons for going elsewhere.

I am feeling very grateful for the support and advices Lee and Julian gave me. I feel relieved and encouraged to find alternative solutions.

Then Stephen joins in and Julian leaves.

Stephen is running community based projects in South Africa. He has learned skills like forum theatre here and he now implement it there. He also see the potential for cultural exchanges like he saw it with capoeira.

Jason’s project is to show in cinema full footage of theatre performance. Stephen advise him to check Fiasco TV.

Sharing my personal issue with Stephen, he tells me the same situation happens with people from Manchester. Jason as a Londoner insist that he rarely meets anyone originally from London in London!

Another aspect Stephen raises is how to maintain communication as you are away? Do you have key contacts there? Do you use emails? Phone calls? Or like Jason: writing personal New Year’s cards?

Stephen organization is called “Aiding dramatic change in development”. They get funding to train local people and help them facilitate groups and running theatre projects. Their current challenge is to make these projects sustainable, to get people to continue. They are in places with not much electricity and they keep it to the essential experience.

Every place they will go the project will be different. They adapt to the people. This project is in Zoulou language.

They also are exploring the question of how to maintain an on-going training for the local people? How to give them the knowledge and let them run it? They 480 notice these issues of power dynamic in the group? Who is guiding? There is no straight answer to that and he advices me a book on it: “Getting to Maybe” that deals with projects management. Stephen is very interested in keeping the balance between keeping the eyes on the goal and feeling free to adapt and del with the Maybe.

Back in London, Stephen and his organization run workshops. Unlike workshops he has found around (psycho-drama, dramatherapy…) that produce work that comes out from the self, they are into “infusion” labs that are interdisciplinary and that work with the group. They work with a core group and have peripheral groups with other skills that come and go.

I may relate that to the research place I am establishing with others in Brussels.

I also mention that I am preparing a show with many community people onstage and Stephen tells me about the term “applied” theatre, or applied community art as they do it.

It is interesting to me to notice the various experiences from me to Improbable and Stephen. We work abroad for different reasons and with differentset-up and somehow most of it can also somehow be found within one country.

481

Issue number: 12

Issue: TOURING : DO WE STILL NEED OR WANT TO DO IT?

Convener(s): Jonathan Holloway, Artistic Director, Red Shift Theatre Company

Participants: Antonio Ferrara, Alison Mead, Lyn Gardner, Laura Kriefman L S Bland, Chris Wooter, Dan Danson, Julie Rashbrooke, Cindy Oswin, Victoria Dyson, Natalie Querol, Drew Davies, Jo Crawley, Alison Goldie, Rikki Taradcas, Natalie Fletcher, Venla Hatakka, and numerous ‘Butterflies’.

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

J Holloway began by describing his experience of 25 years of small and middle scale touring with the company he founded, Red Shift, then moved on to outline his concerns about the way the sector is evolving –1. Small scale touring has previously offered theatre artists and companies a bridge into the industry by paying fees that allow them to ‘professionalise’ their practice; 2. Funding to this sector has been eroded in recent years (ACE cuts, reduction in local authority grant aid to venues, etc) and hence programming has suffered, the audience experience has suffered, the range of opportunities for emerging artists to find broader recognition for their work and earn a rudimentary living in the process has suffered. He questioned whether there are forces acting on the sector making this inevitable, whether there is any degree of feeling in the industry to resist these changes and whether or not the artistic community felt strongly enough to rally to the support of the sector.

In the discussion that followed a split emerged between mid/late career practitioners and emerging artists re how they perceived thesituation.

Those who had been in the industry for some time lamented the loss of skills re ‘hit and run’ touring to generic theatre spaces characterized by shows that go out for extensive national/regional tours staffed by teams on longer term industry standard contracts.

Those newer to the sector were less perturbed, feeling that the nature of touring has been and is in transition; that for them the important thing is ‘putting the art first’ rather than securing a tour and then creating a project to fill the schedule. Three producers who spoke all supported the notion of making substantial and innovative art, then touring it when and where the art was best served, without slavish adherence to long touring schedules in generic spaces. One of them

482 stroveto emphasise her optimism that it is possible to serve the practical ‘business’ imperative of making work that will attract audiences in sufficient numbers to satisfy the ‘bottom line’, be innovative in the work being made and also move away from earlier models of dense week-on-week touring.

The most optimistic note was struck by the phrase ‘people want to tour’ –clarified as meaning that artists treasure the opportunity to develop their work and find the new audiences for it that touring offers. Some of the established practitioners queried how this optimism fitted with an emerging context in which it is difficult for established artists to square the circle of their financial needs with fractured patterns of occasional short-term touring. There followed a good deal of discussion of what artists can and should expect in a professional setting that no longer strives to provide long term employment on a regulated basis on the wages previously expected.

There was some tension between those arguing for the loosening of the structures surrounding artistic process which has enabled a mushrooming of site- specific work made through collaborative processes and presented away from conventional theatre venues, and those who felt this approach denies access to the broad regional audience attending small scale venues outside the major conurbations, and because of its insubstantial financial circumstances, potentially contributed to a deprofessionalising of the sector.

Kneehigh was cited as an example of a company that bridges the gap between extensive small scale touring and creating more experimental work for larger spaces and site-specific contexts. Several of the group were concerned to unpack this description of Kneehigh’s work, and were also concerned with issues around the manner in which such a company might absorb resources unfairly in their region.

There was general agreement that the working context is harder for everyone now, and it emerged that newer artists and companies who have not experienced public funding in the way the more established practitioners have, are less wedded to the structures and expectations that formerly accompanied subsidy.

There was some discussion of industry notions that small-scale work is a stepping stone to the middle scale and beyond, and there was general condemnation of this view, and celebration of making work on the small scale for its own sake.

It is possible to divine from the discussion that there is a strong sentimental link

483 to touring for most present at the discussion, but there are also differing views of how the landscape is evolving and what is good and bad about it. There was clearly an opinion that practitioners have to expect less from the sector than they once did, and that artists must consider a more plural pattern of employment, moving from one part of the industry to another to follow opportunities where they arise, and it is no longer appropriate to consider touring on the small scale as a career option in its own right.

484

Issue number: 21

Issue: 1. Should we expect public funding and how could we become more self-sufficient? Plus (2 groups joined) 2. Can we ever have a truly free theatre?

Convener(s): Becs Andrews and AlisonMead Participants: Simon Wilkinson, Rebecca Maltby, Madeleine Trigg, Angela, Liz, Andrew, Fran, Francesca, Tom A, Trish, Lago, Paul, Libby, Steve. (may not be all present and some may not have been present)

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

1. Becs started by using the example of the Royal Court Liverpool and that it received no public funding, and made a profit from ticket sales alone, (like the West End model.) Two shows that sold poorly would bankrupt the theatre company. They rented the space from the council and had a loyal local audience. They specialized in new comedy plays, had a loyal local audience and often revived their shows. 2. Free can mean free tickets or free as in unshackled from restrictions. Can we have free admission? One contributor gave an example of her houseboat being used as a venue for a free performance. Her company has discussed whether they were undermining their work by giving free performances, and decided that No, they were not. They did their publicity for free online, ie through facebook, and had 5 audience members per show, and performed the show on the houseboat 2/3 times per night. The Forest Fringe in Edinburgh was given as another example of free (tickets) theatre –no artists were paid upfront to perform and no ticket sales took place. Voluntary donations were generous and the artists were paid from this and the work was good quality. (It later transpired that it was partially publicly funded by BAC) 1. Another contributor had put on a play without funding, paid the actors herself (below equity minimum) and had her fingers burnt by the experience. The Globe is the only London theatre outside the West End that doesn’t rely on public funding and funds through ticket sales. 2. Outside spaces can be turned into performance spaces with a temporary

485 licence that only costs £15. 1. Becs asked (as devil’s advocate) why we should expect the public to pay for theatre productions out of the general public purse when it could be funding cancer drugs withthe money instead. A contributor made the argument that the public had a right to access culture in the same way as it had a right to access healthcare and education. This provoked the questions: WHO, specifically, is a theatre production made for? And WHAT is that production going to do for the wider community? 2. Is access to theatre prevented by cost of tickets? Cost of ticket prices is not just the issue to why more people don’t go to see theatre: There is an intellectual thing about theatre that may be off-putting and make people feel that theatre is not for them. With the introduction of free museum entry all that happened was that the people who already paid to go to museums went more often, but it did not encourage those that didn’t go to museums already. Gigs and football matches are more expensive than going to the theatre, but this doesn’t seem to put the public off. Point made that this is because people already know what they are getting with football and music –they watch football on TV and listen to a band’s music before a gig. Promotional video campaigns online are being used extensively by theatre companies at the moment to expand their audiences. Do we need to have a more entrepreneurial attitude to making theatre –and spend all our energies on creating projects in the same way as a business would, rather than through public funding? In Scotland there is a new funding style being mooted which would involve being offered a loan instead of a grant-based system. What happens if you default? 2. Free tickets can be negative. Normally comedians in Edinburgh stand to loose thousands if their material is bad and the show doesn’t sell. The free fringe enables bad material without forfeit, and without this ‘possible loss risk filter’ general quality suffers. Point made that everyone working in the arts subsidises it personally by working long and hard for low wages. 1. American model of philanthropy discussed –whereby rich individuals will fund a theatre. Has a chilling effect on the kinds of work produced –ie must sit well politically with views of its ‘paymaster’. Contrast with European model –high public funding levels compared to our own. (A question I wishes I’d asked: What is the result on quality of work produced?) 1. Pit Lockery (?) lost itsACE funding because it was doing too well commercially from ticket sales. A discussion about the logic of ACE –If a theatre company produces a performance product that the public are willing to buy then surely it is in the public interest to fund this type of work? Opposing point made that the money should go to another company that needs it more, and cannot survive on ticket sales alone. The analogy of a hospital was used –it wouldn’t spend money

486 treating a healthy person when there is a sick person next to them. Is public funding best used to prop up performances that individual members of the public are not prepared to pay enough for? Surely that is deciding for the public what they should spend their money on and watch, against their own tastes! The ACE approach functions to diversify what is on offer, and is for ‘sick’ companies who need help. Lots of companies who have been regularly funded by ACE for 10 years and should now be standing on their own two feet: the chance for funding should be given toyounger companies. 1. The European example of big bucks touring companies that are funded by many countries in massive co-productions (such as Romeo Gasteluci) because that is the only was that they can be commercially viable. This is in contrast to Arts Councils in the UK, who fund locally and are strict about where the show is then performed (cannot fund in UK and then decide to transfer to Scotland after being funded for a UK tour) 1. With the current credit crunch climate, corporate sponsorship is a less viable option now. 2. Suggestion that funding bodies could offer ‘funding in kind’ for young companies such as marketing support, mentoring. A circus space student contributor told us about a module on her course sponsored by Deutsch Bank, whereby students write a business plan and the best one gets £8000 and a business mentor. CIDA –Cultural Industries Development Agency in tower hamlets gives advice and support. Becs mentioned that the Royal Court had pre-show meal and caberet seating and this seemed to help it as an event / night out popularity. Another example given of ‘Play and a pie’ short plays of new writing, little in way of production. Mostly self funded. Where? You have to build up your reputation as a practioner and be part of the ‘right group’ to get ACE funding, which makes it seem hard for new/outsiders/emerging practitioners. 2.The new empty building tax means that we have a bargaining chip –we can save landlords money by using their empty spaces. 2. Creative Space Agency has relaunched and was set up to broker relationships between artists and landlords / councils / big companies. 2.Scoop –completely free amphitheatre space outside on southbank, which encourages passers by to watch for free for 2 mins or 2 hours. Helps new audiences access theatre. ACE funded, programmes sales and a few donations. Aim is to be accessible: Free theatre gets new users. 1. Audiences –predominance of white middle-class intellectuals. Is theatre appealing to other groups? More culturally diverse theatrical experiences are happening in schools, and is intended to sew the seeds of future audiences and

487 practitioners 1. Stadium theatre –massive audiences –is the only way to make decent profits from the theatre, as if you extend a run of an average sized production to get more audience you also increase the overheads. Street Theatre is spaceless, and the public access is max –the way forward perhaps? Processional and a very different beast from space-based theatre. 1.Necessity versus Luxury debate in public funding –Liverpool 08 Capital of Culture. Taxi Driver: Why fund this **** capital of culture when there are massive areas of deprivation? Very similar to arguments about the Olympics. Olympics funded by Property Developers –does happen to theatres occasionally –like Rose Theatre in Kingston..Government makes it a condition that a theatre is built as part of a new development. Therefore theatre is seen by Gov as inherently valuable. Developers can’t get rid of Arts Theatre for same reason. 1.Model of Not for profit American Subscriber Theatres. Celebrate Theatre being a middle-class thing. Theatre sit within affluent areas. Run seasons –autumn, winter, summer, and subscribers have to buy tickets for all the seasons. Very late on tickets are released for general sale. Therefore the money for the production is provided upfront. BYO in UK is similar, as is Perth Rep, Lyceum Edinburgh, Southall, Sheridan, etc. Circus is the other model and runs 18 performances per week at £12.50 per ticket.

488

Issue number: 023

Issue:

Why should Arts Council England (ACE) give the English National Opera £18.5 million when I can’t get five grand?

Convener(s): Fionn

Participants: Jenn Lunn, Ellan Parry, Robert Cook, David Betz Heinemann, Ed Jaspers, Phelim McD, Mark P, Alison M, Gill, Katherine Maxwell-Cook, Rebecca Maltby, Tom Atkins, Chris Wooton

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

What we arrived at:

- We should produce a statement of these points to pass on to ACE. - We should offer a friendly, neutral and collaborative space for ACE to talk over these points. Maybe by inviting them to a future D&D. We mustn’t just lay in to them with criticism. We need to make it our ACE.

- Do we, individually, have relationships with good ACE officers, or bad ACE officers whom we could invite next time?

How we got there:

- Many of us have experienced problems when making applications. The process is off-putting, difficult, labyrinthine.

- Are there deliberate disincentives built into the system? Do funding organizations set out to be either invisible or off-putting?

- Could we get together to combine efforts when making applications? Could we establish a network of people to read each other’s apps and give advice? There are lots of people out there –e.g. producers and directors –who will give their advice.

- Is it essential to find a producer to apply for you –particularly if we resent giving so muchtime to admin/production issues which draw our focus from

489

the work? How do you find such a producer/funder, who presumably pays themselves ?

- It is not allowed to budget and pay yourself for the time spent on preparing the application, though this may amount to several days/weeks of work. In fact, you can’t remunerate for any money spent or work in kind already done when applying. You have to put all that time and effort in for free, according to the ACE rules. And yet they ‘insist’ on you paying performers Equity minimum rates. So we have to make huge sacrifices in order to build this relationship.

- Companies, in the experience of the group, routinely fudge the issue of Equity rates, often by spending longer in rehearsal than stated in the proposal, but paying the same. This isn’t necessarily a problem for performers if everyone agrees to it and no one is exploited.

- Anecdotally, contact with ACE officers relating to applications has been of mixed usefulness. Some people had had reasonably positive and helpful encounters, others have found ACE to be less than helpful. Or, in one particular region, as though the officer ‘didn’t want to give too much away’.

- BOX TICKING: Can’t I just tell ACE what I want to do? Can’t I just assemble the team who are best for the job?

- IN DEFENCE OF ACE: Can it work any other way? Isn’t ACE’s position impossible? How would you decide who to fund? Isn’t it simply ‘oversubscribed’, like so many other aspects of the business?

- How do you balance being honest and passionate with BOX TICKING?

- Being passionate will get people interested. Structure will get you taken seriously.

- You can talk to ACE on a general level, but you need to speak their language in the application. And translating into ACE language doesn’t necessarily change the meaning of what you are saying.

- But, it was argued, changing the wording to make it ACE-friendly is a form of imposed self-censorship. We’re being asked to ‘conceive’ of your in a

490

particular way. It’s a politicized form of control.

- What seems of great importance is to build a lasting and evolving relationship with officers or with the ACE in general. Even/particularly if you don’t get the grant the first time around. You have to just dive in and start the relationship. Being turned down isn’t failure. Giving up might be.

- US AND THEM: It is, in part, ourfault that there is an ‘us and them’ antagonism here. Weneed to push ourselves to make the relationship work. As in many other places, it’s wrong that the people with the least power have to push hardest to create space for themselves. But it’s nonetheless the case.

- It’s ourresponsibility en masse, to set the tone for the quality of our engagement with ACE. We can influence the process as has happened over the controversial funding cuts and after an open-space with National Theatre of Scotland which was attended by ACE officers.

- We need to get good at presenting ourselves to the ACE. Be professional, confident, serious. If we hold ourselves in high regard, others will too. Just saying “pleeeeeeeease, I can’t do my play without you!!!!!” isn’t enough. We have to look long-term, show how we’ll develop creatively and take ACE on that journey with us.

- Improbable have, over time, created space to work more freely. They no longer need to tick all the boxes. It would be harder to negotiate that freedom now. Nonetheless, we should negotiate to make the system more user-friendly.

- Events like D&D give us the mandate to approach ACE with our views. ACE heard about the 1st D&D, took interest and now are funders of it. We can turn the ACE ship around. It’s not a sinking ship yet, it’s just big and takes time to turn.

- It’s becoming increasingly rare for practitioners to have jobs with ACE. Now there are more ‘administrators’. The artists are leaving because they don’t want to work for the dark side.

- The peer review process that is being introduced in funding assessments is very a positive step but ACE could do more to employ officers with experience of making work.

491

- Should/could the system of <£5,000 grants be organized in a less fragmented way? Could there be regional ACE buildings with rehearsal/performance space? Could there be a pooled ACE lighting or props store? Could they give funding in kind? Norwegian Equity have a flat in Berlin which members can use…

- Companies have in the past got together to fund joint projects or shared office space, money to develop connected work. Collaborative applications.

- The ACE system indoctrinates companies in the conventional way of doing things: “This is how a theatre company raises money. This is how a theatre company spends money. This is what you must do.” Does this make the system self-perpetuating? Can we break out of it?

- ENGLISH NATIONAL OPERA Does anyone know why they get that much? Yes: Phelim hasworked there (and that alone is worth £18.5m, right?!). He says that it is extraordinary in its nature. Opera is a super-expensive art form for very many reasons. There is general consensus that ENO are excellent in the standard of their work, including e.g. education and outreach and are the only opera company in the world producing that kind of work to an international standard. Also, public funding protects them. The Royal Opera House, by contrast is left very much at financial risk during recession because so much of its funding is through endowment-based schemes.

- Are they excellent because they get so much funding or vice-versa? And could they achieve excellence withoutpublic funding?

- Phelim originally felt very us/them about the opera world. Would15 years ago have been skeptical of its worth. Is it wrong that we in our careers should individually progress from little theatre companies on £5,000 grants to big, world-class organizations? Surely it’s not. -

492

Issue number: 33

Issue: Why do I only want to think about Gaza and how does that fit in today?

Convener(s): Brian Lobel

Participants: Pia Furtado, Mufrida Hayes, Sarah , Alan Wen, Emma Faulkener, Isabel Carr, Chris Goode, Jen Lunn, Lucy Wigmore, Jodie Wilkinson, Jen Lunn, Sarah S, Anna Morrissey, Paul Chrlton, Angela Clerkin, Katherine Maxwell-Cook, Stella Duffy, Barry Robson.

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Our discussion mainly centred on how we were feeling and how we as artists could/should deal with that. There was a big sense that people did not want to think about it as a “metaphor” too much and remember that it is happening NOW.

Notes from people include….

Is theatre enough? We’re stuck and unsure and hurt and angry about this (and that’s okay?)

The guilt of theatre-makers living in an inward/theatre consumed world. The reminders of the exterior world and how what we do relates to the violence of the outside world.

It’s alright, honest and mature to acknowledge our powerlessness and our feelings.

A feeling of impotence when faced with massive and complicated political issues.

“I would like to feel useful, I actually feel decorative.”

I feel a fury and sadness –not connected to being an artist as such –it’s too raw to want to turn it into metaphor –Although I’m interested in commentators. We need to educate ourselves and each other about Gaza.

Several people mentioned online resources which they had found useful in getting to know about what was going on in Gaza.

It was decided that another session would be convened for people to drop off

493 links and resources so that we can all access.

Gaza Group Email addresses: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] é[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

After yesterday’s session about Gaza, we have decided to collect e-resources for everyone’s general knowledge. If you know a particularly useful site/blogger/forum… www.electronicintifada.org www.haaretz.com www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree www.thenation.com (Naomi Klien article) www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/Jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine www.socialistworker.co.uk

Books are great too:

Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid by Jimmy Carter

Being informed is cool.

494

Issue number: 36

Issue: Who wants to take an adorable queer performer out for a drink?

Convener(s): Brian Lobel

Participants: Nick, Stella, Trish, Angela, Sarah, Natalie

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Pub: The Approach.

Not all were sexually interested in Brian, but one was…

495

Issue number: 45

Issue: Am I too old to change my mind?

Convener(s): Sally Christopher

Participants: Some lovely people who came and went…

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations: Brilliantly, the unanimous answer to this question was… ‘No…it is never too late to change your mind about your place within the arts, your career and of course, the direction of your life.’

The small (but perfectly formed) group that collected in the frosty corner by the grand stage shared stories and provided reassurance and guidance for Sally (the convener) who was maybe having a ‘reaction to turning 30 moment’. The group shared stories of the various times in which wehad changed our minds about where we were in life and how these decisions (although often monumental and terrifying) had actually turned out to be a really good thing.

Actors who are now directors, a dental nurse who is now a designer, an aerialist who is now a performer and a performer who is now a costume designer.

Change can be a good thing and it was agreed that the best way to find this out is to just go ahead and try it on for size. Perhaps someone who changes their mind more than others isn’t actually unfocused -maybe they’re just someone who is seeking new experiences and ways of growing as a practitioner / arts professional / person. We thought it is probably for the best to worry less about how others may view us / our decisions / where we see ourselves within the ‘career ladder’ and focus on what is right for us.

It was an odd question, that popped in to my mind…but I was glad I asked the question. Those people who I met reassured me that change can only be a good thing -as long as there is a thought process, a passion and commitment attached.

Funnily enough, after a day at ‘D and D’, I realized how happy I am with where I am at this moment and time –but it is lovely to know that change can be and will be welcomed.

An interesting quote that one member of the group put forward maybe sums up

496 the chat…

“If you’re not scared of your dreams, then they’re not big enough”.

And perhaps too….

“A life lived in fear is a life half lead”

Thanks!

497

Issue number: 047

Issue: Collaborators and Control Freaks –can we work together?

Convener(s):Alan Sharpington

Participants: Sally Christopher, Anna Morrissey, Pia Furtado, Luen Cassidy, Kirche Zeile, Rebecca Mandon –Jones, Roger Nelson, assorted butterflies and bumble-bees.

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

What is a control freak? Doesit have to be negative (the word freak is quite stigmatizing!!) Control can simply mean spearheading, being an orchestrater of the ideas which are in the room –total democracy is not very often successful in a rehearsal environment and a director sanctioning allideas can be very detrimental to the production. Or, a director who may appear to be a control freak may simply have a strong idea of where a piece is going and knows instinctively what to take from each collaborator. Occasionally, a director being a control freak can even be a resistance to feeling controlled themselves, perhaps by a producer –this is a dangerous situation which can be very harmful to a piece.

A director should be a head of communication, more so than ever on a collaborative piece. The exact nature of how collaborative a process will be should be defined and stated right from the start of the project. This means that even if the director hasn’t decided, this needs to be stated. Openness seemed to be the key element for everybody in the group –‘I don’t care if the director does not want my idea or only wants part of it, as long as this is communicated to me in a positive way. This will allow me to be a more resourceful collaborator’. Many of us have worked on projects that did not work this way and commonly found that dark, conspirital corners kept appearing in the space and the company became resentful, negative and divided. By its very nature, collaboration means that many ideas will be rejected. Even here, focusing on the positive of rejection gives any stage of the process a new starting point. For example, from an entire design concept, perhaps only a chair or a colour will work, make that the thing the new starting point –it is the beginning of the next level for the designer.

It was felt that the nature of the word control was key to answering our question – the company (director included) that operates in an open, communicative way, regardless of how many ideas were rejected, has more control over the quality of

498 it’s work than a company that becomes divided through ‘withholding information from itself’.

499

Issue number: 55

Issue: (2 topics converged)

Who should we invite to Devoted and Disgruntled next year PLUS Would inviting children etc to D&D help theatre ?

Convener(s): Ed J and Jonathan Petherbridge

Participants: (PLEASE CORRECT THE MIS-SPELLING OF YOUR NAME) Fiona Watson, Phelim McD, Julia Tomokym Angela Clerkin, Catherine Paskell, Rebecca Maltby, Phillipa Barr, Julian Crouch, Jodie Wilkinson, Ellen Parry, Sarah Grange, Katherine Warman, Mark Prince, Katherine Rodeingm Jason Ho, Simon Wilinson, Victoria Dyson, Ergen Nicholasson, Gemma Painter, James Stenhouse, Roger Nelson

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

PROBLEM –there is a concern that this is not a very diverse gathering and that this might be harmful to the development of theatre, but there is a principle that whoever comes are the right people (eg they care enough to give up the time and go through the pain barrier). How do we reconcile this ?

CONSENSUS: Next year we should all bring someone with us who is not necessarily a theatre maker –including children and animals who are interested in theatre.

DISCUSSION –lots of people not here that we wouldbe interested in talking to. And it would be nourishing for theatre to widen the constituency. Regional Theatre/Commercial Producers (are they absent because they have jobs ? and don’t need to come) Youth Theatre Members Adult Theatre group members Audience members NYT NSDF Funders Thinkers from other arenas

Would children being here work ?

500

Phelim -Children and young people engage when open space is used, they post sessions –or wander off if it gets boring. They would change the culture of the event.

Phelim -The more the homogenous the attenders, the less interesting the event. Jonathan –Read Michael Holden’s recent paper “Democratic Culture” he suggests people protect the arts because the arts are special to them, this can throw a cordon around art –which in turn can exclude people. How do can D&D turn this cordon outwards and help widen the gene pool of theatre makers.

Blocks Need to look at language of invitation and what the question is. People don’t come because of the length. And some think it’s going to be about whingeing. The process is hard. It takes a day to go through the process of realizing you don’t have to have an idea.

Possible solutions Julian –we could invite keynote speakers (“thinkers”) but instruct them to float rather than giving them a platform What is valuable is intergenerational discourse. We all want mentors. Or run targeted/themed D&D’s eg with black theatre makers. Nb there are satellite D&D’s around the country –one is coming up in Newcastle (but it will be opento non Geordies)

General conversation about other places Open Space has been used. One company has used them instead of appraisals. Using it has changed the culture of Improbable “things are much more fluid”

General conversation around feelings –it being live (not digital) is important. It requires emotion, intellectual commitment, and stamina

Emma talks about re-finding herself at D&D (others agree)

Improbable are happy for anyone else to run D&D or to co-host as it is quite demanding on a small company. Co-hosting with another organization with connections to a different demographic was suggested as a way to diversify attendance.

OBSERVATION The group expanded and contracted and expanded again. Some people came,

501 then went away, then returned. Does this indicate we are troubled by this issue ?

502

Issue number: 57

Issue: Let’s Make A Brilliant Piece Of Imaginary Theatre Now!

Convener(s): Tassos Stevens

Participants: (listed in order as I remember them joining, all brilliant, apologies if I missed you off the list, please then add yourself) Persephone Bayley Francesca Hyde Ed Kemp Andrew Mulligan, Greg McLaren, David Betz-Heinemann Clare Fischer, Antonio Ferrara

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Let's Make A Brilliant Piece Of Imaginary Theatre Now!

It started small, grew slowly and then a small eruption of people near the end.

A practical session. As much about the process of us getting there as where we ended up.

I started by saying I didn't know how we would make it -although I had an idea in case we got stuck -and I was interested in observing how we did. We joked about being brilliant and about what imaginary theatre might mean. I had been inspired by Karl Kraus writing Last Days Of Mankind as a deliberately unperformable play, with my favourite stage direction of all time 'enter 1200 horses from the sea, led by a singing flame thrower'. So imaginary theatre could never be realised practically.

But P talked about how the focus of her mind's eye was quite intimate rather than epic, so in imagining a girl riding a polar bear in His Dark Materials, she saw the girl on the bear but couldn't see the epic scale of the bear the way she could in the film.

We stated in turn some qualities or properties we wanted our brilliant imaginary theatre to have: -epic but intelligible -the piece travels around the world with its audience, picking up people along the way

503

-a piece where a Fedex parcel is sent around the world and at every courier point, a flash of light is picked up by an orbiting satellite... the 100 flashes over time trace a picture of a dog -a piece where you are alone in a hotel room with mirrored ceiling which after a while rises to reveal hundreds of people in rooms like you... a shift in perspective where you realise it's not just you -unwitting participation

E joined. He'd thrown me a lovely curveball earlier. Brook's Empty Spacestarts with a definition of theatre, that a man walks across a carpet with someone watching that action. The gaze makes it performance. If E was to break into my house while I wasn't there and walk across my carpet but leave no trace of his entry and never tell anyone, is that not theatre. We agree it's not but then E wonders if it might be and I think there's an anticipation of discovery which threatens theatre, particularly if E were to talk to me and fear at any point I'm going to say 'didn't you break into my house?' If that ever happened, it would be theatre, says E. So there's an anticipated threatened theatre at any moment.

E also threw in puzzles. Where every playing audience had a piece of the puzzle -a fragment of story, a piece of a picture -but needed to congregate and share them to solve it. Or maybe not. The sense that you have almost got the full picture however many pieces you have but that there is just one more piece. And then you find that piece and reassemble but there's still one piece. The nagging possibility that it isn't quite over. I like this quality.

-every person in the playing audience is the lead part in their own

With all of these, and as more people joined, tried to converge our divergent thoughts.

We liked the idea ofbreaking into people's houses to leave them the first clue as a surreptitious gift. Perhaps we'd employ burglars? Or could we do it ourselves?

I got overexcited at the thought of a theatre on legs -like Baba Yaga's Hut -that stalked each member of its audience in turn, hiding behind trees, following them, before -when they think they've escaped, leaping on top of them and plunging them into a lurid carnival performance in which they are the lead, before offering them the chance to join the travelling theatre for the rest of their lives or return to the real world.

P threw in a reality check, that it sounded like Second Life. It all turned a little

504 more feasible after this.

(Now my notes and memory are a little more fragmented.)

Activate the Theatre -turn up the filter and everything seems as if it is in the play. Is this a bit like therapy?

I asked rather incoherently what's the story, the journey?

Which led to us talking about social chain structures. A mission to recruit a stranger. A mission tomeet a stranger and pair up. A mission where you are given a target to copy in every single way but you are also a target to a target etc to a target who is themself copying you. The great thing about all these is that they are sustainable. The initiation mechanism. The last audience becomes the performer.

We talked about the impossible blessing/curse you give each person in the audience. Something is going to happen to you. You donʼt know where or when. A bit like Derren Brown ʻTrick or Treatʼ, The Game, the end of The Vanishing We want it to be Treats. But still, there is a fear.

What's it all about? Your place in the world. Active engagement. Bringing something to the Feast. A culminating event... the feast that brings everyone together. Encounters with microstories along the way, that themselves *reflect* facets of what is happening... a story about two strangers becoming friends, a story about strangers gathering for a feast... etc.

Now we're really converging. We're running out of time.

I think Phad thrown in earlier the ritual of food, the groundedness of eating and drinking, and that's where the Feast had emerged from.

We need to describe our piece (so that Lyn Gardner can give it an imaginary review).

505

The Feast I realised several things inwriting this up. This piece can happen. I very much want to make it happen -of course it might change as that happens. And if so, there will be an invitation to all those who were present in the group to join that process, and I have emailed them all with the final description.

But one of the key properties of the piece might be that its workings are mysterious. You probably can imagine what the piece might be, given the title and the description of the process. But perhaps I should keep the rest of it away from casual googling.

It's still open to you if you want to know. You just have to ask. Email [email protected]. Or you can just imagine what it might be and whether you might find yourself in it one day.

506

Issue number: 65

Issue: Devising –is there a glass ceiling?

Convener(s): Chris Goode

Participants: Venla Hatakka, Matt Trueman, Amelia Bird, Hugh Chapman, Loren O’Dair, Lee Simpson, Mandy Fenton, Isabel Carr, Persephone Bayley, Jason H, Stella Duffy, Angela Clerkin, Greg McLaren, Ed Jaspers, 45 seconds of Tassos Stevens; several others to whom I apologise for not harvesting (or knowing) their name…

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

An opening rant:

Seeing Lepage’s feeble epic Lipsynch and thinking “I work all the time with people who could do this better”: but is working through devising possible in this country on that scale –both in terms of physical bigness & resourcing, but also in terms of ambition and scope? And if that kind of work isn’t possible, why not? Is there a lack of will on behalf of venues, producers etc., especially given that upscale work would perhaps tend to require the involvement of more mainstream institutions? Is the inbuilt need for more time, more investment and (arguably) more faith always going to work against devising? Or is there something about devising as a methodology or as a working culture in itself that constrains its scale and its plausible aspirations? Do we assume too quicklythat we can’t work big? Do we not even want it? (I do; but maybe I’m a freak or a sell-out or…?)

The ensuing conversation (unsorted & untidy but as best I can):

It’s only when devising companies take on classic texts that they start to be seen as legitimate. (Or, devising from well-known films etc, those sources can stand in for a classic text…)

Is it that there’s an inadequate language for talking about devising? Among critics? In relation to marketing? In making process transparent and engaging for audiences?

Is there, in fact, any gain in asking an audience to share in the liveness and inclusiveness of devised work? Do audiences care how work is made? Possibly not; but they might recognize an aesthetic or procedural difference, a different

507 feel, to devised work, which can be very appealing –they sense the ensemble connection, the privileging of theatricality above all. The ability of devising to create the right form for whatever it wants to make makes it less hidebound and this is attractive to audiences. (Though a lot of devised work clings unnecessarily to literary forms.)

Is there something intrinsically ‘human scale’ about devising? Asking it to get bigger may be inimical to its virtues of intimacy and accessibility.

Is it that in fact the concerns out of which work is devised are not smallerthan the issues of conventional drama, but bigger? That devising can more easily engage with the biggest philosophical questions, and finds human-size ways of illustrating that engagement.

An example of using Open Space to make sure that the personal issues feeding into a devising process are all aired and included.

There’s something almost existential about this whole question of the glass ceiling –of struggling as an artist even just to leave a scratch on the ceiling…

The importance of long process, including downtime, and of having some kind of outside eye perspective, in pushing through unperceived limitations of process and scope.

Is this a specifically British problem? Isn’t the glass ceiling at least quite a bit higher everywhere else in the world? Improbable’s experience of being treated more like authors in other places; whereas here it’s “not really proper theatre”. Devisers going in to the RSC / NT / Royal Court can feel like they’re being looked at as if they’re going to nick the desks…

The unhelpful focus of media (and others?) on one big-name individual within the company –replicating the literary model of the individual genius.

International devised work presented through BITE etc seems much more acceptable: perhaps because it’s seen not as devised but as international, and has a certain cachet accordingly.

Is there scope for a kind of umbrella organization like the RSC but focusing on devised work?

There is a perception among playwrights (and others) that the play is under

508 attack or even under threat. Both camps –the writer-led and the devised –feel hard done by. Meanwhile some writers want to engage morewith the process and the rehearsal room but have too little power within conventional structures and are excluded accordingly. Writers, especially younger writers, are increasingly influenced by devising and by devised work. And of course there are writers, and a lot of writing, within devising too, so setting this question up as againstwriting is off the mark.

There may be a glass ceiling on devising but the room is bigger! The walls are much further apart…

Big isn’t necessarily big. ‘August: Osage County’ was touted as big but was in fact pretty small in scope and parochial in feel.

Devisers are evaluated differently. A play that doesn’t work is a bad play; if a devised piece doesn’t work, it’s the whole of the methodology that’s considered to be at fault. Also, perceptions of track record are different: comparing a consistently good deviser with a patchy writer, the writer still is perceived as representing a lower risk.

Do we as devisers lock ourselves into the mental and emotional habit of being on the fringe(s)?

Might it perhaps be important that we (continue to) do both: wanting, and valuing, our marginality, but also sticking our heads above the parapet at times? We can hold both these positions.

How much is the glass ceiling to do with documentation? Is the supremacy of the play because the play text survives? How could devised work be better documented without sacrificing its resistance to commodification? We could do better at documenting our work just for the improvement of our own knowledge sharing –cf. the video archive at the Live Art Development Agency.

Another issue with outcomes: a broader (political) culture of metrics and measurability, which doesn’t feel compatible with devising. But there’s now a backlash against this culture, so that might feed through.

Do we just have to wait for the younger generation who are comfortable with all modes to occupy the positions of power & influence in the bigger mainstream spaces? Or perhaps waiting won’t work if the deeper structures don’t change too. And it’s no good just waiting anyway, we have to keep agitating.

509

There’s been a huge increase in the teaching of devising, but is this a good thing? How do you teach devising anyway? –Certain companies (e.g. Forced Entertainment) becomes paradigms; academic writing on devising companies may bear no relation to their own sense of what they do. Unhelpful and misleading orthodoxies start to form.

To overdramatise: devisers are oppressed; the literary theatre establishment are powerful. But (as with many other situations) it’s the powerful who feel vulnerable and attacked. As devisers we need to help those with the power feel less fearful of us: otherwise a polarization continues and is reinforced –and the devising/playwriting binary is anyway false, practically there’s an obvious continuum.

There aresuccessful devising companiesdoing big work in mainstream places. They may be few in number but they indicate that the amount of deliberate resistance to devising is not as overwhelming as it may feel. (However, note how long it took many of those companies even to get as far as midscale touring…)

A little scrap from a subsequent conversation:

Something that didn’t come up in our discussion but which feels pertinent is the idea of commitment to devising as a methodology for ethical/political reasons – the minimization of hierarchy,over-separation of roles… So it’s not just about aesthetics, it’s about how we want to work as artists and how we make the case for it.

Ad hoc conclusion:

Yes there is a glass ceiling. No we don’t really know what to do about it. Not everybody sees it as a problem. All of the ‘both/and’ stuff feels positive: making more of the continuum than of the polar opposites; both occupying (and enjoying) the margins / upstream, andgetting stuck in at the mainstream... Thanks to everyone for talking 

510

Issue number: 74

Issue: Why isn’t the National Theatre Touring to Old Peoples Homes?

Convener(s): Chris Gage

Participants: about 8 people, including representatives from Ladder to the Moon and spare tyre.

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

The discussion ranged from the specifics of the question, through issues of age and ageism, intergenerational work, working with older actors, overvaluing of youth, and to the broader societal questions raised by an aging population.

We over value youth in society & newness. –longer return oninvestment. But what kind of a future are people seeing for themselves and what impact does this have on our actions?

Is the National the right kind of organization to be doing this work? Yes doing this thety would give profile, it works towards decomparmentalising society, de stigmatizes old people, care homes and dementia.

Has the National thought about doing this. Perhaps it needs specialist organizations to go to them and say we can provide this for you, it will have significant benefits and leverage funding for you.

Strong business case to be made for working with and for older peolple

Theatre work can transcend the physical discrepancy of age –important to work and produce work which is not around age. Rather sharing our common humanity. –Particularly interegenerational practice, bringing to gether elders and teanagers.

This is part of a broader ideas about decompartmentalising society

Value the older artist.

511

Why the NT rather than their education department that should be doing this? Because it is the value we place on this audience, it should be standing up to criticism, it is also decompartmentalising. –Aditionally pushing the reviewers envelope of what is valuable & overcoming predudice.

Age is an emerging theme across this event.

A discussion about working with older actors: some point. We are all scared of what we don’t know. Don’t leave an actor in semi retirement for 20yrs, then pull them out and expect them to be at there best. Use stratergies to help people cope (deal with the problem rather than blame it on age, justy as you would with any actor having difficulties) If the line or movement isn’t being remembered then it is likely that the line or movement isn’t right.

There are going to be difficulties working with older actors,and there are going to be difficulties working with younger actors.

There are a vast range of different types of people & therefore older people

Age is one of the last taboos.

Why asking this question about older people rather than other excluded groups? Because older people are ourselves in 30,40,50 yrs time. It asks a bigger question about our humanity and how we are in the world because it is asking a question about ourselves.

Care home TV sitcom –told it won’t sell, because its not sexy enough.

What is the old people’s home of the future?

Why don’t people go into old peoples? Predudice around age and dementia. A lot of care staff are undervalued in their role and as a result don’t create welcoming environments.

What about consultation to facilitate people being able to go into these environments? Yes –Older people are facilitating this training (Spare Tyre)

What can we do as theatre makers about this?

512

Make high quality work. Partnerships between the specialists and the flag ship organisations.

Resources: Hamlets Dresser by Bob Smith www.laddertothemoon.co.uk Long Island Blues by Blake Weldon

513

Issue number: 80

Issue: Why do I always have déjà vu whilst watching plays?

Convener(s):Alan Sharpington

Participants: Sorry, forgot to take names!

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Generally speaking, theatre follows trends. This generates waves of imitations and plays which are produced not with passion and idealism but with marketing in mind. This creates mediocrity, although this is inevitable, purely by the law of averages –not everything can be great or even good. Mediocrity is not a crime but an unavoidable result of mass productions. In a time of financial uncertainty (all the time?) producers and directors try to second-guess what is about to be popular, what the new wave is going to be. Often they are right, often they are wrong –both are potentially deadly. As an audience member, this has led to me seeking out certain types of theatre, a quick flick through the listings to see what my next visit to the theatre will be. As a reaction to seeing so many things I would class as tedious, puerile etc, I choose a genre of theatre which has satisfied me in thepast, such as site-specific work, verbatim theatre, anarchic comedy, companies I know. Unfortunately, this has become comparable to a drug addiction –try it once, it’s great but taking the same drug will never get you that high again no matter how much you put in your veins.

The solution, then, would appear to be simple –go and see work that you would not normally see. This does not mean, for instance, that I need to book my tickets for Phantom of the Opera when I leave York Hall today, but perhaps start to take chances on work that I don’t know, where I have no expectations. Yes, it’s risky, it could end up being a terrible choice but that is surely a better option than the almost certain disappointment that follows seeing the usual suspects.

Who knows, it might just be brilliant.

514

Issue number: 94

Issue: What makes a region attractive to theatre makers either to be based in or to tour to?

Convener(s): Natalie Querol

Participants: Steph Allen, Elise Davison, Lyn Gardner, Chris Wootton, Laura Kriefman, Jo Crowley, Jamie Rocha Allen,Chris Grady, Ayda Unsworth, Katherine Warman, David Betz-Heinemann

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Initial thoughts on what makes a region attractive included:  Proximity to London –not necessarily based in how long it actually takes to travel but how far away people perceive it to be  Money –Made in Brighton was given as an example although this was money attached to a wider package of support  Ability to bring people together –a region that knows what ithas in terms of artists and creates opportunities to maximize that latent potential  Cheap rehearsal space Benefits of being based outside London include:  easier access to funding  easier for even emerging artists and small companies to make connections with senior figures in the industry  easier outside London to get support in kind from local companies who are keen to support artists in their local communities.

However benefits to be being based in London include:  It is possible to build a profile in London that is far more difficult for companies starting out elsewhere  There is a large and diverse pool of artists working in London which is  essential for the sustained creation of great work  Work is visible –national press rarely travel outside London

We then discussed what can be done to encourage people to stay in a region:  There’s a job to be done with drama schools as currently graduates often aren’t aware that it is possible to work outside London  There needs to be breadth of activity in a region to stimulate creativity, a critical mass 515

 It could be useful for regions to recognise that it is extremely useful for artists to spend a couple of years in London –it would be beneficial for regional theatre communities to actively encourage artists to immerse themselves in the metropolis without losing their identity as a regional artist  Could regions ‘adopt an artist’ for a given period of time in order to bring their energy and experience into the region.  Many London based artists find it very useful to create their work away from London in order to find headspace so there is an opportunity for region’s to reach critical mass by offering London based artists opportunities to make work in their regions  There was also an example given of a regionally based company who rehearsed a show in London and found that experience very freeing also both because being away from home offered headspace and also because working in a building (BAC) filled with artists was invigorating. Perhaps a scheme that offered ‘creation swaps’ would be viable.

The primary need of companies touring into a region is a large and enthusiastic audience ready to see your show. The main reason given for not touring into certain regions was that companies can’t get programmed there –venue manager’s often say ‘we love the work but we don’t have an audience for it’. Festivals are great as they allow for an influx of diverse, high quality work. Examples were given of venues that are consistently bringing interesting, experimental work in areas whereone might not expect to find interested audiences, chief amongst these were The Point in Eastleigh, The Drum in Plymouth and the New Wolsey in Ipswich. It can be done but is very much dependant on the commitment and contacts of individual Artistic Directors.

Competition is essential to the creation of top quality work. Encouraging top rate artists into a region may be unpopular with local artists who might see it as greater demand on local resources, particularly funding. Perhaps creating the best work for audiences and the best environment for local artists are mutually exclusive concepts.

Where a region has only one or two producing houses should they be run by Artistic Directors who direct a high proportion of the in house shows? Does that lead to a lack of diversity of work in the region, also directors have their preferred team of collaborators so tends to end up with a small group of people creating the majority of work. This can definitely make a region unattractive to artists.

Should we be thinking in terms of a more flexible approach to where people are

516 based? Perhaps it’s healthier to make work in lots of different places, to be inspired by different cultures, different landscapes, different people. Inspirational settings can lead to great work (Kneehigh).

London audiences can be very fragmented because there are so many options people can get very specific about what they go to see and choose to see a lot of the same thing. In the regions where there are fewer options however people go to see agreater diversity of work because they’ll see everything that’s available. Regional audiences are happy to see a greater diversity of work (as long as the copy is right).

Summing up: Artists are attracted to areas where they feel really welcome and supported, and also where the offer includes a long term relationship. Tuoring into a region is fine but it’s better if they can make work there as well. Multiple co-producing models particularly valuable. The venues that follow this approach (The Point, New Wolsey and the Drum for instance are rewarded by developing an audience that are up for anything. These venues are also very generous –they don’t try to claim work as ‘theirs’, they share the ownership and the benefits with companies who therefore come backagain and again.

The regions shouldn’t try to be like London. They have their own strengths and need to offer something London can’t. Residencies are a great way of energizing the creative community in any given region –bringing in external experience and expertise.

Lots of available money and a lack of good performance opportunities is death. Better to have little money and more support as it focuses attention on the heart of the work rather than big sets etc.

BUZZ –creating buzz is the key. Buzz plus friendliness equals big attraction.

517

V. Cited Sessions: Devoted & Disgruntled 5

518

TUESDAY, 2 FEBRUARY 2010 002 How do I explain the value of what I do to my Grandad and other people?

Convener: Anne Langford

Participants: Helen Mugridge Sharon Seager Jack Klaff Nick Coope Ben Luke Ellen Groves Greg Wohead Paul Trossell Becki haines Philipa Wilkinson Dodger Phillips And some lovely bees!

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations: The following things were discussed; • The challenges of describing what we do to people who maybe haven’t experienced if without sounding flaky or esoteric. • How do you actually explain what it is you do when you are jack of all trades, without sounding like a joker? I’m an editor, producer, performer – just watch people glaze over. • The semantics of ‘this is what I do’. Why not play a game – try out a description of what you do and then guage the responses until you find a set of responses to your description that you like. For example, “I’m an aerialist”- you must have to train hard, how many times have you fallen?, aren’t you scared of heights?. “I’m an actor” – have you been on the Bill?. “I’m a performer” - ????[confused face]. “I’m a writer” –quiet reverence. • Maybe brand yourself and say it with confidence – the need to value what you do yourself. Sometimes we project our own uncertainty and embarrassment onto other people. “I’m a theatre maker” – some people ask more some people are just happy with that answer. • Theatre makers have a profound knowledge of life – role as witness – distiller. The word essence came up a lot. • Ask people for their stories, that’s what I do. I tell stories. • In the labour camps in Russia people would swap stories for bread. Someone went to see Death of a Salesman and changed his companies pension policy. • What turned you onto theatre – doing it. Therefore find ways to make people do it? Kidnap and enforced theatre making / going? • People are valuing theatre – they are still paying to go in a recession – they want stories. • Theatre and revolution – wanting truth from the stage. • Are we too English and polite, well it’s good because – see kidnap option. Just do it, make it shout about it. • Connect through stories – ask questions about their world. Share appropriate stories – the right story for the right person. • I tell people that I’m really interested in the process of human existence – and then they tell me all kinds of things – I get fed. • Do we need evidence? Is passion and conviction enough. • What happens when the other people have resources we need? The role of theatre in civic society – playing a part, contributing. Legitimacy?

519

• How does the most embarrassing thing that ever happened to you become a great story? The process of turning shame, pain and fear into stories.

SOME SUGGESTIONS: • Have a range of stories to tell, don’t explain what you do. Do it. [Kidnap option at own risk]. Borrow / steal stories, plant stories and let them grow in other people. • Say what you do with confidence [even if you don’t always have it, might become self fulfilling] • Enforced experience? Don’t be so bloody English, tell stories [kidnap optional] • Evidence – is just saying something is important enough? • Essence – what we do is essential.

P O S T E D B Y IMPROB ABLE AT 1 7 : 3 8 LABELS: DEFINITIONS , JOBS , ROLES

520

TUESDAY, 2 FEBRUARY 2010 003 Having a sing

Convener: Kobna Holdbrook-Smith (Kobs)

Participants: Cass, Rod, Amanda, Phelim, Cat, Zoe, Greg. Others I thank but didn’t catalogue.

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

This wasn’t a discussion so much as an opportunity to make some singing noises. The loose concept is to set up a secular choir. Some people who would like to sing but not necessarily to worship. I don’t think it would make the world worse if we could neuter any fear some of us have, even if only of singing aloud.

I have now had the opportunity to see how people respond to a casual invitation to sing. The law of two feet applies strictly but it means that those that show are engaged or at the very least curious.

The participants were (without exception) timid at first but without exception each construction of our group (different constructions because different people dropped in and out) sounded ‘perfect’ at some point for each song/sung thing.

We sang ‘Senzeni Na’, that ‘Doo Doo Ba Nay’ one, the central phrase from ‘Frankensinatra’ and a gospel sounding one that consisted simply of ‘Yes’ sung in a four note sequence (so very much better then that reads).

Now, this choir will go ahead however large or small. We need a venue. Maybe an evening weeknight or better still a Sunday morning. Sunday because that’s usually free-est, and it would be about 11am - 1230. 11am to dissuade the hungover but not rouse us unreasonably early on the day off. In the week it would be at about 7 but I don’t think that’s sustainable.

We haven’t a choir yet but it seems people are happy to respond to a casual invitation to sing, which is super. Venue must come first though.

I’m asking for a venue or some venue advice. My email is kobs at talk21.com and please put ‘Chorus’ in the subject box.

Niceness unto you. k P O S T E D B Y IMPROBABLE AT 1 7 : 4 6 LABELS: INVITATION , MUSIC , SINGING

521

TUESDAY, 2 FEBRUARY 2010 004 What does theatre have to do with video games?

Convener: Alex Fleetwood

Participants: Alan O’Leary, Samal Blal, Lyn Gardner, Myro Wulfr, Sam Hall, Andrew Somerville, Lindsey Hope Pearlman, Aaron Minnigin, Helen Muyridge, Ian Pugh, Joe Austin, Sharon Seager, Antonio Ferrara, Tassos Stevens, Laura Friedman, Gavin O’Carroll, Robert Wells , Caroline Pearce, Gary Campbell, Katie Day

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

This was a very hot and engaged discussion. There was a vibrant atmosphere and a high level of discourse around this topic, which I personally found so exciting that I can’t remember exactly what was said. Apologies if this is a little scattered.

Video games have traditionally occupied the living room, creating an intense relationship between an individual player and a screen-based experience. Our perception of those experiences is that they are aesthetically limited and socially backward.

The average age of a video gamer is 39. Video games are played equally by men and women. American teenager spend on average 7.5 hours day looking at a screen, in which they consume 11.5 hours of media. New gaming platforms like the iPhone and the Nintendo Wii give humans more human ways of interacting with a digital game – to do with touch, gesture, and interaction with the people or the world around you. As gamers expect greater sophistication and more human interaction, there is a colossal opportunity for theatre makers and video game producers to share skills and understanding.

There hasn’t yet been a break-out theatre / game project that defines this notion. Books had Masquerade. Cinema has spawned numerous ARGs (alternative reality game) projects which blur the boundaries between narrative and play. Theatre needs to catch up…

But won’t we alienate ourselves? Laura spoke of the experience of her brother, 18, playing Call of Duty since he was 11. Shooting, killing, dying, respawning – talking on his headset to people he doesn’t know, telling them to cover him while he takes that guy out. Tassos reminded us that if we viewed all theatre through the experience of audiences for The Mousetrap we would have a very different view. Call of Duty is only one tiny component of the world of video games. And Call of Duty online multiplayer is a live, 12 player experience that one can access at any time of the day or night, where the people you are playing with and against are fellow experts, having logged hundreds if not thousands of hours of playing time. If we divorce that experience from the content for a minute, one has to regard it as a huge achievement on the part of the game’s creators.

Another way of thinking about video games is articulated in the book Casual Revolution by the ludologist Jesper Juul.

PLAYER SPACE / PLAY SPACE

Immersive games like Call of Duty create a detailed play space (a 3D world) that negates meaningful agency in the player space. Conversely, Wii Sports creates a flat, shallow play space that allows for greater agency to be located in the player space. Does this model translate to proscenium arch theatre?

522

Games design posits the existence of a player – or group of players – or vast panoply of potential players, each with a different set of expectations and attributes – and conducts a series of iterative design processes to shape an experience in which the player can move through the experience. Can a piece of theatre do this? Can a theatre create a space in which stories can be told?

Coney’s project A Small Town Anywhere attempted to do this very thing. Rather than a computer brain tracking the players’ inputs, a team of theatre-makers responded to the live social play of a group of 30 people. We discussed whether there is a live interface limit to the number of players for whom a single gamerunner can facilitate a meaningful experience – the general sense is that 12 is the upper limit.

Lyn reflected on whether video games offered new models for the distribution of theatre experiences. Can the old model of uniting audience and performers in a physical space at a fixed point in time be supplanted with a model that enables groups to come together digitally, to experience interaction and involvement with a theatrical work?

Can we create theatre-on-demand?

Rotozaza’s piece Etiquette and Duncan Speakman’s subtlemobs both use downloadable MP3 tracks (part story, part instruction set) to create a distributable participatory theatre experience). They share a narrative sophistication and a radical simplicity of technology – perhaps both instruments of their success.

There is also a question of whether ease of access = A GOOD THING. The act of bringing people together for an experience which is happening now and only now, is an essential part of theatre. But video games are a form of distributed live experience too. Every time you play, it’s different.

I asked the question of whether there was anything video games and theatre couldn’t do together. Andrew raised the question of survival versus nuance – games tend to be about living or dying, husbanding your resources to survive. A theatre piece can be about a subtle change in the way a person sees the world. Can game experiences manage that? I would argue that they can, but don’t – often – yet. Google Every Day the Same Dream and play that. See what you think.

It’s also true that games, especially live games of the kind playtested at Hide&Seek events, tap into some fundamental tribal instincts – we are bonded together against the enemy, we must work together to win, you are now my friend. The physical rush of playing together dissolves London’s social barriers without recourse to our traditional drugs of choice – that rush is something that theatre makers could learn to harness.

And the way that theatre is divorced from marketing and learning and participation – the idea that a theatre maker makes a work and it is up to others to interpret, deliver and bring an audience together with it – games offer a range of tools to rethink that model. If the moment you get your ticket, you are rewarded with an experience, one that leads you closer to the live event, and from that experience there are a number of paths that you can follow, and there’s one that suits you, and ultimately that path leads you to the show with a vastly enriched understanding of the work – that’s a way of thinking about a theatre that markets itself and educates its audience as it does so.

A tiny plug – my company, Hide&Seek, makes work at the intersection of play, performance and public space (or ‘games’), and we curate a monthly night called The Sandpit, which invites artists from any discipline, game designers, and interested people to try out game ideas on a friendly group of players. If you’d like to do that, please drop us a line at hello at hideandseekfest.co.uk or call me on 07900 692150. We have exciting plans for International Sandpits coming very soon. P O S T E D B Y IMPROBABLE AT 1 2 : 2 9 523

LABELS: GAMES , PARTICIPATION , TECHNOLOGY

524

WEDNESDAY, 3 FEBRUARY 2010 007 How can men contribute to feminist theatre?

Convener: Paul Whitlock

Participants: Paul Whitlock, Zoe Cobb, Liza Stubbs, Robert Cook, Helen Pringle, Naomi O’Kelly, Laura Eades, Alan Ball, Josh Neicho, Rachel McGill, Neil Keating, Dan G., Stuart T., S. Simpson, Gerard Bell (unfortunately some names were not very legible), a few others who “bumblebeed” in and out.

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

It is important for men to participate, but not dominate.

Nic Green’s “Trilogy” (recently performed at Battersea Arts Centre and the Barbican) was considered to be a particularly inspiring and ground-breaking piece of feminist dance-theatre.

On the other hand, the show “Calendar Girls” is not exactly challenging stereotypes of women’s bodies by casting an actress who has posed for lads’ magazines.

There is a basic image problem with feminism – the “F-word”. Does labelling or marketing a work as implicitly or explicitly “feminist” automatically limit the audience and alienate people? Or is it OK to nail your political colours to the mast?

Does feminist theatre have a particular process?

A lot of prominent women in theatre do not consider themselves feminists – is this a sign of their success?

Women are sometimes also guilty of making sexual generalisations and assumptions about their male colleagues in the arts.

One man said that on some occasions he feels able to challenge other men’s sexism when they express it and sometimes he does not. He wishes that he could do so every time.

Gay men may have different attitudes to women from traditional masculine viewpoints.

Feminism is often seen as a polarising force: women versus men. It should be about sharing values and enabling men and women to engage with each other to make a difference. However, it was acknowledged that some vulnerable women might need the security and support of an all- female group for a time before they felt strong enough to face the wider world.

How many men would actually identify themselves as feminists?

Could there be an all-male feminist theatre company?

Comment - The gender definitions applied here don’t describe my/their experience.

Note by Convener: The above comment about gender definitions was added anonymously to the printout of this report that was posted on the wall. It did not form part of the original discussion and does not represent my own views. P O S T E D B Y IMPROBABLE AT 1 7 : 1 3 LABELS: DEFINITIONS , EQUALITY , GENDER 525

THURSDAY, 4 FEBRUARY 2010 016 Is it a problem that, recently, I feel that I do not want to work with, perform for, or even talk to straight people? If yes, are there solutions

Convener: Brian Lobel

Participants: Many queer people, a handful of straight people, and a few people unidentified.

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

I’D LOVE PEOPLE TO CONTINUE WRITING ON THIS – ESPECIALLY THOSE STRAIGHT PEOPLE. I DIDN’T LEARN YOUR NAMES. BUT THIS WAS NOT BECAUSE I HATE STRAIGHT PEOPLE.

First and foremost, the question was meant to be a provocation. I do not hate straight people, do not refuse to work with straight people, nor do I find straight people untalented or oppressive. I even have some straight friends.

There was quite a lot of hurt in the group, people hurt because they felt like they were being called oppressors, while others hurt that there is still inequality and choose to deal with this inequality in different, passionate ways. Some people (like the amazing Stella Duffy) felt the need to constantly engage with the greater community (including gays/straights etc), and many more agreed with her – Chris Goode talking about the limited perspective that might derive from only interacting with and responding to a queer audience.

Chris asked me (Brian) what questions I thought could be asked, emotionally/artistically/etc which could not be asked in a straight space (which I defined as not statedly queer or queer- friendly). In response to this, I gave some bad answer. Chris is smarter and sharper than me.

Stella talked about the nuisance of having to continually ‘come out’ over and over and over again as necessity of being a queer performer/writer/theatre maker. She still felt the need to fight and to keep up confidence, noting that even though gay liberation happened years ago, the movement is still far away from being through. My only response to Stella was to question whether perseverance (constantly interacting with a ‘straight’ audience/viewership) was the only path towards eventually integrated spaces, where all felt safe.

Chris Goode wondered if the issue, the feeling, was particular to solo performance, and if a solo performance demands comfort/safety from an audience in a different way from those in ensembles who have others on stage to look to for comfort/safety. This is an excellent point.

We discussed the perspective that could come from having non-queer people in a space with queer people. The example was given about The Jerk, the play about the gay serial killer, and how it was a richer experience as an audience member because there were all sorts of people watching the show. It was also discussed that the main ‘problems’ with the show’s reception was from gay critics, who thought that the work was not ‘good’ for gay people. This started an interesting conversation about the fear of ‘not getting it right’ and non-queer people writing or engaging with queer subjects/subjectivity. We talked for a while about the fear of engaging with and offending lesbians/gay men etc. Stella encouraged writers of all persuasions to write lesbian characters – why? Because there are not enough representations. Even if they get it wrong, she said, it might be worth the effort.

We talked about the impetus to write and to create. There was a nice moment when Lucy said that 526 of course you want to be comfortable/safe in a performance context, not just as a queer, but as a performer who has successfully performed to an audience. The right audience. The receptive audience. I personally think this was a sharp point.

We talked about ways in which queer people might oppress straights. I don’t believe this is possible or a major concern. Someone can challenge on this if they dare.

There was so much here… it was a pretty dramatic session and I’m having trouble writing it up perfectly. I encourage all people to add to this… Basically, much of this boils down to the effectiveness of performance, if we think we should preach to the unconverted to the congregation. People come to church to be reinspired, re-engaged, spoken to and riled up – this is the first thing I like to do. If people can be converted, that’s awesome too, but not tnecessarily the main thing… I am leaving this here, but beg people to please add to the work. (thanks to Mary for her copious notes). x.o.x.o. Brian P O S T E D B Y IMPROBABLE AT 1 2 : 0 1 LABELS: AUDIENCE , DIVERSITY , EQUALITY , SEXUALITY

527

THURSDAY, 4 FEBRUARY 2010 019 Why are only 17% of plays produced in the UK by women?

Convener: Sam Hall, founder 17percent

Participants:

Maddy, Dee, Jo Faith, Leila Crerar, Angela Clerkin, Gehane Stehler, Helen Pringle, Sarah Grochala

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

17percent is a new organization to promote and support female playwrights. This discussion was a pre-launch discussion to see what people felt.

What are the issues?:

Although it was felt that there is a change in the air as of the last year, the situation still merits discussion and will do until as many plays are produced by women as by men.

Few producers are actively producing women’s work / women writers.

It was felt the National, Royal Court and RSC are committed to commissioning women – but the commissions do not translate into productions for whatever reason. There has been a slight shift recently with the Lucy Prebbles and Polly Stenhams BUT – they are still the exceptions, and how long will it last?

 Is it because women’s writing is not considered to have enough commerciality?  Is it because there is a misconception that women will only write about ‘women’s issues’ (equally domesticity) and they do not have a mass audience? Some work to shift this misconception needs to be done. (Eg: There are plenty of popular male and female writers writing about every day life on TV – so why is it a problem in theatre?)  Good writing is good writing no matter who has written it.

Number crunching:

Historically over the years, there have been less women writing plays than men – but the number of women on writing courses has shot up in the last 5 or so years. Anecdotally, women make up the larger percentage (around 80%) of those on courses, yet are not represented in the plays being staged now.

The most recent HESA applications to university stats show there have been approximately 1,000 female undergraduates each year on writing courses, since 2006.

528

Where are the new plays by these writers? Why do women get deterred and stop writing after graduation?

Anecdotally – about 10% of scripts received by a regional theatre were written by women – might there be an assumption by women that their scripts won’t be regarded as well. (Some research by Emily Glassberg Sands suggests this is true.)

Why is there a glass ceiling?:

Females at the top of the writing tree are somehow in a ‘non-space’:

Caryl Churchill – is somehow ‘outside’ the writing canon – why is she not our most respected living playwright?

Is it quality or discrimination? There was a feeling in the group that there was a kind of unspoken discrimination occurring.

And whilst the younger playwrights are getting work on – what happened to all the women in the 1980s and 1990s who may have given up, or not got plays on? There was a feeling from one regional theatre producer in the session that there may be a whole generation of lost women playwrights out there.

Issues to take forwards:

 Actually how alienated by ‘female issues’ are males?  And are issues ‘male and ‘female’? Surely it’s in the way it is told and it shouldn’t matter who the writer is. A play about abortion was given as an example – just as big as issue for both people involved.

 What sort of plays are theatres looking for – 17percent will talk to the producers and theatres to see if we can open the dialogue.

 And within the plays women write – where are the roles for women? Why are there more male roles? And where are the roles for older women?

 One bone of contention – no male participants! Come on fellas! As playwright Emma Adams said this morning ‘we’ve got to stop viewing things as competitions and start viewing things as conversations’. We’d like a dialogue with the audience - male and female.

More information:

17percent is a new organisation to promote and support female playwrights. http://17percent.co.uk/index.php

Facebook: 17percent

Launch event: 11 and 12 March 2010, The Red Hedgehog – see website for details

POS T E D B Y IMPROBABLE AT 1 2 : 4 6 LABELS: EQUALITY , GENDER , WRITING

530

THURSDAY, 4 FEBRUARY 2010 024 How do we make touring pay

Convener: Christina Elliot, Fuel

Participants: Eek, I forgot to take a record. They included: Hannah Ashwell, Tassos Stevens, Phillipa Wittenoom, Mark, Lyn Gardner, Action Hero,

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

This group was convened to discuss the difficulties of making touring on the small scale sustainable.

We started by discussing the different models for financing tours. These included fees, ACE subsidy, box office splits and a mixture of all three. What is the minimum fee that a one man show with low production costs can tour on? £400 a show? £750 a show? It seemed to depend on a number of factors including level of overheads, whether performers are on weekly fees or per show fees, and so on. Whereas some participants argued that small scale companies should aspire to pay personnel regularly whilst on tour, even when there are gaps in the schedule, and be honest about the hidden costs of making the work, others suggested that costs should be minimized to represent best value to the venue.

There was some discussion of the rural touring model. Hannah from Beaford Arts described her role as a broker for artists and venues, curating a programme which was ambitious but tailored to the communities her organization serves.

This led to a discussion about whether brokers could have a role more widely. Should the model of rural touring networks be expanded to the small scale touring circuit? A related question: should venues form consortiums to make it easier for companies to book joined up tours, and develop their audience over a number of years touring to the same venues.

We talked about other ways of financing tours: a number of participants had experience of offering workshops alongside performances to raise additional funds. Others suggested sponsorship or going to trusts with a record of funding touring e.g. Wellcome Trust, or bartering for support in kind on top of splits or fees e.g. rehearsal space.

Tassos Stevens prompted us to challenge some of the fundamentals of touring: what about making work remotely, or touring work in places where you find yourself already?

Much of the discussion centred on audiences. Clearly one answer to the question about how touring can pay is getting enough people to see it. However, it was clear that small companies find it hard to market their work in places which are unfamiliar – how do you market a show in Liverpool when you are based in London? Again, the role of brokers seemed valuable. We were encouraged to talk to local arts development officers whose job it is to link up organizations and audiences. We also discussed how touring companies could share resources, e.g. clubbing together to pay for a PR company, or reciprocal advertising on print and websites.

It seemed that everyone wanted a greater degree of sharing and collaboration and Theatre Bristol was held up as a good example of a community of theatre makers.

We discussed London touring. Is it possible to do a regional tour entirely within Greater London?

531

Participants were excited about the perceived easing of venue exclusion zones, partly as a result of the Audiences London survey which suggests that audiences are significantly venue loyal.

More joined up thinking seemed to be the answer to the original question. Companies working together to promote their work, venues forming consortiums, councils or local arts centres acting as brokers or middlemen between venues and companies.

P O S T E D B Y IMPROBABLE AT 1 3 : 0 4 LABELS: AUDIENCE , FUNDING , TOURING

532

THURSDAY, 4 FEBRUARY 2010 028 Playwrights: A dying species?

Convener: Sarah Grochala – sarah at widsith.org.uk

Participants: Andy Harman, Allen O'Leary, Suzy Almond

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Discussion

Two strands: Financial and Artistically. Original question posed referred to the difficulty of financially supporting yourself as a playwright and also the extent to which playwrights need to evolve in order to expand their role in a changing theatre environment.

Financially: Agreement that it is virtually impossible to support yourself financially from playwrighting. Theatre makes nothing therefore playwrights also make nothing. Having another job is essential. Plus side is that this gives you more freedom to write but the downside is that it decreases the amount of time that you have available to write. Difficulty of getting into the industry through the traditional model, especially if you’re over 26. Need to be pro-active in producing your own work and building an audience for it. The need to produce your own work, however, decreases access to the profession. Building doors rather than banging on them. Not being British and polite in your approach, but instead asking for what you need. Means that most playwrights are inevitably from a wealthy or middle class background. Playwrighting having a high cultural value in UK (related to legacy of Shakespeare), but commercially its value is low. Better position for playwrights financially in the UK than in New Zealand or in the USA. Need for some kind of agency to replace writernet as a supportive body for playwrights. Some to ask for advice about funding etc. from.

Artistically Need for playwrights to build more of a community network and set their own terms. Nature of playwright’s role is isolated so building a community seems difficult at times. We don’t know who the other playwrights are. D&D providing that forum for a weekend, but could this be extended.

Recommendations – To set up a stronger network of playwrights. Possibility of forming a playwrights support group from interested people at D&D? P O S T E D B Y IMPROBABLE AT 1 4 : 3 0 LABELS: FUNDING , SUPPORT , WRITING

533

THURSDAY, 4 FEBRUARY 2010 039 The Things I Found in My Pockets and My Notebook

Convener: Peter Cant

Participants: … Undisclosed.

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

THINGS WE FOUND IN OUR POCKETS Donations To The Group [Broken image link on webpage (1)] [Broken image link on webpage (2)] Receipt Vue Finchley Road with 2 pizzas for £12 offer Ticket stub from Norwich arts centre T Kettle Bonus Card Norfolk and Norwich business card A whole garlic A phone number (07752219228) A photo of four women on Graduation Day, one has had her head cut out A free party invite A Receipt for FABULOUS WELSHCAKES Sanisbury’s Waterloo – Receipt for bottled water and croissant Receipt for Nationwide account, account number ending *************44288 LINDSEY HOPE PEARLMAN business card with glamorous headshot CAFFE NERO reward card with one stamp on its way to a free coffee Envelope with loads of phone numbers and addresses and this code: J89*XLFJ A branded piece of paper from the Young Vic with the name Mark Rosenblatt written in red ink New York Wallet Subway Map No fit state Carnet Valid for 10 weeks 10 Nov – 19 Jan Plastic bag for 3D glasses Shopping list for making couscous (ONION, GARLIC CELERY COUSCOUS ORGANIC CUMIN PAPRIKA RED PEPPERS CORRIANDER PARSLEY MINT RAISINS ORANGE JUICE EGGS CANDLES STOCK WINE) A stick

534

Other Things

The process of taking out everything from your pockets and bags and wallets

SHAME? - dirty handkerchief, tampons, business cards, drugs in handbag - train ticket to Cardiff

EXPOSING

SCALE

CLUTTER

Maps people draw you when you’re somewhere strange. In which “DISTANCE IS MEASURED IN MINUTES” or by the landmarks. The pubs etc

Letter from Grandfather – “ The joy of life is in the struggle for what you want to achieve “ (He is a bad man)

Little pieces of paper

Master Key (do not copy)

Banana

Moisturizer

(COINS) Change that’s worth something £ £ £ $ $ $ $

“you had a piece of garlic in your pocket…”

NICE to reflect on what you carry with you . A RUBBISH SHOW. A PIECE OF RUBBISH

Tickets, receipts, cards

Photograph of me as a baby, used for A THERAPY SESSION ??

How to survive? A shack in Suffolk.

The word IMMURE

Thoughts on abroad and on boundaries

SURVIVAL

CONTROLLED RECKLESSNESS

Conscious awareness of only 7 things

BEAUTY

535

How can we control the context around the objects in order to make everything beautiful?

HAT and FLAT

Charles Simic

Melancholy= desire to change Fear= Reluctance / Avoidance to act Anger=Desire for clarity Joy= desire to live

“ I think the very nature of Art is Affirmative, and in being so it reflects the laws and the evolution of the universe” (Barbara Hepworth)

“We are such stuff as dreams… etc”

GUADALUPE NETTEL El Huesped: In the wound there was something familiar and at the same time unknown

En la heirda habia algo familiar y al mismo tiempo irreconocible

SUBCONSCIOUS Keep things stowed away. Why> ? like atime capsule, a subconscious reminder. Waiting for them to reappear in your bag, your pockets, your notebook …

The phone card I WAS GOING TO USE TO CALL MY GIRLFRIEND IN AMERICA AFTER SHE HAD SLEPT WITH A WOMAN AND HAD SEX WITH MULTIPLE PEOPLE AT THE SAME TIME AT THE BURNING MAN. I NEVER USED IT.I NEVER CALLED HER. BECAUSE SHE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN WHAT I WANTED TO SAY [Broken image link on webpage (3)]

Click on the image above for the full gallery P O S T E D B Y IMP ROBABLE AT 1 5 : 1 8 LABELS: OBJECTS , STORIES

536

THURSDAY, 4 FEBRUARY 2010 046 Is theatre political?

Convener: Tom Mansfield

Participants: Emma Adams, Shakera Louise Ahad, Sharon Matthews, Meenakshi Sharma, Paschale Straiton, many butterflies, bumblebees and people whose names I totally failed to write down…

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

[Broken image link – however, I had a copy of this image and have used it in Chapter 3.1] click on the image to view it fully

In a word – yes – we started from the basis that everything’s political. In life, and therefore in theatre, we are constantly engaging in power relationships between people. The question becomes how we as theatre-makers can confront those power dynamics, and how we can use theatre as a tool to dissect those dynamics in the wider world. When we talk about politics are we really discussing ideology – the idea that the world should be a certain way and that people should behave in particular ways to achieve that.

Audiences and marketers are often put off by the idea of “political theatre” – it takes us back to the idea of some kind of 1970s banner-waving protest art – but is this situation beginning to change with shows like Enron, Katrina, and the Jean Charles de Menezes plays? We discussed work that we’d seen that explicitly engages with major political issues – often, like the Hurricane Katrina show, these were most successful when dealing with individuals’ stories and without necessarily explicitly dealing with the “politics” of it.

Venues too are often discouraged by work that seems “too political” and we discussed whether it would be right to “smuggle the politics in”, or whether if we want to make political work we should be explicit about it. As artists, none of us were keen to be seen as trying to preach to an audience, and we kept coming back to the idea of storytelling as a vehicle for politics rather than the other way round. While a political issue or a specific incident might be the starting point for a piece of work, the most successful political theatre is good theatre as much as it is good politics. How explicit or implicit political ideas are within a piece may just depend on the piece we’re working on…or our own tastes as artists.

As a live form, our advantage is that we have a group of people assembled in a particular place at a particular time, who respond both as a group and as individuals. We discussed how we might help audiences to participate in and respond to political work – this could range from formal post- show discussions to conversations with artists in the bar afterwards, using social networking sites and our companies’/venues’ websites to get feedback. We were also intrigued by trying to find ways of getting the audience involved in debate/discussion during the show itself – is this possible? What opportunities does it present?

In theatre, our industrial structure gives us a huge advantage over film and TV in that we are able to reconsider everything afresh each time we create a new piece of work – we’re not restricted by the cultural and political assumptions of the mass media. We need to keep challenging our own assumptions – while the temptation is always to find the right tribe of people to work with, we also need to avoid forming cliques. Working with collaborators, material and audiences with which we’re not familiar can be a way of keeping ourselves fresh and opening ourselves up to new

537 ideas. If we’re going to question the society we live in then of course we need to keep questioning ourselves.

Many of us had found that the very process of working on a politically engaged piece of theatre had changed the way we think about the world more broadly – by working on a piece of art we learn not just as artists but as individuals within society. How we then apply those political changes in our theatre-making could take all kinds of ways – but we all agreed that we need to keep aware of the politics that exists both inherently and explicitly in our theatre. P O S T E D B Y IMPROBABLE AT 1 5 : 5 6 LABELS: CONTENT , PARTICIPATION , POLITICS

538

THURSDAY, 4 FEBRUARY 2010 047 If I’m a Jack of all Trades, Why do People think I am a Master at none?

Convener: Zoë Cobb

Participants: Sharon Seager, Jack Kloff, Hugo Chapman, Annie Rigby, Tyne Rafaeli, Andy Rogers, Mary O’Connor, Kirsty Lothaian, Morven, Paschale Straiton, Beccy Owen, Stuart Tagett, Jo Faith, Suzy Almond, Sara, Dan Copeland, Amy Ip, Andy Harmon, Steven Wainnery, Simon Wilkinson, Lee Simpson, Lucy Foster, Shakera Laise Ahad, Lee Simpson, Nadine Ishani, Angela Klirkin, Anna O’Brian

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

• A few more positive ways to look at it: Polymath, Renaissance woman/man, fluidity • From the perspective of someone who does one thing, he doesn’t like that others do more than one because of Envy, and thinks they spread themselves too thin. • If you are an actor who has directed, then don’t put it on your card, or CV keep it separate • Is this polymath behavior a necessity in the beginning of a career? Lee commented that he is well into his career and still does it. • If you want to be famous, then do one thing, and keep doing it and only it • Conversely, if you don’t want to become famous, do many things. • Is it a model for the future, moving away from the Industrial Revolution • We feel pressured to specialize. Why? On paper, for grants, for forms, for simplicity in organizations, we need to have a role. • In the publishing world the wealth, and variety of Stella’s life is really embraced and considered of value, however that is not the case in the theatre world • Perhaps it is a problem because we don’t specifically produce a product • One person expressed that she is never going to be good enough at any of the one thing she does. Is this the reason we do so many things? ‘You are not successful at that one thing because you are not always doing it.’ • We see the creation process a chaotic one, but in the institutions there is an idea of clock work that is applied to the process. Where each person does their job and the final product is resulting. This is still at the heart of how most theatre works. In Britain’s rep system, that is how the system still works. • So do we need to silence all the other voices in hopes of following just one? • Could we get the satisfaction of all the different things we do in one profession, like directing, if we gave it a chance? Might we learn just as much and find just as many rewarding pieces of information if we just stuck to it, and got deeper into it? • Do we need to change? Are we just on the wrong path, and need to learn how to keep doing one thing? Is it a matter or changing or just embracing what we do and valuing it, so at some point others will too? • Do we need the trumpets and the ceremony, the recognition to say that we are brilliant at what we do? • People who have a medal, and certificate make the theatre • Newtonian thinking breeds the non-polymath • There is lots of non-medaled work is not heard about and doesn’t enter the main stream’s thinking. • It is not monetarily sustainable to be a polymath • Even though a collaborative theatre company is well established, they are still thought of as crooks, or suspected of being low in moral character. • For the show at the National, Lee and Phelim proposed to co-direct and the National looked

539 confused and worried, however when they came back and said, Lee would write and Phelim would direct, the response was a massive smile and sigh of relief • Perhaps it is more of a British way of being and European theatre is less ‘container’ and ‘label orientated • In South Africa they didn’t have the luxury to do one thing. It felt like it was a Colonial idea to have so much division of labour, and this director who went down felt threatened by the lack of division. When she had experienced it a little more she felt an artistic poverty in relationship to all these people who could do so much • In the American system people are unionized and really only allowed to do one thing. • Be aware of why you are doing many jobs • There will be someone who is more equipped to do the work, because you are too tired, to busy to be there when you need to • Perhaps you are a control freak and cannot trust others to do the work you need to be done • Get a team around you who you trust with artistic integrity • In some cases we need to set boundaries and not do everything. People are very willing to accept us being a ‘jack of all trades’ if you are going down the ladder. The doors start closing when you start multi-tasking up the ladder. • ‘Whoever paints the wall, chooses the colour’ – Amber Films • All of the other forms of art and practice are very nourishing to the theatre work • It is a balancing act where you need to keep your options open. • If you present yourself so that someone can look at your body of work and find some through line, some method to your madness • You can use the different skills as a way to almost spiral up in your value, where you get a good credit in one area, it then gives you some sense of credence and then another area will be able to possibly also have a little bit of levity • The question of ‘What do you do?’ makes me feel defensive or uncertain, and think ‘which one should I answer? Actually, the person you are speaking with just wants interact and is asking quite a simple question. So choose something you are happy with saying. • Perhaps step away from the CV and went with the work biographies • The stitching is very important, what I do in a conceptual way • Portfolio careers, a more modern way to recession proof • It is self propagating; as soon as people know you do a lot of different things, they will start asking you to do all kinds of things. One suggestion of a design company was to show up in a shirt and slacks, and don’t lift a thing, this way you are not expected or asked to do the menial tasks. Doing it all can be lowering status • What part of us feels like what we are doing has less value that we are willing to let this judgment mean so much? Does it matter if other people think this if we don’t? • Representation is a game, learn how to do it • In this talk there is a sense of ‘they’ think and they do, well who are they? • I started in the military, and the Royal Shakespeare company is very similar. You should start your own think, do your own work, and ‘they’ will take notice. • Stick with your particular skills and there will be a strange arrangement that only you could fit. But this will not happen unless you value the things you do. Trust. • These are the kinds of jobs that you can’t advertise, this fit into the discussion about why there are no job advertisements, because often they are not certain of all the things that they want until you turn up. • Was there anything else that we needed to say? P O S T E D B Y IMPROBABLE AT 1 6 : 0 0 LABELS: JOBS , ROLES , SUPPORT

540

THURSDAY, 4 FEBRUARY 2010 049 We devised, but I directed? After devising a piece as a group, giving freedom to the actors.. the question of ownership and ‘did you really direct

Conveners: Myro, Samal

Participants: Steve, Phelim,

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

- The Problem is very common (you are not alone), - only happens when a piece is successful - this is a normal process for good devised work

Can be avoided by: - CLARITY - Explaining style of directing. Sometimes ‘alternative’ style (less dictatorial, more about creating an environment for actors to explore), causes confusion as if this is directing. - having clear roles from the beginning (i.e. contracts) - be sure of your roles/inhabit the role completely

- people seem to need safety given by roles - fixed roles become especially important when the devising system starts to interact with outside systems.

Possible ways to help ensuring/ finding out who the director is: - ask yourself if the show would have been shit, who would have been blamed? - Who would have taken responsibility? - Who sat down and started the process (also applies for company founding)

For Help go to: ITC – independent theatre company Directors guild (join) P O S T E D B Y IMPROBABLE AT 1 6 : 0 6 LABELS: COLLABORATION , DIRECTING , ROLES

541

THURSDAY, 4 FEBRUARY 2010 052 International touring: looking for some good advice

Convener: Gemma Paintin

Participants: Gemma, Matt, Tom and some others

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

• The venue should pay for all costs • You could pay the costs then invoice them with receipts • Money to be found in coproductions with different venues • Go to the IETM incognito! • Use BC rates but break the costs down • Its not a problem to show the same show all over one country- premiere is not so important • Local BC offices can help with arranging a tour, as can the first venue, cuts their travel costs • In France: Office Nationale de Diffusion Artistique • Some keys festivals to visit, to see work and meet promoters: Dublin, Under the Radar, Kunsten, FTA in Montreal, Push in Vancouver, festivals in Graz, Bogota, Rio, Buenas Ares, Avignon, Barcelona, Salamanca, APAM in Australia • Propose a package of shows to a venue! • Don’t need to have your own technician if tech is simple • Its about a personal relationship with promoters, don’t cold call them. • Invite people to your shows • Have a nice, clear pitch ready and appropriate marketing materials that reflect your work • Could just be the manner in which you give the flyer that counts- charming • There’s eu funding available for tours to more than one country- hard to apply for? • Use e-marketing, facebook, twitter. • THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR A FACE TO FACE MEETING!!! P O S T E D B Y IMPROBABLE AT 1 6 : 1 7 LABELS: FUNDING , INTERNATIONAL , MARKETING , TOURIN G

542

THURSDAY, 4 FEBRUARY 2010 059 ACE new Vision and Goals – Let’s make them better

Convener: dee Participants: About 5 then second wave of 4

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations: Question came out of deep misgivings about the above but no rationale to support that feeling. Vision and goals were read out.

Comments included;

ACE re-structuring again (3rd time in last 12 years?) - they want new business models for the “industry” when they can’t even work one out for themselves.

What the hell is a “relationship manager” supposed to be?

Document is woolly and oily. Goals are not really goals.

What’s wrong with the 1967 charter where Arts Council exists to “develop and improve knowledge understanding and practice of the arts” “increase accessibility of the arts to the public throughout Great Britain” “advise and co-operate with Government Dept’s, Local Authorities on any matters concerned , whether directly or indirectly, with the forgoing objectives.

ADVOCACY IS A VITAL ROLE FOR ACE (consensus around this one) who should aim with all of us to raise the arts in the prioritiy list for Government and Local Authorities. That should be a goal. Our audiences are clearer about value of the arts than ACE.

It looks like a document that is preparing for cuts.

In Ireland NGO funding has been cut and they await outcomes for arts funding. Eastern European companies see taking state funding as colluding with the state – artists there work all the time and live frugally.

There has to be an Arts Council and it appears to have to spend money and time justifying and defending decisions – mostly to artists.

Most successful theatre culture’s support long term development of ensembles.

A suggestion was discussed: Big RFO’s (National/RSC plus???) should have ten years funding then none – they have brand and connections enough to float on their own. No organization should have more than 50% of costs funded.

Someone thought ACE corrupt.

ACE has no organizational memory – mistakes repeated and good models not shared.

OVER ALL No particular consensus – the issues are so complicated and the ACE culture so entrenched probably best to fight with devotion to getting on with making theatre. P O S T E D B Y IMPROBABLE AT 1 6 : 5 3 LABELS: ACE , FUNDING , MANAGEMENT 543

FRIDAY, 5 FEBRUARY 2010 089 What types of women are we not seeing on stage?

Convener: Mandy Fenton

Participants: Lots…

Some facts, figures, info on survey findings - followed by the summary of D&D discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

1. Gender Equality Duty: - “The gender equality duty comes into force in April 2007 and is the biggest change in sex equality legislation in thirty years, since the introduction of the Sex Discrimination Act itself. It has been introduced in recognition of the need for a radical new approach to equality – one which places more responsibility with service providers to think strategically about gender equality, rather than leaving it to individuals to challenge poor practice. “(Equal Opportunities Commission Chair Jenny Watson Nov 2006)

2. Equality Bill published 2009, expected to come into force autumn 2010 containing significant clauses outlawing gender and age discrimination

3. Some European Commission/FIA findings in survey 2008 - Research on age, gender and performer employment conducted by Dr Deborah Dean of the Warwick Business School: • 57% of women felt that their gender restricted employment opportunities (6% of men felt the same). • The number of women active in the industry declines sharply from the age of 50 – only 17.8% of women were in the older age group, 30% of men were over 50. • 50% of men believed that getting older was an advantage in relation to pay, 70% of women said it was a disadvantage • 33% of men earned more than £20,000 per year, 19.7% of women earned at the same levels. • 2009 Euro/FIA Project : “Engendering Change: Strategies to Combat Gender Stereotypes and Promote Equal Opportunities for Performers in Theatre, Film and Television in Europe” – To move research into action

4. Equity Petition Feb 2009: “Over half the viewing public is female, yet in TV drama for every female character, there are two male characters - (35.3% female roles to 63.5% male roles). Whilst leading parts are frequently played by male actors over 45, women in this age group start to disappear from our screens. The message this sends to viewers is distorted and distorting. We call on all the major UK television channels to take action to correct this imbalance”.

5. Sphinx Theatre - Vamps, Vixens and Feminists Conference 2009 - Summary Factsheet 2006 findings: a. Theatre: 2006: Women in Theatre Survey. 16-29 Jan 2006 inclusive. Theatre – Writing • In 1983, only 20 out of 620 (3.2%) of plays were written by women, excluding Agatha Christie. In 2006, out of 140 productions sampled only 13 written by women (9%), with 22 collaborations (16%) • Out of 48 new writing productions, only 8 were written by women (17%) with 10 collaborations (21%) • Out of 9 new adaptations/translations, 5 were by men, 0 by women, with 4 collaborations

544

• In 1983, 7% of playwrights were women, whilst in 2006, 17% of playwrights are women Theatre – Roles • In 1983, only approx 12% of directors were women. In 2006, out of 140 productions sampled only 32 were directed by women (23%), with 6 collaborations (4%) and 5 unknown (4%) • On stage, Sphinx’s survey found that 38% of roles were for women • On television, Equity has found that 35.5% of roles are for women b. Screen and Broadcast: Writer’s Guild TV Committee, 1 month of Radio Times issues • Out of 179 television programmes, only 50 were written by women (28%) • Out of 49 radio programmes, only 12 were written by women (24%) c. UK Film Council Report – Women writing for film • Only 26% of women writers write for film • Women screenwriters are credited on less that 15% of films between 1999 – 2003 • Films written by women screenwriters are as likely to gain a release as those written by men • The Box Office return for British films with a female screenwriter is $1.25 per £1 budget, compared with $1.16 for films with all-male writers.

Summary of D&D discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

In light of shocking and depressing statistics relating to women in the industry in 2009 the question ‘What types of women are we not seeing on stage?” seems a significant and good start point for convening this discussion... There were both male and female participants in this discussion, many of the women participating did not feel adequately represented on stage, particularly around stereo-typing and age considerations.

• Some suggestions of types of women we’re not seeing were made by participants before the discussion broadened out to wider issues, with awareness there are many, many more to be made: - 15% of single women are happier in their 50’s. Planning life in 50’s. Women in positions of responsibility with angst about time spent with children, court systems and women – women being separated from children through divorce of if child is in trouble with the law. Menopause and sex being great after menopause as less worries, older women giving advice, Family law, UK is bottom of welfare league in Europe for child welfare - ability to be a good mum in a system that doesn’t support them.

• Why aren’t we seeing them, what is the source of the problem? - Women directors who have kids get wiped out. Exceptions: Thea Sharrock and Marianne Elliot. This can also occur for women in all areas of work where attendance hours are long. - Writer told us she has been asked to put more men in the script/women under 30 - Commercial compromises i.e. Kidron’s first script was about Greenham Common whereas she recently directed a Bridget Jones film - Historically women have been on stage a shorter time so there are a large amount of existing plays for predominantly male casts - What kind of plays do producers/audiences want? i.e. participant remarks on a perceptible difference between Germany and UK and finds comparatively that here producers are predominantly thinking about selling tickets and star system - Many literary managers are female but are they supporting the women in these networks? One participant mentioned a news article about a recent experiment done where plays were presented to female literary agents with some of those written by women attributed to male writers and vice versa – findings here were that when the plays were attributed to a female writer they were consistently marked lower. - Confidence, self-restriction, self-editing

545

• Suggestions/considerations/reflections from participants around the current situation concerning representation of women - One participant discussed the development of the strong female character in her forthcoming solo show and voiced her fears about buying into stereo-types of ‘mad hysterical woman’ . The character is quite enticing and she is worried about picking up outside, received ideas/stereotypes of women. Discussion on this perhaps being a tendency for writers and a strong point raised for writers to reflect on when writing female character - Write more female protagonists, set out to write more female parts, put women in roles where you would ‘expect’ to see men - Many stories are ‘guy’s stories’ – reverse the male gaze. Theatre de Soleil given as an example in this approach - ‘It’s Complicated’ – Meryl Streep’s new film - Point raised about too many women being on stage talking about relationships, not enough about ambition / competitiveness / creativity / movers within the world politically - Concern voiced that there has been awareness around this issue for years - i.e. memories of university essays written years ago etc – and that this situation still has not been adequately addressed despite women being 52% of the population. The need for men, as much as women, in taking responsibility to address this issue - Don’t wait for other people to do it. Women work in ways they want to work now, keep doing what you do – challenge commissioning editors/producers. Need to stop thinking of what other people are going to buy. Make relationships happen and get them to see something they might not see - Reverse casting – need to think about this when casting – sometimes have to question the reflex which may first think of a man in a role - If writing a ballsy character, not to just see this in terms of a division between male and female behaviour - How to write about the lived existence of a strong woman, ‘f**k’ the setting and tell the story. Would it be pushed aside because of this? Is there danger in saying women’s stuff has to be outside of these structure? - Now there many women are coming through in genuine positions of earned power and still negotiating their identities within this. - Is there any impact in the structures of the new playwriting going on? - Hard to get female gay relationships on stage – One participant writer said she had been asked to take the female gay relationship out of her script - male gay relationships more acceptable. Sarah Walters writes these relationships in a historical context - if its detached in this way then it seems it can be accepted more readily? - There is a branding issue for the big theatres – that they work with writers they want to write with. There was the positive suggestion that now perhaps they will want to work with more women writers and theatre makers as this issue could almost become ‘trendy’ ... - Resources such as The Bush Theatre’s Bush Green online facility for playwrights, 17percent network for women writers http://17percent.wordpress.com andhttp://17percent.co.uk/index.php , Clean Break, Unfinished Histories, Magdalena Project - Jill Greenhalgh Aberystwyth University etc

• Actions suggested/ to be taken following this D&D discussion -Several participants expressed the wish for a continuing forum or conference. Proposal that one of D&D monthly session be themed around this issue, to deepen this discussion, exploration of subsequent insights/thoughts and suggestions of possible actions arising from this. P O S T E D B Y IMPROBABLE AT 1 0 : 0 1 LAB ELS: CONTENT , EQUALITY , GENDER , PERFORMING , POLITICS , WRITING

546

FRIDAY, 5 FEBRUARY 2010 096 A Confessional – Share your theatre sins / Speak the unspeakable / Voice your secret fears & desires

Convener: Chris Goode

Participants: No names, no pack drill ☺

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Wanting to hold open a space for people to say the things that are difficult to say but that, once you say them, it turns out lots of other people have secretly been feeling the same thing…

All undertaken under a vow of confidentiality so nothing can be reported…

Actually it kind of turned in to swapping of embarrassing anecdotes, but that was fine. The fun of sharing, the laughter of release.

Two significant findings:

One: It’s really important for us to have this kind of space and to trust each other with our insights and experiences, even – or especially – when it’s hard stuff to voice. The person in the room with the most power is the person with least to hide.

Two: The BSL sign for ‘bollocks’ is awesome.

& love for all Ch.x P O S T E D B Y IMPROBABLE AT 1 0 : 2 0 LABELS: FUN , SUPPORT

547

VI. Cited Sessions: Devoted & Disgruntled 6

548

MONDAY, 7 FEBRUARY 2011 ISSUE 13: HOW CAN WE MAKE THE PROCESS OF TOUR-BOOKING BETTER FOR ARTISTS AND COMPANIES?

Issue: How can we make the process of tour-booking better for artists and companies?

Convener(s): Simon Day

Participants: `Martin McLean, Jorgen Tjon, Kate Hall, Thursa, Fionn Gill, Olga Petrakova, Katie Roberst, Matthew Austin, Rachel Brisco, Lucy Oliver-Harnsen, Bill Bankes-Jones, Simon Pittman, Marie Juliet, Joey Morse, Liz Chen, Zane Herma, Eleanor Klidingfield, Jo Crowley, Katie Duffy, Flavia Fraser-Cannon, Alfie Massey, Emma Dedkin, Simon Bedford and others

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Question has come about for me after experience of booking a regional tour following a successful Edinburgh. Although our small company (The Plasticine Men) have a good outcome, I found the process baffling. Why was so much work being duplicated? How are you supposed to conduct so many conversations at once and come up with a coherent schedule at the end of it? I thought that there must surely be a better way to do things…

It quickly became apparent that there were broadly three types of people represented in the discussion. Small companies relatively inexperienced at booking tours, experienced producers/organisations working with more established companies, and directors/programmers of venues.

The main thrust identified that the building of relationships was key, and that effective tours are many months, sometimes years in the planning, with communication between the venues and the companies/producers that they trust.

The question for me then moved on to whether small companies starting out with an ambition to tour, and without those relationships in place, should essentially aspire to find someone with that track-record to work with. The impassioned response from those people (I’ll call them ‘producers’ as a catch all term for now) was an unequivocal ‘NO!’. All the producers were forthright in recognizing the value of their own experience and knowledge, and in expressing a genuine willingness to share it with those individuals and companies who displayed the initiative to ask for it; it was offered that they share a responsibility, even an obligation, to do so, and underlined that there really wasn’t a right way and a wrong way. Examples were given of where this may have happened, through various ad hoc relationships and mentoring opportunities, or specific regional initiatives for instance.

Where certain regions had formal initiatives that linked venues’ programming, it was put that all venues operate within ‘invisible’ structures of recommendations. The model of co-commission, or associate venues was also put forward as a good way to facilitate touring opportunities after Edinburgh.

The discussion concluded with those individuals professing to possess valuable knowledge and experience that they would be willing to share, providing their contact details so that I could get back to them if I decided to move ahead with a plan to create a resource of some kind.

Other points raised/discussed

549

There was some discussion around the merits of a web-based resource to enable emerging companies to identify and communicate with venues, with many points well made on either side of the argument:

FOR AGAINST Each new ‘intake’ of aspiring companies essentially duplicate eachother’s work every year in building their own databases. Company’s/producers may be protective of information that they’ve put a lot of effort in to collate. Much of the information that needs to be gathered is public-domain, just not all in one place. The information is already out there, on the web and in the Performing Artists’ Yearbook. A system akin to universities clearing system could help smaller companies fill available slots. This may also help communication when the ‘merry go round’ of bookings is set in motion where a company bails on one London fringe venue in favour of another one, and leaves a gap that should be filled. Web resources are only as useful as how much they’re used, and need extensive maintenance. Theatre is lagging behind a little in comparison to say, music industry, in utilising potential of web and information systems. Information, systems etc. can never replace the importance of relationship building. Resource could be a logistical tool to help rather than an attempt to replace the building of relationships. A central resource could be very useful for producers having to find the right venues for groups with specific access requirements. In globalised world, resource could offer global perspective for international touring.

• Defining WHY you want to tour to a particular venue is crucial. • Questions were asked of what may be learned from models and structures of other countries. Consensus seemed to be that there were as many approaches as there are countries, and that whatever happens, we shouldn’t go the way of the Americans! • It was put that although funding cuts’ affect on the key relationships and programming was still an unknown quantity, that already venues may be seen to be becoming more risk averse, and reluctant to offer favourable deals. P O S T E D B Y IMPROBABLE AT 0 2 : 2 5

550

FRIDAY, 4 FEBRUARY 2011 ISSUE 14: I'M A PRODUCER. DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANT ME TO PRODUCE?

Issue: I’m a producer. Do you have something you want me to produce?

Convener(s): Paul Cabrelli

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Paul Cabrelli [email protected] 07791 184025

Also: Connecting producers and projects generally Ed Jaspers www.teaseltheatre.co.uk [email protected]

Useful resources: www.producershub.com [email protected] Tango Web Old Vic SOLT – Society of London Theatres BAC – young producers network MA or MFA in Producing Anthony Nielson “The Cencors” JMK Artsjobs Artshub FUEL High Tide Arts Admin “China Plate” in the Midlands Meetup.com

Problems with Producers:

1 You feel creatively threatened 2 Only interested in money-making (disputed by the producers present). 3 Should producers be in at the start of a project or in later (most producers want to be involved from the start). Some producers want to do just the “nuts and bolts”; others wand creative involvement. 4

Producers can help you by:

1 Developing an “arts culture” and theatre on a wider scale. 2 Helping you to take a risk. 3 Being a strategist. 551

4 Being an administrator. 5 Being a project manager. 6 Facilitating artistic development. 7 Most producers do not want to simply find the money. 8 Being a mentor and partner 9 Being a spokesperson for the audience. 10 Providing networking opportunities.

Is being a producer creative?

1 Can help you to see the potential of the work. 2 Can help you stretch the work. 3 Can help by embracing the artistic vision. 4 Can help by creating the environment to make everyone look better. 5 Can help by responding and building. 6 Putting “fuel in the tank”. 7

Questions:

1 Do producers have to be passionate about their project? 2 What is the relationship between directors and producers? 3 Are producers interested in process or product? 4 Is anybody interested in international collaboration? 5 Most producers want to see the show not a video of it. 6 Should you stay in London or go to the provinces? Very London-centric, increased vibrancy in regions

P O S T E D B Y IMPROBABLE AT 0 8 : 4 6

552

FRIDAY, 4 FEBRUARY 2011 ISSUE 20: HOW SCREWED ARE WE? PLEASE CAN SOMEONE COME AND EXPLAIN THE FUNDING CUTS?

Issue: How Screwed Are We? Please Can Someone Come And Explain The Funding Cuts?

Convener(s): Sarah

Participants: Imogen, Nell. Anne, Jo, Eleanor and others

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations: We wanted to know what was actually going on with the cuts, who would be affected and how, and what we could do to help ourselves. It’s a thing everyone’s upset about, but not everyone knows the facts.

Luckily, two people (Eleanor and an AC person whose name I didn’t catch) came who really knew what was happening and others who had a clear idea of the knock-on effects. Here are the facts as I understand them; those who provided the information should probably check I haven’t got it wrong somewhere!..

The government has cut 30% of the arts council budget. This predominantly affects the Regularly Funded Organisations – which are a larger groups or venues that get regular money (previously at least £30 grand a year). All RFO’s now have to re-apply to the AC to justify their funding. The minimum funding has gone up to £40 grand. The application process was opened up for groups who wanted to become RFO’s. The AC received about 1400 applications and can afford to fund about 700.

The effects will be: Smaller groups who could justify £30 grand might struggle to justify £40, so will lose all their AC funding. Losing venues that support smaller groups/artists would cause a domino effect, as those smaller groups would lose space and support (for example, think what would happen if the BAC disappeared?). Very large or dominant venues will have to be more thoughtful about how they spend the money they get. They cannot rest on their laurels and expect to be funded forever.

Funding for Individuals , ie, Grants for the Arts, will not be directly affected by the 30% cuts. GfA will continue as before, but there were already far more applicants than money. However, post Olympics, all the lottery money being spent on that should come back to the GfA pot, so if you can hang on til then, things should hopefully get better. Also, there are a couple of government schemes in the mythical pipeline. One is a plan to reform how the lottery revenue is taxed. This could theoretically free up about £50 million that would go into the arts pot. Another is a match funding scheme. This seems a bit complicated. Something like £80 million could be found if the AC can find £50 million. The AC prefer to push more towards encouraging philanthropy than take this route. 553

The AC has just published a list of 5 new priorities, and will send you a copy of the explanation if you ask them to.

The AC itself has to cut its own spending by 50%, so everything’s going to keep changing for a while anyway.

Local Authorities have had their budgets slashed, and since other things like education and health are Statutory funding areas, the arts will be the first areas affected by this. Again, this is more likely to affect venues or large organizations than individual artists that can’t get LA funding anyway.

Someone brought up the case of a local (200 seat?) theatre that rarely sells more than 15 -20 tickets for a show and clearly isn’t serving the community or valued by that community. Is it really fair that the Local Authority should have to keep bailing it out?

On a positive front, the cuts are an opportunity to clarify your aims, be more imaginative, find other sources of funding that may be more fun or easier to get hold of than AC funding. If you’re an individual or GfA applicant, there was never any money anyway, so you already know you can survive on peanuts.

The AC representative said the AC is less about the social/community element than it used to be and more about funding good arts projects. They’d rather have a clear, honest and exciting proposal than one with community workshops crow-barred in for no reason other than box- ticking.

Someone else talked about We Fund, an online funding resource where you can pitch you idea to individual givers.

We also discussed who has to adapt to whom. Should we bend our projects to get the funding or present projects and expect the funding criteria to bend to us? P O S T E D B Y IMPROBABLE AT 0 8 : 0 8

554

FRIDAY, 4 FEBRUARY 2011 ISSUE 26: HOW DO I OVERCOME THE PATRIARCHAL BLOCKS TO MY DEVELOPMENT/NURTURE/JOURNEY AS AN ARTIST

Issue: How do I overcome the patriarchal blocks to my development/nurture/journey as an artist

Convener(s): Julia Taudevin

Participants:

Kieran Hurley Julia Taudevin Chris Goode Gemma Rowen Gabrielle Beasley Rose Biggin Francesca Lisette Anna Marsland Nell Ranney Jonny Liron Scarlett Plairez Commas + others

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Initial responses Media/celebrity culture/films = men’s playground (or does it?) Money = men The world is men’s film set Men construct (literally) our world Do these words (nurture/development/journey) connect with the idea of a career or of a holistic practice/position? Stories of women in art – negated Don’t need a consensus Broader movement of questioning There are as many feminisms here as there are people in this room Feminism / gender – negative connotations Feminism needs to be at the heart of things Lack of resolution of the feminist movement means people now see it as a failure Need to arm yourself as feminists – not the right words Pressure not to go backwards / to do things that have already been ticked The pressure to ‘innovate’ Instead, create space for what we don’t yet recognize The market place values the ‘innovative’, we can’t guarantee we have anything new to say but stories CAN be told over and over again Make new pathways?

What Are the Patriarchal Blocks? Even if we can’t find the solutions, perhaps naming the obstacles can be a step forward. Media Imagery

555

Where do we see women? Ownership (means of…) Internal voice (“no” “you can’t”) Where is that voice coming from? History Culture Feminism as dirty word Education Language – too radical - out of date - connotations Market place values Work as commodity Self as commodity Confidence Validation (lack of) Definition of validation – value systems Negotiation Confusion Hegemony Old boys club Old white boys club Class Shakespeare Rejection of forms of sisterhood My dad - language - legitimacy - values - permissible - set of choices local blocks heroes Daniel My mum Me Venues - culture of competition - gate keepers Teachers Directors Do people feel responsible for talking about gender anymore in the arts? “your” “brand” of “feminism” “sell by” date of “feminism” Fetishisation/objectification of the performative act of getting naked

Caberet A sub conversation Is the context useful/generative? Let’s have a space to take ourselves seriously and be unapologetic

What is the vision? An attempt to find the opposite of the Patriarchal Blocks. What it is we are striving for. Equality (not just about women) No more insistence on the domestic Being able to talk about injustice (?) 556

Freedom of identity Permission Shakespeare (or a whole new cannon) Destroy the patriarchal gaze – but replace with high definition (not blindness) Don’t accept the premise of the question Tell stories of weakness Non hierarchical Success doesn’t equal value Solidarity and support Celebration of difference

What does this work look like? Where? Do you have to give up on your cultural history? FUCK THIS SHIT

Action Point Continue this discussion

A couple of Summarizing Sentences which will be useful to this report

This question came from the personal and in discussion very quickly became quite a difficult discussion about the impersonal i.e industry/systemic/structural/historical ‘blocks’.

When the language of the question was returned to, it being personal and using the holistic language of an artists’ practice rather than career, the complexity of the issue somehow became more manageable.

This was a big sprawling and passionate discussion. We discovered that the ‘blocks’ in question are so multiple – they are structural, cultural, internal... We were clearly unable to come to a solution in the form of Action Points, but we felt that collectively identifying shared concerns was a useful step. We drew a picture of the Massive Phallic Airship of Male ART, with the masses as its spectators. We were pleased with this outcome.

The moment of creating the Massive Phallic Airship of Male ART brought us together in a collective act of creativity and solidarity.

P O S T E D B Y IMPROBABLE AT 0 7 : 3 5

557

FRIDAY, 4 FEBRUARY 2011 ISSUE 28: "DEATH..." PLAYING DYING...HOW!

Issue: “DEATH, …” Playing dying… How! Please help. What does death/facing your own death means to you?

Convener(s): Li E Chen

Participants: Paul, Rupert, Monica, Veronica, Nick, Lisa, Fionn, Lee and few more people.

Thank you for the participants to share their own experience and advices on above issue.

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Issues:

1. Do not like acting, do not want to act: What to do? Ring a bell if they see me acting, so that I can make sure I am not acting for dying.

2. Physical: Body is slowly shunting down by each breath, switching each organ one by one, the last thing to switch off is the hearing. The organ of the body is death but life still goes on.

3. Playing dying: Making your own decision, Using your own imagination, Working on the Breath, Butoh dance, Ring a bell if people see me acting.

4. Do not like emotion, do not think death should be an end and cry for, how to deal with that? Having an illness, sometimes it is out of our controls. Perhaps the character wants to control her own life to end her life and thinks it is ok to leave the world behind, and why not to be peaceful.

6. What reasons would you kill yourself? If there is nothing left in life worth living for?

5. What does death mean to you? , . ! Blank page Can’t visual it No body know, impossible to know, by the time you know, you’re already death. Death is not connecting with your environment and nature. Death is not what I can easily to say ok when I have children. Death means more than about myself, but it is about the people I love so that I live.

6. Thank you very much for your contributions on my process of playing a character who is suffering from cancer illness and facing her own death. I don’t know what death really mean to her yet. But I won’t cry, I’m strong, I’m ok of dying, I want my family and love one who also not to be upset about my death. I want them to be happy and enjoy life of living…

558

My process so far of playing the dying… P O S T E D B Y IMPROBABLE AT 0 7 : 3 0

559

FRIDAY, 4 FEBRUARY 2011 ISSUE 30: HOW ARE YOU?

Issue: How Are You?

Convener(s): Chris Goode

Participants: Claudia, Daniel C., Marie Kenny, Brian Lobel, Catriona James, Mary, Emma Adams, Suzy Almond, Ben W., Kieran Hurley, Allison Julia, Annie Rigby, Tom Hughes, Pete, Francesca, Aliki Chapple, Lucinka Eisler, Sian Rees, Nell B., lots of others who came and went

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Initially this was just about creating some space for everyone to check in at the beginning of a busy weekend, but it built into a really interesting conversation at a more meta- level, about the practice of asking each other how we are, as part of our everyday work.

- This can be a really powerfully supportive thing to do, in terms of being able to let go off difficult stuff, or at least to name it so that we know it’s in the room; not having to suppress things or “check them at the door”; having some space in which it’s possible to hear everyone and be heard. - But there could be issues in terms of what’s brought up and whether it’s too easy to feel that stuff that’s been heard has also somehow been dealt with; and what happens when the truthful answer is also disruptive or signals a lack of safety

Deep Democracy – a model concerned with saying the thing you’re not supposed to say

Would it also be useful to ask the negative question – How aren’t you? i.e. What might we be incorrectly assuming about how you are?

Where do we locate the necessity of asking this question in relation to solo work, where there’s no one else to be the listener, and no one else to listen to?

Wanting not to overlook the fact that often the answer can be very positive and this too can be unsettling in terms of what we can aspire to together – when the room is full of energy and ambition and confidence. That a space in which we can affirm our positivity can really help close the disconnect between ourselves as artist and the very big, often very abstract, issues we may be trying to address.

Are there techniques for asking this question ‘properly’? What other ways are there of describing stuff & not getting tied up in language?

In order for the check-in to be worth doing it has to matter. There has to be something at stake. In particular we have to know that the process could, and can, and will respond to the answers people give – otherwise people don’t actually have, or feel, the space to be really truthful. A process that can’t adapt, or a target that acts as a constraint, could make this act harmful.

The importance of the ongoing “How are you?” and the unspoken “How are you?”

Do different responsibilities rest on directors when checking-in? Are there some things you shouldn’t say? Do you have the space to be wholly honest?

560

How also can we / do we ask an audience: “How are you?” How do they tell us anyway, in their responses and their behaviours?

Asking “how are you?” of an audience especially is neutralizing – by recognizing our presence it puts us all in the same place.

This can be a powerful and productive technology but it needs careful handling and it’s hugely dependent on the rest of the process in which it occurs and with which it has to be genuinely compatible. P O S T E D B Y IMPROBABLE AT 0 7 : 2 7

561

FRIDAY, 4 FEBRUARY 2011 ISSUE 51: IS BLOCKING THE EQUIVALENT OF MATCH-FIXING? DO WE ROOT IT OUT? HOW?

Issue: is blocking the equivalent of match-fixing? Do we root it out? How?

Convener(s): Conor Short

Participants: Amelia Bird, Shakera Ahad, Claudia Jefferies, Rod from Red Ladder, Lee Simpson from Improbable, Fiona Drummond, Ewan Downie and others

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

-the connection between 2 definitions of blocking. 1: planning all the moves and setting them in stone. (mainly the definition used throughout session) 2. In improv, where a participant puts up a wall to an offer by an other participant. -The Whelan tape technique: blacking out the stage directions, recording the dialogue “flat”, playing it during rehearsals for actors to move to then pausing the tape with actors having to keep the scene going without the dialogue. -Where does blocking emerge from? *From actors’ impulse and experience (partly their experience of working within the pros-arch space) *From wanting to create meaning through movement (and potential meanings are lost as possibilities are closed down by set-in-stone blocking) *From a manifestation of the attitude that the director somehow knows more than the actor. -But what about technical concerns like getting actors to stand in the light? Give the actor the choice to stand in the light or out of it. What will actor do? -The beauty of letting it go wrong, being able to let it go wrong. -Fits into a (long?) tradition of co-dependency between actors and directors and infantilisation of artists in general. -The safety of always being told what to do- you can always blame the director: “Did you see what he made me do in scene 3? But what you gonna do, ey?” -A writer finding the director got in the way between her and the actors. But do you then take on the role of director by replacing him? - remind ourselves that the director is a role, not a person. A lot of covert directing actually takes place. -The actor who complains to the dir: “We’re not getting enough notes!” We need to “notice the process”, be aware of it and explore what the actor really wants the note for- perhaps address by saying ok, everyone will get five notes each now, that’s the rule (eve if you have to make them up) -A lot of it is about training actors to be responsible for decisions. In drama school or in the company. - The dir as facilitator, the one who starts the dialogue, opens the space, holds the space where people are allowed to take responsibility. -How to facilitate that? -KneeHigh’s Madame Giles exercise: Madame Giles is asleep, the servant is washing up, the postman cycles past the window, delivers a package which is take to Madame Giles, who refuses it, the servant must get back the kitchen to throw the package back to the postman before he has cycled past the window. About developing a feeling for the organics of the scene. -yet you have to move a sofa at some point- does that kill everything? No, a million ways to move a sofa, just like scoring a goal- you know your objective, you don’t need to plan how you are going 562 to achieve it. -blocking is a way of making something look natural -How do we still feel safe within this? Don’t actors need to feel safe in order not to close down? We have to get to a stage where we feel safe within danger, safe feeling vulnerable, because fear makes you close down- which is opposite to being awake. -Lecoq’s “naughty energy”. -Commedia del Arte game (?) fighting for the central square -Brecht and his designer, Casper Meher (sp?) working with Gestus (sp?) -tottering bipeds, the idea of constantly stumbling -the possibility and perhaps danger of valuing the disturbance to the extent that we replace one autocratic system with another -to the actor who wants some blocking, perhaps say ok, I will block you and no one else: the actor speaking to an empty space with other actors behind him. -it essentially boils down to being Asleep or Awake. But aren’t you always doing something anyway, whether you’re doing it Asleep or Awake? -So is the question: How do we wake actors up? -A musician: “How dare you be asleep? You’ve got this brilliant job, there’s the bloody door if you want to be asleep.” -How working in the round affects a sense of truth and freedom: doe sit make this more truthful because we’re not angling ourselves towards our audience. -Performing outdoors sending all blocking out the window anyway: flies, horses etc. - Shakespeare and company not rehearsing-just doing it with cue-scripts. Makes you listen, makes you very f.ing awake. How it goes wrong once in The Merchant of Venice. - Irish director Jo Dowling who now never blocks since one of his actors broke a leg and a brand- new sort of blocking just happened and worked as well. -Can blocking be the game? How can I find truth and life within the confines of set movement -Emma Rice: asking you to do something which feels nonsensical (eg jump 3 times) without explanation. Feeling wrong and struggling with it and eventually finding why it made sense to do. How much explanation do we need, is it what we need? -viewpoint technique (Ann Bogart)-giving lots of suggestions, throwing actions in (eg, 20 seconds of looking up, looking down, speaking fast)

P O S T E D B Y IMPROBABLE AT 0 5 : 5 1

563

FRIDAY, 4 FEBRUARY 2011 ISSUE 54: LULLABY FOR OUR DARK TIME

Issue: Lullaby for our Dark Time

Convener(s): Lewis and Zoë

Participants: Mary O’Connor, Karin Verbrugger, Steven Winnery, Lucy Oliver-Harrison, Kath Burlinson, Elis Kerhoven

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

With the inspiration of a Icelandic Lament called The Seal Woman, and a Dutch lullaby about a sleeping child and a kitten drinking milk:

Slaap Kindje Slaap Daarbuiten loopt een shaap Een schaap met witte voetjes Die drinkt zyn melk zo zoetjes Slaap kindje Slaap Daarbuiten loopt een schaap

We have created our own lullaby for the dark times. With conceptual images from Steven and lyrical contributions from Ellis we have a three verse lullaby:

Who turned out the Light? Be not afraid of the Dark Sleep well my dear, creativity’s here Hold on – there’s no time to fear.

Who turned out the Light? Be not afraid of the Dark. We’ll wade through the sand, so take hold of my hand, Tell a tale, set sail on the arc.

Who turned out the Light? Be not afraid of the Dark. Recharging is best, when our eyes are at rest Awake bright with the light of the lark. Awake bright with the light of the lark. Awake bright with the light of the lark.

Audioboos of the two songs created at D and D 6

The song we're singing: http://audioboo.fm/boos/265390-dandd-this-is-the-song-we-are-singing

Lullaby for the dark times : http://audioboo.fm/boos/265962-dandd6-lullaby-for-the-dark-times P O S T E D B Y IMPROBABLE AT 0 5 : 3 2

564

FRIDAY, 4 FEBRUARY 2011 ISSUE 71: I HAVE THE PROJECTS - AS A YOUNG PRODUCER, HOW DO I MAKE THEM HAPPEN?

Issue: I have the projects – as a young producer, how do I make them happen?

Convener(s): Lucy Oliver-Harrison

Participants:

Lucy Oliver-Harrison - [email protected] Vanessa Smith – [email protected] Sasha Milaire Davia Chris Grady – [email protected] Mark Smith – [email protected] Amber Homes – [email protected] Katie Roberts Lisa Turner – [email protected] Laura Hayes – laurafhayes:gmail.com Trisha Lee John Roberts – [email protected] Sylvia Harrison – [email protected] Nicole Charles – [email protected] [email protected] Shakera Louise Ahad – [email protected] Holly Conneely – [email protected] Jo – [email protected] Simon – [email protected] (twitter@simonwithaz) Sam – [email protected]

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Questions raised/discussed:

What is a producer? Financial, creative, problem solver, fundraiser (difficulty of finding yourself becoming a full time fundraiser)

Is there such a thing as a ‘Creative Producer’?

Do we spend too much time trying to define what a producer is rather than actually just doing?

When can you call yourself a producer? Not a point when you can call yourself a producer, just the scale on which you are working.

Artistic Directors as producers Everyone’s role ends up overlapping. Not over defining everyone’s role. We are all having to be more like producers whether as an actor, director or a producer.

Making it happen: 565

Managing projects – how to charge for projects that aren’t in theatres? Asking people for donations instead – will probably find you get more money than you would have dreamed of charging for.

Making projects happen in your living room – working outside venues to make them happen – cheaper and sometimes more exciting.

Developing a core group of people of whom none of you get paid. Development essential in order to have that trust and relationship to run a successful unpaid process

Not just about building your network of theatre people but friends who have gone into well-paid jobs (!)

Warwick University group – asking people for small investments – they sent people envelopes with goose feathers inside. Became instantly memorable

Fundraising events as audience builders – shouldn’t just be seen as money-making

Club nights combined with theatre – building an audience database and making theatre “cool”.

London Bubble – the audience voted on a theme of what they wanted the play to be about – involving your audience, making it for them.

Pay before you play – working with money in advance. Getting the space for free and covering your costs instantly.

Institutions such as “We Fund This” who help with fundraising. However, being aware of hidden costs that these may have

Difference between Andrew Lloyd-Webber and Cameron Mackintosh – Cameron will still invite anyone who has invested in a show of his – how important it is to maintain those relationships

Working with restrictions can be the best part

Who are the six people you want in the front row? Identifying who you want and using that.

Sharing knowledge

Sharing knowledge – essential to work with your peers and share knowledge, not be too precious.

Not being frightened to ask e.g. Going to a touring company and asking them the basics of how to book a tour

In the future, remembering where you’ve come from and who helped you and passing this information on

Chris Grady runs monthly surgeries with Tom Atkins at the National Theatre. Go to www.chrisgrady.org

Making bigger projects happen – collaborating with regional theatres/other producers to make it happen

Imparting knowledge when you have the experience and not being afraid to ask for this 566 experience.

Everyone recognises how important it is not to lose the independent sector so should work together to share what we know and ensure the its future.

Survival

Essential to always be passionate about your projects

Working as an usher to allow yourself time during the day to do your projects

Working within theatres (e.g. administratively) and building a relationship with them over time to the point where they might be interested for you to produce your show there

Patience

Having ideas and recognising that it can take a long time to make them happen.

9 year cycles from initial thought.

Pushing a project to happen prematurely can be detrimental. Can come across as being forced

Where to find these people/the work

Finding regional theatres that are making work which you find exciting, seeing the work and meeting the people afterwards who made it and telling them what you thought. Flattery gets you everywhere!

Going to readings and picking things up new work there.

Building relationships with Regional Theatres and asking to be “based” within their building e.g. office space, postal address

Seeing as much unusual work as possible. You never know what it might bring

Commercial vs subsidised – can work to bring the two together on one project but requires careful management.

Becoming more inventive about how we work together.

Apprenticeships vs. Experience

Mentoring/Apprenticeships – part time maybe works best in order to allow young producers to keep working on their own projects around it

Subsidised theatres needing producers more than ever – maximising on this

Stage One – useful for commercial producing but not so much for touring theatre

Being able to do everything makes you stronger as a producer. Do as many things as possible.

Teaching yourself.

Edinburgh 567

Going to Edinburgh and seeing who’s popular/award winning and getting in touch with them

Having a project and going to Edinburgh the year before with that project in mind and sussing out the venue etc.

Best time to talk to a venue is the year before and approaching the venue managers during the festival – might seem the worst time but they are there all day and will have a fair amount of time.

Financial drain vs. platform

It can bring opportunities – Bright is a Ring of Words started at Edinburgh last year. From all the people they invited one person from Wilton’s Music Hall picked it up and now they are producing the tour. IT CAN HAPPEN!

Investment in PR companies – the best PR is yourself. Getting the right PR is so important – being the best company doesn’t always mean they’ll work for you. Important to try and put names to faces – being remembered.

Diligence!

Escalator East to Edinburgh for those based in the Eastern Region

Useful Sites

Rehearsal Space London Need to make the most of your rehearsal space? Join Rehearsal Space London.

Rehearsal Space London is a unique virtual marketing space for theatre companies, arts establishments and community sector groups.

It’s a space for you to advertise your rehearsal rooms, get the word out to prospective hirers, and increase your bookings.

For a flat yearly membership fee of £30 we will input your listing and maintain it on your behalf.

No hidden fees, no commissions. We look after the site and your listing, and you look after the bookings they bring.

To find out more information, request an information pack, or to join contact Fiona Campbell at Make Believe Arts.

T: 0208 691 3803 E: [email protected] www.rehearsalspacelondon.co.uk

Camden Theatres Project They have 22 fringe spaces You can do workshops in the community in return for rehearsal space Online application Platforms for new work

Roundhouse ‘Space to Create’ 568

Pitching for a space

JMK Award Director Award – gives directors a space at the Young Vic for August Using awards for other disciplines to build work with directors etc that you have a relationship and want to make worth with

Independent Article on Friday 28th January about Betty Blue Eyes - how Cameron Mackintosh challenges the artists P O S T E D B Y IMPROBABLE AT 0 4 : 0 5

569

FRIDAY, 4 FEBRUARY 2011 ISSUE 73: DO YOU MISS YOUR PET? LIVING OR ALIVE? WOULD YOU LIKE TO TALK TO ME ABOUT IT?

Issue: Do you miss your pet? Living or alive? Would you like to talk to me about it?

Convener(s): Emma Adams

Participants: Daniel Bye, Hannah Nicklin, Julia Taudevin, Carol Parker, Rose Biggin, Mandy Fenton, Sue Frumin, Henrietta Leysir

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Just to make sense of this – I convened this discussion for a few reasons. One -because I miss my cat Frank and wanted to talk about it. Two - because I’m very interested in the difference between sentimental responses and empathic ones. This is something that I’m thinking about a lot. Three - because however intellectually appalled I may be by sentimental reactions, emotionally I find that I am very sentimental all the same. Sometimes. Particularly around pet stories. I love hearing about people’s pets. So there is a conundrum here then… which isn’t necessarily a bad thing but there it still is.

As such the conversation ranged from beautiful pet stories right through to philosophical fandango and back again quite freely.

We reached one conclusion.

Below I will try and represent the stories / ideas that we discussed.

I will also draw people’s pets as they appeared in my mind as they were talking about them.

Rose – Rose has several chickens and a rooster. They are leghorn chickens (which is a specific breed, with particular traits. Leghorn chickens for example are quite nervous though they do not often get broody – something that other breeds of chicken often do). Rose misses her chickens who live with her family. She has a favorite called ‘Twitter’ who she has reared from being an egg in an incubator. All the eggs are incubated because (as before mentioned) Leghorn chickens are not very broody.

Rose’s chickens lay eggs which her family eats, but she has always thought of them as pets and they are very tame and they all have personalities of their own. Twitter is Rose’s favorite. She allows Rose to pick her up. Because Rose feels this way about her chickens she doesn’t eat chicken though she does eat meat. For her chickens are pet animals. So as many of us with cats and dogs would not dream of eating a cat or dog, she can not dream of eating a chicken, which is annoying sometimes as chicken is a very convenient thing to eat.

Here is a picture of Twitter the Hen:

570

The only chicken that lives with Rose’s family that does not come from the incubator is called Lucky. Lucky is called Lucky because one day Rose’s Dad was driving along and looked up and he saw a lorry. One of those big lorries’s where the cab is separate to the big trailer at the back. In between the cab and the trailer is a connector thing. Sitting on the connector thing was a chicken. Rose’s Dad managed to get the lorry driver to pull over. He asked him if he was aware that he had a chicken sitting on the connector thing. The lorry driver said no. That’s when Lucky got her name and went to live at Rose’s house.

Here is a picture of Lucky Hen’s lucky escape:

Hannah – Hannah also had a cat called Lucky. Lucky was the third cat that her family had had. The first two died (hence 3rd time lucky) in a carbon monoxide leak at her family’s home. The cats alerted the family to the problem and saved their lives. Hannah also had a dog called Blue. She got Blue when the dog was 2 years old. I think she said it came from a rescue home, but I may be mistaken. I may have made that bit up. Hannah dreams about Blue. Sometimes she worries that she didn’t walk her enough. She got Blue when she was 7 years old and she lived until Hannah was in her 2nd year at university. Which is 14 years. Hannah loved her. Blue didn’t like men and being with them would make her wee on the floor.

Hannah also had a goat and chickens when she was growing up. They were kept for milk and eggs. She never thought of them as pets. She was used to seeing her parents kill the chickens at the end of their laying lives for example.

Here is a picture of Blue wagging her tail at the rescue home just after Hannah has picked her to take home.

571

Julia – Grew up in Indonesia. She had a cat called Manice. Because it was hot there were a lot of cockroaches and rats. Because of this, there was always a lot of poison around to try and keep control of these vermin. One day Manice licked the end of the poison bottle tube and began to die. Julia remembers holding Manice knowing that the cat was dying and being heartbroken. She remembers crying. She also remembers that many of her Indonesian friends on seeing this began to laugh. She was horrified that they were laughing but also remembers that this was the first time that she began to realize that sometimes people react to events differently and that there is a close relationship between crying and laughing. A release of tension. She does not think that her Indonesian friends were ‘glad’ that the cat was poisoned but expressing their tension seeing her hold her dying cat. She is still good friends with many of these people today.

Here is a picture of Julia and Manice in happier times before the poisoning took place.

Caro – Grew up in the countryside. She had a rabbit, 3 cats, 2 goldfish, 2 mice, a budgie, her granny had a dog and her sister had a pony. Looking back, she now feels that her parents clearly wanted her to learn from having pets. She feels that they were trying to expose her to ideas about respect for other living things. Having pets gave Caro her first introduction to death that she feels was important. A life lesson.

I – Had a cat called Frank. I and a former girlfriend had Frank from being a kitten. When we split up, we agreed that I would take Frank. I looked and looked for a new place to live that would allow me to take a cat with me. Everywhere I looked they said ‘no pets’. I got desperate. I changed tack and tried begging a landlord. He told me that cats spray. Frank does many unpleasant things, but he does not spray. They said I was wrong, Frank did spray I just didn’t notice. I said that I am very aware of what cat’s spray smells like. They said no. They said if you want the flat you can have it but you can’t bring the cat. I chose the flat. My exgirlfriend kept Frank. I miss him and think about him most days. I still feel guilty. This was 4 years ago. Sometimes my exgirlfriend who is now just my very good friend invites me to dinner so that I can spend time with Frank. I give her a hard time because she feeds him too much and he is getting fat.

Mandy – Has a cat. I didn’t catch the cats name but she is 2 and a half years old. She has never 572 been ill before. Last night after getting back from the first day of #DandD6, Mandy found her cat using the cat litter a lot. Its wee was pinkish. Mandy panicked and rang the vet. The vet thought it must be cystitis and suggested that Mandy bring the cat into the surgery the next day.

This morning, Mandy tried for 20 minutes to get her cat into the cat carrier. She couldn’t get her in as the cat just refused to be put in the box and in the end Mandy had to give up. She rang the vet and the vet said it would be safe to leave the cat at home and try again tomorrow, so Mandy left the cat and came here today. She felt bad. Caro at this point shared a top tip which I think will be of real use to anyone who ever has to get their cat into a cat basket in the future. Caro suggested that Mandy try wrapping her cat in a towel before putting it into the cat carrier. Mandy said she’s going to try it.

Here is Mandy on her way to the vet’s tomorrow morning with her cat safely in the cat carrier.

Henrietta – Had chickens but did not think of them as pets. She really doesn’t like to anthramophise animals. However she had one chicken, known as Hen, which anthramorphised its self. At one time Henrietta had more than one chicken but several were killed by a fox. Hen was the only survivor of these attacks. Subsequently, Hen began to do things like come into the house via the cat flap. She would drink people’s cups of tea. She liked to be stroked. She was a gentle chicken but later on she began to become broody. When she got broody she became quite aggressive. They solved this problem by getting some fertilized eggs and allowing Hen to sit on them until they hatched. This is quite normal. After this Hen returned to her former self.

Here is Hen surviving the Fox attack.

Sue – Describes herself as the ‘Mrs Sloakham of South Tottenham’ because she loves her pussies. She has two cats Milly Moo and Venus. Her cats do not like each other. She got Milly Moo and then began to worry about her because she was out at work, so got Venus as a kitten, to be a companion. She assumed that Milly Moo would look after Venus, but Milly Moo was livid with 573 jealousy when she saw Venus. Her eyes turned green. They have never got along since. Venus is a show off who demands love. Both cats have many adventures. They are a source of inspiration and they never say go away. Both Venus and Milly Moo’s life are made hell by the local stray tom called Big Ginge. Big Ginge is a bastard and the size of a lion. He makes a lot of noise outside at night because he shags all the girls. Sue has had to put a lock onto the cat flap. Big Ginge is still trying to break in.

Here is Milly Moo attempting to kill Venus with a huge carving knife.

While we were telling each other these stories, we also discussed some of the things below:

Dan – wondered how many vegetarians there were amongst us? He wondered what kind of difference that might make to our relationship with animals. If so are we here because we sentimentalize our relationship with animals? It turned out that there was only one vegetarian present (out of those who were present at the time of this comment) but everyone else ate restricted diets (Hannah has five meat eating days a year only. Dan eats meat about once a month. I eat meat occasionally – all for environmental reasons).

Julia – Who is a vegetarian – said on one occasion she was feeling very run down and so tried eating some haddock. It was delicious but she cried all the way through the meal.

I – Talked a little bit about the various reasons why I’d called this session (the love of pet stories and my interest in sentimentalism v empathaism (if there are such things).

Caro – Talked about having acted in a show once with a dog. It was in a show called ‘Pirates of Atlantis’ in the story the dog was put into a machine and turned into gold. Thankfully by the end of the story, the dog is turned back and all ends happily. Caro says that the dog loved being in the show and stole scenes.

Dan – Said that in a show of the wizard of oz that he saw, there was a real dog. When it ate the sausages the audience loved it in a way that they wouldn’t have responded if they’d seen a puppet dog eating sausages. He said it was arresting and felt ‘more real’ because the dog wasn’t acting. He also says that it added an element of disruption to the show, which was / is interesting. Similarly, Rose and I had seen Jerusalem which had real chickens on stage and had felt similar things. We talked a bit about how that might be a good and bad thing. Dan talked about a play called Innish Moor which has two cats in it. At one point a black cat dies and a ginger cat is used as a replacement. In the script the characters discuss how to make the ginger cat look like the original cat and decide to cover it in boot polish. Dan said he’d never seen the play staged but imagined that would cause a real problem in production. I said I thought that would be horrible. It might kill the cat. It has made me interested to read the play however. Dan also mentioned Peter Brook’s U/S (we think it is this play but it may be another one, all corrections welcome) which appeared to have a butterfly burnt alive on stage. This caused great controversy. Brook was asked whether 574 the butterfly was real. He told people he would tell them, but if he did this (whether the butterfly burnt on stage was real or not) he would burn a real one on stage the next night if they insisted that he tell them the truth. Everyone when faced with this dilemma decided to leave it.

Here is a picture of Peter Brook mythering his room of terrified butterflies. Who will be next tonight my pretties?

Caro / Dan and I – Discussed the idea that cruelty by humans towards animals is the first sign of a sociopathic character. We discussed the lady who threw a cat in a bin and also another woman who threw a kitten to its death from an 11th floor. Apparently Caro had also read that there had been some research into cats jumping from buildings. If they jump from any floor above the 5th floor they are more likely to survive because they turn their bodies into parachutes, while jumping from anything below the 5th floor usually means a cat will die as it doesn’t have time to arch its back and make the parachute shape. We wondered about the kitten falling from the 11th floor. It obviously didn’t form a parachute to save its own life. We wondered if being thrown from the 11th floor was not quite the same thing as jumping. We also wondered if the kitten was very young, then perhaps it had not learnt to make the parachute shape before it was thrown. Which led me to be quite angry with the world and they way people treat animals (despite the fact that I’m happy to eat them occasionally) which led Dan to say, yes but animals are still afforded more respect in our world than at any other time ( in terms of us accepting that they should have agency) other than perhaps ancient Egyptians who gave cats a good deal of respect.

Here is a picture of a cat flying to safety from the 11th floor and a less fortunate kitten being thrown from the same window.

575

Which led to…

Dan – Discussed Kant an ethical philosopher who argued that we must treat people as an end in themselves not as a means to an end.

Here is a picture of Kant thinking

Henrietta – Said she had been discussing with a friend the reason why some people like animals and others don’t. She said that there didn’t seem to be any definite reason. It didn’t appear to be anything to do with growing up with animals, or being an only child or anything. We discussed this. I said that this was surprising to me as I always thought that I liked animals because I grew up with them, but on reflection this didn’t seem to hold true.

Sue – Talked about finding sympathy pathetic and revolting. She said that when she was younger she looked for sympathy (and noticed this tendency in the kids she used to teach) and then realised that in fact what she didn’t want people to feel sorry for her, she wanted people’s respect. For her, this is the difference between sympathy and empathy.

Rose – Talked about how we distort our stories sometimes to get sympathy. Something that rang true for everyone present at that point of the conversation.

We talked about the idea that indulging in sympathy makes other’s pain something that is about yourself, while engaging with empathy is about dealing the reality of that person’s pain. Which might be a really hard / distressing thing to do.

This also led us to discuss the idea of that giving to charity can be an act of self interest. 576

Which led us to conclude that human beings are extremely complex creatures. P O S T E D B Y IMPROBABLE AT 0 3 : 2 8

577

FRIDAY, 4 FEBRUARY 2011 ISSUE 75: MY FRIEND SALLY IS REALLY FIT AND BRILLIANT. SHE WOULD LIKE A BOYFRIEND

Issue: My friend Sally is really fit and brilliant. She would like a boyfriend.

Convener(s): Session hosted by Jamie, notes typed up by Sally

Participants: Jamie, Sally, Lou, Dodger, Pam, Lynne, Michael, a lovely lady and another man with very cool hair

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

On Saturday morning when sessions were being called I joked to my good friend Jamie that I should host one called “Hi, I’m Sally, 32, I would like a boyfriend…discuss”. Jamie encouraged the idea, but at that point I wasn’t brave enough to ask the question, laughed it off as is normal for me and I left D and D to attend a friend’s wedding…secretly wishing I had had more courage to ask the big question. Sunday morning, Jamie greets me and simply says “So, Sal, what is the title of your session then?” and happily took on the role of the host himself – Jamie is, as many of you already know, actually amazing.

So, Jamie and I met in the circle at midday bemused by our slightly odd decision. A piece of paper was put in the middle with the question clear for all to see and an arrow pointing to me…admittedly quite embarrassing and more than a little awkward…and of course, actually hilarious. And then it all started to happen...in a really quite lovely way.

As it the way with D and D the initial question posed turned into a truly fulfilling and great conversation. Friends came first offering support / thumbs up and then strangers joined the cause. What followed was a great and heartfelt sharing of stories – of our love, partners, family, parents, children, life and all that falls in between.

It was, for me, a most excellent way to spend an hour and a half.

To date, at 3.34pm I don’t have a boyfriend and that’s okay. More importantly I do though have some new friends and some excellent advice under my belt to boot. Special thanks to my pal Jamie….what a lovely young man you turned out to be!

P O S T E D B Y IMPROBABLE AT 0 3 : 2 3

578

THURSDAY, 3 FEBRUARY 2011 ISSUE 91: HOW CAN THEATRE MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE?

Issue: How can theatre make the world a better place?

Convener(s): Abigail Graham

Participants: Jack Klaff, Nicola Stanhope, Louise Platt, Malcolm Rippeth, Alex Thrope, Judith Knight, John Walton, Siobhan O’Kelly, David Luff, Poppy Burtin Morgan, Bill Banks-Jones, Chris Grady, Eva Liparova, Stephen Darcy, Samuel Wood, Matthew Austin, Erica Whyman, Kate McGrath, Annie Rigby, Alan Cox, Amelia Bird, Felix Mussell, Rachel Lynes, Sian Reen, Alice Massey, Jo Mackie, Timothy Bird, Mia Flodquist, Rebecca Manson Jones.

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Theatre can change how you feel. E.g. Madame Butterfly – made people more sensitive to each other (even if only for a moment). The very act of making theatre means that every night a show happens, actors are connecting to audience members and making a difference. If people are open to it. The ‘water cooler’ effect of TV series means that theatre is no longer unique in it’s communion quality. But, it involves investing time (and usually money), you cannot switch channels etc, so as a result of this investment, it makes it more of an effective medium in terms of bringing people together to respond collectively. Also, the observer affects the work, making it and that energy flow…and we can capitalize on this to help make the world a better place/ BUT we need to get more (different) people in to make ‘the world [more of] a better place [quicker]’! (N.B. The access debate is dealt with further down the page)

If we believe what we are doing is good, and we do it to the best of our ability then it can be transofmative, therefore making people behave differently to each other (THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT)

Boal changed the politics oif his country through forum theatre. How can we do that here? As we have a class based capilitalist society, is that even possible? It will take a long time. That’s ok.

Our work does not need to be overtly political to affect change [spiral dynamics] As Ghandi said, ‘Be the change you want to see in the world’

‘Issue Based Theatre’ - good stuff like Belarus Free Theatre…after the show people went home and signed the petition. Ruined by Lynn Nottage made people sign up to amnesty. BUT a well made Romeo and Juliet can make us remember that feuding is bad.

But Theatre, like other cultural mediums, has a value in and of itself, it enriches us, it makes us laugh, it makes us feel…how do we as artists maximise that effect? As the Swedish PM said ‘If I have to cut theatre, then I’ll have to build more hospitals’]

We really need to improve theatre’s image as lots of people ‘don’t like it’…we can, as Northern Stage (NS) has done involve the community in the making of shows. Lots of those people came back. NS also did a free season in their studio and then a ‘money back guarantee’….nobody apart from a uni lecturer’s group got their money back (you have to give a reason….even if it is only ‘it was shit)

579

BASICALLY, this shows that theatre is a bit of an unknown…people doent know what they are getting so are a bit unsure about investing in it. Schemes like this make that easier. Therefore making the whole business of making the world a better place more far reaching.

Other things that can help is marketing…show people having a good time, audience feedback on twitter, facebook, youtube. Use film (like Contact’s pre cuts filmn) to show it’s power.

Let’s have theatres open all day, places you can hang out in as well as see shows in. Don’t tell kids to be quiet. Make all experiences good and positive.

Why do people feel able to call modern art shit but when it comes to theatre say ‘I don’t understand it’?

Take theatre out of buildings on to the streets, into other spaces (e.g. NS Apples in a nightclub)…the number of seats in all the theatres in the UK is a tiny (less that 1%) proportion of the number of people in the UK. We need to make it reach more people. In doing so, we will change theatre’s image, making more people come, and therefore making the world a better place that bit quicker.

Please can we make every young person’s 1st experience of theatre excellent. That way they will want to come back. It’s not just the work, it’s from the second you enter the door. Lets not engage them through just school as teachers tell them to be quiet so they are unable to respond honestly to what they see…therefore lessening the experience.

Let’s engage non-theatregoers in the process (the appetite to take part is greater than the appetite to watch)...But participation can lead to new audiences (in the case NS show The Happiness Project) We are still recovering from the idea that theatre is good for you (and that still puts people off) Maybe we could just ask people what they want to say and how they might like to say it. You change the world every time someone speaks who wouldn’t have otherwise have spoken. Giving the community a voice through theatre; mixing the professional and non professional experience; making people feel the theatre is a place for them too; they may come again to see something else.

Glasgow Citz, pay 50p…even if you are only there to stay warm, you came and you stayed. And you came again.

Let’s tell people this is about you (come and see it).

Do not market to the converted.

Offer an experience. Entice them with food.

Ask how people feel (not think as that puts people under pressure) before and after. Use that in marketing? E.g Unsure → Excited

Small steps, make a gradual change in 1 audience member at a time.

The way we tell our stories can make a difference.

We need to up our game as the world is getting worse quicker than we can make it better.

Get figures like Gandalf to offer public support for Belarus, Dame Judi on Forests etc.

580

Make theatres a place for civic debate. Get people in the doors. Invite them in.

Channel 4 group have subversive radical voices in their programming…how can we get them into theatre (C4 has public funding) and give them a voice, making theatre more pluralistic, getting more people in the doors, making the world a better place. P O S T E D B Y IMPROBABL E AT 0 8 : 2 1 THURSDAY, 3 FEBRUARY 2011 ISSUE 103: TELL ME SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW

Issue: Tell Me Something I Don’t Know

Convener(s): Alison Goldie

Participants: Chris Rowland, Dodger Phillips, Elizabeth Johnson, Alexandra Kiossa, David Cottis, Chris Grady, Maiken Bruun-Aamodt and others

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

I called the group in response to a jaded feeling I had (temporarily) experienced on Day 1 when I had bumble bee-d around the sessions and felt tired of all the practical topics being discussed. I felt old and tired and burdened with all the knowledge of my 50 years on the planet, and thought ‘I want to hear some stuff I don’t know’.

So – our group contributed facts, personal information, jokes and some secrets. Someone told a couple of excellent jokes about actors, we learnt about an obscure ‘uncivilised’ tribe in Columbia, the way that a certain people in the Antarctic hunt for mussels under an icy sea, about how a couple of saints were tortured, about someone’s pet jackdaw, about a fancy dress party with the theme of ‘The Shadow Side’, and a new phenomenon whereby girls gather for nights in with a psychologist present, about the job of testing products by destroying them, about Cuddle Parties, how someone wants ‘to breast-feed their demons’ and we learnt who present could play a musical instrument, who had a pet and who had slept with a famous person, and we learnt that accordions are responsible for destroying folk music in Scandinavia.

Rather marvellous, all round. P O S T E D B Y IMPROBABLE AT 0 7 : 0 6

581

WEDNESDAY, 2 FEBRUARY 2011 ISSUE 110: HOW DO WE MAKE THEATRE CROSS BORDERS OF LANGUAGE AND COUNTRY?

Issue: HOW DO WE MAKE THEATRE CROSS BORDERS OF LANGUAGE AND COUNTRY?

Convener(s): Ewan Downie

Participants: Julia Taudevin, Sarah Corbert, Jo Crowley, Alan Hescott plus many others.

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

This session focussed primarily on the challenges and opportunities around theatrical exchanges across Europe – touring shows to festivals, bringing theatre to the UK, international funding sources etc.

Challenges Facing Crossing Borders

The UK funding structure or project funding does not lend itself to UK groups visiting European Festivals. There are issues around performing works in English abroad (surtitles or translation?).

Lack of opportunities for European work to come here. We need to bring more international work here. How to develop audiences for non british sorts of work?

Hierarchy of international touring. Mostly established groups go abroad, on British Council tours, a remnant of empire, an exclusivity of attitude. Better outside London – there are more foreign links for small groups in the regions.

London as a cultural epicentre is not helping. Nor is the idea of fixed national identity “britishness”, “scottishness”. With so much cross pollination the idea of hybrid identity is more useful. A collision of cultures, a deep human identity.

How to work with international partners.

To work internationally we have to really want to work internationally.

Make the work for a broader audience.

Work needs to be made in true collaboration with international partners – not just parachute in and parachute out. There should be a theatrical conversation.

We need to build the possibility of an international audience into the work from the beginning. And this can make the work better in general.

You have to go out and see places, meet people, see work. Where are there sources of funding for this?

Why work with international partners?

In the current crisis there is a new opportunity for solidarity between theatremakers across Europe. A new opportunity to create a theatre without borders. 582

The world is becoming more “international”. Theatre needs to reflect this. Cross border stories. How can we access these?

Stability can be found in working internationally – when you can make work in several places your sources of support are less fragile.

Strategies for performing work in non-English speaking countries

Surtitles/Simultaneous Translation.

Use two (or more) different languages onstage. Audience can be hooked by story and energy. International collaborations in more than one language.

Use a made-up language.

Work beyond language. Street theatre. Mime. Outdoors theatre festivals exist across Europe.

Grammelot – international gibberish.

Street Theatre is already international – a kind of modern commedia.

Folk stories are similar across country divides – use as source material.

It is a challenge to enter into another country's nature for performers, to taking on international stories.

Resources

A pilot programme called SPACE (Supporting Performing Arts Circulation in Europe) exists. Website www.spaceproject.eu. This project's remit is to work to create more space for performing arts groups to work outside their home countries, to tour work to festivals, to create exchanges.

There are possibilities of finding funding through TEFL schemes – that there is a lot of money for theatre abroad that is in English and performed to people learning English – this is an untapped source of funding in many places (Spain was mentioned).

Professional Development awards for going abroad. Old Vic New Voices Scheme for going to New York.

International Residencies Norway – Nordland Visual Theatre Performance Art Harbour Korea – Hoo Yang Theatre International Residencies

P O S T E D B Y IMPROBABLE AT 0 9 : 2 0

583

VII. Cited Sessions: Devoted & Disgruntled 7

Starting with Devoted & Disgruntled 7 Improbable stopped putting session numbers with the online session reports. The final report that is printed and distributed still had session the issue numbers printed on them. This change makes looking up reports a bit more challenging when confronted with a long list of session titles, the thinking here was that the issue numbers had no real meaning, especially in an online format. With Devoted & Disgruntled 8 and the Road Show session numbers have been done away with completely in both the print and online versions.

584

TUESDAY, 28 FEBRUARY 2012 Would any “phd people” like to hang out? We don’t have to talk about them

Convener: Rose Biggin

Participants: Emma “I am a phd imposter” Adams, Pat “not even done a bloody MA” Ashe, David Cottis, Liam Jarvis, Dr Daniel Bye (oooh), Rose Biggin, Hannah Niklin, Ian Pugh

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

We talked about our phds a little bit, which I suppose was inevitable. It turns out we’re studying fascinating and interesting and brilliant things. But we also talked about other things than phds. We talked about games; we talked about playing games within games, and computer games, we had a round of knee tag (Cottis 1: Bye 0), learned nose flicking, learned the ancient art of lemon jousting.

We talked about Ian doing a phd on Devoted & Disgruntled going to a session in Devoted & Disgruntled that is about phds. We laughed for hours. He has been looking at D&D reports over the years, and we were interested to learn about the growing trend of ‘selfish’ (not in a pejorative sense) sessions, called specifically to help someone on a project. We wondered if this is because we’re all increasingly just trying our best to ‘get on with it’ and keep working, and keep making. On a related note, Hannah Niklin told us she would have liked to call a session called ‘What can we do about being so tired?’ But unfortunately she would be too tired to type it up.

We talked about how nice it is to have a space where we don’t have to talk about phds, and we think someone should set up weekly “after work drinks” for people who work at home. This would have many advantages and could contribute to happiness but Dr Bye argued that a drawback of this is that it would necessitate leaving the house. We all agreed that this is problematic and so the jury is still out (although not out of the house).

We talked about defining ourselves. What happens when you tell someone you’re doing a phd – or even, do you? What do you say instead? Are you a phd student? Are you an artist first? How do you tell someone you’re doing a phd? I learned that it can be done as a chat-up line. What do people think when you tell them? Do you frame your answer based on an idea of what they’ll think? Are there preconceptions about academia and academics that are revealed by this – the ivory tower model, the oh no I’m at a party and I’m stuck in the corner with

585 the really boring phd student model, the not very useful to society model. The difference between the Viva over here and the American ‘DEFENCE’, and what this might tell us about attitudes towards academia. We wondered – after trying to think of a list – whether there ought to be more academics who are, well, famous for it. We talked a little bit about frustrations we might encounter within academia – pressure for absolute truths, definite answers, always being stuck in the corner with the really boring one at parties… That’s a joke, we aren’t invited to parties (see earlier point about leaving the house). But we do wonder why knowledge and learning and the search for nuance and understanding is sometimes reduced to questions of what are you doing it FOR? We talked about the difficulty for a phd-er or a potential phd-er of choosing a topic to study when you’re interested in EVERYTHING.

I managed to get through the entire session without saying what my phd is about, not because it is a secret but because halfway through I somehow still hadn’t and I wondered if I would be able to and I actually managed. Hee hee.

Posted by Improbable at 19:22

586

WEDNESDAY, 29 FEBRUARY 2012 Wrestling

Convener: Jen Lunn

Participants: Valeria Tello Giusti, Ian Pugh, Mary O’Connor, Ned Lunn, Jonathan Bidgood, Eliis Kerkhoven, Tom Ross-Williams

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

We had a couple of thumb wars with people who couldn’t do a full wrestle for reasons of scabbed knees or hungoverness.

Then we had a few full wrestles, some Indian wrestling and some low impact crouched wrestling (Jonathan does this have a name?)

Then some body contact work led to some lying on the floor – which, in turn, led into a conversation about touch.

We talked a bit about not being allowed to touch children in schools. Several of us spoke about a commitment to finding safe acceptable ways to have physical contact with kids if it is okay with them as we talked about how without physical contact we die.

It was said that as humans we need 7 meaningful points of physical contact a day to feel okay. And it was noted that in London and the UK this was rare. Valeria shared that in Peru, there is a culture of physical contact and that she misses that in the UK.

587

Posted by Improbable at 10:11 Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook Labels: wrestling

588

WEDNESDAY, 29 FEBRUARY 2012 Lunchtime Buddhist Chanting Meditation

Convener: Lawrence O’Connor

Participants: Tom, Shakira, Louise, Mary, Eve, Jennifer

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Very enjoyable session in which we chanted together for fifteen minutes, led by Tom, preceded by a brief explanation of the phrase chanted: Nam-Myoho- Renge-Kyo Following the chanting, there was discussion about our responses to it. Everyone agreed that the sound was very pleasing as was the activity of participating and that they felt increased sense of positivity. Several observations were made about the positive, subtle interactions of breath, presence and sound. We were to chant longer but Tom felt that the sound may be off-putting to some who are not engaged in the session and did not want to risk encouraging more people than necessary to have to obey ‘the law of mobility’ by leaving the building to get away from it.

Posted by Improbable at 10:28 Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook Labels: religion, spirit, support

589