A Practice-As-Research Phd Volume 1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
An Investigation into How Engagement with the Context and Processes of Collaborative Devising Affects the Praxis of the Playwright: A Practice-as-Research PhD Volume 1 Karen Morash Submitted for the Degree of PhD October 2016 Goldsmiths, University of London Department of Theatre and Performance 2 This thesis is available for library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. Signed, Karen Morash 3 Abstract An Investigation into How Engagement with the Context and Processes of Collaborative Devising Affects the Praxis of the Playwright: A Practice-as-Research PhD The central research inquiry of this dissertation is how the experience of working within a collaborative context, employing the processes of devising, affects a playwright. It springs from the presentiment that the processes of devising are significantly different than traditional playwriting methodologies and have the potential to offer short and long-term benefits to both playwright and collaborators. A central focus of the dissertation is the figure of the writer-deviser as a distinctive artist with a particular skillset developed from both devising praxis and standard playwright training (which traditionally does not emphasise collaborative theatre-making). This dissertation therefore examines the historical and contemporary context of the writer-deviser in order to provide a foundation for the presentation and exegesis of my practice-as-research: a play written via the devising process and another play written as a solo playwright. The Introduction to this dissertation serves the function of presenting the central research query and associated areas for exploration. It outlines my methodological approach, placing it within the context of the discourse on performance-related practice-as-research, whilst identifying a gap within this discourse of the treatment of the playwright. Chapter One presents an overview of devising in its historical and contemporary context. The chapter also functions to identify positive aspects of devising which may aid a playwright’s development, and, alternatively, pinpoint problematic issues associated with devising. Chapter Two provides an overview of pedagogical approaches to playwright development. Original research is presented via a playwrights’ survey on training and 4 experiences of devising. Pedagogical approaches which may aid the writer-deviser are identified, and areas of weakness revealed. Chapter Three defines the concept of the writer-deviser, incorporating challenges to the dramatic/postdramatic and text/performance binaries. This is achieved through commentary on historical and contemporary examples of writers working in a collaborative context. Chapter Four further develops the figure of the writer-deviser through a case study of Bryony Lavery, providing a close analysis of two scripts created using devising methodology, and one written as a solo playwright. Chapter Five presents the exegesis of practice-as-research section of this dissertation, with reference to the devised play The 9.21 to Shrub Hill and the non-devised play Playground, which are presented in a section entitled ‘Playscripts’. An outline of the process of both productions is provided, linked closely to the discourse of the preceding chapters of this dissertation. Based on a comparison of the two processes, findings are revealed and suggestions for other writer-deviser practitioners and devising companies are presented in a Toolkit. The conclusion reflects on the argument of the dissertation and its realization within the playscripts, and highlights areas for further investigation. 5 Acknowledgements As is appropriate for a study of the writer-deviser, this dissertation represents the work of an individual, whose endeavours would not have been possible without the collaborative support of a large group of people. I have been most ably guided by the advice, encouragement, knowledge, and good humour of my supervisor, John London, whose enthusiasm for high standards of research and writing has benefitted this dissertation enormously. I have also benefitted from the advice and assistance of other Goldsmiths faculty members and students, including Maria Shevstova, Osita Okagbue, Anna Furse, Robert Gordon, Göze Saner, Mike Richards, Christopher O’Shaughnessy, and Shamea Mia. I am also grateful for the encouraging engagement with my work provided by my examiners, Cass Fleming and Duska Radosavljević. My research has profited greatly from the generosity of a number of practitioners and companies who allowed me access to their rehearsal rooms and/or personal insight into their processes. These include: Anna Furse and Athletes of the Heart; Stella Duffy and the members of the Chaosbaby ensemble; Tom Espiner; Scott Graham; Improbable Theatre; Kate Cayley; Susan Leblanc, Alex Mclean, and the members of Zuppa Theatre; and Miriam Margolyes. In particular, I am indebted to Bryony Lavery and Caryl Churchill, not only for providing me with information on their artistic practices, but for continuing to inspire, provoke, and engage me with their work. In addition, I am highly indebted to the actors, directors, and designers who worked on The 9.21 to Shrub Hill and Playground (credited within each playtext). Their talent, willingness to work in less-than-optimal conditions, and generosity with their time and creative input, not only made these two productions possible, but have left a lasting imprint upon my work as a playwright. I am also highly appreciative of the support, advice, and flexibility offered by Catherine Boyle and Sue Dunderdale, my colleagues in Head for 6 Heights Theatre Company, as well as the dramaturgical support and script-reading services of Charlotte Pedersen, Nicole Martorana, Isabel Stowell-Kaplan, Lauren Cushman, Colette Beard, Tony McEwen, Christy Meyer, Kate York, and Pip Swallow, as well as Ilenka Jelowicki’s casting expertise and assistance. As a mother of two young children, I was reliant upon, and am extremely grateful for, the childcare, work space, and general support provided by: Sarah Moon and the Shoreham Parish Council, Penny Watkins, Sally Hamlyn, Sarah Clarke, Shirley Russell, Ann Eve, Amy Larkin, and, in particular, my wonderful extended family, including Claire Morash (who also provided dissertation-reading services), Judith Moore, Jane Hancock, Fred and Linda Morash, and Carole and John Buchanan. Most importantly, my gratitude for the sacrifices made by my husband, Rick Moore, and my daughters Elsie and Zoë, to enable me to complete my PhD work over the course of six years, is unending. Their love and encouragement have made this dissertation possible. 7 Contents Page VOLUME ONE Abstract 3 Acknowledgements 5 Introduction 10 Chapter One: The Development of Devising as a Methodological 29 Approach to Playmaking Chapter Two: The Pedagogy of Playwriting 75 Chapter Three: The Historical and Contemporary Context of 126 the Writer-Deviser Chapter Four: Bryony Lavery: Case Study of a Career as a 185 Writer-Deviser VOLUME TWO Chapter Five: Exegesis of Practice 224 Toolkit of Observations for Writer-Devisers and Companies 290 Playscripts: The 9.21 to Shrub Hill (Devised Production) 296 Playground (Non-Devised Production) 371 Conclusion 508 APPENDICES Appendix A: Details of UK Postgraduate Playwriting Courses 516 Appendix B: Early Pedagogical Texts 518 Appendix C: Zuppa Theatre’s ‘Rules of Play’ and 523 ‘Hierarchy of Proposals’ 8 Appendix D: Email Correspondence from Scott Graham 525 and Tom Espiner to Karen Morash Appendix E: An Excerpt from Marion Partington’s ‘Salvaging the 531 Sacred’, with Corresponding text from Frozen Appendix F: An Excerpt from Malcom Gladwell’s ‘Damaged’ with 534 Corresponding Text from Frozen Appendix G: Character Map Created for The 9.21 to Shrub Hill 537 Appendix H: Deleted Scene from The 9.21 to Shrub Hill 538 Appendix I: Audience and Actor Questionnaires 541 BIBLIOGRAPHY 543 9 Tables, Charts, and Images Figure 1. Question Two 80 Figure 2. Question Three 80 Figure 3. Question Four 81 Figure 4. Question Seven 82 Figure 5. Question Six 85 Figure 6. Timeline of Work on The 9.21 to Shrub Hill 231 10 Introduction As the methodologies of devising and postdramatic theatre are becoming more prominent in Western theatre and performance, playwrights, such as myself, are looking for pathways beyond traditional, largely Aristotelian, techniques for developing scripts, and into the development of a more holistic approach to theatre-making. The central research inquiry of this practice-as-research (PaR) dissertation is how engagement with collaborative devising praxis affects a playwright’s work, both immediately, within the collaborative context, and long-term. It is the ‘how’ in this query which is important; this is not a positivist research question testing out if devising praxis affects change, against controllable variables. Rather, it begins from an understanding, developed from the observation of other theatre practitioners, but also from my own praxis, that devising methodology does have the potential to change writing methodologies. The purpose of this dissertation’s practice elements and its associated research is an exploration of aspects of devising which have the potential to positively expand a playwright’s