PART TWO. "So what are you doing now?" "Well the school of course." "You mean youre still there?" "Well of course. I will always be there as long as there are students." (Jacques Lecoq, in a letter to alumni, 1998). 79 CHAPTER FOUR INTRODUCTION TO PART TWO. The preceding chapters have been principally concerned with detailing the research matrix which has served as a means of mapping the influence of the Lecoq school on Australian theatre. I have attempted to situate the research process in a particular theoretical context, adopting Alun Munslow's concept of `deconstructionise history as a model. The terms `diaspora' and 'leavening' have been deployed as metaphorical frameworks for engaging with the operations of the word 'influence' as it relates specifically to the present study. An interpretive framework has been constructed using four key elements or features of the Lecoq pedagogy which have functioned as reference points in terms of data collection, analysis and interpretation. These are: creation of original performance material; use of improvisation; a movement-based approach to performance; use of a repertoire of performance styles. These elements or `mapping co-ordinates' have been used as focal points during the interviewing process and have served as reference points for analysis of the interview material and organisation of the narrative presentation. The remainder of the thesis constitutes the narrative interpretation of the primary and secondary source material. This chapter aims to provide a general overview of, and introduction to the research findings. I will firstly outline a demographic profile of Lecoq alumni in Australia. Secondly I will situate the work of alumni, and the influence of their work on Australian theatre within a broader socio-cultural, historical context. Here I will be discuss how the work of alumni might be positioned within this context and offer some possible reasons for the initial and continuing interest in the Lecoq school. The chapter will conclude with an outline of the remainder of the thesis. Demographic Profile of Lecoq Alumni: As far as I have been able to ascertain, between 1965 and 2000 fifty-two Lecoq alumni have lived and worked in Australia as theatre practitioners (please see Appendix B for a list of alumni). Marc Furneaux is possibly the first Australian to attend the school in 1956, although this is unconfirmed, and Stephanie Kehoe is the last, graduating in 2000. Marc Furneaux is apparently the only alumni to have attended the Lecoq school in the 1950s. Four alumni attended the school in the 1960s, seventeen in the 1970s, fourteen in the 1980s and twelve in the 1990s. With the exception of Stephanie Kehoe, all the alumni I have interviewed learned about the existence of the Lecoq school through contact with Lecoq alumni working in Australia. The majority of alumni are Australian-born. The remainder have come from England (3), America (2), Canada (1), New Zealand (1), Italy (1) and Holland (1). A small number of alumni have resided in Australia for only short periods and returned overseas, or else have lived overseas for many years and have only recently arrived in or returned to Australia. Other alumni who have lived and worked in Australia for some time now reside overseas. These 81 include Isabelle Anderson, Francis Batten and Heather Robb. Alumni predominantly live and work in Australia's capital cities, with the majority working in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. One alumnus currently lives in Darwin, two in Adelaide and one in Western Australia. The work of alumni in Australia has been varied, although notably few alumni have worked consistently in mainstream theatre, television and feature film. Those who have, such as Geoffrey Rush, George Ogilvie and Russell Dykstra, have been highly successful. Most alumni have worked as actors, directors, playwrights, theatre consultants and teachers, in fringe theatre, street and festival theatre, corporate theatre, community theatre and documentary film work. A small number of alumni have moved away from theatre work. One alumnus is working in arts administration, another in museum work and a third has recently completed his second novel. Socio-cultural, Historical Context: In the previous chapter I outlined Alun Munslow's concept of `deconstructionise history and indicated that this concept would be adopted as a model for the study. In line with this model, I am attempting here to situate the influence of the Lecoq school on Australian theatre within its socio-cultural, historical and ideological contexts. As Munslow notes, historical events are time and place specific and are interwoven with and generated within the wider political, ideological, social, cultural and economic structures which are operative within any given historical epoch. In the introduction to this thesis, I indicated that the Lecoq school has had a significant influence on theatre training and practice, not only in Australia, but also in many parts of the world. I also indicated that this influence is contextualised within a major shift in Western mainstream theatre that is characterised by significant challenges to the dominance of text-based realism and its concomitant approaches and processes. This shift has seen the burgeoning of a variety of non-text-based, non-realist forms such as physical theatre, dance theatre, new circus and revivals of a number of traditional popular theatre forms, such as commedia dell'arte, vaudeville and cabaret. This challenge to dominant theatrical modes has been mounted by theatre practitioners in many countries throughout the world and the work of international Lecoq alumni has contributed significantly to this movement. While the influence of the Lecoq school on Australian theatre thus operates within the broader context of this major shift in Western theatre, it has also been particularised within the Australian socio-cultural context. The Lecoq presence in Australia currently spans some thirty-five years. This presence operates within a critical period of Australia's theatre history. As in many other parts of the world, this period is characterised by a major shift in the dominance of text-based realism. In Australia, however, this shift was particularised within the context of British 82 and American domination of theatrical modes, and is consequently characterised by consolidated attempts to displace these modes. In many ways, the dominance of Australian mainstream theatre by British and American approaches is synonymous with the dominance of text-based realism, so that to overthrow one was to overthrow the other. Until the 1960s British, and to a lesser degree American theatrical practices and products had dominated the Australian stage, manifesting across a broad spectrum of the theatrical field. Prior to the mid-1960s, directors and, indeed, productions, had been largely imported from Britain and America (Clark 1995:192). The first professional repertory companies to emerge in the 1950s and 1960s were established principally by English immigrants and were based on English models. Much of the repertoire consisted of English and American fare (Mitchell 1995:208). NIDA, Australias first professional theatre training school, was established in 1958 by Hugh Hunt and Robert Quentin, both English, and was modelled on English theatre schools (Lavery 1995:393). Notably, the dominant acting styles had been naturalism and psychological realism and were, once again, imported from England and America (Brisbane Enright 1995:20). Journalistic criticism of Australian theatrical productions typically featured unfavourable comparisons with those of the London stage (Webby 1995:169). The 1960s saw a shift in this longstanding pattern of English and American domination, and consequently in the domination of text-based realism. According to John Clark the next twenty years was a period of rapid expansion, national self-confidence and artistic self-reliance (Clark 1995:192-193). It was a period characterised by a preoccupation with the development of indigenous theatrical formations, underwritten by a central narrative of national identity in the quest for a distinctive Australian theatre (Kelly 1998:8). This central narrative was operative within the broader socio-cultural complex that saw the establishment of the Australia Council for the Arts in 1968 - in response to growing nationalism - and the emergence of Australias first national daily newspaper in 1964, introducing a national rather than a local slant on issues of culture, identity and politics (Brisbane McCallum 1995:175). This major theatrical shift manifested in diverse but cognate ways and has come to be known as the new wave in Australian theatre history. Two of the most urgent preoccupations of this period were the search for Australian plays and an Australian acting style (Brisbane Enright 1995:21). The quest for Australian theatrical form and content was undertaken most forcibly in pockets of the Melbourne and Sydney theatre scenes. In Melbourne, new wave advocates rejected both the hierarchical structures and theatrical processes of the English theatre models with the authority of the director overthrown in favour of more democratic, participatory processes. The privileging of the written script and the process of analysis and interpretation were shafted in favour of 83 ensemble exploration of ideas that relied more on improvisational than analytical processes (Brisbane Enright 1995:21-22). The Australian Performing Group worked particularly forcefully