My role in the process was one of actor, director and facilitator. To how much I specifically directed in the process any more than anyone else I can’t say. I think this is the case for a four of reasons:

1. The process was very democratic.
2. I didn’t enter into the process with a clear understanding of what I wanted to achieve.
3. It was very difficult to simultaneously act while maintaining that outside eye.
4. Having never directed before.

I think my core problem was not taking the time I needed before beginning the process to develop a sense of what I wanted it to be or achieve; hence a vision. This is more than likely a direct result of never having directed before. On the other hand I entered into the process wanting it to be democratic, an ensemble creation. Does having a pre-conceived vision immediately impede this democratic process of an ensemble created performance? I could go either way on this but what I will say is that as director your role is as a leader in this democratic process and I probably should have presented this vision to the group before beginning the process. As difficult as democracy is, I’m still a very big fan. I think approaching it in future is just a question of how much democracy. What I plan to do in the future is to approach the group with my vision as well as all the research materials I have gathered. Get them to take this material away, do their own research and come back and respond to me and my vision and see where that goes.

These photos highlight for me the difficulty in being involved in the process at multiple levels and not being able to be that outside eye all of the time. It also shows the need for the group to be able to swap around and be involved t the level of outside eye.

Fundamentally I think the majority of my problems can rest on my inexperience. Reflecting now I can see that having an initial vision and more structured plan for the process rather than the organic approach that I took was hindering. Second to this is about being the leader, being decisive and making the decision when they needed to be made. I have learnt a great deal from this project especially about directing and the roles on takes in the process. People have more than likely come before and said similar things but it seems to be like a parent telling a child not to something because it will hurt them but the only way the will actually learn it to experience it themselves.

As discussed in the previous post the research phase was an ongoing process more important at the beginning of the overall process gradually becoming less and less but always present. Initially the research involved discussing the brief and what it meant to each of us. We also discussed each of our own transitions from secondary school to tertiary education. What we discovered was that each of our stories was so individually different and a commonality emerged for each of us that there was a lack of emphasis placed on the options aside from university after high school i.e. travel, work, tafe and so on. This became a bit of a cental tenet for the developing piece. Wanting to show that there are options before and during tertiary study and that these options a not binding either. We then undertook a brainstorming session based around questions that I developed in response to my understanding of the essence of the brief. They were (click on the link to view mind map):

• What issues do students face transitioning?
• What are these issues?
• When and why do they stop being issues?
• Is there anything funny about these issues?

Separate to this we each also carried out our own individual research which involved finding a body of literature from the web, journals, news articles and books. Another useful method which presented a lot of data was talking to students who had just started university or were currently in year 12. Both groups had presented information from different angles that were great to take on. The year 12s presented information on where they are now and the worries that have about the process their going through and the unknown on the other side. While the 1^st year tertiary students presented the challenges that they were experiencing currently as they transitioned into tertiary study. The other point which needs consideration is that the entire group has recently (in the last five to three years) gone through this same transition. Another element specific to our own experiences concerns actually working in schools with students who are going through this over the past couple of years and seeing, hearing and experiencing (in a way) what they are going through.

We undertook some image work from stimulus words or phrases using the cop-in-head technique (Boal, 1992). These images didn’t end up being used directly but they did a few times create discussion and action that inspired us to build a scene or develop one further. The image below:

The image was based on the notion of making friends. Using the cop in the head technique these phrases came up from left to right:

1. Bastards
2. You have really nice hands
3. What was your name again – get away from me
4. Sorry what year are you in?

This didn’t correlate directly into a scene but we decided to include a scene on making friends and the idea that it can be difficult (at first) was established alongside not knowing what to say or who to approach and when. The early devising we actually started off using ‘you have really nice hands’, which I’m glad to say has evolved to something more appropriate (not really the word I’m looking for).

What I can say is that everything that was undertaken has had some influence on the outcome of the content and that generally anything focused on the project cannot really be considered a waste of time. Dijk (2006) argues that the more waste products an ensemble creates should result in a higher quality piece. The most influential source and method of research was discussion with people about their experiences. These discussions became the foundation for many of the scenes that are included in the performance. This is because it provided both facts and experiences of the transition period. The other methods influenced or contributed minimally, they were not worthless and I will continue to use them all in future practice.

Reading the brief initially my understanding was that the essence of the performance had to be ‘a humorous presentation… about the transition issues facing students finishing high school’ (TIS brief, 2008). Further to this it should be:

• relevant for students age and needs
• could include a range of possible themes
• no set style, form or content
• be neutral towards all tertiary intuitions
• not offensive
• and positive towards tertiary institutions (TIS brief, 2008)

My approach in working from the brief was to take it to the ensemble I was working with to see where we could end up taking it. What resulted was the intention to develop a humorous presentation on the issues student face transitioning from secondary to tertiary education. This has resulted in us missing the mark to a certain degree. Nothing we could not fix or reverse but a big learning curve for myself. It is apparent now that there are five clear aims that I should have specifically highlighted for the group and constantly returned to when creating this performance. They are in no particular order of importance:

1. Ensuring it is relevant for students age
2. Ensuring it is relevant for their needs
3. Ensuring it is neutral to all tertiary institutions
4. Ensuring it is non offensive to everyone
5. Ensuring it is positive towards tertiary study

What I managed to do was to understate the importance of these instead highlighting my perceived understanding of the essence of the piece. The inoffensiveness of the piece was never a problem as this was because this was highlighted by marketing consistently as the one requirement that the show must be. The neutrality of the piece was also never really a problem. As the process progressed the ensemble did fall into a habit of referring to tertiary study as uni but this was simply a symptom of the ensemble all being university students. The development of the piece was always centred on the work being neutral even if the language didn’t depict this. We had always known the age of the audience was approx 16 to 19 and this was something that we had entered into the process knowing and understanding that; but what significance does this approximate audience age have for creating theatre? This is not a question that can be answered because it’s not a black and white issue, although what can be said is that young peoples theatre should not play down to its audience, it should be as good as adult theatre if not better. The two of these aims that were neglected in the process was ensuring the performance was relevant for students’ needs and ensuring a positive spin towards tertiary study. This was mainly due to two reasons:

1. Failure to return to the brief to ensure performance was proceeding in right direction
2. A lack of detail in the brief for the desired specifics of the performance

The show prior to last week had a very negative meta-message in regards to tertiary study being difficult and full of many problems. We did not set out to portray tertiary study in this light but this was a side affect of creating work based on issues its going to inherently negative from the get go. Returning to the brief throughout the process could have helped to avoid this by ensuring we highlighted the issues as positive. The lack of detail in the brief did not aid this either. This lack of detail didn’t give me a clear understanding of what the needs of the student audience was. This has since been illuminated to reveal the needs is the information about specific things relating to tertiary study. Having a clearer understanding that the performance was meant to be infotainment could have helped the process as well.

I know I said I was going to start with discussing the brief but since sitting down and reflecting I have decided that it is first essential to briefly discuss the process and how it proceeded which will hopefully to a certain degree illuminate the series of posts to follow.

The process was roughly broken up into four phases: research, devise, score and rehearse. These names really do not do justice in describing what happens in the process and even at what time they occur. For instance this is not a linear sequence progressing from one to the other on certain dates. Instead it is more like a fluid Rhizome (this is not exactly the word I’m after but it will do for now) each phase expanding and contracting as they become more or less important or necessary in the process. The Rhizome areas grow and out grow each other at different stages changing day to day and week to week. At the start of the process there is no rehearsing as such, minimal scoring, some devising and a lot of research

Looking at this diagram I am positive a Rhizome is not the word I want but I cannot find nor articulate a word that encompasses my thoughts. Therefore I will leave it as Rhizome for the moment. Looking at this during the later stages of the process we would see that the research has shrunk in comparison to the devising and scoring aspects of the process and rehearsing has appeared but still remains relatively small in comparison.

Initially I had perceived the process as more linear and actually had planned specific dates that would mark the transition to the next phase. What I’ve learnt is that while these dates were important in the time line to ensure the process moves forward and reaches where it needs to be in time, it is not a linear structure and each phase will organically and fluidly become more and less important as the process evolves.

It has been quite a while since I posted over a month now. The TIS project is rapidly approaching, we are performing in just under two weeks for the Melbourne and then a fortnight after that for Geelong. I will be creating a series of posts reflecting on the process basically to comment, discuss and think about directing or facilitating ensemble building performance process. This is due to my using this TIS project for a theatrical laboratory for my cyber-bullying honours thesis. The first of many posts will be on the brief which is below.