Performing has seen the show tighten and the energy fluctuate, I had difficulty ensuring my energy was where it needed to be after three shows a day and sitting through that presentation before performing. The size of the audience has also been a factor that seemed to vary the performances. Big audiences seemed to have less inhibitions laughing and engaging with the material more easily but with this they brought difficulty in overcoming the acoustics of the space because the noise would just thunder throughout the theatre. This meant at times longer pauses to ensure and a less rapid pace at times to ensure the material could be delivered correctly. The smaller audiences were much more intimate and the acoustics were never a problem however this intimacy also reflected a more reserved atmosphere in regards to laughing and engaging with the material. I guess this could be a result of peer pressure and not wanting to be identified as the person who was laughing the drama presentation that wasn’t funny, or maybe it actually wasn’t funny. This is all just conjecture although what can be said is that every audience is completely different no matter whether large or small. There was always a couple of golden moments for me as a performer when the audience really responded the way you had hoped they would. For example I received heckling from one small audience and concern from another in the initial scene with the fumbling presenter and the rude lecture patrons. I wonder:

• What about the difference between Melbourne and Geelong audiences will be like?
• Was the humour pitched at the wrong level, too high or low brow?
• Did being constrained by marketing have an effect on the overall pieces success?
• What effect did each of the performers have on the success of the piece?
• What about the environment of each day?

I would say that the piece was successful which is not to say that neither it nor the process was flawless because I believe there was many. If approaching this project again I would do some things the same but other very differently. I have learnt a lot and would not trade that for anything else in the world.

After each show I can say with some degree of confidence that at least one teacher who had just watched the performance approaches with positive and sometimes constructive feedback.

• ‘Seen a lot of these [TIS performances] over the years but it was great to see something new and fresh’
• ‘Best one I’ve seen’
• ‘Lightening in the space was very poor’
• ‘Loved the moment with the big wooden spoon’
• ‘Excellent work’
• ‘Fantastic job’

At times students would also do this and a couple of times students approached the group to enquire about the courses we have done and are currently undertaking with a keen interest. Can this be put down to politeness and social protocol? I don’t think so because I could see if we had approached them asking for verbal feedback considering they approached us I would expect it to be genuine. I guess the only real way to attain genuine qualitative feedback would be through anonymous surveys. An approach I hope to utilise in my next project.

The rest of the ensemble received some condescending remarks from various employers from the different tertiary institutes.

• ‘No drama kids this year’
• ‘Thank you for ruining my plans’
• ‘We are going to enjoy some light entertainment that the Deakin drama club is going to present’

The first two were a direct result of one of the ensembles actors not arriving on time meaning we could not present the show for the morning group. The last one was one of the introductions we received prior to commencing our performance even though we had asked to be introduced in a specific way. The first and last of these comments reminds me of an anecdote that O’Toole (1975; 1995) draws on in a book and at least one paper I’ve read. He writes about how a principle before a TiE performance is about to begin says to their primary school aged students. He writes ‘Now we’ve got some people here today who are going to perform a little play for you. And I’m sure it’s going to be very humorous. And you’re going to show them how polite you can be, aren’t you?’ (O’Toole, 1995: 80). O’Toole is attempting to highlight how drama and theatre are perceived by educators as having little intrinsic value other than to entertain. This seems to reflect my experience with this TIS performance. This is only conjecture but it seems those various people from the different tertiary institutions thinking is probably along the same lines. The performance unlike the dry presentation was engaging and somewhat informative, the change in atmosphere and attitude of the crowd from the presentation to performance was immense. It is in my opinion that the performance reinforced everything they had just said but in a different medium. I’m not trying to take a moral highroad and content that in anyway the performance was a better medium for conveying this information. Rather that the effects of both working together a surely better than either on its own. I wonder why people cannot see this; arrogance, ignorance or both?

It was decided very early on in the process that design would be a more organic process. Once we had a look at the space it became clear that any design would have to be minimal and use of the digital projector would be essential. This was also a consideration because we knew we would have to move and transport our goods from Burwood to Geelong. Our first design idea was to use milk crates and we planned on using them for as many things as possible, this included riding them in the horse racing scene, sit and stand on them. This never eventuated as it became apparent further in the process that they weren’t necessary and even burdensome. It floated in and out of discussion from time to time and then a basic slide slow presentation was thrown together some weeks before. This presentation was edited and re-edited over the course of the following weeks and became our central design element. Eventually we added sound, animation and colour. This was organic and it grew and developed as people had ideas and tried them out. It looked poor and cheesy but that’s what we were going for. The props and items of costume that we used were generally just an agreement between the ensemble about what would be necessary to convey our message. We tried to keep these as minimal as possible but reflecting now I wonder if all were necessary?

Considering that my next project will involve touring at least two different schools the space will also be different from school to school. Therefore any design will have to be easily transportable. This therefore has me concluding that it would also be optimum for the design to be minimal with a few key and specific pieces that contribute to the performance on a design level. Questions about the capabilities of using media, sound and lighting are also present in my mind at this time. The last few touring TiE or TFY performances I have seen did not really utilise media, sound and lightening. These I would argue were all excellent and didn’t require these extra production values; not to say with them the show could have been enhanced but that they stood on their own competently without them. Depending on the show this should more than likely be the case for all theatre. I guess the point is will add to or distract from what I want to say.

The appropriateness of our form and content for our intended audience and their needs has mainly been self regulated by the group. We did not have any articulated standards to begin with besides what was written in the brief. The difficulty is in being able to maintain that outside eye while so close to the project. This is why we have gladly accepted advice and feedback from Deakin staff which includes marketing who were able to act as that outside eye. We had intended on a work-in-progress viewing for a group of similar age high school students but this never occurred.

It became apparent for me three weeks ago after a work-in-progress viewing for my supervisor Jo and marketing the real purpose of this piece was to reinforce the information that will be presented before we perform in an entertaining and humorous manner. It is not just art it has information and a message that must be present. This is difficult because how does one inject this information without making it sound preachy or instructional? It is a difficult question to answer but a necessary one. It has just as many implications for my next project because how do I present a story about cyber-bullying which doesn’t moralise, preach or dictate to its audience and addresses the following questions:

· What bullying is?

· The effects of bullying?

· Societies view of bullying?

· What should be done about it?

Do I take a road similar to Arena theatre and just create stories that are interesting and presented in interesting way avoiding the specific educational aims or objectives? Or do I as an educator have a responsibility to the audience to create something that is interesting, presented in an interesting way, and have an educational aim at the same time?

Working for marketing I have a responsibility to them to create and present something that fits with their ideas. In this same work-in-progress viewing we were told that the performance had an inherent negative meta-message towards tertiary study. This was something that was debated constantly throughout the process. O’Toole (1976) argues that even if theatre is educational it will only be so minimally compared with the many of other developmental factors in a young person’s life, such as friends and family. Even so, just because the effect will be minimal that doesn’t mean that the message should be negative or have a negative slant. O’Toole contends that the most that could be hoped from in theatre ‘is that the balance of outlook might be shifted a fraction (if one is didactically inclined), or at least a microscopic fragment of significant experience might be added to the individual’s power of choice action’ (O’Toole, 1976: 31). For so long I overlooked this. I needed to return to Cahill (2006) and realise that the minimal affect or shift could be the tipping point for someone deciding that tertiary study is too hard and not for them. Tertiary study may not be for them but who am I to disempower them and their choices before they have even had a go? I guess it is even more the case when I’m being paid to present tertiary study in a positive light.

The week before performance week we had one last viewing for marketing. It was here we really got to understand what they meant by inoffensive. Some clarification was needed in regard to form and content but the majority were cuts we needed to make:

• Remove second F from Jaffy and therefore its implication
• Remove pictures of beer due to binge drinking problem
• Try and find another word for crap if possible

We changed the top two but not crap as we really couldn’t see anyone being offended and considering we had already lost two jokes we decided we couldn’t find another word for ‘crap’. Throughout the process we had constant discussions on who would find what offensive and why. Would a telemarketer, waitress or chick-out person find the job section offensive? Marketing raised a question in regard to the spoon feeding section and if students would be offended by it. There was not a performance at Melbourne where this didn’t get a large laugh from the audience. Where do we draw the line and say enough is enough we can’t please everyone someone could be offended or maybe we would just rather live in a 100% PC nanny state.

My pitch that I handed to marketing included a description of what the piece was intended to look like. This was a series of vignettes that would cover the issues that a student might face transitioning from secondary to tertiary education. There would be a central metaphor and hopefully a narrative thread that tied it all together. The metaphor I guess looking back now is probably that life is like a relationship because there are always choices, problems, good times and always plenty more fish in the sea. Reflecting now I wonder what the show could have been like if this was the central metaphor and vision that I had approached the ensemble with? The issues and ideas about further study we wanted to cover developed in the research stage through brainstorming and discussion. These became the basis for our series of vignettes. The first rehearsal I conducted a skills and interest audit and what came across was a mixed bag although generally we all had an interest in non-naturalism in some form. We wanted to create something non-naturalistic at least in part. Initially some scenes were headed in a non-naturalistic direction:

• Horse race
• VTAC monster/beast/animal
• Choices (matrix pills)
• Moment of truth (dropped)
• Ready steady crap
• The lecture
• Student services saved your life (dropped)
• Spoon feeding

These all began with ideas or comments made during brainstorming and discussion sessions. We workshopped people’s ideas:

• What happens?
• How do you see it happening?
• What does this convey?
• Is it clear?
• Is there text or objects we can draw on?
• What does it look like?

These were questions for the ensemble to answer not just the ideas originator. Some developed quickly and easily, some slowly and arduous, some have changed beyond recognition, and others have been dropped. The horse race for example came from an idea which got thrown around about year 12 seeming like a race to the finish with the horses wearing blinkers. When the blinkers are taken off there is a realisation a whole world exists out there. I particularly liked this idea. It has developed slowly week by week and almost dropped a few times but eventually it became something that we decided to use because we did like the point it made. We drew on text of the meblourne-cup-call which was edited and reedited time and time again, tried being the horses, the jockeys, the jockeys riding crates, and a transformation of student to horse. It was really just a process of trial and error mixed in with discussion and reflection. As was the case for all the others listed above, some made it and some didn’t but I believe the performance was stronger for this reason (Dijt, 2006).

A lot of other issues or areas we wanted to cover didn’t stem from a non-naturalistic idea as was the case for those listed above. Running dry improvisations tended only to lead to naturalistic scenes and banter. One of the Deakin staff suggested looking at these scenes non-naturalistically; you could have actually seen the light bulbs turn on. This started a process of thinking about what was the core message we were trying to convey with these scenes and then how could they be portrayed non-naturalistically? A prime example was making friends (which has drastically changed since its inception). Further study can be difficult initially with people experiencing feelings of loneliness and isolation but after some effort everything gets easy. The idea then became to portray through the space a sense of isolation and a cold and lonely environment which gradually eased as the new student found there place approaching different groups. The other ideas that were very naturalistic were worked in this same manner and then everything was workshopped in the manner discussed above.

Morrison and Stinson (1995) argue that young audiences need post modern content as well as a post modern structure. This they argue is due to young audiences growing up in a rapidly changing complex and multi-layered post-modern world. Was the performance inherently post-modern? The project was not approached in a deconstructive sense but it did contain elements associated with post-modern form such as pastiche, collage, non-linear narrative and others. I would not call it an example of post-modernism but it contains the elements which Morrison and Stinson (1995) argue are essential for promoting and developing artistic and aesthetic experiences for young audiences. This they argue is a ‘responsibility as educators for widening their cultural experience’ (Morrison & Stinson, 1995: 40). Considering the brief this was not an intention when beginning this project but it has been on my mind regarding my next project for some time. I wonder why then it developed in this way and the age of the ensemble is the first thing that comes to mind, considering we are all young ad have grown up in this post-modern age as well. Nonetheless it could have been beneficial for the audience in widening their culture experience and I hope it was.

The group tended to work well together from the start although there were a number of difficulties associated with working as an ensemble. There were also other interesting points that I have noticed through working with this ensemble. They are:

• It was difficult working when people would not attend rehearsals.
• It has been difficult with people dropping out.
• Creativity seemed to flow better when someone was absent from rehearsal.
• This project seemed secondary during the uni semester period – I can understand this.
• Working as a democratic ensemble everyone pulled their weight and was not overzealous or precious with their creative ideas.
• Working with an ensemble who are individually and as a group flexible, open, reflective, constructive and enthusiastic was both positive for the group and the process.
• I feel like I could have been more of a leader in the process and that this could have hindered the process to some degree.

It seems contradictory for me to say that people not turning up to rehearsal had a negative impact on the process but then go onto say that we worked better creatively when someone was missing. The difficulty was in not being able to flesh ideas out in the space as well as we could of because of the missing person. Ironically this seemed the time when we would be getting passed the blocks that had been stopping progress. Reflecting it probably has nothing to do with the number but more likely we had hit the block in the previous week and after a week of it rolling around in our heads reflecting we had come into the space and they just rolled straight out into the space and worked for us..

Since beginning we have had two members drop out. The first was only after a couple of weeks and due to life’s pressures; this brought the group down from five to four. The second only occurred a few weeks ago due to a family crisis. It’s difficult to think if these events changed the group’s dynamics but I’m certain they would have to some degree. The reason the first was not very significant was that it was at the start of the process before anything had really even been started on the floor. Nothing was locked in, nothing was set we were just playing and seeing where it would take us. The major concern was if we would want another person or just go on with four. We decided to go with four and it has worked out very well. The second person dropping out was at a pivotal moment in the process but also a moment that did end up working out for a new person to step in and take her spot. We introduced the new actor at the moment after we had received some feedback from both marketing and other Deakin staff. From here we just walked the new actor through the piece and then set about tightening and fixing what needed to be. The new actor has slotted in very well and it has been good to get her opinion of the piece from a new perspective as well.

Working with people that are not overzealous or precious about their creative ideas was such a positive for the group and the process. The reason although I can only speculate is that I felt that all the ensemble were generally flexible, open, reflective, constructive and enthusiastic. This created a positive environment that contributed to everyone being comfortable with their ideas and themselves in the space so that play could take place. This play was what would generally lead to material being generated even if in the long run it wasn’t kept in. It will be great to be able to continue to work with one of the original ensemble and the actor who has come in at the last minute to save us. I also hope that I can foster the same positive atmosphere in the future that was so beneficial for the ensemble this time round.

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.