Theatre is considered by many to be a bastard art-form
because it is not the work of one person.
It is the coming together of actors, designers, makers of all
descriptions, clever technicians, and above all, an audience. Theatre is unique in its need for this great collaboration
and for its essential ephemerality. For
a short while these many people with all their skills come together and then it
is over and gone and lost forever. There
may be film or video of this moment but this is only a record not the moment
itself.
And for me it is this sense of collaboration, of this coming
together of a family devoted to this one production, almost like a workshop
manufacturing a great machine, is what fascinates and beguiles me to want to
experience this process over and over gain even though it can be exhausting,
annoying, frustrating and can drive you sick and mad. And I have experienced pretty well every role
within that family. I have been an
actor, director, stage hand, electrician,writer so I know what it’s like to be
an unnoticed cog in that particular machine.
And I have learnt something of the psychology and management skill that
is required to turn that unruly mob of talented individuals into a coherent
working group with a common aim and output of great beauty and emotional force.
At various times, particular individuals or skills are in
the ascendancy; audiences may be drawn by the work of a particular actor,
director, designer or writer but the thing itelf is still an overall
collaboration in which every single part contributes to the whole.
So at the South West Theatre Makers Conference on Saturday I
was interested to hear how Chris Chibnall approaches this collaborative
effort. Chris is clearly someone of
great skill and imagination. He wrote “Broadchurch”
for the television and has just written the first new work for Salisbury
Playhouse for ten years. He has a long
background in theatre so he is worth listening to. For him the collaborative
process involved an actual writing process during the rehearsals
themselves. A couple of scenes would be
run through with the actors, discussions would ensue and then he would go home
and rewrite accordingly. The next day
these two scenes would be rehearsed and the next two scenes examined and subsequently
rewritten. This is a total collaboration
in which the actors and the director have a direct input on the writing
process.
For me the process is different. I love the cut and thrust of the rehearsal
room and the lurching towards an understanding of the meaning or working of the
play. Cuts and edits and even reordering
may take place as the actors explore the piece but for me there is no rewriting. I claim the right to maintain the artistic
integrity of the piece, I have spent at least six months creating these
characters and their interactions, and I have mapped out the journey that I
want the audience to take. I have chosen exactly the order and structure of the
story and the interactions that will demonstrate the moments that I think have
most force and relevance. I hve
developed and pared the dialogue until it can convey exactly the nuances that I
have intended. I have considered points
of view of the spectators and how they will experience them.
To a contemporary theatre maker this may seem an old
fashioned and reactionary approach but I consider myself a craftsman who has
served a forty year apprenticeship in that craft. I still don’t know everything about theatre
and how it can work but I do know about this particular play. Once I have written it, I am happy to hand it
over to the other craftspeople and artists who will make it work for an
audience. I am not so arrogant as to
believe that I have any right to the final say on the production or the
absolutely essential skill of performance. But to me, the play as I hand it
over is complete in its construction and all I ask is the respect of the other
practitioners that I give to their work.
