TABSLABS

Theatre and Beyond’s TABSLABS
by David Lane
Dramaturg

Theatre and Beyond are one of the South East’s leading new writing theatre companies. In September last year they launched their second series of TABLABS, designed to seek out the best new writers in a region where opportunities for development and production of new writing are often limited. With bases in Maidstone, Hastings, Walton-on-Thames and finally in Brighton, the TAB team took on a total of sixteen new writers in an effort to develop innovative and exciting work. Project dramaturg David Lane offers this reflection on the dramaturgical processes at work.

Tucked away on Brighton’s seafront, Theatre and Beyond have been building their reputation as one of the region’s leading new writing companies for just over three years. Artistic Director Maria Pattinson launched the first TABLABS project in 2001 to seek out new writers in the region. In 2002 writers were offered a five-day collaborative workshop process over two months involving actors, directors, a dramaturg, digital artists, technicians, audiences and their fellow playwrights. The workshops were for writers excited by new ideas and technology who wanted to experiment with forms that challenge conventional theatre – the function of the workshops was to tap into these ideas and evolve them to the point of a work-in-progress.

The collaborative emphasis behind TAB’s work provides a very supportive and experimental environment in which to place a playwright, particularly when ideas and scenarios may be in their infancy. The key role of the dramaturg in this particular process was as a provider of literary dramaturgical support. Following an initial workshop day that helped each writer to focus upon a few starting points for their pieces, the second day was facilitated by the dramaturg, introducing a firmly grounded theoretical approach to playwriting through a number of discussions and exercises.

We began by asking each writer to be open about what they felt their strengths and weaknesses were, then proceeded to look at the theoretical journey of playmaking and the multitude of decisions a playwright will have to consider. The emphasis was on writers understanding the direct relation of these decisions to the dramatic intention that was driving their desire to write - essentially how to begin communicating their ideas through the medium of theatre in the most effective manner. By continually unpicking the relationship between form, content and structure through the comparison of texts, open discussion and short writing exercises, the intention was not to dictate to the writer a restrictive and rigid set of rules for playwriting, but to introduce a suggested structure advocating the importance of knowledge of craft, and therefore what could possibly be achieved by ‘breaking’ certain rules.

A desire to suggest as well as teach, inspire as well as guide can be integral to the dramaturg’s role, whether acting as a constructive critic in the rehearsal room or in a more literary centred capacity. Introducing the dramaturg as somebody who can help to nurture and shape not only performance itself, but also the broadening approach of any practitioners to their work is vital in the process of progressing theatre practice and discovering new approaches to developing contemporary theatre. Our aim was to develop a group of individuals proficient in playmaking. Accessing the visual shape of their work, the use of the audience’s senses through lighting, sound and movement, and in particular the use of multi-media would all prove instrumental in the progression of their work.

The new writing culture in this country remains rather logo-centric; a commitment to strong dialogue through the use of naturalistic language dominates the genres of film and television, and this trend is reflected in theatre as the word is frequently emphasised as the heart of the writer’s craft. Coupled with a great tradition of literary-centred works both contemporary and classic, this attitude can influence the work of emerging writers and lead perhaps to a homogenised ‘new writer’, producing plays that fail to illustrate an understanding of theatrical production and the languages of performance that exist beyond the literary. Writers unfamiliar with the immense possibilities of theatrical production – particularly with the onset of the digital age – are perhaps in danger of limiting their understanding of writing for the stage in the twenty-first century.

The collaborative nature of the TABLABS meant that the physical and technical languages of performance were developed alongside the literary. Writers were actively encouraged to access their visual imaginations and become ‘playmakers’ from the outset, avoiding the traditional routine of a text first written and subsequently made ‘live’ by the director and actors, with both tasks often undertaken in isolation. This application of active dramaturgy allows writers to experiment with their concepts before appearing to concretise them in print; the writing is evolving continuously as a product of experiment and exploration.

The flexibility of a project brief is essential when the intention is to service the writer’s idea, but our intention was also to introduce new forms or alternative avenues through which to explore the text and educate the writer - to experiment, and to play. Whilst it may seem unusual to ‘impose’ multimedia techniques on any piece with a strong literary style, an aversion to such experiments in theatrical form may prevent us from generating new performance languages. Educating writers and audiences by producing a style of theatre that reflects our age - dominated by the possibilities of technology - may steer us towards the discovery of far more contemporary and accessible theatrical languages. The emphasis in this project was on that aspect of writer’s development, from the initial workshops on mapping dramatic structure to those with actors improvising around the text. Equipping playwrights with the ability to approach their craft as both an individual and collaborative (and progressive) practice is an essential part of theatre-making today, as well as forming the cornerstone of TAB’S work.

Asking a writer to release their work into this hotbed of ideas and stimuli before more than a couple of scenarios have been drafted can be a daunting experience, particularly for writers used to a more ‘traditional’ or individual approach. The playwright’s ability to engage with an experimental approach was essential, and when successful resulted in a more holistic approach and a greater understanding between the company members. The single shared aim of a work-in-progress rather than a finished play meant that scripts could be developed, reworked and redrafted with greater fluidity - what was eventually presented to an audience was a tantalising glimpse of ‘what ifs’, to which they were free to respond with criticisms and suggestions.

As well as asking the writer to reflect an awareness of theatrical languages in their work, the TAB team was faced with the opposite challenge; how to explore work that began with a committed literary or naturalistic tone through a multimedia perspective. The use of film, digital projection and sound or interactive media, for audience and performers, can be utilised in a multitude of ways. The excitement came with the opportunity to blend traditional and non-traditional forms in an attempt to explore the work, and introduce both audience and playwright to new and challenging ways to consider their subject matter.

Playwright Caroline Hurt’s piece ‘Making History’ explored the process of making contemporary history and provoked the audience into considering why we view characters mythologised in the media in a certain light. A glimpse of the last minutes before Princess Diana’s ill-fated car journey, it began as two separate scenes: the first conveying a familiar interpretation of the events and characters, the second introducing a heightened and exaggerated view, but both written in a naturalistic style.

In preparation the two scenes were shot as CCTV, docu-drama and rehearsal footage and then spliced together. In performance the opening of the first scene was played live three times, whilst these various pre-recorded versions were projected simultaneously on screen. When the piece was played in full, the addition of sound and film excerpts and the projection of a silent scene showing past events had built a complex mise-en-scene, forcing our attention towards the issue of character representation. The existence of untold and incomplete histories had been suggested through a live multi-media experience. Whilst pushing our understanding of live performance as the accepted ‘reality’ of a dramatic situation to its limits, the piece had also introduced an intriguing theatrical territory that could successfully marry the technological and dramaturgical.

The use of ‘grideo’ - an interactive tool for performers consisting of floor sensor pads triggering video and sound clips - held a variety of responses among the audience. People felt disorientated and unsure as to what was ‘real’, some found the video more compelling than the live action, others took the scene to be an ‘experience’ from which they could take their own version of the story amalgamated from the simultaneous options. The writer also felt that this innovative blurring of multimedia, the imagination and the live medium could capture the intention of the piece more effectively than the original naturalistic style.

Natasha Langridge’s piece posed a similar challenge. By no means naturalistic but certainly literary in style, ‘Method’ blended storytelling, monologue, present, past and future action to tell the story of Eva, a young actress searching for a multitude of life-forming experiences but unwittingly spiraling down into a dark and sinister world. In the case of ‘Method’ it soon became apparent that the physical staging was the vital element in the clear communication of a story with overlapping narratives and timeframes. Clarity, rather than confusion and disorientation as in ‘Making History’, was the key. Sound and music were subtly employed to add a textured backdrop to the action, but care was taken not to diffuse the writer’s intention to ‘make us work, to make us listen’ to the language.

Although to an extent the project was only a brief simulation of a particular style of creative process, and a springboard for further work, it did raise some interesting issues surrounding the nature of collaborative work, particularly concerning authorship and artistic control. The playwright may be the author of the written text, but who is granted final control over a piece of theatre developed in collaboration, particularly when the intention is also to experiment and seek out innovative ways of interpreting the work? Is our tendency to segregate and compartmentalise the individual practices within the theatre-making process preventing us from fully committing to the artistic advantages of collaboration or devised work?

If a full commission were to be undertaken in this way, it may well be the dramaturg who operates alongside the writer and director, actors, technicians and designers as an overseer of sorts. By offering a theoretical and practical insight into all the production elements - literary, contextual, technical and theatrical – they can safeguard the text whilst leaving opportunities for experiment available.

One must also not ignore the capabilities of the actor in undertaking the role of dramaturg to develop the relationship between text, language and character. In fact, during the TAB project it was the playwrights who acted as a dramaturgical collective, providing invaluable support and criticism to one another when called upon. The use of more experienced playwrights as mentors for younger writers has already been adopted by Soho Theatre and Writers’ Centre, and the more experimental and collaborative outfit of Theatre Centre, often to good effect. In a collaborative or devising process a project dramaturg could also assimilate these criticisms and concerns and act as a dramaturgical link between individuals, the company and the artistic intention.

Unfortunately our understanding of a collaborative approach in British theatre seems heavily influenced by our need to place an individual - the writer or director - at the centre, when a collaborative approach surely suggests an equal distribution of creative influence. We talk of a writer or director working ‘collaboratively’ when perhaps we should simply refer to a company of theatre practitioners working ‘in collaboration’. Is this a question of terminology and perspective – that we should honour not the playwright’s intention but the dramatic intention? Perhaps final say should not rest upon an individual but via a collective understanding of this intention? And should we also be reminded that argument can be as potent a force in creative work as agreement?

In the present climate there remains the need for a delicate balance between experiment and respect for the playwright’s intention (and skill), and this was sometimes a problematic area within the project. Time was often instrumental in the decision making process when experimentation had to make way for rehearsal. Introducing production elements to the final pieces may have appeared to obstruct a more in-depth discussion or exploration later in the project, but it was fundamental to showing audiences how TAB worked and to listen to their feedback.

Involving the audience in the creative process can be both rewarding and problematic. Occasionally writers were reluctant to talk about their plays and felt as if a defence of their work was unnecessary, and with a finished product, perhaps there is a general understanding that the work should speak for itself. However, with work in progress one must remember that the dramaturgies we have applied are experimental, and that the work is not yet mature – if the voice of the piece seems muffled or incoherent to our audiences, we should listen to their comments. Clearing away dramaturgical terminology and treating the audience as equals, discovering if theatre is achieving clear communication is an essential aspect of using the audience in this way, especially if they are invited specifically to respond to the work. The audience is important – without them the theatre becomes obsolete. So if they cannot hear us, we know we need to speak up; if they cannot understand us, we know we need to make things clearer.

By introducing the nature of the project as experimental, the pieces as work-in-progress, and asking audiences to be candid and honest, responses were often insightful and telling. The use of video and digital media often drew the most attention, inspiring comments upon the ‘imaginative use of stagecraft’, ‘unique and absorbing concepts’ and pieces that were ‘intriguing, full of possibilities.’ Many of the writers responded well to the process as a whole, expressing an overall positive view of TAB’s collaborative methods as an education for the writer. Playwright Jo Monks told us that ‘the input of sound, lighting, direction, choreography and of course the actors added a new dimension to my play and gave me and the audience new insights. I think it was like discovering new depths’.

Creating an awareness of TAB’s work and the wealth of writing existing in the region is essential to the health of the company, and so the four TAB SLAMS - extensions of the TABLABS that each showcased five minutes of work by ten regional writers to a paying audience - were introduced. This was also a litmus test for local audiences, asked to vote for the piece that intrigued them the most. Exposing writers and audiences to a new way of working was both an educative and an inspiring experience, and writers who found the process particularly useful were firmly encouraged to seek out future collaborators in their area in an effort to promote innovative and original approaches to creative work. This revitalised approach towards theatre-making can only contribute to a region already rich with talent but still searching for opportunities to have their work seen and heard.

TAB are funded to commission two writers every year and hope to take on one of the writers from the TABLABS project. They are also hoping to pursue their work in schools through the region and develop work for young writers in the near future.

David Lane

Project Dramaturg

January 2003

Posted by Hanna at 05:35 PM in Articles | Email this entry

Comments:

No comments yet.

Post a Comment:

<< Back to main