activating simultaneity in performance: exploring robert ... · called gaijin, where my roles...
TRANSCRIPT
ACTIVATING SIMULTANEITY IN
PERFORMANCE: EXPLORING
ROBERT LEPAGE’S WORKING
PRINCIPLES IN THE MAKING OF
GAIJIN
Benjamin Knapton
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Arts (Research)
Queensland University of Technology
Creative Industries Faculty
Performance Studies
2008
2
Acknowledgments This thesis is dedicated to the memory of Kathleen Tierney – a daughter, a mother, a wife, a grandmother and a musician. You are dearly missed. I would particularly like to thank my supervisors over the last two years including: Judith McLean, whose open, truthful and brave approach to life is an ongoing inspiration, Sandra Gattenhof, for her constant commitment to my research and her rigorous approach to academia, and David Fenton for his insightful and meticulous attention to all things performance. I am extremely grateful to Brad Haseman for his continued support and interest in my work, which has always been so rich and fruitful, and Zane Trow for his perpetually insightful dialogue. My deepest thank-you to Robert Lepage and the Ex Machina team. The privilege they offered me was deepened by the genuine openness I encountered at Ex Machina. Everyone in the team was so welcoming. It is clear why such important work is created by this company. I truly appreciate all that they gave me. I would like to thank David Eastgate for his collaboration on the performance GAIJIN – his intelligence and eclectic skill is incredible. An infinite thank-you to my family for their continued support and love. My wonderful privileged life and this research would not have been possible without them. Lastly, I would like to thank my best friend Natasha Budd for her ongoing support, brilliant mind, compassion and empathy that one can only hope will continue to spread.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. 5
KEYWORDS ........................................................................................................................... 7
STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP.................................................................. 8
PROLOGUE: FOREGROUNDING PROCESS .................................................................. 9
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 11
1.1 Overview................................................................................................................ 13
2. METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 17
2.1 Discovering the bricoleur....................................................................................... 19
2.2 Identifying as a constructivist ................................................................................ 21
2.3 Practice-led strategy............................................................................................... 24
2.4 Embodying methodology....................................................................................... 26
3. CONTEXTUAL CONCEPTS ..................................................................................... 28
3.1 Devised theatre....................................................................................................... 30
3.1.1 What is devised theatre? .................................................................................... 30
3.1.2 Process ............................................................................................................... 31
3.1.3 Collaboration ..................................................................................................... 32
3.2 Concluding to begin again ..................................................................................... 34
4. UNDERSTANDING LIPSYNCH ............................................................................... 35
4.1 The process ............................................................................................................ 38
4.1.1 The public rehearsal........................................................................................... 48
4.2 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 51
5. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK................................................................................ 53
5.1 Performance text .................................................................................................... 55
4
5.2 Simultaneity ........................................................................................................... 57
5.3 Synaesthesia ........................................................................................................... 62
5.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 63
6. GAIJIN .......................................................................................................................... 65
6.1 An overview of the work and the process of collaboration.................................... 66
6.2 Process ................................................................................................................... 68
6.3 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 81
7. FINDINGS AND NEW DIRECTIONS ...................................................................... 82
7.1 Activating simultaneity and synaesthesia .............................................................. 84
7.2 A theoretical offering ............................................................................................. 86
8. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 89
9. APPENDICES............................................................................................................... 93
9.1 Interview with Robert Lepage. 22/01/06 ............................................................... 94
9.2 Support letter from Robert Lepage ...................................................................... 110
9.3 Ethical Clearance Document................................................................................ 111
9.4 DVD of creative work GAIJIN............................................................................ 113
5
ABSTRACT
In this research I have explored the performance making process of world renowned director
Robert Lepage. This exploration informed my own process, creating an original performance
called GAIJIN, where my roles included producer / director / designer and co-writer. The
practice-led research strategy employed in this research has allowed me to navigate the
sometimes slippery slope of connecting various performance discourses with the pragmatics
of the performance making process. The reason for this research is my strong interest in the
director’s role and my affinity with the practice of Robert Lepage.
My observation of the performance making process of Robert Lepage prompted the creation
of a conceptual framework informed by Hans-Thies Lehmann’s work Postdramatic Theatre.
These theoretical concerns were then further investigated in the creation of my own show.
This research process has uncovered a performance making process that foregrounds the
working principles of simultaneity and synaesthesia, which together offer a changed
conception of the performance text in live performance.
Simultaneity is a space of chaotic interaction where many resources are used to build a
perpetually evolving performance text. Synaesthesia is the type of navigation required – an
engagement consisting of interrelated sense-impressions that uniquely connect the
performance makers with the abundance of content and stimulus; they search for poetic
connections and harmonious movement between the resources. This engagement relies on
intuitive playmaking where the artists must exhibit restraint and reserve to privilege the
interaction of resources and observe the emerging performance. This process has the potential
to create a performance that is built by referential layers of theatrical signifiers and
impressions.
6
This research offers an insight into the practices of Robert Lepage as well as a lens through
which to view other unique devising processes. It also offers a performance making language
that is worthy of consideration by all performance makers, from directors to performers. The
significance of this process is its inherent qualities of innovation produced by all manner of
art forms and resources interacting in a unique performance making space.
7
KEYWORDS
The following is a list of keywords that appear within this exegesis or are associated with the
exegesis topic. These keywords have been listed for cataloguing purposes.
Collaboration, contemporary performance, devised theatre, interaction, intuition, performance
making, performance text, postdramatic theatre, process, Robert Lepage, simultaneity,
synaesthesia.
8
STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference is made. Signed: ……………………………. Date: …………………………….
9
PROLOGUE: FOREGROUNDING PROCESS
The need for this prologue comes from the nature of the content being presented in this
research. The performance making practice examined here emerges as a perpetually
transformative discovery process that has repercussions for the manner in which it is
discussed and the methodological approach I took. In an environment of perpetual
transformation my research foregrounds an open responsiveness which is apparent in the
layout of this exegesis; continual revision and modification allows this research to mirror its
content by being a perpetually transformative discovery process. Here, I will briefly discuss
the conflation of process and product in the performance making practice being explored in
this research.
My understanding of the performance making process I was exploring became clearer when I
discovered that a key attribute of Robert Lepage’s process, acknowledged by many theorists
in different forms, is the notion of provisionality. This term refers to “the assumption that all
arrangements appear to have been adopted on the understanding that they may well be
changed later. It refers to the incomplete quality [of the work]…” (Haseman 1999, 3). Lepage
recognises this when he says:
There’s something terrible in our system which is called opening night: it’s a guillotine. We try to pretend that doesn’t exist, we just try and fade into the performance area…we try not to decide ‘OK, opening night, so now this is officially a show’. It is never finished (Lepage 2006, l. 110-115).
Acknowledging that Lepage frequently presents his performance works in public arenas, this
approach to performance making suggests a conflation of process and product where
performances with audiences present are used as a tool inside the devising process.
Aleksandar Dundjerovic (1999) recognises this in his thesis on the theatricality of Robert
Lepage when he comments on what he calls Lepage’s transformative mise-en-scene. He
10
suggests the “evolution of the ‘mise-en-scene’ is accepted as process rather than product…
the performance is in a constant process of rehearsals” (1999, 4).
The reason for this shift is Lepage’s unique process of devising; three or four week creative
developments reoccurring over a number of years with public rehearsals at the end of each
period. Dundjerovic suggests “the mise-en-scene evolves with the audience response as part
of its process through ‘open rehearsals’, making marginal the existing opposition between
rehearsal and performance. Thus performance becomes rehearsal…” (1999, 4).
This conflation of process and product is of crucial importance to this research. The
conceptual framework outlined in Chapter Five is examining a process of making
performance. Far from dismissing the performance moment with an audience present, this
research positions it as one part of an ongoing process.
11
1. INTRODUCTION
12
1. INTRODUCTION
My interest has always been in the making of performance and the director’s role in this
process. After reading the key text on Robert Lepage’s process Connecting Flights (Charest
1997), I became acutely aware that Robert Lepage was an artist whose practice resonated with
my own and therefore was someone I needed to engage with. As a researcher, Lepage, for me,
was what Margot Ely describes as a “gate keeper, that essential person who could provide the
permission to study” (1991, 20). As part of my research I interviewed Robert Lepage (9.1
Appendix 1) during the season of his one-person show The Anderson Project at the Sydney
International Arts Festival in January 2006. In interviewing him, my intention was to discuss
his process and, more importantly, identify the techniques or methods he utilises. This
intention was quickly re-aligned as our conversation focused on creativity and the
preconditions of a rich working environment, rather than exercises or methods.
I discovered that Lepage’s creative process is dramatically different every time. It is a
dynamic and adaptable process that creates itself as a direct result of its interactions with the
content being dealt with. Alexander Dundjerovic supports this by saying “it is a fact that
Lepage’s theatricality is founded on intuition, impulse and spontaneous discovery” (2003,
68). Within this dynamic, collaborative process Lepage aims to find a unique performance
(Lepage 2006, l. 197-208) – one that audiences will recognise and actively engage with. The
idea of the ‘unique’ resonates with writings on performance by Richard Schechner (2002, 24)
who suggests that a performance is not ‘in’ anything, rather ‘between’ in the unique
interactions. Lepage’s search for the unique reveals Schechner’s ideas in praxis – a
contemporary approach to performance making that views the world and everything in it ‘as’
performance.
13
Not surprising is that Lepage has an affinity with Bertolt Brecht. During our discussion his
concepts of art continually referenced this key theatre practitioner from the Twentieth-
Century. “Brecht said … everything has to happen at the same time. When the writer is
writing his play, he’s also staging it, he’s also designing it, he’s also rehearsing it” (Lepage
2006, l. 130-132). This idea, coupled with Lepage’s suggestion that he works in a very
“unconscious and intuitive way” (Lepage 2006, l. 103), became the main interest of this
study.
Joseph Donohue and Jane Koustas suggest Robert Lepage “has become, along with Peter
Brook and Robert Wilson, one of the most admired stage directors in the world” (2000, ix).
Michael Hood identifies, “there has been a great deal of writing centering on reactions to
Lepage’s work [but] there has been little that focuses on his process” (2000, 128). This
research contributes to this void. The interview I conducted in January allowed a relationship
to form and an invitation to gain rare access to the artist and his company’s work. “Mr
Knapton is one of the few people selected personally by Robert Lepage to join his team as an
observer” (9.2 Appendix 2).
After this invitation from Lepage I decided my research would focus on the key working
principles of his performance making process and that I would attempt to implement my
findings in a creative process of my own.
1.1 Overview
This exegesis explores a performance making process that aims to create a provisional
performance text. It proposes a conceptual framework for understanding and actively
engaging in a performance making process that foregrounds intuitive playmaking and
14
audience feedback, where similarities, correlations and correspondences are used to build a
perpetually evolving performance text.
The framework presented here has emerged from my engagement with contemporary
performance discourse, the creative practice of Robert Lepage, and my own creative process.
It will include an exploration of specific concepts and stylistic traits attributable to the
emerging paradigm of postdramatic theatre and expand on them in two ways: the integration
of insights from my case study – observing the work of director Robert Lepage (as well as
extensive dialogue with him), and through the epistemology of my own theatrical process, of
which the creative presentation was a momentary example.
The entire research project was broken into two sections. These sections were framed by two
research questions respectively:
1. What are the observed working principles of Robert Lepage’s performance
making process?
This investigation consisted of a literature review, an interview with Robert Lepage
and a three-week observation of his performance making process in Quebec City,
Canada during October, 2006.
2. What is the impact of activating the observed working principles of Robert
Lepage in my own creative process?
This section consists of the creation of a one-person theatre show which I co-wrote,
directed and designed.
Accordingly, the outputs of this research have been organised in the following way:
Written Component (50%)
15
Exegesis: Activating Simultaneity in Performance: Exploring Robert
Lepage’s Working Principles in the Making of GAIJIN
Creative Practice (50%)
Creative work: GAIJIN
2.00pm and 6.30pm Tuesday 19th June, 2007
The steps I took from early 2006 to the present time are mirrored in the structure of this
exegesis.
Chapter Two explores the methodology I employed, which is qualitative in nature. The
interpretative paradigm is constructivist and the methodology employed incorporates the
research strategy of participant observation and practice-led research. Methods of data
collection included: interview, journaling, personal reflection, visual documentation, expert
and peer review methods and ongoing informal conversation. It was through the continual
revision of this methodology and the acceptance of an open space of engagement that
methods emerged through a direct response to the research site, paving the way for a project
in which methodology could become an “incarnation of [its] subject and themes” (Lepage in
Charest 1997, 164).
Chapter Three presents contextual concepts that I investigated before my observation with
Robert Lepage and Ex Machina. It theorises a devised approach to performance making and
the nature of collaboration essential to this process. It uncovers my key concerns at this time
and provides an entry point to the unique qualities of a devised performance process.
Chapter Four discusses the case study of Robert Lepage’s creative process for LIPSYNCH. It
describes the process I witnessed, supported by an interview I conducted with Lepage,
16
extracts from my journal, visual documentation and literature pertaining to his work. The
placement of this initial data presentation is essential because it uncovers the genesis for the
conceptual framework explored in Chapter Five and further investigated through my own
creative practice in Chapter Six.
The conceptual framework detailed in Chapter Five outlines three key concepts: performance
text, simultaneity and synaesthesia. The history of these concepts is explored, as well as their
recent significance in contemporary performance discourse. This section continues to
reference the process of Robert Lepage to keep these sometimes abstract concepts grounded
in the pragmatics of performance making.
Chapter Six describes the implementation of the conceptual framework in my own creative
process, with the creative presentation GAIJIN being only one moment in a perpetual process.
This chapter describes the creative process undertaken, as well as identifying moments of
praxis during the performance making period and feedback received after the public rehearsal.
It will draw on theory already encountered in Chapters Three and Five, as well as creative
ideas expressed by Robert Lepage.
Chapter Seven presents my findings from this research project, including suggestions for
future research and the implications this way of working has for directors and artists. It also
contains a theoretical discussion that identifies the relevance of visual arts theory from the
1900s in this research. The theory examined serves in reconciling the tension between
performance discourses brief and somewhat lacking examination of simultaneity, and the
pragmatics of the process being discussed throughout this exegesis.
17
2. METHODOLOGY
18
2. METHODOLOGY
At the 2006 Sydney Festival I had the opportunity to interview world renowned contemporary
theatre director Robert Lepage. Following this meeting I was personally invited to join his
company, Ex Machina as an observer in Quebec City, Canada in October 2006. During this
period of privileged access I was able to observe and discuss Lepage’s innovative process and
begin to unravel the key working principles I observed. On my return to Australia I
immediately entered a creative process, in the role of producer / director / writer / designer,
where I was able to conflate my own process with the key working principles I had identified.
This chapter identifies a dynamic and transformative lens through which to view the creation
of a stage performance by Robert Lepage, the subsequent working principles identified from
this process and the integration of these in my performance making process. The importance
of dynamism and transformation is found in the relationship between my research approach
and the performance making process being explored. By foregrounding responsiveness
throughout this research, I have created layers of understanding presented in multiple forms
throughout this document, as well as the presentation of my creative work GAIJIN. These
layers represent the steps taken in my research journey, and in addition provide a multi-vocal
exploration of the key concerns of this research.
The chapter will specifically explore the significant characteristics of qualitative research as
well as the practice-led strategy employed; it will explore my identification as a constructivist
and describe the methods used to obtain data. This chapter also invokes the epistemological
and ontological qualities of Robert Lepage’s work, and the process being explored in this
research that calls for these tools to be used.
19
2.1 Discovering the bricoleur
In contemporary times an important attribute of qualitative research is the capacity for
multiple voices to be heard, challenging the assumption that there can be an objective view of
the world. The qualitative researcher aims “to implement a critical interpretative approach
that will help them (and others) make sense of the…conditions that define daily life in the
first decade of this new century” (Denzin and Lincoln 2005, xiv).
This development of the field has caused the researcher to become a ‘bricoleur’ (Denzin and
Lincoln 2005, 4), defined by Levi-Strauss as a “Jack of all trades or a kind of professional do-
it-yourself person” (cited in Denzin and Lincoln 2005, 4). Denzin and Lincoln outline five
types of bricoleurs. Utilising their definitions I position myself as an “interpretative bricoleur”
who produces a “bricolage – that is, a pieced-together set of representations that are fitted to
the specifics of a complex situation” (2005, 4). In this research, the pieced together
representations include my observations of Lepage’s process, my examination of
contemporary performance discourse and my own creative process. These representations are
made up of multiple voices and methods of data collection in order to contribute to a complex
situation: the theoretical field of contemporary performance and, more specifically, the
performance making process being explored in this research.
Another important aspect of the bricolage is the use of the researcher’s own knowledge of the
given context or phenomena to design the project. Joe Kincheloe in her article “Describing
the Bricolage” suggests “in making…assertion[s] the bricoleur is displaying philosophical /
epistemological / ontological sensitivity to the context of the analysis” (2001, 688). Far from
losing a grounded research path, this approach allows the researcher to connect the theoretical
field of their research with the particulars of their focus by selecting relevant tools from the
broad range of methods available – thereby continually finding connections between the
20
philosophical / epistemological / ontological nature of the methods used and the research site.
This concept of emerging methods has strong metaphoric links to the nature of form in the
work of Robert Lepage. This is demonstrated in his assertion that
In the theatre, the audience has to be immersed in the show’s argument, and to be immersed in the argument every sense has to seize it and so the form has to become an incarnation of the subject and themes (Charest 1997, 164).
Moving toward a written exegesis as well as a creative work, the fusion of research methods
and content as well as identifying as an ‘interpretative bricoleur’ (Denzin and Lincoln 2005,
4) becomes significant, because “the solution (bricolage) which is the result of the bricoleur’s
method is an [emergent] construction” (Weinstein & Weinstein cited in Denzin and Lincoln
2005, 4). This ‘construction’ is continually fluid “as the bricoleur adds different tools,
methods, and techniques of representation and interpretation to the puzzle” (Denzin and
Lincoln 2005, 4), allowing the product of the bricoleur’s research to be interpreted by the
reader – acknowledging “people as constructive agents…whose ways of knowing, seeing,
understanding, and valuing influence what is known, seen, understood, and valued” (Spivey
1997, 3). Pribram suggests: “To be human is to be incapable of stagnation; to be human is to
productively reset, reorganize, recode, and thus to give additional meaning to what is” (cited
in Spivey 1997, 1).
These approaches to research feel essential to me, given the strong connection to the
performance making process being explored here. An example of these strong connections
would be Robert Lepage’s approach to performance building where he holds public rehearsals
asking the audience to contribute to the performance writing process. The relevance of this
process for him is to “let people inform you of what it is that you’re doing” (Lepage 2006, l.
99-100).
21
2.2 Identifying as a constructivist
In this research project I adopted a constructivist approach. Constructivism is the active
construction of knowledge while interacting with a perceived world. In order to focus on and
explore the key working principles of Robert Lepage’s performance making process it was
necessary to locate myself reflexively and flexibly within the field of contemporary
performance making. By framing my research through the interpretative paradigm of
constructivism I adopted what Denzin and Lincoln describe as “a relativist ontology
(relativism), a transactional epistemology, and a hermeneutic, dialectical methodology”
(2005, 184), working toward a “reconstructed understanding” (2005, 184) of the key working
principles of Lepage’s creative process. Nancy Spivey suggests constructivism emphasises
“the generative, organizational, and selective nature of human perception, understanding, and
memory – the theoretical ‘building’ metaphor guiding thought and inquiries” (1997, 3).
Agreeing with this assertion, this study intends to add to the construction of discourses
engaged in exploring the process of Robert Lepage as a performance maker, with an emphasis
on building knowledge that is interpretable, dynamic and open. Spivey suggests it is this very
“instability that is productive, generative” (1997, 120) and fittingly lends itself to past
definitions of theatre or performance: theatre is a “self destructive art, it is written on the
wind” (Brook 1968, 18); theatre “is a movement towards meaning rather than a fixed set of
meanings” (McAuley 1996, 142). This instability is based in the interactions between the text,
whether it be performance or written, and the reader, hence Denzin and Lincoln’s choice of
adjectives: relativist; transactional; hermeneutic; dialectical (2005, 184).
The interactions inherent in the constructivist paradigm being managed in this study
incorporate that of the researcher and site, the reader and thesis, and the reader and creative
work. Wolfgang Iser discusses this interaction, suggesting the “text itself simply offers
22
‘schematised aspects’ through which the aesthetic object of the work can be produced” (cited
in Counsell and Wolf 1980, 179). Based on this understanding, he goes on to explain that a
text has two poles, the artistic and the aesthetic. “The artistic is the author’s text, and the
aesthetic is the realisation accomplished by the reader” (1980, 180). It is between these two
poles that the actualisation of the piece is possible, incorporating the ‘schematised aspects’ of
the text and the subjective response of the individual. In Iser’s analysis there is a construction
process ever present, as the reader or spectator accomplishes a realisation of the text they see.
Therefore, this “reconstructed understanding” (Denzin and Lincoln 2005, 184) or realisation
is relative to the persons or groups who are a part of it. Also relative is the extent and validity
of the knowledge obtained and presented.
So, without becoming a nihilist, how does the methodological lens of this study contend with
the unstable territory of interpretation? Spivey raises this concern in what she calls the
“constructivist predicament” (1997, 70). This is the contradiction between the constructivist
notions of everything as subjective, whilst at the same time developing a “constant, stabilized
representation of a particular text” (1997, 70) or “reconstructed understanding” (Denzin and
Lincoln 2005, 184). This concern is paramount to the concept of constructivism, to
performance in general, and consequently to this study. Its significance in performance is
exemplified by Umberto Eco’s concept of the open work. He suggests the open work
locates the infinite at the very core of the finite…It means that every phenomena seems to be inhabited by a certain power – in other words the ability to manifest itself by a series of real or likely manifestations (1989 [1962], 182).
Although one representation may have been chosen, be it an interview or action on stage,
inherent in this is the possibility for all other manifestations. Although this could be
considered quite an abstract concept, the metaphoric connections to the process being
examined here seem too good to let go.
23
In the field of qualitative research Spivey describes two approaches to dealing with this
concern: the “consensus approach” (1997, 70); whereby a small number of people with some
expert knowledge establish an “interrater reliability” (1997, 70); and the “authority
approach… [which] provides theoretical justification by citing authorities” (1997, 70-71).
Utilising both of these processes, it was possible to conduct a dense exploration through
multiple voices commenting on the same concepts and problems. Theoretical concepts, like
Eco’s and others, were also used to place the discussion in a structured framework. Working
in this web of information and interactions can provide multiple perspectives on ideas and
issues with intersecting points held together by the context of the study. It is in these moments
of inter where the power of the infinite can be found.
Fundamental to this study is Spivey’s concept that “transformation is integral to the
constructive process” (1997, 120). Discussing the meaning-making processes of individuals,
Spivey (1997, 39) cites Frederick Bartlett’s two processes: “the tendency to conserve what
fits and the tendency to appropriate the new and elaborate it so that it is more familiar”. These
processes became important to this study as sometimes abstract, theoretical concepts of
contemporary performance were used as a thematic lens through which to view the chosen
site, therefore preliminarily conserving what has been suggested to fit. Catherine Fosnot
(1992) calls this the “initial assimilatory structure”. As data is gathered from the research site,
the theoretical concepts will enter a dialogue with the observations made and lead to a
transformation of them within the given context. This allows for “simplifications, regroupings
and modifications” (Spivey 1997, 40) within the spaces that emerge. This is exemplified in
this research by my inclusion of the contextual concepts presented in Chapter Three. This
assimilatory structure allowed for a dialogue between established theoretical concerns of
performance discourse and the unique phenomena observed or practised in the performance
making process.
24
2.3 Practice-led strategy
The transformational and symbolic demands of this research lead to the principal
methodological strategy being practice-led, for which Carole Gray offers the following
definition:
By 'practice-led' I mean, firstly, research which is initiated in practice, where questions, problems, challenges are identified and formed by the needs of practice and practitioners; and secondly, that the research strategy is carried out through practice, using predominantly methodologies and specific methods familiar to us as practitioners (1996, 2).
Before undertaking this research I was certainly asking questions about my and others’
directorial processes. I was consistently uncomfortable with an exercise or method approach
to performance making and searched for a more organic meeting place where the process was
determined by the content. When I started to engage with the work of Robert Lepage my
interest in these questions intensified.
Within this research I located myself, as a bricoleur and constructivist, within the
performance making space of Robert Lepage in order to further explore my questions,
discomforts and hopes. This approach to research is observed by Carole Gray when she says:
“artists… are claiming ownership and taking responsibility for the critical reflection and
evaluation of their own peers’ practices” (1996, 8). This was true in this research, but I also
needed more than this; I needed to take my findings and explore them through my own
practice; my own processes. Again I found researchers who had observed this need by
practitioners, namely Egon Guba, who suggests that the “choice of methodology should be a
consequence of ontology and epistemology” (cited in Gray 1996, 12); a process that is
determined by its content.
25
In regard to Gray’s suggestion that practice-led research “is carried out through practice”
(1996, 2), I took the step of embarking on a performance making process of my own, which
offered the opportunity to gain more insights into the phenomena I had identified and was
continuing to explore. Brad Haseman suggests:
Practice-led researchers construct experimental starting points from which practice follows. They tend to ‘dive in’, to commence practicing to see what emerges. They acknowledge that what emerges is individualistic and idiosyncratic (2006, 3).
The need for a practice-led approach imbedded in my own process was dictated by my
previous findings in Quebec City. A key attribute I had identified in the initial research cycle
was the conflation of form, content, process and product. This conflation involves the
interaction of form, content and audience feedback which perpetually infuses the provisional
performance text. To understand this type of performance making process in more depth it
seemed a combination of my own content, processes and artistic ability would need to be
employed. Within this open, fluid and dynamic performance making process, a practice-led
approach offered a methodological working space that allowed a deeper understanding of the
key elements I had identified as they flowed into and became transformed through my own
practice. My main methodology had become “responsive, driven by the requirements of the
practice and the creative dynamic of the artwork” (Gray 1996, 15).
As a direct result of the conflation of form, content, process and product in the processual
phenomena being examined here, as well as the inherent transformation and development of
the performance text, a need arose for part of this investigations output to make “claims to
knowing” (Haseman 2006, 3) through symbolic language and the unique form of its
performativity. This second cycle of research certainly suggests “that practice is the principal
research activity” (Haseman 2006, 6). My performance making processes became the
methods of research, the steps I took in order to create the findings. The process I embarked
on was about creating a work where a traditional journey from text to performance is
26
inverted. This process builds performance through improvisation, creative play and audience
collaboration. Essential to this construction process is a theatrical space where all artistic
elements of production are being conceived and put into action concurrently.
2.4 Embodying methodology
Within this methodological milieu, my initial research cycle, observing Lepage’s process,
employed data-gathering tools including an interview, journaling, visual documentation and
ongoing informal discussions with Robert and his creative team. These data-gathering tools
have allowed me to continually sift various conceptual and theoretical concerns of
contemporary performance discourse on a journey to identify and articulate the key working
principles of the process I witnessed. This dynamic process was to create a bricolage, a
reconstructed representation: my creative practice as well as this exegesis.
The data-gathering tools utilised during the second phase of the research, my creative
practice, included journaling, observation methods, visual documentation and a variation on
expert and peer review methods. This multifaceted data-gathering has allowed a dynamic and
constructivist approach to analysing the process identified in this exegesis. In this context the
data-gathering tools listed above became intrinsically linked to the content being explored and
subsequently quite unique to this research. As Gray said, the researcher “predominantly [uses]
methodologies and specific methods familiar to us as practitioners” (1996, 2).
In my case the observation methods refer heavily to my role as the director. I observed and
identified the emerging content and form of the performance in its immediacy in my
performance making practice. This essential component of my performance making process
also has another dimension: by journaling some aspects of this observation process I am able
27
to use my own words from the moment of practice. As with most methods used here, they
also have symbolic dimensions that were offered in the creative presentation.
Expert and peer review methods in this context refer to the audience feedback gathered after
public rehearsals of my creative work. Again, this method was also used to build the
performance text by me as the director.
More than searching for a single meaning or object of truth, these methods aim to obtain
many points of view and multiple interpretations, supporting or contradicting one another.
Maintaining reflection on issues and one’s own bias, using various methods to crystallise, and
sharing provisional analysis with stakeholders have all contributed to providing a rich
interconnection of ideas, theory and data, working within the specifics of the given context.
“The function of research is not necessarily to map and conquer the world but to sophisticate
the beholding of it” (Stake 1995, 43).
Essential in this research project is a methodological lens that embraces fluidity, flexibility
and a progressive research practice. The qualitative research field, as well as practice-led
strategies, offers this progressive environment.
Adhering to my understanding of the constructivist predicament as discussed by Spivey
(1997, 70) and the need for an “initial assimilatory structure” (Fosnot 1992), this next chapter
presents just that: a theoretical framework I used to view the performance making process of
Robert Lepage.
28
3. CONTEXTUAL CONCEPTS
29
3. CONTEXTUAL CONCEPTS
This chapter presents contextual concepts investigated before my case study with Robert
Lepage and Ex Machina in Quebec City during October. At this stage of my research I was
very aware that “although case study researchers enter the field with an open, exploratory
frame of mind, they need some kind of compass to guide them” (Cousin 2005, 423).
With regard to this concern, Robert Stake suggests “selection of key issues is crucial” (in
Denzin and Lincoln 2005, 448). Agreeing with this assertion in September 2006, I focused
my investigations on devised theatre, the nature of its process and collaboration. These
choices were informed by my previous contact with Lepage, including my interview, and
theory pertaining to his work. I understood the space of devising, especially in Lepage’s case,
was heavily contextualised and shaped by the content being explored. Lepage acknowledges
the relationship between his way of working and the content being dealt with when he says:
“We are trying to structure the work according to whatever comes out” (2006, l. 236).
Investigating the key contextualising concepts of devised theatre and collaboration allowed
me to make specific observations relating to the unique particularities of Lepage’s process
and place them within the broad field already established.
As well as these foci being selected to “deepen [an] understanding of the specific case” (Stake
in Denzin and Lincoln 2005, 448) my understanding was that by creating these “abstract
dimensions” (Stake in Denzin and Lincoln 1998, 92) the study would be able to orient toward
the complexities of connecting the performance maker’s process to various theoretical
disciplines by utilising the discourses available. In saying this, I was very aware that research
questions or “issues… [could] be modified or even replaced” (Stake 1995, 9) to allow for the
“unique” (Stake in Denzin and Lincoln 1998, 90) to pervade.
30
With regard to the emergence of the unique, this section finishes with a description of what I
saw emerging out of my initial contact with Robert Lepage and the theory I was excavating.
3.1 Devised theatre
While the critical literature on devised theatre is relatively new to the contemporary
performance world, it is widely acknowledged (Bicat and Baldwin 2002, Oddey 1994) that
the devised approach to performance making has always been there. Allison Oddey suggests:
A devised theatrical performance originates with the group making the performance, rather than starting from a play text that someone else has written to be interpreted. A devised theatre product is a work that has emerged from and been generated by a group of people working in collaboration (1994, p. 1).
It is the process of making that sets devised theatre apart from other forms – the process of
collaboration that must be taken to create the performance. Central to the notion of
collaboration is the push for a more democratic manner of creation, where power is not
centralised with a director or writer. Devised theatre does not offer a definitive alternative to
this power imbalance; however, it does offer a continual re-evaluation of how to create
performance in a continually changing world.
3.1.1 What is devised theatre?
The problem of defining ‘devised theatre’ is its ability to manifest in many different ways.
Allison Oddey suggests that “any definition of devised theatre must include
process…collaboration…multi-vision…and the creation of an artistic product” (1994, 3).
Based on this understanding devised theatre is directly connected to its context and
interpretation by any given group. Oddey says: “What identifies and defines devised theatre
31
as a separate form worthy of consideration is the uniqueness of the process and product for
every group concerned” (1994, 2).
Navigating the unique creative space created by a devised approach provides endless
performance possibilities. Magnat suggests this space reveals “the materiality of a body
transformed by the power of its own actions” (2005, 74). She describes this as the utopian
dimensions of the form, citing Jill Dolan who writes of the ‘utopian performative’, suggesting
devised theatre locates “the power of presence in the ‘transformations it makes possible’”
(2005, 74). Unlike text based processes, these ideas reveal a tension between openness and
coherence in the creation of a unique form. Openness, in this case, refers to the endless
possibilities of the devising space and coherence to the choices made by the artists, the
performance moment and the realisation created by the audience member. Within the devising
space, both are present at the same time, creating the ‘power’ Magnat and Dolan refer to.
This notion, of the ‘utopian performative’ and the tension it creates is perhaps the appeal of
such a process. Oddey suggests that “a central reason for the large number of companies
devising theatre in the 1970’s was the strong desire to work in an artistically democratic way”
(1994, 8). Democracy reveals the force of openness in devising, where groups have control of
their own processes and practice accordingly. Transformations are possible because of this
self-governing ability and the endless potential that is present – creating a site where cohesion
can be found but acceptance of the infinite is required.
3.1.2 Process
The significance of the process is that it determines the product, and is a unique experience for every different group of people working together (Oddey 1994, 11).
32
Depending on the origin/s of the idea/s, the process can take many forms. Devised theatre
demands decisions to be made regarding the starting point of any process. These decisions
directly affect the nature of the performance making as they introduce resources or artforms
that will work together, uniquely, to create performance. Magnat suggests that “devising
compels us, in spite of western culture’s obsession with productivity, to pay closer attention
to process” (2005, 74). This focus creates a social matrix where creativity is fostered and
where, Michael Shrage suggests, ‘real innovation’ (1995, 33) is found.
Within these unique performance making environments various methods are used. Oddey
says that “there is no one accepted way of devising a performance, whilst a conventional play
production tends to follow a particular route” (1994, 11). Methods could include:
improvisation, research in various forms, the use of graphic designers, sound artists or any
other art form experimenting with their own practice. The significance of this freedom is that
any process can incorporate the needs of the given context. The audience could be involved in
the creative process or the performance could be shaped around the space to be used. It is
these possibilities that make process the major determining factor of the outcome. Robert
Lepage comments on this when he says, “There cannot be cosmos if there’s no chaos” (2006,
l. 214-215).
3.1.3 Collaboration
A devised creation emerges from the minds and bodies of the participants. The need for
collaboration is a direct result of the choice to devise. Michael Schrage suggests:
“Collaboration is the process of shared creation: two or more individuals with
complementary skills interacting to create a shared understanding that none had previously
possessed or could come to on their own” (1995, 33).
33
He goes on to say that “collaboration…is a necessary technique to master the unknown”
(1995, 30). Again, much like the definition of devising, collaboration relies on context.
However, there are some key attributes that allow further understanding of this social matrix.
Importantly, people collaborate because they cannot deal effectively with the problems that
they face on their own. This need for collaboration identifies notions of indeterminacy and the
need for genuine discovery within the process. Describing this environment, Schrage raises
the notion of the “communal mind” (1995, 31) when he says, “you want to get people’s minds
to interact as components of a larger mind…what matters is not just the individual talents but
the ability to integrate them” (1995, 31). It is in this environment of interacting minds that
“friction…generates creative sparks” (1995, 31).
The thing that distinguishes collaborative communities from most other communities is this desire to construct new meanings about the world through interaction with others. The collaborative community becomes a medium for both self-knowledge and self-expression (Schrage 1995, 42).
Brad Haseman supports this claim in his examination of collaboration as a distinctive feature
of postmodern arts practice. He outlines the collaborative approach which “is a focus for
discovery about theatre forms, the clarification of ideas and design” (1999, 66). He goes on to
suggest that within this approach “traditional roles blur as writers, directors, performers,
designers and dramaturges mix ideas, text, movement and improvisation in a freewheeling
way” (1999, 66). As artists interact in ways appropriate to the task or problem, it often creates
a non-traditional approach to performance making. This movement away from convention
identifies a space for innovation and the development of new knowledge.
34
3.2 Concluding to begin again
These contextualising concepts present a processual milieu that asks more questions than they
answer. It broadly describes a devised collaborative approach to performance making that is
similar to that of Robert Lepage’s process. I now have the opportunity to observe Lepage’s
work and move toward a more specific framework contextualised by his unique practice.
A key attribute that has emerged from my investigation of Robert Lepage’s performance
making process to date is an inherent tension between openness and coherence. If the
performance makers acknowledge that the performance, and therefore meaning, is found in
the interactions between it and its audience, then where is the balance between allowing the
audience to make their own meaning and presenting a performative moment that is fixed in its
presentation?
I now intend, during my observation with the company, to re-examine my research question:
What are the observed working principles of Robert Lepage’s performance making process?
During this time I will endeavour to re-investigate the contextualising concepts presented
here. This investigation will allow further examination of the tension articulated above,
keeping in mind that “issues…can be modified or even replaced” (Stake 1995, 9) to allow for
the unique (Stake in Denzin and Lincoln 1998, 90) to pervade.
35
4. UNDERSTANDING LIPSYNCH
36
4. UNDERSTANDING LIPSYNCH
This chapter describes my time as a participant observer in Quebec City, Canada, with Robert
Lepage and his company Ex Machina during a creative development for their most recent
work LIPSYNCH. A short introduction sets the context for this creative development,
including a description of the working space and some background on LIPSYNCH. The
second section describes the process that I witnessed, drawing on my previous interview with
Robert Lepage, journal entries during my time on site and some commentary from the wider
arts community. The conclusion will identify emerging themes and patterns based on my
research question regarding the observed working principles of Lepage’s process.
Monday 2nd October, 2006
Upon arrival today at 13.30 Eve Alexander (PA to Lynda Beaulieu – Robert’s agent and sister) took me on a tour of La Caserne Dalhousie. The building was donated to Ex Machina by the city of Quebec. The Caserne was inaugurated on June 2nd 1997, after 17 months of renovations and transformations. Robert calls it a “lab” and tries to keep a very low profile on any shows that are performed there.
Figure 1. Photo: Benjamin Knapton Figure 2. Photo: Benjamin Knapton
The Caserne includes:
• Workshop one (where we are based for this work in progress of Lipsynch) – it is about three quarters of the size of the Powerhouse Theatre in Brisbane with a slightly lower roof. The floor can be removed adding another storey to the room
37
• Storage and workshops underneath Workshop one used for various projects – Eve Alexander suggests they have most ‘big’ things (set) made elsewhere and brought in
• One level down from the main entrance are the dressing rooms
• Levels three and four which have windows facing workshop one are used for multimedia production including sound and audio visual
• An archives room on level three storing all documentation of Ex Machina
• The fourth level holds Robert’s office which is situated at the front of the building. It resembles a lounge room with a plethora of books and videos as well as a couch and TV area. Small Zen gardens are found in his office and in the outdoor area adjacent to it. Robert’s assistant (his nephew) has a small section of the office with a computer and a desk
• The third level also holds a small black box theatre (personal journal entry, October 2, 2006)
Robert Lepage and his company Ex Machina have been working in the Caserne since 1997;
“Ex Machina is… a multi-discipline company bringing together actors, writers, set designers,
technicians, opera singers, puppeteers, computer graphic designers, video artists, film
producers, contortionists and musicians” (http://www.lacaserne.net/exmachina.php?lang=en).
The company aims to create new forms through meetings and interactions with various other
creative endeavours. La Caserne also houses Jacques Collin (image designer), Jean-Sébastien
Côté (sound designer and musician) and Marie-Chantale Vaillancourt (costume and set
designer) as well as a movie making and advertising company, Casting Cauffopé.
This creative development was for LIPSYNCH – an ambitious new work by Robert Lepage
and his company Ex Machina. The plan was a nine-hour epic with nine stories based around
the idea of the voice, words and language. LIPSYNCH had already undergone two creative
development periods before October 2006. The participants in the room on this first day of
creative development consisted of: nine performers (Spanish, German, Italian, Canadian,
English and Quebecois), makeup and costume technicians, lighting designers, sound
engineers, multimedia artists, assistants and stage manager. There were thirty-one people in
total, including two observers.
38
4.1 The process
During the first few hours a lot of talking took place. After introductions a short design
presentation occurred, explaining what had been worked on since the last creative
development and what new pieces of set would be available for use during this development
phase. At this early stage of any of Lepage’s creations the show is not in the form of a written
script. Rather, it is a provisional performance text and is held in the minds and bodies of the
participants as well as their individual mapping processes.
This time gap between creative developments seems very important and on the second day Robert suggested this to me as well….it seems this reflection time is important to see what sticks in their minds…what they have thought more about and expanded on since the last work in progress. It would be impossible to do this with ALL the content so it seems to be an organic editing process that takes place with the individuals and is brought back to the rehearsal room. This process seems very unconscious…it is simply about what is still in their minds when they get back because nothing is on paper… (personal journal entry, October 2, 2006)
In the interview I conducted with him nine months earlier, Lepage said:
You have to be confident that when you start working on a piece of work, or a resource, whatever the starting point, that a river will appear, and eventually that will break out into streams and these streams eventually go back to the primal, whatever it is, whether it’s the cloud that feeds them or the sea (2006, l. 210-214).
I had entered a devising process that had certainly broken into streams.
Robert took over for the first time after a short break. Not talking from notes, he discussed the progression of the piece and, using a white board, mapped out the ‘sections’ so far. They included:
• Post synch • Scenario • Passagio • Lipsynch changed to Play black and was broken into Stephen Hawking, Mary
Harris and cocktail lipsynch
• Voice print (personal journal entry, October 2, 2006)
39
This journal entry illustrates the mapping process that occurs frequently throughout the
process. Naming scenes and sections allows the creative team to build a unique language that
is ultimately a road map to the show – this is exemplified by the fact that it was the first point
of call when reuniting for this creative development. The sections listed above contained a
number of different scenes that made up a story or performance in itself. Most, at this stage,
had nothing to do with each other, but all resonated ideas about the voice, words or language
in their own way. During the long breaks between creative developments, the participants
continue to research different aspects of the performance.
Robert was the first to share some of his research. He had spoken to a group of people that deal with psychosis patients – although the link between voices in people’s heads and the content of the show was very interesting at this stage it has been left at this small explanation. He suggested that it could form a new section called ‘speaking in tongues’ (personal journal entry, October 2, 2006).
Although this idea was talked about quite briefly on the first day, Robert later organised for
the group of psychiatrists to come and dialogue with the cast. This meeting exemplified Ex
Machina’s ambition to have “meetings between scientists and playwrights, between set
painters and architects, and between artists from Québec and the rest of the world”
(http://www.lacaserne.net/exmachina.php?lang=en). Like many new pieces of information
brought to the group, this meeting, at the time, was not discussed in detail. Rather, the impact
or response tends to appear later in rehearsals or in the creation of new scenes. One of my
journal entries during that time acknowledged this interesting practice of information
offering:
Most / all of the information dealt with… [is] delivered in a very objective manner with people consciously not passing judgment on their discoveries – it was like a series of lectures that formed a conversation and because they were happening as a result of the same experience (i.e. the performance so far) links arose thick and fast from a wide range of material (personal journal entry, October 2, 2006).
40
Another example of this presentation of information that could be linked to something in the
show was a heavy metal documentary that we all watched together on the second day. The
documentary went for two hours and once again was not discussed in any detail after.
At this stage I was very aware of the somewhat casual approach to the work: a lot of talking,
joking and discussion regarding many seemingly disparate pieces of information. Reflecting
on my research question regarding the working principles of Lepage’s process, I was very
aware of the importance of what was in the room – the people, the information they were
presenting, or the coffee cup on the table all seemed important for the simple fact that they
were the things being used by the creative team to create.
It wasn’t until 11:30am on the second day when Robert suggested they get up on the floor.
Robert all of sudden suggested that they hit the floor and “try something”… “I’m not sure…whatever”....”let’s find a context” (silence)… Robert: “the London subway”… Rebecca: “on the way to the airport”…. Rick: “mother and son and the son is listening to heavy metal in his headphones”….
At this point 10 people jumped up and prepared the scene which was ready to go in under five minutes… The actors just went for it and created from not much except one of the characters had already been worked with before… (personal journal entry, October 3, 2006)
‘Let’s try something’ was a phrase heard often in the room from Robert. The silence that
usually followed was a time for others to fill in the gaps. In the example above, a key point to
note is that one of the characters immediately selected for the scene was someone that had
already appeared in previous scenes. Also, the second character selected, the son, decided to
listen to heavy metal music in his ears – clearly a direct result of the heavy metal
documentary viewed no more the 30 minutes earlier. In regard to the set up of the scene, this
was a sight to envy. A team of ten people immediately entered the space and within five
41
minutes there was quite an impressive tube ready to go. Here is a picture I took when it was
set up.
Figure 3. Photo: Benjamin Knapton
This first improvisation went for five minutes and consisted of a son riding the tube listening
to heavy metal music. At the first stop his mother got on and attempted to talk with him about
his day. The son was clearly embarrassed by his mother’s presence and made this known to
her.
The following journal entry tracks the development of this new scene over the next hour of
development.
After the first improv Robert came down to speak to the actors about “what was interesting” in the scene. He identified that there was no real tension and suggested that a third person could add the tension by creating a team either in the son and someone or the mother and someone. There was obviously a clash of cultures or generations here and they were going to try and “dig a little” to find more. Robert: “so let’s do the same improv but someone else comes in” (silence)
Second improv (15 mins) in German The mother’s old friend, who was German, entered and through improvised discussion it emerged that she had not been working for a long time. Maybe since the son was born? So it seems she has sacrificed a lot for her son and this was a ghost from the past…
42
maybe this would be an interesting place to dig?
Third Improv (20 mins) Robert: “now let’s try it with someone the son knows” - A discussion about who and why ensued…
A girl the boy knows from school enters and they have a discussion about heavy metal (using heaps of info from the doco)
The aim of these improvs seemed to be FINDING the story…finding the interesting paths to follow…
Fourth Improv Robert now put together a spoken structure that included the key points that had emerged from the first three improv’s and it was put into a 25 minute scene. Tadaaa!!!
Basically a lot of threads were found including the mother’s sacrifice and her relationship to her past. The son’s love of heavy metal and he is in a band and also his relationship with this Italian girl from school. The mother liked this girl and there was some humour when she could speak to her in Italian because of her opera background – she could communicate better with the girl than her son could… “good one mum”. (personal journal entry, October 3, 2006)
Over the next three weeks I came to understand this first improvisational session spoke
volumes about the way Robert and his team work. The key elements of this first
improvisation are present in most moments of process: After talking for some time about
points of interest and presenting information to each other (such as the heavy metal
documentary) they hit the floor and allow this new knowledge to enter the performance. Once
a context for the scene is found – which often comes from Robert but just as likely from
someone else – the set, sound and lighting designers also prepare for the scene.
This raw starting point seems essential. At this stage it seemed to me that there were two
processes going on: one, information sharing between all people in the room; and two, the
performance creation on the floor. Starting an improvisation with little information pushed the
performers to become very activated and sensitive to all the stimuli and information they had
encountered during the information sharing sessions – they certainly wrote the show on the
floor. Having Robert watch this from the audience allowed him to identify moments of most
43
interest and as the improvisational cycles continued these points of interest would become
foregrounded and heightened.
An example from the above improvisations of the technical set up would be: the sound of a
travelling tube was immediately heard in the space; the lights hitting the back wall moved,
showing the speed being travelled. When the team returned to this scene in week two there
was also the London tube voice announcing the location at all stops and the well known
phrase ‘Mind the Gap’ found in all London underground stations. In week two there was also
a platform device created for the performers to stand on and be pulled as if they were on the
platform standing still as the tube moved away.
These theatrical additions are created and played with during the large break in the
afternoons. On most days the performers were only required from 09:30 till 13:00 and then
19:00 till 22:30. From 1400 to 1800 the technicians and designers create many other elements
that contribute to the scenes. Robert explains the practicalities of this choice: “What happens
is, whatever idea we came up with in the morning the people in the workshops during the
afternoon build it up, they do a mock up, so we arrive in the evenings and we rehearse in it –
that happens all the time. It’s a real synergy” (Lepage 2006, l. 294-297).
The theatrical immediacy of this scheduling choice creates an environment where the form of
the piece is being created at the same time as the content; a creation of collaboration. It really
gave a sense that the performance was being created as one big developing mass rather than a
traditional process that may preconceive design elements many months or years before
entering the rehearsal space. At this stage of my observation this felt very important.
It became apparent to me that design choices including set, lighting, sound and costume
changes were frequently the result of necessity rather than a preconceived concept. An
example of this was a scene where Hans Piesbergen was playing the character of Stephen
44
Hawking. In the very next scene he was playing the role of Pope John Paul II. In a choice of
necessity Robert suggested he turn the electronic wheelchair he was on around in a circle and
whilst facing away from the audience put the Pope’s robe on. Initially this action was
extremely clunky but as Hans rehearsed the action the transformation became extremely
effective. This decision of necessity was also one that resonated with the themes of science
and religion. Robert is very aware of the close relationship between theatrical necessity and
aesthetic impact.
Today in a discussion with Robert he described the process for him like a series of problems that need to be solved. He feels quite often that the most talked about or theatrical parts of his shows are simply logical problems that needed to be solved on stage. The example he gave was the costume change on stage in The Dragon’s Trilogy (the nun) So theatre offers the space to solve these problems and it also offers a unique toolkit. This approach does not impose meaning. You also do not fall into a trap of working too conceptually… People get a lot of meaning out of his plays, but quite often this is not imposed by the creative team, rather it is a choice that the play demands. So the form of the show is often created out of necessity as well as the conscious ambition to make it an incarnation of the subjects and themes being dealt with. (personal journal entry, October 13, 2006)
(personal journal entry, October 13, 2006)
Form
(Robert’s role - in collaboration with
the artists)
Necessity
Incarnation of subjects and
themes
This cannot be underestimated
45
The above diagram was one I drew whilst watching the process unfold. It shows the key
ingredients in the creation of form.
Another example of this approach to creation, where the director searches for the demands of
the emerging performance, specifically to build the performance text, was a discussion about
the running order of the show.
Today Robert suggested it would be interesting if the show could start at any given story out of the 9. This would give the form of the piece a circular motion. He drew it on the white board like this:
The reason this is interesting is because: 1. Most of the sections are dominated by a certain language (German, Spanish,
French, English) and it would be best to start with the language of the country where they are performing to get the audience engaged before hitting them with translations and the pressure of following the story without understanding the words
2. The circle has strong links to some of the theoretical / conceptual material being dealt with, including Stephen Hawking’s ideas about black holes etc…
3. It’s a pretty cool thing to do during a tour (personal journal entry, October 2, 2006)
6
5
7
8
1
9
4
3 2
46
This suggestion again identifies a creation process that frequently employs techniques of
necessity that simultaneously resonate with the emerging subjects and themes of the
performance. These types of decisions and discussions permeate the creative process. In a
book about Robert’s process called Connecting Flights (Charest 1997), Robert said: “In the
theatre, the audience has to be immersed in the show’s argument every sense has to seize it so
the form has to become an incarnation of the subject and themes” (1997, 164). It was
becoming apparent to me that the technique to apply this ambition was found in the reserve
Robert had regarding creative choices; he would wait until it became a necessary decision –
such as Hans’ costume change described above.
As I interacted with Robert and the cast more and more, I realised that the aesthetic outcome
or impacts of decisions made in this manner were not always easy to communicate or discuss.
I also realised during my time with the company that they did not engage in an analytical
process of understanding what they were doing quite often, but rather pushed through to
create more and more content that was broad and eclectic whilst resonating the same ideas
and feelings in different scenes. Here is a journal entry of my attempt to grapple with this
process.
As an audience member, everything apparent in the scene (the set, the lighting, the words, the props) is talking to me. Right now the team is working on a scene where a mother (ex opera singer) and son are on a UK tube. They are discussing the boy’s change of voice as he is going through puberty. As I listen to the sound of the tube and the wind outside I can sense the boy’s throat. Maybe the tube is the throat? They start to sing together and they laugh when they disturb the other passengers. Again, I sense the voice, I sense the throat. The tube stops and there is anxiety amongst the passengers…is there a problem with the tube / the wind passage / the throat? Shortly people are finding it hard to breathe in the tube…they are trying to open windows… (personal journal entry, October 7, 2006)
47
Figure 4. Photo: Benjamin Knapton
Many parts of this scene did not make it to the stage at the public rehearsal held at the end of
the three weeks, but it does serve as a great example of the way themes and ideas are echoed
throughout all elements of the show. It would be naive to suggest Robert is not aware of these
connections – clearly the set has been made in a circular manner and can be transformed into
multiple modes of transportation including tubes, planes and trains and these are reminiscent
of passageways – similar to those in the body. However, what started to be of interest to me
was the organic process taking place that leads to these decisions and ultimately builds the
language of the show through layers upon layers of theatrical elements that complement one
another in a referential manner. A discussion I had with Robert goes some way to
illuminating his thoughts about this.
Today Robert said to me “the play is already somewhere all finished and looking good…we have to find that like a sculptor” Robert tells the story of the Intuit sculptors who would look at a piece of ice and start to sculpt it when they saw something in it…the light would reflect and they would see antlers and then start to hack away. They were very attentive to what was happening in front of them – don’t ask what it means rather ask what you see… (personal journal entry, October 13, 2006)
This process of discovering the performance involves following hunches and intuition. It
seems to me Robert could not tell you what the show was about, but he could tell you what
48
was starting to emerge. This reminded me of something Robert said during my interview with
him; “I do stuff, I have intuitions, I think at one point we’re touching on this theme and at
another point we’re probably going into this other thing, but it’s always richer than you think”
(Lepage 2006, l. 100-103).
Maybe this is all he looks for. Maybe the show is never finished because you can never
actually say what it is about. Maybe we can only talk about hunches and feelings and
intuitions because that’s all we have. Ultimately the audience will enter and read something
entirely different to what you thought. Is this a good thing? Can we use this?
4.1.1 The public rehearsal
The last week of creative development was dedicated to bringing together all the material in
preparation for the public rehearsal to be held on Friday 20th October. This aspect of Robert’s
process is one of the most important “because… that’s where the main writing or the main
staging happens… the first time you have to put your thing together for an audience actually
makes you make choices” (Lepage 2006, l. 88-97). An example of one of these choices made
through consensus was the cutting of one whole section (Voice Print) for the public rehearsal.
Out of all the scenes the team decided it was the least integrated and they did not have time to
work on it.
In this third week of creative development the pressure and energy was apparent. A full house
of 100 people was expected on the Friday night and they were looking at 5 to 6 hours worth
of material – it ended up being 5 hours 50 minutes. Attendees on the night included family
and friends as well as scholars and producers. This mix created an exciting environment as
everyone was there in full knowledge they were viewing something very unfinished.
49
This public rehearsal process was certainly a moment of illumination for me. As the night
drew closer, the team worked faster and more efficiently: discussing characters, running
scenes, discussing plot lines, exploring themes, finding props, constructing set. The flurry of
activity allowed many parts of the performance to come together as they had never been until
this time. What was of most interest to me was that we all knew this coming together would
only last for one moment – the performance moment – because when the show finished, it
would all be in the air once more.
The day following the public rehearsal the team gathered in the smaller black box theatre in
the Caserne to discuss the previous night’s performance and things they had heard from the
audience after the show. Robert suggested they should not go into too much detail at this
stage, rather they should focus on the piece as a whole. He started with his own observations,
suggesting there was too much speaking of the show rather than an incarnation of the content
being dealt with. He felt this is a dangerous practice as the piece could easily become preachy
or give the impression it contained strong messages. Here are some notes I wrote at the time
regarding this observation:
Robert thinks there is no need for ‘consensus’ – “it’s the situation that tells the story…we need to look for the humanity rather than political statements”. This reminds me of what Peter Brook said about Ex Machina’s work after viewing a public rehearsal: “They seek to create a theatre where the terrifying and incomprehensible reality of our time is inseparably linked to the insignificant details of our everyday lives”. (personal journal entry, October 20, 2006)
This link for me has started to emerge as an ongoing theme. Many of the characters were
linked to much bigger ideas. An example of this was a time during rehearsal where concepts
regarding religion and science were very present. Here is a journal entry I made at the time:
The tension between religion and science is being explored…
50
Hans can play the pope because he is German and can easily look like him as well as Stephen Hawking. These two people are the representation of the above tension and are very interesting considering the article that was brought in regarding the ongoing tension between religion and science… However, Robert seemed very interested in finding another character in these ideas. The reason for this is because the above characters are the representations but we need a character we can connect with and feel for to take us to the symbols and metaphors that are being dealt with. (personal journal entry, October 3, 2006)
This was a clear example for me of Robert searching for a vehicle to connect a human’s life
with concepts, ideas and concerns much greater than themselves.
Robert then opened comment up to the whole group, who all contributed with their reflections
on the show and some feedback they had received from audience members during the
evening. Some thoughts were quite pragmatic such as positioning the scenes more by sharing
who, what, where and why in a more deliberate manner. This type of feedback is to be
expected as so many of the scenes and characters are not yet at a stage where they can be
competently linked to other characters, scenes or stories. Other thoughts attempted to express
more symbolic ideas, such as the character of Stephen Hawking acting as a theatrical entry
point to fragment time and place within the staging of the piece. Hawking’s theories
surrounding black holes and time travel offer theatrical portals into staging devices that echo
these ideas.
This feedback session was critical for me as a researcher as it was very much a discussion that
illuminated the key elements of what the team are searching for in performance. Robert’s
comments were frequently referring to the scenes in terms of where and how they fit in the
web that was the show – whether this is symbolically or literally through a relationship
between characters. What struck me was that the performance had become such an active and
animated force that it was quite easy to discuss it in terms of its independent forms and
intricacies. This process of opening the work up to all stimuli in a controlled environment
51
seems to provide the performance with a life of its own. Robert acknowledges this
phenomenon when he says:
Theatre takes place in flight, when its meaning and direction escape us, when it becomes a rebellious beast that we’re unable to cage. When shows transcend their creators, that’s when you have theatre (cited in Charest 1997, 159).
4.2 Conclusion
When I left Quebec LIPSYNCH was certainly an unfinished work. However, in this process,
this does not make it unready for an audience – quite the opposite. Robert says, “at one point,
the public and the critics become part of the writing process” (cited in Bunzli 1999, 96). This
approach to performance making exemplifies what I saw during my time with the company:
the use of a plethora of resources – from props to newspaper clippings to audiences – to build
the show; to write the show.
This openness to all stimuli creates an environment of chaos that the creative team navigates.
The navigation I witnessed consistently relied on impressions and feelings regarding ideas,
images and spoken word – what is this scene about? What is in this scene that we have
touched on before? Is it possible that this scene fits in a story we have worked on at a
different time?
Underpinning this open navigation were numerous working principles including: the pre-
conditions of the working space, interaction with technology and performance elements, free-
wheeling and improvisational navigation of content and information, a focus on staging out of
necessity, and audience feedback.
After viewing three weeks of Robert Lepage’s performance making process my research had
begun to focus on these observed working principles and the space of creation they produced.
52
The next chapter will suggest a conceptual framework for understanding Lepage’s organic
performance making process.
53
5. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
54
5. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
As expected, my observation of Robert Lepage’s process has allowed me to step inside the
devised space offered by the contextual concepts presented in Chapter Three. I can now
explore the observed phenomena during my observation period with Robert Lepage. This
exploration allows me to connect the key working principles of Robert Lepage’s process with
more specific theoretical discourse in order to find a deeper understanding of this process I
am uncovering. The entry point to my conceptual framework was foretold by Lepage when I
interviewed him ten months earlier. He said:
Whatever it is that you have created has its own system and it just goes into all these extraordinary, beautiful things that are connecting, so you’re there trying to find a path and eventually you draw a map (Lepage 2006, l. 230-232).
The observed working principles I identified during my case study relate to this mapping
process and the nature of the exploration and navigation necessary. This exploration process,
to build the performance, is now explored with reference to Hans-Thies Lehmann’s academic
work Postdramatic Theatre (2006). The attributes investigated here include: a changed
conception of the performance text, simultaneity and notions of synaesthetic engagement.
Lehmann offers a substantial theoretical vocabulary for analysing process in contemporary
performance. In his attempt to “place the theatrical development of the Twentieth-Century
into a perspective inspired by the developments of the new and newest theatre” (Lehmann
2006, 19), he subsequently alludes to “new theatre forms” (Lehmann 2006, 1) that are
frequently apparent throughout the entirety of a creative process – not just the viewed
performance. These new frameworks allow this research to step into the heavily
contextualised practice of devising theatre within a collaborative environment.
55
5.1 Performance text
Over recent times performance making is more and more associated with a broader approach
to performance writing. This notion is frequently seen in the shift from drama studies to
performance studies, which brings with it a focus on “embodied practice and event [as] a
recurring point of reference” (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett in Schechner 2002, 3). Identifying a
desire to expand notions of performance writing, Lehmann cites Tim Etchells who suggests
“beyond ideas of playwrighting… [there is a] rich history of writers in theatre spaces who are
doing something quite different” (2006, 9). This identification uncovers two important
concerns, namely: the changing nature of performance making and the subsequent form of its
communication.
Postdramatic theatre offers a “changed conception of the performance text” (Lehmann 2006,
85). Traditionally there have been a linguistic text, mise-en-scene or stage text, and the
performance text. In contrast, viewing the theatre, as a whole, as the “speaking space”
(Lehmann 2006, 31) opens up endless construction possibilities only restricted by the creators
involved or the technology available. Based on the changing vista of some practitioners,
Lehmann suggests there is a structurally changed quality of the performance text and the type
of sign usage being employed now is “more presence than representation, more shared than
communicated experience, more process than product, more manifestation than signification,
more energetic impulse than information” (2006, 85).
Approaching a performance making process focused on presence, sharing, process,
manifestation and energetic impulse creates an environment where dynamic interaction
creates and is the creative work – therefore its performance text. This processual milieu
activates a performance texture much like that of a threaded fabric (Lehmann 2006) where the
significance of any one section is only apparent because of its connection to the whole.
56
The tangible use of these concepts is located in Lepage’s use of improvisation, resources and
audience feedback to build the performance text. The improvisation is informed by prior and
immediate research on topics of interest as well as the aesthetic and practical qualities of the
resources that permeate the room: screens, cameras, bits of set, props, costume, sound and the
people who are experts in their operation. It is these preconditions and the interaction with
everything as a resource, including the audience at public rehearsals, which imbue the
performance text. Aleksandar Dundjerovic (2003) suggests it is the navigation of, and
interaction with, these resources that impregnate Lepage’s shows with complexity and
ultimately build the performance text. He says, “the space is inhabited by theatrical resources
that will create the narrative through the rehearsal process” (2003, 72). Lepage’s public
rehearsals or works in progress create a site where the audience become a personified
resource as they interact and give feedback after the show, again contributing to the creation
and evolution of the performance text. Robert Lepage suggests this when he says: “I do public
rehearsals… You let people inform you of what it is that you’re doing” (Lepage 2006, l. 88-
100). This approach privileges the performance ‘event’. Lepage echoes these ideas when he
talks about theatre being a meeting place: “it is not a solitary event; it is about a group of
people, a community coming to a theatre and dialoguing with another community which is in
the room” (Lepage 2006, l. 18-20).
In Lepage’s case this process of performance making is perpetual, as the work “is never
finished” (Lepage 2006, l. 114-115). Lepage acknowledges that “the longer it goes the less
radically different it is – it continues to change every night. We go on tour and after two, three
years, it changes, evolves, but you get into minutiae and you’re not as radical as the early
stages” (Lepage 2006, l. 108-110). This perpetual process creates what Aleksandar
Dundjerovic (1999) calls the “transformative mise-en-scene” where the “evolution of the
[work] is seen as process rather than product…[because it] is in a constant state of change and
57
fluidity” (1999, 4). He believes “Lepage uses transformative mise-en-scene as the main axis
of his theatricality” (1999, 4).
This changed conception of the performance text identifies a performance making space
where all artistic elements are being conceived and put into action concurrently. It also
exemplifies Lehmann’s theoretical suggestion that much contemporary performance
foregrounds presence, sharing, process, manifestation and energetic impulse (2006, 85). The
immediate conditions of the performance at any given moment continually offer discoveries
that lead to a perpetually evolving performance text. I will now consider this process through
the notion of simultaneity.
5.2 Simultaneity
A general understanding of the term simultaneity is “the quality or fact of… existing,
happening, occurring, operating, etc., at the same time; coincident in time”
(http://dictionary.oed.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/cgi/entry/50225195). However,
simultaneity is also a term that has been associated with visual art. At this point a brief
departure from performance theory will occur to explore the nature of simultaneity within
visual arts discourse surrounding work of the early 1900s. This detour will reveal helpful
connections regarding the use of the term in performance discourse today and its expanded
use, which could be useful in describing the process being explored in this research project.
Simultanéisme was a visual arts term given to Orphism, a movement within Cubism which
was characterised by abstract designs and a more lyrical use of colour than was found in other
Cubist painters. Simultanéisme was used to describe the painters’ use of Simultaneous
contrast – “the effect of mutual modification of two contiguous areas of colour”
58
(http://dictionary.oed.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/cgi/entry/50225195). Painting from within
the Cubist movement, Robert Delaunay (1885-1941) identified notions of simultaneity in art:
In order that Art attain the limit of sublimity, it must draw upon our harmonic vision: clarity. Clarity will be color, proportion; these proportions are composed of diverse elements, simultaneously involved in an action. This action must be the representative harmony, the synchronous movement (simultaneity) of light which is the only reality. (http://www.artinthepicture.com/artists/Robert_Delaunay/quotes.html)
This quote highlights notions of provisionality in meaning making and the simultaneous
interaction of the comparative relation between things; this interaction creates a
representative harmony. Far from providing a truth of any sort, Simultanéisme was to be
more influential as a technique for gathering impressions about reality than as a means of
expressing a broader experience (Campos in Cruickshank 1968).
Recently, Simultaneity has become an emerging term in contemporary performance
discourse. It can be located in the analytical works of Jon Whitmore, Directing Postmodern
Theatre (1994, 203-228), and Hans-Thies Lehmann’s Postdramatic Theatre (2006, 87-88).
Both of these works identify simultaneity in relation to theatre performance and the nature of
its communication. Jon Whitmore acknowledges the fragmented simultaneous existence
identified by visual artists when he says:
each of the elements of a production – its various sign systems, clusters of signs, and individual signifiers – can produce meaning only because they exist simultaneously with one another at each moment and throughout the total timeframe of performance (1994, 203).
He goes on to ask, “how can a director begin to get her arms around a performance’s signs in
order to produce great theatre?” (1994, 209). This question is intensified when Whitmore
suggests that “the complexity of the interaction of the multiple sign systems is so
pervasive…that it defies complete description or notation” (1994, 203) It seems, however,
this may be the whole point of the process; that is, to create a space where the audience or
59
performance maker is so overwhelmed by information, in various forms, yet their mind is still
compelled to interact with the stimuli they are offered. As Lehmann suggests “the human
sensory apparatus does not easily tolerate disconnectedness. When deprived of connections, it
seeks out its own…” (Lehmann 2006, 84). In their interactive experience they are navigating
the comparative relation between things to create meaning; to discover something – they
therefore create a unique understanding, an impression, which is provisional in nature; “…the
procedure [of simultaneity in performance] distinguishes itself from mere chaos in that it
opens up chances for the recipient to process the simultaneous by means of their own
selection and structuring” (Lehmann 2006, 88).
Lehmann suggests the de-hierarchisation of theatrical means and the “paratactical valency and
ordering” (2006, 87) of postdramatic theatre lead to the “experience of simultaneity” (2006,
87). This process overloads the aesthetic space with so many simultaneously operating signs
that the “perceptive apparatus” (2006, 87) is quite often overstrained. Focus is disturbed by
the continual choice offered to the spectator: Where to look? What path to follow? This
process destabilises any truth and empowers the spectator – they become co-creators as their
minds are activated. Lehmann suggests:
It becomes crucial that the abandonment of totality be understood not as a deficit but instead as a liberating possibility of an ongoing (re)writing, imagination and recombination, that refuses the ‘rage of understanding’ (Horisch in Lehmann 2006, 88).
The notion of simultaneity in a performance making environment that does not have a
finished product pervades the creative space, and consequently becomes the experience of the
performance makers as well as the spectators. Devising art in a collaborative environment that
incorporates multiple art forms with their tools and multiple information resources, such as
the internet and humans, creates an environment of simultaneity; an environment filled with
all manner of resources interacting and being navigated by the creative team. This abundant
60
simultaneous space is conducive to the creation and observation of similarities, correlations
and correspondences within the given resources which can be used to build a performance.
The simultaneity inherent in Lepage’s devising process is, like that of the Orphism painters,
located in the interaction of proportions – be it the diverse pieces of information being used,
the technology present, or the scenes created – and their involvement in the process as a
whole. The freewheeling way which the creative team navigate these elements is a process of
simultaneity where everything is existing, happening, occurring and operating at the same
time.
However, combining the visual arts discourse surrounding simultaneity explored earlier and
the process of Robert Lepage we can expand on Lehmann’s theory. This expansion is found
in the fact that Lepage does search for a certain type of coherence. He said:
Theatre is a tray filled with hors-d’oeuvres from which we can choose what we wish. We try to carry the meaning as far as possible, but what really makes plays like The Dragon’s Trilogy, Brook’s Mahabharata or some of Mnouchkine’s shows successful is that we are offered a selection – one that’s coherent but a selection nonetheless (Lepage in Charest 1997, 166-167).
Lepage and his team strive to create a “representative harmony… [a] synchronous
movement…which is the only reality”
(http://www.artinthepicture.com/artists/Robert_Delaunay/quotes.html). This ‘reality’ or
‘synchronous movement’ combines Lehmann’s ideas of abandoning totality (2006, 88) but
also refers to the ‘coherence’ and ‘selection’ Lepage refers to above, created by the process of
performance making. Simultaneity in this processual context is, therefore, greater than an
overabundance of signifiers in a theatrical space or performance moment; rather, it is a
process of perpetual interaction where the space of interaction (simultaneity) has the potential
to be a coherent referential layering system, reminiscent of Lehmann’s description of a
61
threaded fabric (2006), that is the means to create the performance as well as the performance
itself.
For the creative team this space of simultaneity abandons an imposed artistic macrostructure
or reliance on established form and convention. The space of perpetual interaction and the
dynamic portions lend themselves toward ambiguity and polyvalence (Kerkhoven in
Lehmann 2006, 83). However, these concepts create a space where the artist must intuitively
navigate to uncover the coherence Lepage refers to above. In this process the idiosyncratic
characteristics of the individual or team become the main driver. Lepage comments on this
when he says:
I believe in uniqueness, I don’t believe in being number one, so that means however one sees the world, whoever we are, it is a unique way of seeing the world and if you are honest with that, if you’re not trying to produce other stereotypes and you’re not trying to please the general point of view on things, you will give access to the audience to this special point of view, which is unique because it’s yours (Lepage 2006, l. 197-202).
A significant point to note is the importance of the unique abilities of the practitioner creating
and navigating this environment of simultaneity – here I will call them the Simultanist. With a
focus on observing similarities, correlations and correspondences to build the performance
through a webbed network of resources, art forms and audience feedback, the skill level of the
performance makers, specifically the director, is a key ingredient in the continually evolving
performance. Without an expert intuitive ability to make provisional sense of the emerging
form and content, the piece will most likely lack a sense of coherence; this coherence is the
synchronous movement; the representative harmony.
From the above analysis it seems simultaneity can be approached in two distinct ways: first,
from a theoretical perspective that aims to identify, define and categorise it as a performance
making tool and form; and, second, from a practical perspective that strives to understand the
unique journey navigated by any creative team in any given performance making process.
62
The second path seems somewhat gargantuan, given Whitmore’s belief that “the complexity
of the interaction of the multiple sign systems is so pervasive…that it defies complete
description or notation” (1994, 203). Although technology may one day solve the problem of
the second approach, it seems an investigation into the ontology of simultaneity through an
understanding of its working processes and key concepts would be a worthy line of enquiry.
One key element of this enquiry is the performance maker’s or spectator’s observation and
navigation of the emerging performance text. This process will be explored in relation to
notions of synaesthesia.
5.3 Synaesthesia
Essential to any investigation of the theatre and its shifting foci of communication is the
notion of perception and meaning making. By widening the “speaking space” (Lehmann
2006, 31) of the theatre, practitioners are changing the space of navigation. Lehmann suggests
that “enclosed within postdramatic theatre is obviously the demand for an open and
fragmenting perception in place of a unifying and closed perception” (2006, 82). This
perception, as always, comes from an interaction. Within the environment of ambiguity,
polyvalence and simultaneity, this interaction frequently engages the senses as a whole as the
performance maker and audience must contend with the fragmented and proportional nature
of the emerging performance. This concept is apparent in the way Robert Lepage approaches
form: “In the theatre, the audience has to be immersed in the show’s argument …every sense
has to seize it …so the form has to become an incarnation of the subject and themes” (Lepage
in Charest 1997, 164).
Synaesthesia is commonly associated with a human condition in which one type of
stimulation evokes the sensation of another, such as letters or numbers being perceived as
inherently coloured. Lehmann suggests “the synaesthesia immanent to scenic action…is no
63
longer an implicit constituent of theatre…but instead becomes an explicitly marked
proposition for a process of communication” (2006, 84). This understanding implies a type of
theatre that uses its resources or theatrical stimulus in a manner that acknowledges the
imagination of the audience and their ability to create similarities, correlations and
correspondences between ideas, images, feelings and words, however far-fetched these may
be (Lehmann 2006, 84).
Navigating the space of simultaneity that holds the emerging performance, which is made up
of diverse elements and their proportions, requires a synaesthetic engagement – an
engagement consisting of interrelated sense-impressions that uniquely connect the Simultanist
or performance maker with the abundance of content and stimulus. In Robert Lepage’s case,
he searches for synaesthetic engagement for himself and his audiences:
I have an idea. I say it in a language that people don’t understand so they’re interested to know what it’s all about. So I say it again, but in another language they don’t understand. But they understand a little more of it…It’s very active. It’s like saying the same thing over and over again but with different images. And people associate words and senses and objects and imagery. They associate all of that on the same idea, on the same theme (Lepage in Hunt 1997, 28).
Lepage turns his own sense-impressions or synaesthetic journeys into a performance texture
that allows the audience to also “associate words and senses and objects and imagery”
(Lepage in Hunt 1997, 28) during the moment of performance. This creative space provides a
platform to intensify the process of meaning making for a performance maker as well as
audience members.
5.4 Conclusion
The changed conception of the performance text in contemporary performance which
Lehmann and others suggest allows a discussion of the unique performance writing methods
64
apparent in Lepage’s creation process. Simultaneity, as presented by Lehmann and Whitmore,
uncovers the abundance of signifiers present in all performance which they suggest is now
being foregrounded in contemporary performance. These concepts, within Lepage’s unique
performance making process that is perpetually changing and never finished, opens the way
for simultaneity to be a way of working – a space of chaos where all elements of a production
are being created concurrently in order to find synchronous movement within all the stimuli
present.
The journey to find synchronous movement, which embraces an “open and fragmenting
perception” (Lehmann 2006, 82), is through a diverse and contiguous abundance of resources
and stimuli, including audience reactions, which requires an intuitive and synaesthetic
engagement by the performance makers. Because of the nature of this engagement in the
creative process, including its reliance on sense-impressions and the connection of apparently
incongruent information or resources, the form of the viewed performance also reflects this
openness and fragmentation. Somewhat paradoxically, this conceptual framework suggests
the provisional performance may also maintain a sense of coherence through its potential
ability to create a synchronous movement or representative harmony.
The key concepts presented here are prevalent in the entirety of the creative process. As
performances with the audience present are just one step in this perpetual creative process,
they become part of this web of simultaneity and potentially its synchronous movement. In
the next chapter I will consider and reflect upon my creative process in GAIJIN.
65
6. GAIJIN
66
6. GAIJIN
This part of the research is an investigation of my second research question: What is the
impact of activating the observed working principles of Robert Lepage in my own creative
process? In the creation of GAIJIN I have aimed to generate a working environment similar to
that of Robert Lepage, where notions of simultaneity and synaesthetic engagement can be
embraced and used to build an evolving performance text. The significance of this
investigation is the opportunity to explore the impact of activating the observed working
principles, and the subsequent stimulation of simultaneity and synaesthesia within a
performance making process of my own.
This chapter outlines how the study of Lepage’s work enabled and influenced specific
features of GAIJIN and how the creation of GAIJIN helped to explore, understand and
develop the specific concepts of simultaneity and synaesthesia identified through the study of
Lepage. The observed working principles that will be explored here include the pre-
conditions of the working space, interaction with technology and performance elements, free-
wheeling and improvisational navigation of content and information, a focus on staging out of
necessity, and audience feedback. The impact of these methods in this creative process
identifies moments of praxis in process and form, which highlight the working processes of
simultaneity and synaesthesia.
6.1 An overview of the work and the process of
collaboration
The word GAIJIN refers to the main theme explored in the work – the Japanese concept of
foreigner or person outside the circle. The journey of the main character through Japan and
67
his interaction with the unfamiliar stimulations of the culture around him works as a vehicle
to explore notions of cultural and personal alienation. The tensions played out raise questions
about moral and cultural responsibility in an increasingly globalised world. In addition to the
Australian protagonist, various multi-cultural characters presented in GAIJIN make it possible
to build a rich tapestry of viewpoints and experiences. These aesthetic and textual
investigations, coupled with a process that engages its audience through feedback, produce a
creative cross-cultural exchange that is multi-vocal in nature.
At present, GAIJIN follows a plethora of narratives held together by three main characters
working at a fictional fun park, Happy Fun Ocean Land: Chris, an Australian dancer, who has
recently been incarcerated for possession of marijuana; Randy, an American singer, who is
heavily into drug use; and Micah, the American cultural advisor at the fun park. The scenes
presented during the June work in progress were a selection of snapshots from these people’s
lives in Japan.
The process of creating GAIJIN was a collaboration between myself and David Eastgate,
therefore, as Michael Schrage suggests: a “shared creation” (1995, 33). I am credited as the
producer, director and co-writer, and David is credited as co-writer and performer. This
acknowledgement of collaboration in the writing process is also apparent in many of Lepage’s
works including LIPSYNCH, which is co-written by the nine performers and Lepage himself.
The notion of writing in this process is much broader than traditional playwriting. GAIJIN is
not held in written form but in the language of performance. It is for this reason that the
attribution of intellectual property for these types of works is unique to every process. In this
creative process, my roles as director and co-writer involved a number of functions which I
will broadly divulge.
I prepared, and continued to modify, the working space and the theatrical elements that we
would be working with – these key directorial decisions had a direct and intentional impact on
68
the aesthetic GAIJIN would begin to embody. I suggested and detailed improvisational
starting points and paths of interest to be followed by the performer in scene / story
development. I created images and projection to contribute to mise-en-scene, narrative and
content development. I consistently conceived and created mise-en-scene that interacted with
the verbal content we were creating. I identified content-based, narrative and aesthetic links
that allowed us to further develop the performance, as well as our conceptual understanding
of the content we were dealing with. I worked on my own to research certain avenues of
interest in order to continually inject new information into improvisations’ and provide
information for new scenes and characters. I worked with the technicians to build very
specific images and designs on stage that embodied the content that was emerging.
This list is not comprehensive but gives an overview of my operational function. As well as
developing content and narrative material, one of the most important functions I served was to
keep an eye on the whole creation – making sure the most appropriate information and
technical resources were introduced to the process at key moments, to build on the emerging
content and aesthetic and allow a consistent flow of possible links between characters, images
and information. This was a key for me as director – being able to write the performance
using all theatrical elements I had at my disposal. Importantly, this process was about
harnessing interaction – getting “people’s minds to interact as components of a larger mind”
(Schrage 1995, 31).
6.2 Process
Before the initial creative development began, I organised the use of the fully equipped
Woodward Theatre for a four-week period, a number of cameras and projectors, a lighting
designer and sound designer, internet access in the space, and access to the library located
next door. These preconditions, intentionally similar to Lepage’s working space, allowed an
69
intensive engagement with the emerging content and form, continually supported by all
production elements being present and a wide range of information sources being readily
available. This reminded me of what Lepage had said to me: “When the writer is writing his
play, he’s also staging it, he’s also designing it, he’s also rehearsing it” (Lepage 2006, l. 131-
132). This is a conscious choice to work within a space of simultaneity as theorised in chapter
5 – a space of perpetual interaction – and my creative development now had the pre-
conditions to enact this. My question was: what is the impact of activating this observed
working principle in my own creative process?
The pre-conditions created immediacy in the theatrical space – in terms of the journey from
ideas to their aestheticisation. This has been one of the most important aspects of the process.
In Quebec City I had observed a space that had a similar immediacy – the Caserne had been
specifically designed by Lepage to harness creative expediency. Further to this, the
technology and technicians in the room during rehearsal were the working example of this
desire. The choice to implement the above pre-conditions in my creative process certainly
influenced many processual and form related features of GAIJIN which are further detailed
throughout this chapter.
The presence of all these elements for the entirety of the creative development and our playful
engagement with them provided an environment of simultaneity where all artistic elements
were being conceived and put into action concurrently. By applying the preconditions that I
had observed in Lepage’s process, I had activated notions of simultaneity, and as a
consequence, synaesthetic engagement. This activation was manifest in the individual
elements, or portions that will eventually make the performance – tech, information and
people – being able to interact throughout the entirety of the creative process rather than being
pre-conceived many months in advance. It is the sophisticated interaction of these disparate
elements that I was searching for – an interaction that would create what Robert Delaunay
70
calls a synchronous movement or representative harmony
(http://www.artinthepicture.com/artists/Robert_Delaunay/quotes.html).
Working within the described space, initial meetings with the co-writer and performer, David
Eastgate, focused on potential content to explore and a description of the open and dynamic
process I wanted. During my time in Quebec City I had witnessed a somewhat casual
approach to the work: a lot of talking, joking and discussion regarding many disparate pieces
of information. The process of discussion and improvisation that I had witnessed during my
time in Quebec City quickly became the backbone to our creation and seemed to suit David
and I rather well.
David’s accepting, open and energetic demeanour allowed us to immediately enter a dialog
regarding his experiences in Japan over a five-year period as an Australian citizen. On
reflection, it is apparent to me that I was interacting with David as if he was a theatrical
resource, not just a conduit for information. Since these initial meetings David’s experiences
and stories have provided many starting points for the narrative and content of the creative
work and have infused the performance text. Here is a journal entry from very early in the
process that uncovers my need to have a performer who operated as a resource that I could
react to:
Having a performer who can give so much and is not scared to start improvisations is a massive plus to the process. This allows me to watch and start to uncover what is interesting about the scene. Don’t tell me, Show me. (personal journal entry, 12 December, 2006)
On reflection, this approach clearly resonates with Lepage’s ideas of the unique – David and I
were investing our own stories in the process; when improvised they became a tangible
resource that I could interact with as a performance maker. My spontaneous, organic
interaction with his offerings and our simultaneous interaction with the creative space have
71
built, and continue to build, the performance text. Information and rough improvised scenes
immediately became tangible resources that became part of the abundance of elements we
were working with.
The importance of seeing improvisation or scenes, no matter how rough, became very
important for me; this is where the performance resides – on stage; in the doing. Again, this
approach to performance making was influenced by Lepage’s process, where I noted that the
raw starting points were essential to push the performers to engage with the plethora of
stimuli and information they had already encountered. It is this interaction that reveals the
unique performance and was certainly a practical example of Michael Schrage’s suggestion
that “friction…generates creative sparks” (1995, 31). A journal entry I wrote during creative
development highlights my need for performative resources:
Working from performance based stimulus certainly keeps us moving faster and more efficiently. The research and talk is good as it informs the show but we need to keep reminding ourselves that the show is in the doing. We must DO to find it… This doing seems best when it interacts with our discussions and playing with tech as much as possible… (personal journal entry, December 12, 2006)
During my time observing Robert’s rehearsals, many times I had seen him all of a sudden
suggest they try something on the floor – an improvisation. Based on my need to see our
exploration and discussion in performance form I started to do the same. I realised that these
key moments where discussion moved to improvisation were far from random and had to do
with a point in discussion where a context or character was revealed, no matter how murky
this may be. Once the decision was made to improvise a scene it was important for a number
of key things to happen: Dave and I needed to utilise the information and knowledge we had
gained from our discussions and research, and, intrinsically linked with this first point, I
needed to provide a strong space for him to work in. This is where interaction with
technology and other artists in the room was activated, and the significance of the pre-
72
conditions, which I had set up as a result of my study of Lepage, began to become integral to
our process.
The interaction that was activated, between content and technology, allowed me to observe –
searching for paths of interest, links and correlations. The significance of this theatrical
immediacy is found in the development of content and form simultaneously through the
abundance of resources that are activated. This activation created what Robert described to
me about the Inuit sculptors: they would “look at a piece of ice until they saw something in
it…don’t ask what it means rather ask what you see” (personal journal entry, October 13,
2006).
An example of our interaction with the technology and information around us as resources
would be the process leading to the use of a camera, lighting, sound and AV during one of our
scenes called Japanese Girl. This scene was to centre around one of the American characters
Randy who would be singing the lead vocal at a gig in Kobe after snorting MDMA (ecstasy)
in a previous scene. Immediately after workshopping this scene we were playing with a
camera that was above the stage (facing down) sending a live feed to a projector. As Dave
moved under the camera I immediately related the image I saw (Dave from above) moving on
the screen to the drug-induced state the American character was in during the gig scene. We
obtained an image mixer (that would overlay two images coming out of different sources),
pre-recorded two musicians playing the other instruments in the band and overlaid this image
with Dave from above singing the song.
In this moment of process I saw links and correlations between: a scene that had been worked
on previously, the aesthetic and conceptual space that was offered by the technology we were
now playing with, and the ideas and themes of the emerging show; this was a synaesthetic
sense-impression that led to the creation of a strong aesthetic moment in GAIJIN. For me, this
was also an example of disparate elements, or the individual elements we had at our disposal,
73
interacting to create what Robert Delaunay called a synchronous movement or representative
harmony (http://www.artinthepicture.com/artists/Robert_Delaunay/quotes.html). An
important part of these creative revelations is their open nature. This openness is apparent
because the moment in process was more about the impression of an experience which in turn
causes an effect in the audience member – one that will be different for each witness. This
impression is made up of synaesthetic qualities.
Figure 5. Photo: Benjamin Knapton
Figure 5. depicts one moment in the scene were Dave lies down and his image is overlaid
with the two musicians. The synaesthetic qualities of this moment are apparent in the
interaction between ideas and feelings associated with the effects of the drugs Dave’s
character had taken and the images and sound the audience were seeing and hearing; whilst
viewing the live performance of Japanese Girl, the audience was also seeing the effects of the
drugs. They were offered a space to associate words and actions previously seen and heard
with feelings and senses of their own. This suggests that technology is a resource that has the
ability to activate notions of simultaneity and synaesthetic engagement in the performance
text. It also made me feel as though we were heading toward a performance where the form
would “become an incarnation of the subject and themes” (Lepage in Charest 1997, 164).
74
This example suggests a broader approach to performance writing as suggested by Tim
Etchells (cited in Lehmann 2006, 9). My interest in the drug-taking scene was the notion of
personal alienation and its relationship with our permeating theme of gaijin (person outside
the circle). By using technology and actively writing or devising the performance in the
theatrical space I had injected these ideas into the performance text utilising the whole theatre
as the “speaking space” (Lehmann 2006, 31). The impact of our interaction with technology
in the space was that Randy’s body was now present in two different time spaces on stage,
sharing with the audience through multiple images and impressions rather than spoken text.
The images offered to the audience created a moment of asynchronism where the time
presented on stage was interacting with the non-correspondent times presented through the
mediated images: the other band members and Dave’s drug-induced state. Both were
intimately connected with content, and therefore both were speaking to the audience;
speaking the subjects and themes.
This is a moment of praxis, identifying Lehmann’s ideas of a performance that is more shared
than communicated (2006, 85). It offered a striking impression in the process, through the use
of technology and images, but one that I had not necessarily grasped in a clear cognitive
manner. Rather, for me, it was, like the definition of ‘impression’: “a somewhat vague or
indistinct notion” (http://dictionary.oed.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/cgi/entry/50225195)
that I felt linked to the ideas and themes that were emerging from this performance. Adhering
to my understanding of simultaneity and synaesthesia, this moment would “remain… in
[my]… mind as a survival from more distinct knowledge”
(http://dictionary.oed.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/cgi/entry/50225195). Again, this reveals a
synaesthetic engagement, from within the space of simultaneity, by me as the performance
maker, which was then passed on to the audience through the decision to keep this moment in
the performance text.
75
This example of the construction of one performative moment reveals an important
processual journey and a significant practical example of the working processes of
simultaneity and synaesthesia. The aesthetic moment was created from an impression. The
immediate space we were working in produced the possibility of this impression and it has
subsequently become a part of the performance text. This practical example had deepened my
understanding of Lepage’s focus on “everything… happening at the same time” (Lepage
2006, l. 132). Working in a space of simultaneity, in this instance exemplified by our
immediate interaction with technology, allows the possibility of following and using
impressions to write the performance text. In Quebec City I had noted Robert and the creative
team did not engage in an analytical process of understanding what they were doing quite
often, this observation was now becoming present in my own process, not because of an
intentional choice, but because we were synaesthetically engaging through sense-impressions
that do not leave a lot of space for linguistic understanding – at least not in this case.
Realising the aesthetic and creative impact of the observed working principles I had
implemented caused me to follow my own impressions more and more. I began to see our
discussion and research transform into performance very quickly. Ideas of time and space,
which are apparent in relation to travel and the gaijins’ experience overseas continued to
infiltrate the form of the performance. The interaction of these ideas with the theatrical
elements of the space created many substantial aesthetic moments.
76
Figure 6. Photo: Benjamin Knapton
In Figure 6. one of our characters Chris, in Japan, speaks to his family in Australia via the
internet. This scene emerged from Dave’s experiences of communicating with his family in
this manner whilst in Japan some years earlier. Chris has been pre-recorded, which meant
Dave could play the family characters live in the vacant chair in the picture. The family
characters are then live fed to the box seen below Chris on the screen and a conversation
ensues. Again, the form of this scene was created by playing with the technology at the
moment of its inception and being able to observe the aesthetic possibilities created by the
interaction. Here is a journal entry that reflects on this moment:
In the last half hour we have created a whole scene. Dave was talking about how he use to phone home over the internet to speak to his family. We hooked the camera up to his computer and live fed his image to the projector then he changed costume to play the different family members. After this little play with technology and content we recorded the character in Japan so we could play him simultaneously on the screen. This works great as all of a sudden there are three images of Dave to look at; two on the screen and one live on stage. I really like the feel of this scene – it’s simple and complex at the same time… (personal journal entry, February 5, 2007)
This process subsequently created simultaneity of time and space: Chris in Japan as well as on
the computer screen, the family in Australia as well as on the computer screen, and the live
actor on stage but also on the computer screen. Here, the themes of personal alienation,
77
distance, travel and gaijin are echoed through the use of technology; the form is intrinsically
linked to content. I believe the simultaneous presence of these diverse ideas and technologies
is the synchronous movement of the scene; created within the space of simultaneity.
Figure 7. Photo: Benjamin Knapton
Figure 7. shows a scene where Dave plays a character from the Japanese Yakuza syndicate
Yamaguchigumi. In this scene we project a Yamaguchigumi tattoo on Dave’s upper body.
This choice was inspired by the problem of how to transform Dave into this character. The
choice to project allowed a quicker transition time than any other idea we had. This moment
reminded me of my continual notes, during my LIPSYNCH observation, regarding decisions
made out of theatrical necessity and Robert’s beliefs that the process for him is quite often
just a series of problems that need to be solved (personal journal entry, October 13, 2006).
Inspired by Robert’s comments regarding the problem-solving approach, I allowed myself, at
times, to follow pure necessity in the rehearsal space. The activation of this observed
principle helped me to further understand the diagram below that I had drawn whilst in
Quebec.
78
(personal journal entry, October 13, 2006)
I found that this approach to performance making is most appropriate when improvisations
are immediately enacted utilising all the elements of the scene simultaneously. The resources
being used, including the scene or content, are activated together, without the artists
necessarily being conscious of how they will integrate. Projecting the Yamaguchigumi tattoo
was incredibly practical at the time and later suggested itself as aesthetically powerful and
well integrated with the themes and content being explored. This same movement from
necessity to integration with subject and themes was apparent many times in our process.
Another example was our reaction to the frequent comments regarding people’s need for
better transitions between scenes. In response to this pragmatic feedback we considered
options. One addition I made was introducing a section of AV that projected a slide show of
300 photos running through in 30 seconds during the transition from scene one to scene two
(9.4 Appendix 4). These photos depicted one of our main character’s travels in Japan before
being incarcerated for possession of marijuana. This creative choice, that initially served a
very practical purpose in covering a transition, also turned out to heighten notions of
incarceration in a foreign country which had also been a recurrent theme in the feedback we
Form
Necessity
Incarnation of subjects and
themes
This cannot be underestimated
79
had received from our audiences. The audience was able to connect more with this character
because now they had a feel for his journeys in the time previous to his incarceration.
Whilst implementing this creative choice in the rehearsal room, another moment of
practicality arose. Dave needed to change costume during this transition and it was necessary
for him to do it quickly. The first time we ran the scene he rushed to change as the photos hit
the wall also projecting over the top of his live body. This moment was aesthetically strong
for me as it captured the transformation from character to actor to another character inside the
piece of art we were creating. For me this moment was presenting the artifice of theatre from
within the theatrical moment. The audience could engage with two time spaces
simultaneously: the character and his travels throughout Japan, and the actor preparing for the
next scene (which is the theatre’s space of creation), also with the residual image of the
character they had just witnessed talking to his mother from jail. This resonates with
Lehmann’s ideas regarding the abandonment of totality; this “should not been seen as a
deficit but rather as a liberating possibility” (Lehmann 2006, 88).
The nature of this liberating possibility was becoming clearer to me during this process. For
me, it was not about an incoherent barrage of theatrical symbols; rather, a suggestive offering
to the audience that was open, due to its insistence on revealing theatrical artifice and
different ways of talking about similar material. This felt like an open coherence to me; one
that offered something on the stage, but at the same time implied much more because of its
engagement with feelings and impressions rather than logical spoken text and the
understanding by all in attendance that it was unfinished. This openness provides a rich site to
engage with audiences.
Influenced by Lepage’s use of open rehearsals’, GAIJIN had already been presented to a
public audience in February ’07. This had allowed us to receive substantial feedback which
the creative team had read and discussed. My belief was that this feedback would inform the
80
continual development of the performance text as I had observed in Quebec City with
LIPSYNCH. Here is a journal entry that describes why I believe the feedback is so important
to this process.
Conducting works in progress allows a continual evaluation of the creative process and the formation of a fluid product. Our intention is to treat audiences as creative instigators and ask them to engage in the creative process, allowing people beyond the project team to reflect their own ideas through art. We seek to validate our creative selections and structuring by engaging with the audience in a search for coherence. This gesture, or offering, to the audience, to become a member of the creative process, creates an environment where the creative team can move toward a performance that harnesses the prevailing ideas and impressions of our co-creators – the audience. The search for validation through this multi-vocal response is a force for modern coherence – a force that is by nature palimpsestic, synaesthetic and fluid; that seeks a webbed interpretative space meticulously discovered. (personal journal entry, February 12, 2006)
This process of inviting audience to comment on the performance had inspired me in Quebec.
When I enacted the same principle in GAIJIN’s creative process I came to understand how
practical and helpful it was to the creative team. More than reading one comment or
suggestion and enacting this in the performance, I looked for, and found, similarities and links
between peoples’ thoughts and stories. These correlations between individuals feedback
revealed needs and interests from our audience. Far from being exactly the same, the
feedback did suggest a sense of focussed momentum, but often through very practical
reactions. This focussed momentum I had identified brought me back to the concept of
coherence.
Coherence is a frequent concern of contemporary performance makers. My understanding of
coherence in this process reflects Lepage’s belief that the audience must be offered a selection
but one that is coherent at the same time (cited in Charest 1997, 166-167) – on reflection, I
believe some scenes in GAIJIN did just this. The interaction of all the resources previously
discussed (including the audience) allowed a complex layering system to emerge between
content, themes, ideas, mise-en-scene and technology. The different layers are all referential
81
to each other in some way and allow a type of openness to reside on stage: an openness that is
created by simultaneity and synaesthetic engagement.
6.3 Conclusion
This creative process has allowed me to further explore, understand and develop the working
principles I implemented as a result of my study of Lepage. Setting up a working space where
all elements of production are being used simultaneously to create a performance text is the
vital first step in this process. The integral process of discussion, research and improvisation
simultaneously interacting with this theatrical space creates an environment where the
creative team can “structure the work according to whatever comes out” (Lepage 2006, l.
241).
The significance of this process and way of working is in the consequent activation of the
working principles of simultaneity and synaesthesia. Working within the space of
simultaneity and trusting synaesthetic engagement with emerging content is no easy task.
However, implementing observed principles from Quebec, such as: free-wheeling and
improvisational navigation of content and information, a focus on staging out of necessity,
and audience feedback, produces a navigation process that uniquely utilises the space to its
full potential.
82
7. FINDINGS AND NEW DIRECTIONS
83
7. FINDINGS AND NEW DIRECTIONS
This research project started in mid-2005 with an ambition to understand my own creative
practice as a director more fully. I believed the best way to do this was by being exposed to
directors whose process held similar characteristics to my own. Combining my understanding
of current literature surrounding contemporary performance, my observations with Lepage
and my creative practice, I have been able to distil a conceptual framework that is intrinsically
linked to the pragmatics of a performance making process.
This chapter will suggest preconditions and working processes that are conducive to
activating notions of simultaneity and synaesthetic engagement, which are the key attributes I
identified in the creative process of Robert Lepage. It will also bring together various threads
of analysis in an attempt to further understand the working process of simultaneity and its key
component synaesthesia, which together represent a changing conception of the performance
text associated with live performance. This understanding consequently uncovers a means by
which coherence, in a process described by this thesis, can be theoretically understood but
perhaps not fully grasped unless experienced in a performance context.
I discovered that my performance making processes, like Lepage’s, are dynamic and
complex. They can change from moment to moment, given the varying demands of the show
and production schedule. During my observation with Ex Machina I became fascinated by the
way the performance text became tangible as it was infused by the stimuli present –
resources: objects, places, anecdotes, historical or other events, memories…
(http://www.lacaserne.net/exmachina.php?lang=en).
In both processes, the plethora of stimuli and the creative team’s interaction with them
produced frequent surprises, links, correlations and similarities that were used to understand
84
and build the performance that was emerging. Lepage, unlike traditional theatre makers, does
not impose elaborate directorial plans on his plays (Charest 1997, 99) by enforcing
predetermined set designs, characters, sound scores and lighting. Instead, he describes his
process by saying “We try not to force our ideas, our concepts on to it; the show has its own
logic, poetry, rhythms, that we have to discover” (Charest 1997, 99). For me, this process
does not rely on textual dramaturgy and preconceived artistic choices – rather, the creative
team and director must engage using all their senses in an effort to observe the performance in
its immediacy, identifying where it is heading and what it looks like at any given moment.
7.1 Activating simultaneity and synaesthesia
An explanation of the way Robert Lepage works was posted on the company’s recently
updated website. This is what it says:
Robert Lepage's creative style rests on intuition and gives actors, designers and technicians the latitude to contribute and to invent the shows together with him.
Cross-cultural experiences and a diverse and baroque character are at the heart of Lepage's work. These elements are echoed by a creative process which, rather than relying on themes, principles and subjects, makes use of all kinds of resources: objects, places, anecdotes, historical or other events, memories...
By freely associating ideas, the creative team can discover poetic connections between these seemingly unrelated elements. The shows develop in an organic manner, like a tree that sees its branches grow in unexpected directions...
(http://www.lacaserne.net/exmachina.php?lang=en)
It is the reliance on intuition to freely associate ideas in an environment that makes use of “all
kinds of resources: objects, places, anecdotes, historical or other events, memories…” that
uncovers the complexity of simultaneity and the importance of the Simultanist.
What identifies and defines Simultaneity, in this context, as a performance making language
worthy of consideration is its focus on a working environment that embraces intuitive
85
playmaking, where similarities, correlations and correspondences prevail over any pre-
emptive creative decisions regarding costumes, set, design, music or even spoken text. It
consists of a diverse range of organically created resources / texts / conventions that are
unique to each group. In Robert Lepage’s case, a unique form of improvisation, a unique form
of collaboration, a unique use of art-form hybridity, a unique architectural physical space, use
of technology, public rehearsals, etc. By implementing this malleable concept in my own
process, I have discovered in this research that these broad principles and conditions of
creation are all activating forces for simultaneity. Importantly, they become intrinsically
linked to content as they develop into tools to learn and discover the performance.
These preconditions and ways of working are far from being an answer to finding a
performance rich with layers of referential theatrical elements that speak as a whole through
the performance text. All that can be offered here are suggestions that have been proven, by
this research, to be conducive to this type of creative process – certainly not a method. The
intuition and synaesthetic engagement, as well as restraint and reserve needed to navigate a
space of simultaneity, are not something easily obtained. As Robert Lepage says: “it’s
difficult to create shows that offer…multiple readings” (cited in Charest 1997, 166).
The significance of this research journey for me was the development and deeper
understanding of my craft through the activation of Robert Lepage’s performance making
principles in my own creative process. My directorial practice has become about activation
and observation – activate the space of simultaneity and navigate it utilising synaesthetic
engagement. This navigation is the role of the Simultanist, which I appropriate from visual
arts discourse and re-use in this new context.
If further research were to be conducted into resources or elements that activate or promote
simultaneity and synaesthesia, or the role and function of the Simultanist, it would certainly
need to be within the pragmatics of a creative process. As explored in the next section,
86
theorising on these concepts can only take understanding so far until it must be exemplified
through practice.
7.2 A theoretical offering
…the show tells you what to do... There is an actual life that goes on without you. Whatever it is that you have created has its own system and it just goes into all these extraordinary, beautiful things that are connecting, so you’re there trying to find a path and eventually you draw a map (Lepage 2006, l. 225-232).
It is this idea of discovering the performance that reveals a tension between the theorising of
Lehmann and Whitmore regarding the notion of simultaneity and the processual milieu
discovered from Robert Lepage’s practice and my own. As indicated in Chapter Four of this
document, Lepage, and the process described throughout, does search for a certain type of
coherence. This notion of coherence is not dealt with by Lehmann or Whitmore in any
substantial manner. However, it seems Lehmann left many doors open in his theorising, in
particular when he wrote: “the procedure [of simultaneity in performance] distinguishes itself
from mere chaos in that it opens up chances for the recipient to process the simultaneous by
means of their own selection and structuring” (2006, 88). The ‘procedure’ and ‘selection and
structuring’ to which Lehmann refers are the site and significance of this research. By
conflating performance and visual arts discourse this research provides an entry point to
understanding the relationship between openness or the ‘retreat of synthesis’ (2006, 82), as
suggested by Lehmann, and coherence, as suggested by Lepage (cited in Charest 1997, 166-
167).
In this processual context synchronous movement provides a framework to reconcile these
somewhat paradoxical ideas. Synchronous movement, for the Inuit sculptors, was the moment
the sun hit the ice in a certain way and revealed a form; a shape – then they started sculpting.
The ice and the sun were the resources; when they interacted, in an organic manner, the
87
performance was revealed. In the creation of a theatrical performance the Simultanist must do
the same – wait for the moment when two or more elements interact, uncovering more about
the show. This idea is pragmatically articulated throughout my notes when referring to
moments of continual problem-solving by the Simultanist. By exhibiting restraint and reserve
in the devising process, the Simultanist privileges the interaction of resources within the
environment of simultaneity. As Ex Machina’s website states: “By freely associating ideas,
the creative team can discover poetic connections between these seemingly unrelated
elements (http://www.lacaserne.net/exmachina.php?lang=en).
I have discovered that these poetic connections are synonymous with the coincidences,
correspondences and similarities that I searched for in my own work. These moments suggest
themselves as indicators of synchronicity and harmony within the disharmonious mass of the
space of simultaneity. I would suggest that often these moments of performance reveal a
space where openness and coherence can be embraced simultaneously because of the multi-
layered provisional and impressionistic nature of their being.
In this process, audiences also contribute their own impressions and thoughts about the work
through the public rehearsal process. These contributions add to the artists’ process of freely
associating ideas as part of the ongoing selection process occurring. Public rehearsals allow
audiences to “become a part of the writing process” (cited in Bunzli 1999, 96) where they
have an opportunity to feedback on what they saw, and talk about their own selections and
structuring. The creative team collects this feedback and uses it. Embracing notions of
Simultaneity and aiming for synchronous movement, they strive to exceed the chaotic space
of theatrical signs by validating their creative selections and structuring through engagement
with those in the audience. The aim of this discovery process is the perpetual uncovering of
the performance which is revealed through a collective creation where coincidences,
correspondences, similarities and poetic connections lead. I return to Robert Delaunay to
88
identify this interactive process as one which could provide a multi-vocal, always provisional
‘reality’:
In order that Art attain the limit of sublimity, it must draw upon our harmonic vision: clarity. Clarity will be color, proportion; these proportions are composed of diverse elements, simultaneously involved in an action. This action must be the representative harmony, the synchronous movement (simultaneity) of light which is the only reality. (http://www.artinthepicture.com/artists/Robert_Delaunay/quotes.html)
I have discovered strong links between this previously stated quote and the process explored
in this research. In this context ‘clarity’ will be resources, interaction; these interactions are
composed of diverse elements, simultaneously involved in action. This ‘action’ is constructed
in a way that privileges the inter of interaction. The ‘action’ presents ideas, objects, stories,
memories all “between, among, amid, in between, in the midst”.
(http://dictionary.oed.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/cgi/entry/50225195). When audiences
become collaborators and co-writers at a public rehearsal, this ‘action’ widens to become a
meeting place; an event… This, I would suggest, is a contemporary coherence that permits a
perpetual provisionality; openness and coherence simultaneously.
89
8. REFERENCES
90
8. REFERENCES
Art in the Picture Website. http://www.artinthepicture.com/artists/Robert_Delaunay/quotes.html (accessed May 15th, 2007).
Ex Machina Website http://www.lacaserne.net/exmachina.php?lang=en (accessed July 4th,
2007). Oxford English Dictionary online
http://dictionary.oed.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/cgi/entry/50225195 (accessed May 15th, 2007).
Bicat, T. and Baldwin, C. (Eds.) (2002) Devised and Collaborative Theatre: A Practical
Guide, The Crowood Press Ltd, Wiltshire. Brook, P. (1968) The Empty Space, Penguin Books, London. Bunzli, J. (1999) The Geography of Creation: Decalage as Impulse, Process and Outcome in
the Theatre of Robert Lepage. TDR, 43, pp. 79 - 103. Charest, R. (1997) Robert Lepage: Connecting Flights, Methuen, London. Cousin, G. (2005) Case Study Research. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, Vol. 29,
pp. 421-427. Cruickshank, J. (1968) French Literature and Its Background, Oxford University Press, New
York. Delgado, M. and Heritage, P. (1996) In Contact with the Gods, Manchester University Press,
New York. Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (2005) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage
Publications, USA. Donohoe, J. I. and Koustas, J. M. (Eds.) (2000) Theatre sans frontieres: Essays on the
Dramatic Universe of Robert Lepage, Michigan State University Press, America. Dundjerovic, A. (2003) The Multiple Crossings to The Far Side of the Moon: transformative
mise-en-scene. Contemporary Theatre Review, Vol. 13(2), pp. 67-82.
91
Dundjerovic, A. (1999) Theatricality of Robert Lepage: A Study of His Transformative 'Mise-
en-Scene' In Drama and Theatre Studies Royal Holloway College University of London, London.
Eco, U. (1989 [1962]) The Poetics of the Open Work In Creative Industries (Ed, Hartley, J.)
Blackwell Publishing, UK. Ely, M. (1991) Doing Qualitative Research: Circles Within Circles, The Falmer Press,
London. Fosnot, C. (1992) Constructing Constructivism In Constructivism and the Technology of
Instruction (Eds, Duffy, T. and Jonassen, D.) Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers, New Jersey.
Gray, C. (1996) Inquiry through practice: developing appropriate research strategies. On-line,
vol. 2004. Haseman, B. (1999) Lepage, Le World and Le Festival Industry: The Seven Streams of the
River Ota's relations with Industry and Art In Australasian Drama Studies Association Conference unpublished, Queensland University of Technology.
Haseman, B. (1999) Remapping the Aesthetic: Resolving the Tension Between Tradition and
Innovation in Contemporary Drama University of Sussex. Haseman, B. (2006) A Manifesto of Performative Research. Media International Australia
incorporating Culture and Policy, pp 98-106. Hood, M. (2000) The Geometry of Miracles: Witnessing Chaos In Theatre Sans Frontieres
(Eds, Donohoe, J. I. and Koustas, J. M.) Michigan State University Press, Michigan. Hunt, N. (1997) The Moving Language of Robert Lepage. theatrum, 6, pp. 25-32. Huxley, M. and Witts, N. (Eds.) (2002) The Twentieth-Century Performance Reader,
Routledge, London. Iser, W. (1980) Interaction between Text and Reader In Performance Analysis: an
introductory coursebook (Eds, Counsell, C. and Wolf, L.) Routledge, London. Kincheloe, J. (2001) Describing the Bricolage: Conceptualizing a New Rigour in Qualitative
Research. Qualitative Inquiry, Vol 7, pp. 679-692.
92
Lehmann, H.-T. (2006) Postdramatic Theatre, Routledge, England. Lepage, R. (2006) Interview with Benjamin Knapton, 22 January, Sydney, Australia. Magnat, V. (2005) Devising Utopia, or Asking for the Moon. Theatre Topics, Volume 15, pp.
73-86. McAuley, G. (1996) Theatre Practice and Critical Theory. Australasian Drama Studies, 28,
pp. 140-145. Oddey, A. (1994) Devising Theatre: a practical and theoretical handbook, Routledge, London. Schechner, R. (2002) Performance Studies - An Introduction, Routledge, London. Schrage, M. (1995) No More Teams! Mastering the dynamics of creative collaboration,
Currency Doubleday, USA. Spivey, N. (1997) The Constructivist Metaphor: Reading Writing and the Making of
Meaning, Academic Press, USA. Stake, R. (1995) The Art of Case Study Research, Sage, USA. Stake, R. (1998) Case Studies In Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry (Ed, Denzin, N. a. L.
Yvonna S.) Sage Publications, USA. Stake, R. (2005) Qualitative Case Studies In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research
(Ed, Denzin, N. a. L, Yvonna S.) Sage Publications, USA. Whitmore, J. (1994) Directing Postmodern Theatre, The University of Michigan Press, United
States of America.
93
9. APPENDICES
94
9.1 Interview with Robert Lepage. 22/01/06 1
2
I’m here with Robert Lepage at the Sydney International Arts Festival where he is finishing 3
up a season of ‘The Anderson Project’, inspired by the life and work of Hans Christian 4
Andersen. Thank you for taking the time, Robert, to talk a little about your work. 5
6
I’d like to start by asking, as well as the many other things you do, why do you choose to work 7
in the theatre? 8
9
Well, I guess that theatre appealed to me because it was a collective thing. I’ve always been a 10
very, very shy person and always been very interested in artistic expression – except the 11
visual arts or music always seemed to be more of an individual expression. So I’ve always 12
been way too shy. When I was in high school, when I finally got to do a bit of theatre, I found 13
that you could hide behind the group, and you never will have to take the responsibility on 14
your own for whatever you’re trying to convey, so it appealed to me as a gang thing – and I 15
was very, very interested in that and then eventually when I got to study to become an actor 16
and then got to do my first performances I realised that it actually is very different to film, 17
which is also a very individualistic form of expression. But theatre, even in a solo show, it is 18
not a solitary event, it is about a group of people, a community coming to a theatre and 19
dialoguing with another community which is in the room, and you don’t have that in film. 20
Film is just projected light on a screen and it doesn’t receive any influences from whatever 21
audience is there. So that’s pretty much what I find exciting: that happening of the theatre, 22
that ritual. 23
24
You talk about starting your projects from a ‘basic resource’ and everybody adds to it from 25
there. Could you elaborate on this and explain how you begin to build on this resource? 26
27
95
My starting points I prefer to call resources, rather than themes. Themes always imply some 28
sort of intellectual aspect, not that I am against intellectualism. A resource is more interesting 29
because you don’t have an opinion of a resource. I always give the example of a deck of 30
cards. If my idea is to bring in a deck of cards and say, ‘Well, let’s do a show about this’, I 31
don’t have the vaguest ideas of where we are going, but the resource is very rich because a 32
deck of cards had the colour red, the colour black. Some people will want to improv or 33
explore on the colour red, others on the colour black. Then there are four families, maybe it’s 34
the story of four families, there are characters. Whatever you will do with it, it will be a much 35
better starting point than to say, ‘Let’s do a show about war or let’s do a show about children 36
exploitation in Taiwan’, which are very, very important themes, but everyone has opinions on 37
these things and because we don’t come from the same social background so you end up in a 38
lot of compromises and doing a lot of debating. And whatever it is that you produce or write 39
as a collective is always a watered down thing of what you want to say, but if you start with a 40
resource, the resource is more poetic and eventually the theme of war will be in the deck of 41
cards, the theme of whatever political stance. 42
43
Are you happy to deal with it then once it has been introduced? 44
45
Absolutely, but it came out of the resource, it came out of what we had collectively to put 46
together. But to start with an intellectual theme or theme that immediately makes us debate 47
about something, suddenly the poetic aspect, the creative aspect becomes second-hand and 48
leads to bad art, so I try to approach this a bit like painters or sculptors who start with a rock. 49
They’re not too sure what it is they want to say, but they discover what they are about by just 50
sculpting the rock, because the rock helps them bounce back their personality, identity, so it 51
asks a lot of courage from the participants. Actors come to me and say, ‘Well, you know, 52
what character am I going to perform?’ And I don’t know. The resource will eventually bring 53
us there. 54
55
96
What’s an example of one of those resources? 56
57
When we did ‘The Seven Streams of the River Ota’ we knew it was going to be about 58
Hiroshima, but we never started by saying, ‘Let’s do something about the atomic bomb, or 59
Hiroshima.’ I brought in a little piece of mirror and a lipstick, and those were the beginning. I 60
had heard this story of a woman in Hiroshima who had been disfigured and she would always 61
hide a mirror under her pillow and a lipstick, so she would put on the lipstick and then wipe it 62
off, so that was a very rich anecdote and those objects. So we improvised with mirrors a lot, 63
and it became about all sorts of other things except this woman from Hiroshima. So at the 64
very end you tend to go back to the original themes, but on your way there these resources 65
bring you enough of supply and there are other resources that add themselves. It calls for 66
other objects and other starting points. So when I did ‘Far Side of the Moon’, for example, I 67
was struggling with two ideas for the show. I wanted to do a show about my mother. My 68
mother had just died. But I never do that, I never start with a theme. But I really felt the urge 69
to do something about my mother and I didn’t know what, and at the same time I had just read 70
an interesting book called Back to Earth which was about Buzz Aldrin who was the second 71
person to walk on the moon, so it was all about being number two, always second best, 72
missing your chance to be number one. So it was a very interesting book, and I thought I 73
would like to do something about that, but there was no way I could reconcile these two ideas, 74
and one day I was walking in an alleyway and in the garbage I could see this industrial 75
washing machine door. I couldn’t tell if it was a washing machine or a portal to a space 76
shuttle. I thought: this is a really neat object. I bought and improv’d with it and I opened and 77
went through and did everything I could do with it. It actually reminded me of when I was a 78
kid, one day the washing machine broke and my mother brought me to a Laundromat and I 79
remember how it was ‘mission control’. So the whole theme about my youth, with my mother 80
and also the space program, which was also one of my obsessions, suddenly found a door 81
literally, and I could enter that and everything started to be developed from that. 82
83
97
You talk a lot about the independent life of a theatrical project and uncovering the essence of 84
the work. As a director, how do you keep your conceptualisation, or working methods open 85
enough to allow the ‘independent life’ of a play to emerge on its own? 86
87
I do something called public rehearsals, because part of staging or writing happens with the 88
audience. That’s where the main writing or the main staging happens. But, of course, our 89
theatrical production system does not allow that, so you have to create your own company and 90
create your own rules. So, what we do is, whether it’s a written text or a creative process, we, 91
after three weeks, maybe a month of rehearsals, we do what we call public rehearsals. We just 92
put together what we have and we just perform it, and we perform it for an unannounced 93
evening. We call people, we put an add in the newspaper, it’s $5. We don’t invite any critics. 94
It’s really completely spontaneous. We do this a few times and a lot of the writing happens 95
then, because the first time you have to put your thing together for an audience actually makes 96
you make choices. Once you’re in front of the audience, they react, some stay around, 97
drinking beer and whatever, and people talk and say, ‘I don’t really know what you’re getting 98
at with that thing’ or ‘I really liked that character’. You let people inform you of what it is that 99
you’re doing because the thing is that I personally never know what I’m talking about really. I 100
do stuff, I have intuitions, I think at one point we’re touching on this theme, and at another 101
point we’re probably going into this other thing, but sometimes the work is much richer. It’s 102
always richer than you think. You work in a very unconscious and intuitive way. It’s always 103
much richer than you think, so you need people to tell you what it is, so I try to do as many 104
public rehearsals as possible and when the official performance process starts, I come back 105
every night for a long time, because that’s when the show is actually being created. Some 106
people know that in Quebec City, a lot of people come two, three times to see the show and 107
it’s a radically different show every time. So the more it goes, the less radically different it is. 108
It continues to change every night and we go on tour, and after two, three years it changes, 109
evolves, but you get into minutiae and you’re not as radical as the early stages. There’s 110
something terrible in our system which is called opening night. It’s a guillotine, and we try to 111
98
pretend that it doesn’t exist. We just try and fade into the performance area and people think 112
it’s because we are afraid of criticism and opening night. We’re not afraid of criticism. It’s 113
just that we try not to decide, ‘OK, opening night, so now this officially a show.’ It is never 114
finished. So as a director I allow myself to be wrong, and I don’t imprison myself in a system 115
where it’s opening night and it’s over, and I can afford now to impose that on other 116
companies. If I’m going to work for another company who doesn’t work that way, I can 117
afford that now, I can say, ‘Well, I’m sorry, but this how I work’, and in the earlier years it 118
was more difficult. People wanted something produced, well yeah, but if you want it to have a 119
life you have to allow me to come back and say to the actors, maybe come an hour before the 120
performance tonight, and we are changing everything. 121
122
The techniques and theories of Bertolt Brecht have pervaded the work of many theatre 123
practitioners of the past 50 years; do you feel this is case with your work? 124
125
I have been extremely influenced by Brecht. I studied him and I know about his work a lot. 126
The thing is that a lot of his writing does not survive the second part of the 20th century and 127
beginning of the 21st century. A lot of stuff you could just throw away, but a lot of things are 128
universal and go beyond ‘Mother Courage’ and a lot of stuff that he wrote. But the thing 129
about Brecht, and nobody really picked up on this, he really said everything has to happen at 130
the same time. When the writer is writing his play, he’s also staging it, he’s also designing it, 131
he’s also rehearsing it. Everything is happening at the same time. All the choices are being 132
made at the same time, which is pretty much how I’m working in this process and everybody 133
is surprised at the way I’m working, but Brecht worked that way. Maybe he was isolated also, 134
he had his own little thing going on, and people have been staging Brecht after that in a more 135
traditional manner. All of his approach on acting, what is emotion, how you convey a 136
message, they found their way into my work, that’s for sure. But it’s not a recipe or a method, 137
and you take what it is you want. Brecht himself was changing, he died in 1956 and in the last 138
two, three years of his life suddenly he was shifting toward a different kind of theatre slowly. 139
99
He was interested in doing ‘Waiting For Godot’ and Ionesco, but he was a man of his time, he 140
wrote for his time, I guess realising what was going on in this Communist ideal world that he 141
had wished for that was not so ideal. And he wanted to move to Paris and wanted to be 142
influenced by other forms of theatre, and I’m sure that a lot of his rules or dogmas would have 143
continued but he probably would have adapted it, probably would have made it evolve. And 144
one of the things was that he wrote and wrote the same things over, saying that a play is not a 145
museum piece, it should never gather dust, and if it’s not good or efficient or appropriate any 146
more, you flush it or completely cut it into pieces and do something different with it. And, of 147
course, after his death…..if there’s dust in the world, it's at the Berliner Ensemble, maybe not 148
anymore today but for about 28 years, and everybody worked according to the method. 149
150
It is the problem of translation – the fact that what he called the Verfremdungseffekt has been 151
translated by English by ‘alienation’ and in French by d'aliénation. Now you have to know 152
that the people who publish Brecht’s plays in France, for example, a company called 153
‘L’Arche’, and that’s owned by the Communist party of France, so of course the plays have 154
been translated and edited and the theories have been presented and translated according to a 155
certain vision of the world. What Verfremdungseffekt means is the effect of strangeness. That 156
could be anything as long as you make it interesting enough. It’s life; I recognise life, but in a 157
strange manner, and that’s poetry, that’s art. So it’s not a statement on theatre when we talk 158
about Verfremdungseffekt because art is interesting in general when it obtains that state of 159
strangeness. So ‘alienation’ means many other things than this, and it’s been taught in 160
universities and theatre schools in a terrible manner. And the same thing in French, 161
d'aliénation means at a distance, and it has nothing to do with what Brecht did. Of course, I 162
wasn’t there to see it, but now I bump into people who were there and who either worked with 163
or know what it was about and it’s actually much more sensuous, much more about poetry 164
and about life and more artistic than this intellectual concept of Verfremdungseffekt. 165
166
100
Does that link to your idea of the actor not experiencing, necessarily, the emotion on stage, 167
but allowing that emotion to be felt in the audience instead? 168
169
Absolutely. That’s where the emotion should be first, in the audience. Now if that means that 170
on stage, sometimes, the actor has to feel some kind of emotion, why not? Any tool is good to 171
get what it is you want to convey across, but the important thing is to get the emotion in the 172
room. And I have become very aggressive in that subject, because I think theatre, in general, 173
is bad these days, because of exactly that. In theatre, schools and directors think that theatre is 174
the stage of emotion, the sport of emotion, that a good actor is an actor that emotes, but that’s 175
not true. A good actor is somebody who is moving. If he moves audiences then he’s a good 176
actor, and that notion is completely evacuated out of the theatre and stage right now. So you 177
see a lot of narcissistic people who are all about themselves, and you see them suffer on stage 178
and they cry and they go through all these emotions, and you’re sitting there in the room and 179
you don’t get any of that and you even feel sometimes that you want to leave the room 180
because you’re kind of eavesdropping on someone else’s thing. It’s very masturbatory. I don’t 181
like that, maybe some people like that, but I’m not voyeur enough to get all my kicks just 182
from that, so that’s why sometimes I’m perceived as someone who’s against emotion. I’m not 183
against emotion; on the contrary, I’m all for emotion, but in the room. If you want to make 184
people cry, it’s the people in the room, not the people on stage. 185
186
In an essay called ‘Machines of the Mind’, the author wrote: ‘Lepage’s narratives are 187
designed to draw spectators into the creative process. But they are also intended to 188
destabilize and supplant conventional ways of thinking.’ I’m wondering if you could comment 189
on this. 190
. 191
None of this is intentional, so you know. Once again, Picasso said an artist’s job is find things 192
and then he goes looking for them, and that’s the same thing. So I agree with this, but I 193
haven’t invented this, and I’m not conscious of this at the very start. It is a quest for your own 194
101
identity, whatever work that you do, and trying to understand how you work. And if you’re 195
honest in doing that, you will move people, you will draw an audience onboard. They will 196
say, ‘I feel like that, too’ or ‘That was interesting’ or ‘He has a strange point of view’…. I 197
believe in uniqueness, I don’t believe in being number one, so that means that however one 198
sees the world, whoever we are, it is a unique way of seeing the world. And if you are honest 199
with that, if you’re not trying to produce other stereotypes and you’re not trying to please the 200
general point of view on things, you will give access to the audience to this special point of 201
view, which is unique because it’s yours. And once again we are in a society that encourages 202
us to be number one, it’s all about being the best, about number one but no one encourages us 203
to be unique. Now if you’re unique you are number one, you’re unique, you’re the best in 204
your category and that’s what interesting, I think, to really find what is unique about yourself. 205
Everybody has something, and my work is just a series of exercises to find that. Sometimes it 206
doesn’t work too well, but it’s an exercise on the self, and you know that at the other end the 207
audience is waiting for you to provide this unique way or a strange new way to look at things. 208
But my goal is not for them to think that I’m original. 209
210
Many of your works tend to be made up of various narratives that all contribute to a master 211
narrative. What is the idea or rationale behind that? Is that a technique? 212
213
No, it’s not a technique, it’s just that you have to have confidence that when you start working 214
on a piece of work or a resource, whatever the starting point, you have to have confidence that 215
a river will appear and eventually that will break out into streams, and these streams 216
eventually somewhere go back to the primal, whatever it is, whether it’s the cloud that feeds 217
them or the sea. You have to allow chaos to come into the room, because there cannot be 218
cosmos if there’s no chaos. Chaos is chaos and cosmos is order, so you can not have a 219
coherent beautiful system that works if you don’t have chaos in the beginning. You can not 220
make really invent anything from scratch. We start by defining characters and a story line, 221
situation and we think we are going there and two days later we go there and we say, ‘What 222
102
happened to this?’ We have to trust that it will come back in this direction and we’re on this 223
bridge and we really get lost and it breaks again. You have to just go for that, and eventually 224
the show tells you what to do. And it’s difficult, once again, in a world where we’re supposed 225
to be the people who know, the people who control, the leaders, the captain of the ship. It’s 226
not about that. It’s all about getting lost, and then eventually you get it. You say, ‘Wait a 227
minute, we’ve been through here before, because remember that first character you did, well, 228
this could be his mother.’ It’s really obvious the underlines and the connections, and there is 229
an actual life that goes on without you. Whatever it is that you have created has its own 230
system, and it just goes into all these extraordinary, beautiful things that are connecting, so 231
you’re there trying to find a path and eventually you draw a map and you go: OK, I think that 232
works, that now is connected, that makes perfect sense, that’s in the show…But this is a 233
hanging thread…What will we do with it? Well, time will tell, and sometimes that answer 234
comes when we are in performance…way in performance and one night you go: this is where 235
this goes. 236
237
Having worked that way many times, on a number of shows, have you ever found an 238
exploration technique, or way that keeps popping up? 239
240
We are trying to structure the work according to whatever comes out, so trying to leave it 241
open. But, of course, there are some reoccurring things, partly because if I’m working at the 242
centre of this or with the same people we have a vocabulary that we have developed that 243
belongs to us. But I think also that we work hand in hand with a technical team that is there 244
from day one, and we feel obligated to them because they need answers pretty quick 245
sometimes on buying something, or hiring, or setting something up. So they always bring us 246
back down to earth and they have a system that is a bit more rigid than ours, so that helps. But 247
we don’t really have a model, but we have a way of starting things, and we know there is a 248
place in the building where we live. We have this big studio in Quebec City, and we have this 249
place and know the table is there, we have a board, we have all these little habits and know 250
103
that’s how it starts and after two weeks we’ll probably end up in this other little room where 251
they have this other thing. So, yes, we have a maze that we are used to going through. But 252
every new show surprises us. After three, four days, suddenly there’s this world we never 253
thought we would enter and that often puts us in a place we have never been and asks us to 254
structure or work in ways we haven’t done before, so it’s a very, very strange process. 255
256
When you find that place, does there tend to be a lot of research? Do you go into intensive 257
research times? 258
259
There is research but it happens as we are exploring. It used to be, for example, when we did 260
‘Seven Streams of the River Ota’, people would come in, there would be a lot of participants. 261
It was a seven-hour show, so there was a lot of subject. It was a lot about the 20th Century and 262
the wars and a lot about a time that we weren’t born, things that we haven’t experienced. But 263
the way the research works is that there is so many people around. In the case of the ‘Seven 264
Streams’ we had cardboard boxes and every day people would come in and say, ‘Well, I 265
found this book yesterday and remember the improv we did about the Balkans war, there’s 266
this guy who was actually in it.’ And we say, ‘Well, great, put it in the box.’ And we just pile 267
up stuff and these things come back out once in while when we need them, but it’s very, very 268
cumbersome when you go on tour with a show that’s not finished and have these big boxes to 269
carry around. But then technology kicked in and since ‘Far Side of the Moon’ the technicians 270
are there and they all have power books and they’re wondering what they’re going to be doing 271
and I don’t know. I’m sitting there at the end of the table with some collaborators, dramaturge 272
and a friend, just trying to explain and I’m too shy to go and improv, so we play around with 273
some chairs and on the second day I start to explain the character a little bit. And they’re just 274
trying to kill time and they’re on the internet, so they do research and Google their way 275
through the whole process, and after a week they found gazillions of things, of imagery. So 276
whatever you say in an improv, you know, that map of the world you were talking about, well 277
I found here and a complete site about weather watch, and you just plug it in and project it on 278
104
the wall, and I improv with a map. That’s how it works now, and we have assistants that when 279
you say something they’re taking notes and in the afternoon we have it. They found it on a 280
website or they order it by UPS and the day after you have it, so it’s very, very fast, to a point 281
where you have to be careful what you say, because sometimes you overdo it but that’s how it 282
works if you want things to happen. 283
284
There is one thing that we have developed and impose on co-producers also. We rehearse 285
only in the morning and in the evening; we never rehearse in the afternoon. There are all sorts 286
of reasons why and the first reason is because creative energy in the afternoon is zilch. You 287
spend the afternoon digesting what you had for lunch. There is absolutely nothing interesting 288
coming out of your mouth, and it’s heavy, and people want to go home. So everything is more 289
efficient if you work only the mornings and the evening. The energy of the mornings is 290
fantastic for improv and intuition and you can be very physical and in the evening there is 291
something that goes on that’s fantastic also. What we impose to collaborators is that we 292
rehearse in the morning, evening, and in the afternoon they can do what they want. It’s almost 293
European in a sense. They can almost have a siesta. What happens is that whatever idea we 294
came up with in the morning the people in the workshops during the afternoon build it up, 295
they do a mock-up, so we arrive in the evenings and we rehearse in it, and that happens all the 296
time, so it’s a real synergy. So that has become so efficient at one point that we impose it on 297
everything we do. We’re based in Quebec City and because a lot of collaborators are from 298
Montréal, a three-hour drive, they want to go back home on the weekends. On the Saturday 299
we rehearse from ten, instead of nine, to two in the afternoon, in one big chunk, then 300
everybody’s off. We have exceptions, but otherwise it’s really becoming a way of working. 301
So it has a very practical side to it but, personally, I haven’t verified this theory, but I think it 302
has a creative energy. Tons of people will tell you the same thing: in the afternoon your brain 303
is dead. 304
305
105
You work in extremely different environments from the rehearsal rooms of ‘The Dragon’s 306
Trilogy’, where one of your actors suggested, ‘It was the characters themselves who 307
improvised…we barely had control over what they had to say’ to your recent production in 308
Las Vegas with Cirque de Soleil. What are the main changes in your directorial approach in 309
these different contexts? 310
311
It’s pretty much the same thing. The difference is in the disciplines. If you’re working with an 312
opera singer, an actor or an acrobat, they’re radically different when it comes to the training, 313
what it demands physically, so you have to adapt the way you work, you have to work around 314
those problems. An actor is pretty much spontaneous; you could do what you want in real 315
time. An opera singer will say, ‘Let me learn it and let me place it’, and it takes time and it’s 316
highly technical. Before any sound comes out, any meaning, any warmth, there’s an 317
incredibly long process, technical process. When you are working with the circus it’s even 318
worse. Everyone is very, very generous, it’s slave mentality, and they just want to do stuff, 319
and you say, ‘Well, can you do this?’ And they will go for a month to train and be able to give 320
it to you. That imposes a way of working that is different every time and I try, I don’t always 321
succeed, in getting what I want or making it as efficient as I want, but I’ve pretty much been 322
able to transfer my way of working. 323
324
With Cirque de Soleil did you have the performers in the room with you? Is that how you 325
started? 326
327
Pretty much, yes, 74, 75 performers. So you don’t have the same intimacy. Compare cooking 328
a turkey for 12 people and catering for 200 guests in a ballroom. You can’t have the same 329
attention to 200 turkeys or 200 quails. It’s a very, very different relationship that you have. 330
It’s not that I try and create hierarchies, I create areas. There is a group of people who will be 331
more concerned with different aspects of the show. So I try to work in smaller groups and 332
from whatever they do something comes out about the storyline or character, but it’s a much 333
106
longer process because you need more time, money, availability, and more time with the 334
audience also. It means that the show, your performing will really take a couple of years 335
before it matures. 336
337
You’ve just told me this project is no longer happening, but the theme park project where you 338
were collaborating with Laurie Anderson, Brian Eno and Peter Gabriel, what was that idea 339
based on? 340
341
Peter came to Australia a long, long time ago on a tour and he found a quarry here and 342
thought that it would be great place to do a theme park and somebody here in Australia said, 343
‘Why don’t you come and do a big theme park?’ And his idea of a theme park was something 344
where you would not come out of it alienated, in the sense that Disneyworld and these usual 345
theme parks, people come out of there and they don’t feel empowered. They say, ‘Wow, what 346
was that? How did they do that?’ They’re alienated. They just spent their money and go back 347
home. And he wanted to create a place where people come out of that and they are 348
empowered and say, ‘Wow, I know how this works’ or ‘I’ve got some idea for how to make 349
music’. So that was his idea, and, of course, he is a close friend of Brian Eno and Laurie, so 350
the three of them got together and said, ‘Well, why don’t we try and make this work?’ Except 351
they were looking for a piece of land that would have been offered to them. It was supposed 352
to happen in England at one point, but that didn’t happen so they went to Barcelona because 353
for the Olympics the mayor of Barcelona gave them a section of Montjuic, which is this 354
mountain in the middle of Barcelona, because Barcelona suddenly had a lot of money because 355
of the Olympics. So they started to put this into high gear and they did some official meetings 356
and tried to broaden the group, like Terry Gillian, to consult and come on board, [also] some 357
very old conceptual artists, from Prague, who had worked on previous world Expo’s. It really 358
was an extraordinary group of people but it didn’t work out for Barcelona. That was 1992. 359
Also, because they’re very good artists but disorganised, and it happened that that year I was 360
performing in London, and Peter came and saw my work, we became friends, and started to 361
107
work with him and he embarked me into this process but it eventually fizzled out. Artists are 362
good thinking machines but they have their own careers also, and it happened that at one 363
point Peter needed to go make a record, then Laurie, then Brian, so the whole thing just 364
fizzled. 365
366
In an interview with John Tusa you said, ‘I am forcing myself to go toward the simplicity of 367
just standing there and speaking… theatre naturally brings you to the spoken word.’ Could 368
you explain this further? 369
370
It’s a difficult thing to explain because I don’t understand it well. I’ve always been associated 371
with the visual theatre, theatre of images and objects, but in fact it starts with the word. It 372
always starts with spoken improv and eventually we evacuate that. We are in a world of 373
information where information comes through spoken word a lot, so suddenly image and form 374
and all of that, for an artist, seems to be a stronger more interesting way of conveying that. 375
Now, or more recently, we are much more obsessed by imagery, much more obsessed by rock 376
videos. Things are always put into image, or shape, or colour. I have a tendency to go back to 377
the word because of that. There is something about radio that is much more visual than visual 378
art. There is something about radio that really enters your mind, enters your brain and how 379
music on its own, without the image of rock video, conveys your own personal images and 380
it’s a much stronger visual medium, so I’m slowly moving toward that. 381
382
And right now the next big project is called Lipsynch, and we started rehearsing last month 383
actually, and it’s about the human voice, it’s about the spoken word. It’s a bit of a shock for a 384
lot of people, because they think we are embarking on the next big visual project. And maybe 385
it will be, probably will be, because it’s all about lip-synching, but I’m more and more 386
interested in that in theatre words incarnate themselves. When Shakespeare, in ‘Romeo and 387
Juliet’, when he has Mercutio, when he is dying, say, ‘The plague on both your houses, the 388
plague on both your houses, The plague on both your houses’. Three times. When you 389
108
translate this to German, or French, there is always this big debate, because in French we 390
don’t say things three times the same way, but it’s very important to do that because in 391
Shakespeare’s times if you say that three times and it’s heard and it’s well said, it happens. In 392
the play that’s the reason why the letter doesn’t do what it needs to do. So things are not 393
repeated three times just for the sake of form, they’re spells. When you speak in the theatre it 394
is a spell and it changes the world, to what extent I don’t know, but if you say something, 395
make a statement and it is clear and you are heard, words incarnate themselves. Greeks 396
believed that. In ‘The Tempest’, when Prospero says to Miranda, ‘Whatever you say to 397
Ferdinand, never say your name, never, never speak your name’ and from the moment she has 398
a slip of the tongue, that’s when all the problems start. In the world of magic you never use 399
your name, because if you give your name to someone they can use it to do whatever. So 400
words and the importance of words and the ritual of theatre, these things mean how they’re 401
used. So, for example, I don’t know what you’ll think when you see this new show. It has 402
twice as much technology, but everyone is saying, ‘Oh my god, it’s so simplified’ because it’s 403
much more integrated, I guess. It’s much more about words. But I don’t think that you go 404
toward a more written theatre just because there’s more text. I think you can also have less 405
text. It’s the role of the text and the role the words play. 406
407
You once called yourself a ‘gradualist’. This suggests that you are slowly working toward a 408
goal. What do you think it is? 409
410
It’s probably a goal that you never obtain. I think it’s just the understanding of who you are. I 411
connect this to my interest in geography; it was a bit of Utopia when I decided to go to the 412
Conservatoire because, first of all, I got accepted, and even if I was going to be, I never had 413
an image of myself as an artist beyond those studies. So on the back burner I had this project 414
of being a geography teacher, and I’m trying to connect these two things together and say: 415
‘what is my goal?’ And I think it was just to get out of your house and go and find yourself 416
somewhere else, it’s that quest in ‘The Alchemist’ where you’re probably sitting on your 417
109
treasure but you need to go to the desert and look for it and that’s pretty much what touring is 418
about. There’s this whole thing about theatre being translation. One of the mechanicals says to 419
Bottom, in ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’, you have been translated and he’s been 420
transformed into an ass; what is that word ‘translated’? It’s connected literally to when you 421
travel, how do you translate who you are and what you need, in another language, in another 422
culture, another form? So it’s all about transformation. I guess I do what I do because I want 423
to change, I want to be someone else, I want to be better. So that’s, I think, what it is, and 424
because change is something that is perpetual, you never really obtain the shape that you’re 425
really are looking for, so I’m just running, trying to catch something, when in fact I’m also 426
running away from something. 427
428
Robert Lepage, thank you very much. 429
110
9.2 Support letter from Robert Lepage Quebec, February 23rd 2006 Support Letter / Benjamin Knapton To whom this may concern, This brief letter confirms Benjamin Knapton invitation to join our team as an observer as well as it acknowledges our support to him, in all the steps he is taking to obtain the necessary funding to make his venture to Quebec possible. Mr Knapton is one of the few people selected personally by Robert Lepage to join his team as an observer. This coveted position will allow Mr. Knapton to study and comprehend new and avant-gardist theatrical artform by witnessing Mr. Lepage's creation process, his "work in progress". It will be a pleasure for us to welcome Benjamin during our second creation period on the Lipsynch show in Quebec. However, his stay in Quebec will be at his complete expenses. We do not provide accommodations, nor do we provide transportation. Mr. Knapton must be autonomous. Fortunately, we are situated in a part of town that has lots of hotels and restaurants. We strongly hope that he will be able to gather the sum necessary to carry out his project. The creation we have invited Mr. Knapton to witness should take place in October 2006. We strongly believe his stay with us will prove to be most beneficial in his creative endeavor, as it has been for all our past observers. Hoping this letter may have a positive effect on the deciding members of the committee, I thank you very much for your time. Sincerely yours, Ève-Alexandra St-Laurent For Robert Lepage Stage and Film Director
111
9.3 Ethical Clearance Document
112
113
9.4 DVD of creative work GAIJIN
Attached to back cover