The content of a project is determined during a long process of consultation and discussion with all sections of the community in order to identify fully the issues of concern in that area. This usually results in the plays being set largely within living memory, and especially having links to, and scenes set in, the present day.
We believe that it is important to establish the ownership of the play at the very beginning of the project and to ensure that the content is seen as relevant to members of that community. This process takes time, usually beginning even before the project officially starts and continuing throughout the first year of the project, as contacts are made, pilot projects initiated and individuals involved. Throughout the devising period there is still the opportunity for the community to determine and shape the content of the play.
This process ensures that the project is:
* publicised to a wide constituency
* engaging local imagination
* enfranchising the local community
* owned by local people from the beginning
If this is carried out diligently and successfully, there is a high probability that the finished play will truly reflect the community, and will `ring true' with the members of that community.
County Galway Community Arts Network.
Devised then scripted
Plays are created by local participants during a long process of discussion, improvisation, play- making and writing. The writer acts as facilitator, enabling participants to use their creativity to interpret the material gained from the consultation process above. The play in its final state is the product of many creative minds in which people can recognise their own contribution.
We use a number of different strategies to devise a community play. Typically, a youth theatre is established in the area during the first year to work on material for the community play during year two. At the same time, a devising group, which tends to be a microcosm of the community, meets weekly throughout the project. This usually has a smallish core group of between 10 and 15, although many other people drift in and out of the process. During the course of a play's creation, including the youth theatre and involvement of other groups such as schools and day centres, up to 100 people contribute creatively to the script. The more often people attend devising sessions, the more they contribute, and the facilitator has to ensure that sessions are not taken over by a vocal few.
"Loved it, brill, magic and sad because it's so true." Audience member, Hot Water
County Galway Community Arts Network.
Devising techniques and practices vary depending on factors such as the:
* particular style of the facilitator
* physical surroundings (e.g. large groups in small rooms can't work in small groups)
* interests of the individuals in the group
* needs of the play Some plays are almost totally created through dramatic improvisation.
Participants adopt characters and create scenes spontaneously which are recorded on video or noted down by the writer/facilitator scribbling madly (e.g. Ticket to Nowhere). Other plays have been written `in the circle', with a whole group slowly piecing together scenes through a collaborative effort, throwing in lines, bouncing ideas off each other (e.g. Out of the Shadows). Most groups, however, use a mix of different techniques, with drama and creative writing sitting comfortably side by side in the same session.
The process can often be little more than a discussion, particularly in areas where the arts are viewed with suspicion or where group members have little confidence in their contributions. In this sort of situation, the facilitator finds ways of drawing out creativity, almost without the participants noticing. During Making a Difference, I was accompanied to an early devising session on the Bournville estate by a student from a community arts course. The group was small, reluctant and feeling low; the prospect of tea and biscuits was more attractive than the idea of making a scene and the idea of creating a whole play seemed to them at that point insurmountable. I mentally tore up my session plan, fetched biscuits, and we chatted, vaguely and generally, about the scene we were meant to be writing and the characters in it.
When the formal task had been removed, the group was full of ideas. "Well, she might say this..." and "What about if he came back?" and "Of course, she would think that because..." I listened, asked the odd question, and scribbled. At the end of the two hour session, the group read together the scene we'd written that morning, with another cup of tea and a quiet sense of satisfaction. Later, the student said, "They wrote that scene, and they didn't even know they were doing it. It just happened."
Sometimes that's the best way of doing it. In many situations a formal plan, with a warm-up and `arty' exercises, rather than stimulating involvement, can actually present a huge barrierto creativity. The important thing is to find what's right for that particular group on that particular day, and not to be afraid to throw away the plan and improvise.
The play is produced in collaboration between all participants, but it is the role of the writer/facilitator to take all the contributions and use them and new material to construct a play that will:
* fairly balance all contributing voices
* truly reflect the issues concerning the community
* make sense
* entertain an audience
* create enough equally-sized and suitable parts to suit the size and make-up of cast
The play has to be long enough to incorporate all the issues the devising group want to include, but not too long for an audience to appreciate. I usually encourage devising groups to aim for a first half of 1 hour 20 minutes, and a second half of 1 hour. Any more than this and the audience's experience can start to become less than comfortable; their attention will wander and the effect of the play will be less. The writing group and facilitator have to decide what to leave out, as well as what to leave in.
Balancing all this is not an easy task. No matter how much the community has been involved in the process, it's always possible that the finished play isn't quite right. To avoid this, the writer/facilitator always produces a first draft for the devising group and the steering committee of the whole project, to be agreed or changed. This is usually a simple process; in most circumstances people have been involved enough through the play-making to have ironed out any difficulties along the way. Although changes are always made, the final draft is usually fairly close to the first.
The process, however, can lend itself to abuse. One community play script, although thoroughly devised, was sent back for radical changes three times because two members of the devising group could not make up their minds about certain details. Even after three re-writings, when the final script had been accepted, the two members continued to change their minds, resulting in extensive re-writing during the rehearsal process and even during the run of the show. I think the show as performed on the last night did finally have some form of grudging approval. Whilst it is important to try to serve the desires and creativity of all members of the group, sometimes individuals may have personal reasons for disrupting the process and going against the will of the larger group.
For many people exercising their creativity for the first time in many years, devising is a revelation - particularly the experience of creating as part of a group.
The devising group feels a great sense of ownership of the play. When the script is produced, typed up from the previous week's session, the reaction of participants to seeing their work in print is one of complete delight. It's a tremendously empowering moment. This sense of pride and satisfaction is particularly evident on Script Pick-up Night.
This event is held at the very beginning of the rehearsal process. Everyone who has asked to be included in the cast is given a part, then invited to come along on a certain night to pick up their scripts, talk to the directors and staff and get a feeling for the whole play. This event has replaced the Play Read-through, when we used to get the whole cast together to read through the play. This was dropped as it created difficulties for people who found it hard to read or to concentrate for a long period of time. In other community play models, particularly the Colway model, it has been the tradition for the playwright to read through the play to the cast. ACTA have never done this, as it identifies the play too much in the ownership of the writer and doesn't recognise the community's contribution.
The casting of a play is a point of contention in many community plays. Although most community plays have a policy of casting everyone who wants a part, it doesn't mean to say that everyone gets the part they want. In the end, the play is written, and the cast must be found to fit the parts.
This is very different in ACTA's model. Our approach relates directly to our policy for devising and inclusivity. The play is written to fit the participants, rather than the participants found to fit the play. There are several reasons for this:
* practical: there's no point writing a play with lots of male parts if 80% of participants are women.
* creative: people can create the parts they want to play.
* equality of opportunity: every character has lines (unless they don't want them): there are no `star parts'. There is no point in a community play that is only really about the relationship between two people.
* inclusivity: parts can be created for the whole range of age and abilities who want to get involved. Just because someone has no speech, or is five, or is disabled, or has a learning difficulty, or is 95, does not mean they cannot have a significant role.
There are no auditions for an ACTA show: anyone who wants to be in the play is involved. To some extent, people who are part of the devising process have the opportunity to create the role they then go on to play, so casting is an organic process. Other participants are contacted and involved as the process continues, so it's possible to ensure the final script contains enough speaking roles to reflect this. Some people become involved once the script is finished. We meet these people for a chat to discuss the sort of part they would like and incorporate this.
Participants with low literacy are given support and a taped reading of the play is made available for visually impaired participants or non-readers. Parts can be created to cater specifically for the special abilities of participants who would not be able to take part in conventional plays. One disabled participant in an ACTA show, unable to communicate except by an alphabet board, created a fully developed character and gave a greatly moving performance using facial expression and gesture that was central to the play. It is extremely important that inclusivity is not interpreted as tokenism, where (particularly) disabled people are included in the cast of a community play which is designed with no thoughts about their access needs. I have seen examples of this in shows by other companies, where wheelchair users have been part of a promenade performance that has meant that they cannot see or be seen. One stunningly insensitive production had a wheelchair user in the cast, but the raked stage made access totally impossible. The cast member was left to spend the whole show stuck at the front, desperately trying to be part of the action, until eventually, when their frustrations became apparent, they were wheeled off-stage by an embarrassed stagehand.
As the theme and content of ACTA's community plays are based on a process of consultation and devising with community members, a large part of the subject matter comes from the personal experiences of those consulted. This is not exclusive to ACTA's work: for instance, the Belgrade Theatre, Remould Theatre in Hull and the Living Archive have included elements of oral history and documentary in their plays and often deal with present-day issues. In our work, the present day and the past are usually linked by a narrative structure which puts the two periods in some form of context, making connections between the different life experiences, re-discovering and validating the past and its importance to the issues of the present.
"It'll be a short play then. There's nothing to do a play about. Nothing's ever happened round here."
It required a great leap of faith for people to recognise that they had a past at all, let alone one to be celebrated, one of which to be proud. Yet, once the reminiscence started, once interviewees were aware that, yes, we did want to know about the minute details of their history, and yes, we did find it fascinating, they also became aware of the importance of their own experiences, and the particular significance of their own existence. We all have a story to tell: what we normally lack is someone to whom to tell it. It is easy within our internal worlds to become convinced of our own unimportance, our lack of influence upon events.
The interest that the community play project showed in individual experiences led the interviewees to look again at and re-assess their experiences. If someone else was interested in their life, then their life was interesting. If someone else valued their life, then their life was valuable. Validated. When that story is turned into theatre, seen by an audience who are interested in, entertained and moved by the stories and details of that life, then the effect on the individual is multiplied.
Making a Difference looked for stories around which to build each play, so that the plays themselves would reflect accurately not only the individual participants, but also the history and spirit of the whole area. For an area usually regarded as a problem, a dumping ground or a hotbed of crime, a public platform is a unique opportunity to put forward a positive message, challenge prejudice and validate the experience and existence of that community.