Activating simultaneity in performance exploring robert lepages working principles in the making of gaijin

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

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

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

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

5.2 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

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

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

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: ………

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

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

1 INTRODUCTION

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

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

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%)

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

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

2 METHODOLOGY

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

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

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)

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

‘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

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

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

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 offeredthe 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

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

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

3 CONTEXTUAL CONCEPTS

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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

4 UNDERSTANDING LIPSYNCH

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

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

• 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

• 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

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:

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)

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

(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