Is this REALLY a "different" way of working?

The other day, as we were finishing up a discussion of Community Based Theater and what that is, how what we're doing is different than the companies described in our readings, and how what we're doing is related to community engagement and social change, a really very important question came up: someone mentioned that all of the techniques and ways of working we've been studying are really all just research; good research practices, maybe, but in terms of the actor's process, they all fall under the blanket of research techniques.

I think, to a certain degree, this is very true! These are indeed all methods of research, in the same way that, to my mind, every single production of a play can be considered research on that play. And a performer's work can be considered research on the formation of identity. But in terms of an actor's research, I imagine what we're doing a bit differently than research an actor conducts to lend his or her character a note of "authenticity," which I take as the goal of method actors and others who conduct character based research.

In order to explain this, first I should say that part of the idea of this class is based on the concept that actors are very important public figures: that they not only reflect the world around them, but also produce images that shape how people understand themselves and their world. Actors, in that sense, are to me very important public intellectuals who carry out ideas with their bodies and voices. And these ideas are, very significantly, often about identity.

But another part of the idea of this class is that "identity," rather than being a solid, constant, unchanging idea or type or mold into which a person (or an actor) steps, is an ongoing process that is built and changes gradually. So identity, contrary to popular understanding, is not formed by the individual before he or she steps into the world. It is created in collaboration with the world in a social and public way.

So when the actors in the class look at the play, and see the characters Chuck Mee has written, those characters are only pieces in a bigger puzzle. Yet another part of the equation here is what Mary Overlie calls thinking "horizontally" rather than hierarchically. Mee's words are, of course, incredibly important. But so are the words of the people in the community with which the actors will speak. And they all take on a sort of equal importance, as does the actor's own background. Further still, this is a kind of "Participatory Action Research" for actors. It's not about taking and using people's stories, so much as in discovering what the process can yield in terms of building new communities and talking about ways to solve problems.

It's also about collaboration: seeing the character you put on stage as a cooperative effort between you, the playwright, your colleagues and the community at large. At the Cornerstone Institute this past summer, we had a class in which we discussed different kinds of working together to solve problems, one of which was "collaborative." And "collaborative" was defined as two parties coming together to create something that didn't exist before. Through your collaboration with the community (however you define or build it) on these characters, you are creating several new things: a character for the stage which provides the audience with a way of seeing the world, a new relationship and community, and potentially new ways of solving problems.

I encourage you to go back and read again some of the ideas behind what we've been studying this semester -- Viewpoints, solo performance, ensemble performance and community based arts -- and see how you as a creative artist might consider your work to address these same kinds of concerns, incorporate the same kinds of philosophies of democracy. After this project, you may decide this kind of work is not for you. But for your work in this class, see if you can momentarily shift your perspective on the actor's work and on research just slightly.

I'll close with some words from photographer Tory Read, whose work with Picture Projects in NY was featured in A Beginner's Guide to Community Based Arts, and explain how I see them applying to the work of actors. She writes,

I took some time off to travel to Indonesia where I documented an experimental community-based reforestation project. Seeing a community galvanized towards one goal was inspiring. The participatory process was quite powerful. While taking pictures, I thought to myself, "Instead of just documenting it, how could I put photography into an activist role in the process. What if people used photography to identify issues, develop strategies, and solve problems within their own communities?"

Having been an actor myself, I know that actors are, in fact, creative artists. And theatre itself already galvanizes a community of people towards a common goal; we as groups have a lot of power to build new worlds. My feeling is that making the research, production and feedback processes more actively engaged in conversations with the community might allow us to open up our power and share it. This is inspired, in some ways, by Boal and Theatre of the Oppressed, I think. But it takes into account that people who train to be actors and are interested in having that social role do have a certain kind of presence and power onstage. So rather than making audience members into actors, it engages them earlier in the process as active, creative members of the ensemble. It's just a matter of tweaking, slightly, one's understanding of how the theatrical process and actor/audience relationship works.

Finally, one step that changes that relationship is the act of creating a separate "character study" composition that exposes, to some degree, the process behind the development of your character. Through making public some of the intellectual and physical work you're doing, you make it possible for people to examine the different components of the identity you've created, see the complexities and contradictions, and use that work as a basis for larger dialogues. Instead of only representing a character as "real" and as believable as possible, this reveals the process and movement and choices that inform your work, opens it up from the beginning, and allows critical discussions about it to happen on a different level. It's sort of akin to the work scholars are required to do: they're expected to support the argument they're making with detailed and specific evidence.

I hope this clarifies, in some sense, the goals of this experiment! Feel free to disagree, give your thoughts, specify some advice, etc. That's what this is all about: encouraging people to talk about ideas and choices and issues in a constructive, creative way.