The Burning Stage #5 - Where the Magic Happens
At the root of my concerns about drama and the motivation for me to write about it, is a disquiet about loss of opportunities for human contact in the world in general. At least, in any sort of meaningful or extended way that involves actual discourse. I don’t necessarily mean that sort of formal arrangement such as shaking hands or doffing one’s hat on meeting a lady. And more than getting drunk together in a crowded bar. I mean contact in a social environment where ideas form and can lead to thoughtful pondering. Where one’s perceptions of the world can change. Where understanding can grow. And I’m not knocking social media and digital artforms. They have their place and I consume them as much as anyone else (Viz. this article) but there are only twenty-four hours in a day and some of that time needs to be with other human beings.
The Triangle of Responsibility. Writer, Actor and Audience.
We live in a scary world. Talk to someone about it.
In earlier writing about the Burning Stage, I have quoted from Rabbi Jonathan Sachs and Yuval Harari. I’ve looked at the works of Steven Pinker and Noam Chomsky. They have all identified the need for humans to interact directly with each other. Meanwhile Political observers like Guy Debord and Mark Fisher have described how the whole world has become one of spectacle as a means of distancing us from the realities of life and the current systems that underpin it. And, if we manage to indulge in any social intercourse at all, it is generally to reinforce ready held perceptions rather than to challenge ourselves and our beliefs. In response I have talked about how the Drama can create those interpersonal links, human to human, and the closer it gets to a bare, unplugged phenomenon, the truer it is to that principal. I’ve been talking recently about how it’s possible to focus more on the human aspects of the drama rather than trying to compete with the effects and distractions of Theatre as Spectacle. And where I would expect to find this is in a direct, smaller scale sort of performance in small or non-theatre venues. In plays that show a fragment of the intense journey of life made by deeply observed characters whether comic, tragic, mystifying or romantic, the strange and the domestic. And, whether using classic scripts or new commissions, they are targeted specifically towards this audience and this style of production. One of the issues with this is trying to convince funding bodies that these sorts of enterprises are as valid as others. The theatre of the sixties and seventies demonstrated how vital these small companies, if encouraged to flourish, were to the health of the art form. Many now well-established companies originated as small-scale Alternative operations formed from dedicated, politically motivated groups of individuals. Many of the most dynamic are, sadly, no more. But many leave a legacy that is still to be observed here and there.
The Burning Stage is not a better way of creating theatre. It is an approach to theatre creation that I would say is useful, worthwhile and even necessary. I would like to see it promoted more vigorously by funding bodies so that it becomes more identifiable and understood by potential audiences.
I think one of the keys to finding increased recognition might be to give some sort of intellectual backbone that can be used as justification. While there have been a number of studies on the Social Impact of Theatre over the past fifty years, (The most relevant I could find was that commissioned by the ITC in 2006 which now seems charmingly outdated and later papers by such luminaries as Ben Walmsley) I don’t think any of them address my current concerns. Room for some research perhaps. Although, it is not so much research as advocacy and promotion that is required. I see many new writers who are just not aware of the possibilities of this sort of creation and actors who do not have the resources to play a part in something that may not lead to a conventional career. Meanwhile, I think the justification can be made something like this:
An Historical Perspective
It is not necessary to go very far back to find times when the drama was an integral part of human contact. I’m not referring to the majority of its classical and later history when theatre was embedded in the folk and high cultures throughout the world. I mean the generally publicly supported network of regional and local companies that sprang up after World War ll in the UK and that was quickly stifled out by the utilitarian, cost cutting Neo-Liberal uprush in the eighties and its no-such-thing-as-society creed. This small-scale movement emerged from the post war governments policies to regenerate the social and cultural life of the country after the devastation of the war. And it worked. It built on practices going back to the beginning of the 20th century and particularly the more socially motivated work of the thirties in Europe and at home. The explosion was funded from both central as well as local government sources. And in a crucial development in 1961, The Trades Union Congress debated a motion that the arts should be encouraged and supported leading to the, now famous, Resolution 42 and the subsequent up-welling of many significant theatre initiatives. Hundreds of companies, small and large, emerged.
Experimental work such as Theatre Machine at the Royal Court and practitioners such as Ken Campbell and Caryl Churchill and a myriad of writers eventually fed into the mainstream but they also carved out new approaches to theatre that are valued in their own right. (What actor these days is unaware of Keith Johnson or Jacques Lecoq?) Companies such as Gay Sweatshop, The Women’s Theatre, Temba all left their mark. A detailed work by Catherine Itzin describes the perspectives of the so-called Alternative Theatre of this time but demonstrates a self-referential, rather condescending view of audiences who are only mentioned as if to be called to action as though some sort of cultural cannon-fodder or, worse, educated. And perhaps, thereby, we see the seeds of its own demise.
A Sociological View
Sociologists seek to analyse and explain things like social change, social order, and the diverse ways individuals and groups interact within societies.
The Burning Stage is one of the great tools for understanding these interactions. We see them in process right before our eyes. And, by watching The Drama, we participate in them. The thinkers I have quoted above show that a society cannot function without interpersonal relationships. The growth of “Social” media has made it not so much place for human contact but has built into it a fear of ghosting, bullying or other alienating factors. At their best, social media do not represent actual human contact but only act as a substitute for it. Whilst volunteer and other groups seek to remedy this lack with social events, many of them do not engender real social discourse. Contact alongside discourse is the key.
A Physical Need
Human contact is an essential part of our lives. It's not just about physical touch, but also emotional and social connections that fulfil our basic human need for belonging and intimacy. These include:
Emotional Well-being
Stress Reduction: Physical touch, like a hug or holding hands, releases oxytocin, a hormone that reduces stress and promotes feelings of contentment.
Support System: Having people to talk to and share experiences with provides emotional support, which is crucial during difficult times.
Physical Health
Immune System: Studies have shown that social interactions can boost the immune system, helping to fight off illnesses.
Longevity: People with strong social connections tend to live longer, healthier lives.
Mental Health
Combatting Loneliness: Regular contact with others can help combat feelings of loneliness and isolation, which are linked to mental health issues like depression and anxiety.
Cognitive Benefits: Engaging in conversations and social activities can keep the mind sharp and may even reduce the risk of cognitive decline.
Social Skills
Empathy and Understanding: Interacting with others helps develop empathy and understanding, which are essential for building meaningful relationships.
Communication Skills: Frequent social interactions enhance our ability to communicate effectively, both verbally and non-verbally.
In a nutshell, human contact plays a pivotal role in our overall health and happiness. Whether it's through family, friends, or community activities, maintaining social connections is vital for a fulfilling life.
All Art is Political. It is about people.
We have seen recently how democracy can be made to crumble by authoritarian power gradients in which the recipients become mere attenders at motivational rallies. An active, thoughtful, living theatre can enable audiences to consider what the idea of performance means and to understand the social means of control are being exerted. And while the overtly political Alternative Theatre movement of the sixties and seventies proved to be condescending and divisive, it did lead to important sea-changes in the idea of what theatre is and what it could do. Nowadays, most people are only too aware of the dangers of Neo-Liberalism and its authoritarian offshoots so now is the ideal opportunity for funding bodies to start creating a new relationship between The Drama and its audiences. And, if democracy is failing and apparently out of reach for most people, then something like The Burning Stage can begin the process of reconnecting the world one thought at a time. As David Graeber says: "The ultimate hidden truth of the world is that it is something we make."
CoPilot kindly contributed this.
The Art Form Itself.
The research papers I mentioned previously tend to make anodyne statements about Artistic Excellence which I find unhelpful. What exactly is Excellence in the Drama and how is it measured? Is it possible to make any sort of qualitative judgement of the art form? In the past, when I was seeking funding for projects, I might have answered questions about Production Values or made convoluted Impact statements but for myself now, I would put completely different metrics in place. For example: Did any of the participants (audience, actors, writer) feel they had been affected by a performance? At the same time, we should not ask “Did the performance meet your expectations?” For me the answer to that is always: “I hope not.”
We must always respect the idea that participation for an audience means making their own observations of what the creators have found and fashioned. It is essential that creators can trust their audiences to reach their own conclusions about what they see and not try to impose a particular world view on them. The world view will come from the choices that are made and played out by the characters created. The bottom line here is that the creators should initiate the interaction through the drama and the audience should then be able to react to the creation. This is, after all, what the writer and actors are meant to do. Their observations of the world are the rocket fuel for the journey we go on together. We have no problems of that artist led relationship with the Visual or other art forms. The creators create so that the audience can respond. This is not a power gradient or a financial transaction, this is a piece of artistic observation, whether comic or tragic, epic or intimate that is laid out for the audience to observe, to feel drawn into and to react to in their turn.
The problem with doing qualitative research is that with all art, no one knows whether they would like it or not until they have experienced it. And that applies just as well to a Vermeer in a Gallery, an Agatha Christie novel in a bookshop or an installation in a converted warehouse. So, there is no measurable “before” state, merely a response to marketing and brand awareness. Theatre of Spectacle does this by employing Stars or inhabiting prestigefull venues. The Burning Stage deliberately eschews such devices but instead uses intensity, drive and closeness of the action. It can seek to measure its success or otherwise by asking audiences a week later whether they feel they have been changed in any way. And, even, whether they actually would return for another, different, experience.
Amateur versus Professional.
Which brings us to a rather interesting dichotomy in theatre. Particularly, with regards to funding. This is a largely historical construct and one which is far too big for me to go into here. Suffice it to say, that, in the past, actors have jealously regarded their professional status. And indeed, when I joined Equity after the required number of professional contracts had been achieved, there was a real division between the two wings of the Union, - Actors versus the Variety Artists. It was only recently that they had merged and Actors sought to distance themselves from the commercially minded Comedians and Acrobats. This was compounded by the politicisation of actors and writers and the subsequent attempts to define a soi-disant Theatre Industry. This distancing was made clear and reinforced by a further break between amateurs and professionals.
Non-professional actors have been the main stay of much of the world’s theatre in folk traditions and even in the high classical period. For me, as long as performers are appropriately recompensed for their services, I don’t care who I am working with. I only want to see actors seeking to improve their craft. Respect for audiences is the key and anything but the best it can be is not good enough. I have worked with dull ambitionless professionals and well-motivated, amateurs eager to learn and develop their craft. The Drama does not need to be perfect. It needs to be heartfelt and committed to its audience.
My model is that of the rock band. A group of individuals come together with differing skills but with a single aim. Their aim is to practice and by performing to build a following. And to travel in a clapped-out Transit van. They may only be able to work part time but they practise their craft singly and together. And the twenty-first century offers many opportunities for these to flourish. Many Theatre companies operate in this way. They are small and agile, able to reach places that other performances cannot. On the other hand, they tend not to have the hinterland or networks that bands can access in the way of gigs and venues and b(r)and awareness.
The Financial Worth of the Drama
I have deliberately left this topic to one side. To discuss the financial worth is to fall into the very trap we are trying to avoid. While the Theatre of Spectacle, the “Theatre Industry” does add millions to the country’s economy I have been trying to argue that the Burning Stage should not be judged in this way.
But perhaps we can talk in vaguely economic terms. I have suggested here that the Drama, as a personal, social enterprise is a societal Good like the NHS or other Social Services. Now is the ideal time to invest in something like the Burning Stage. Theatre currently is just too expensive. Ticket prices are out of reach of many people and theatre going has become for most a once-a-year treat. Now may be the time to look for a way to contact audiences on a simpler, more local level. My experience shows me that audiences would be willing to take in theatre if it was cheaper and more local. But audiences need to understand what experience they would have. This requires a great deal of information and long-term planning. The company needs to be there regularly and often and with a name that is easily identified.
Theatre creators have become afraid of audiences and their reactions. And justifiably because future funding depends on them. Major productions rely on Stars and effects and if the audiences still won’t come productions close quickly. Smaller theatre, driven by the need to cling on to the audiences they have got become more glitzy and entertainment focused. Funding bodies look for production criteria that may be outside the scope of small companies. Building an audience is a long term and dispiriting process but at heart, I believe, companies ought to be able to set out their agenda and then build an audience around that. And I would urge young companies to go hard for what they perceive to be a need.
And here, with this localized approach there are new opportunities for funding from Crowd Funding and Memberships. The Burning Stage Company can build a community of support around it and its work. Not so large that it just becomes a semi-detached fan base and small enough for the audience to be familiar with the actors and, maybe, on first name terms with them.
Hooray for those not doing things by the Book
The Burning Stage is not an answer, it is a tool. It is an approach to making creative links between people. It forms the link between the initiator, the performer and the audience such that they all feel they contribute to an end product which is, perhaps, a new awareness of something happening in the world around and, thereby, providing a hope for the future.
Writing for the Burning Stage Offers opportunities for writers to work together with actors and companies to develop work using the Burning Stage Approach. Why not be on the ground floor of something rather than try to scale the walls of an impregnable fortress that has already been built and probably crumbling from the inside?
