Presence & Authenticity in Theatre of the Real by michelle read

Presence and Authenticity: An investigation into the process and practice of working with people as both subject and performer in theatre of the real.

Michelle Read January 2011

Presence and Authenticity… p. 2

Theatre of the real1, as I am using the term in this essay, is a comprehensive label for what might have previously been considered documentary or verbatim theatre. As Carol Martin points out in her introduction to Dramaturgy of the Real World on the World Stage, this form of theatre has developed in recent years to the extent that it has broken ‘away from the conservative and conventional dramaturgy of realism that was so much a part of documentary theatre in the late twentieth century.’ 2 As evidenced by the anthology of articles in Martin’s book, there seems to be a broader spectrum of theatre being produced in this area all over the world. Subject matter has expanded to engage with multiple themes as well as specific topics and there is a complexity in the theatrical form and dramaturgy of the work that suggests an engagement with the contradictory positions or missing information of “real” life. The focus of this essay is an investigation into one area of theatre of the real, in which theatre-makers create work with people who are both subject and performer and therefore seem to specifically utilise presence and authenticity within their dramaturgy. My study will focus on the work of Quarantine Theatre, Manchester, which has established its practise by creating theatre in this way, and on my own practice.

The introductory pages of this study will discuss the key terms of presence and authenticity as well as introducing the connection and distinction between theatre of the real and Reality TV. The essay will go on to investigate the work of Quarantine Theatre through an analysis of the company’s 2010 production of Susan & Darren3, which is performed by mother and son, Susan and Darren Pritchard 4. The third element of this essay is a description and analysis of my own short theatre of the real piece, Mike & Karen5, which was conceived in order to further investigate an audience’s understanding of “authentic presence”6 in live performance.

This investigation then takes two distinct approaches: firstly an analysis of a Quarantine Theatre production based on interviews with members of the production team, time spent in rehearsals and observation of the finished production; secondly, the development and presentation of my own performance piece, initiated before my contact with Quarantine, but subsequently influenced by conversations with members of the company and by their working methods. My research questions attempt to address what “authentic presence” offers to theatre-makers, how practitioners attempt to manifest presence within these specific examples and what impact this has on an audience7.

1

‘Theatre of the real, also known as documentary theatre as well as docudrama, verbatim theatre, reality-based theatre, theatre of witness, tribunal theatre, non-fiction theatre, and theatre of fact…’ Carol Martin Dramaturgy Of The Real On The World Stage, editor Carol Martin, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), p.1.

2 Ibid.

3 The original production of Susan & Darren opened at Contact, Manchester in May 2006. The 2010 production is a reworked version of the original. It opened at Sacha’s Nightclub, Manchester in April 2010.

4 This piece is an effective example of a professionally produced and well-received theatre of the real show, developed collaboratively with the performers based on their personal experience.

The company’s work also reflects Carol Martin’s idea of non-conventional ‘dramaturgy of realism’, as their productions are not based around significant events or debates but focus on the philosophical and the social.

5 Performed by subject-performers Mike Wells and Karen McLachlan along with professional actors Sean Campion and Charlotte Moore. The actors were included in the piece in order to analyse the presence of a genuine personal relationship in contrast to an acted relationship.

6 This term relates to the idea that a person’s presence is an authentic reflection of them.

7 As part of the engagement with Quarantine’s work and making my own short piece, I have also

Presence and Authenticity… p. 3

Quarantine Theatre was set up in 1998 by artistic directors Richard Gregory and Renny O’Shea and designer Simon Banham. The company has produced thirteen original pieces of theatre and installation since its inception and has a growing reputation nationally and internationally. The company’s relationship to theatre of the real is seen in their consistent engagement with ‘both experienced performers and people who have never performed before’8 and their playography9 indicates an engagement with the presence and life experience of specific, but arguably unremarkable 10 people. They construct each show in a highly collaborative fashion, creating content from personal experience and aspects of the performers’ lives. The company also emphasises the relationship of the audience to the performance as a fundamental part of its process and one which has led to shows taking many different forms including ‘shared meals’ and ‘family parties’11. The company’s work therefore foregrounds the presence of real lives and genuine experience. Through this approach it arguably utilises the effects of “realness” in live performance to create a particular kind of presence and interaction with the audience which this study will investigate.

Theatre created by practitioners such as Quarantine in the UK, Rimini Protokoll in Germany, Vivi Tellas in Argentina and Campo in Belgium (to name some of the most prominent), draws on the actual experiences of individual people as with other documentary forms, while tending to avoid linear arguments and consistent narratives.

Most distinctly, it also includes the subjects both as participants in the process and performers in the finished productions. The “real” people with whom these companies work are generally not professional performers (although Quarantine does work consistently with professional dancers and musicians), but for the duration of the production they are engaged as performer-collaborators and paid in line with the rest of the company.

The definition of the performer in this instance then is of relevance. Quarantine codirector Renny O’Shea notes that the temptation to describe them as “real people” is problematic: ‘everyone’s a real person, so that’s not very accurate’ 12. Richard Gregory points out that Rimini Protokoll define their performers as ‘experts of the everyday’ 13, while Quarantine refer to their own performers simply as ‘collaborators’ 14. He considers this indicative of the difference between the work of the two companies: …there’s something specifically defined about [Rimini Protokoll’s] “experts” - people who know a lot about Karl Marx or Sabena Airlines.

There’s something very defined about who these people are, whereas we seem to have this recurring interest in the banal and the ordinary.’15 elicited feedback in the form of interviews with a small cohort of audience members from Susan & Darren, as well as questionnaires from the audience for my own piece.

8 Quarantine website, http://www.qtine.com/about/, accessed 17/07/10.

9 See Quarantine Theatre’s website for a comprehensive description of the company’s work to date. http://www.qtine.com/past/ 10 I am defining unremarkable here in relation to traditional perceptions of fame and/or achievement.

11 Quarantine Theatre website, http://www.qtine.com/about/, accessed 05/08/10.

12 Interview with Renny O’Shea, 13/04/10, addenda, p.2.

13 Rimini Protokoll: Experts of the Everyday. The Theatre of Rimini Protokoll, editors Miriam Dreyse and Florian Malzacher (Alexander Verlag Berlin 2008), p.23.

14 Interview with Richard Gregory, 07/04/10, addenda, p.3.

15 Ibid, p.4.

Presence and Authenticity… p. 4

The two companies would seem then, to define their performers in relation to the working process; for Rimini Protokoll there is a focus on specific subject matter, while for Quarantine the focus is on the individual and the social. In this study I am using the term “subject-performer” in all contexts as an academic clarifier to denote that participants are both the subject of the piece and its performers.

Defining Presence & Authenticity Presence and authenticity are the qualities through which this essay will investigate the dramaturgical employment of subject-performers. However, both concepts in traditional, fictional theatre are contested terms: presence because it is an intangible interpreted by the spectator, and authenticity because it is always at odds with the fabricated nature of the fictional world. Both terms continue however, to be aligned with two of the main traits of theatre: its distinction from the non-live arts through the physical presence of both performers and audience, and its creation of meaning through authentic expressions of social and cultural realities.16 Within theatre of the real, both presence and authenticity take on a further significance in that the presence of “real” people, mediated or actual, is fundamental to the genre. In addition to this the use of specific personal experience within the content of a production suggests a level of veracity that arguably does not exist in fiction-based theatre. Carol Martin reflects the tension within this notion when she comments that the genre ‘is both asserted and challenged in relation to claims of verisimilitude and truth…’17 In his book Culture & Authenticity Charles Lindholm argues that authenticity ‘is taken for granted as an absolute value in contemporary life’ 18. He goes on to suggest that its provenance is connected to the growth in the seventeenth century of the popularity of the concept of sincerity, which he argues arose as a result of the disintegration of face-toface feudal relationships. He explains that the stable feudal world was transformed by the mass movement out of the countryside and into mixed urban environments so that: …people were no longer quite sure where they belonged… They had begun the irreversible plunge into modernity, which can be succinctly defined as the condition of living among strangers. In this desacralised, and unpredictable environment it became possible to break out of prescribed roles and pursue secular dreams of wealth, power, and fame. But the pleasures and possibilities of social mobility coincided with feelings of alienation and meaninglessness, as well as a greater potential for guile and deceit.19 Lindholm contends that seventeenth century citizens were able to disguise themselves in a more anonymous world, which along with the rise of Protestantism and “plainess” caused, in response, a desire for personal sincerity and transparency. He goes on to suggest that the modern aspiration for authenticity has also grown from this “root” and that in a culture where identity has been compromised by ‘rampaging commodification 16

These realities may reflect a non-naturalistic world, such as Happy Days by Beckett or an internal, fragmented landscape of the mind, such as The Wonderful World of Dissocia by Antony Neilson, but they are not abstract to the same extent that music or dance can be.

17 Carol Martin, Dramaturgy Of The Real On The World Stage, p.1.

18 Charles Lindholm, Culture & Authenticity, (Blackwell Publishing 2008), p.1.

19 Ibid, p.3.

Presence and Authenticity… p. 5

and expanding mediation’, (a worldview the philosopher Baudrillard refers to as ‘more and more information, and less and less meaning’ 20), an awareness of the separation between a sense of the “real” inner self and the mediated and ‘mediatized’ 21 world has continued to attract people to the notion of the “real”, whether it be in the form of an experience, an object or a person.

Arguably the authenticity of traditional dramatic theatre is asserted by its cultural associations and audience recognition in spite of its fictional nature. A play may be considered to be authentic because it accurately reflects elements of the world as it is understood. As people’s comprehension of the world and their position in it changes, so the understanding of what is authentic also changes. Thus as culture is reflected in theatre, so theatre as part of a historical progression, attempts to reflect an authentic vision of society. Arguably this is attempted in the spectrum of post-dramatic theatre (where authenticity may no longer be bound up with the concept of literal representation), through multiple subjective viewpoints.

Indeed, one reason for the adoption of multiple viewpoints within contemporary theatre may be that western culture has become less certain and more contingent in its outlook through the influence of post-modernism. This expansion of form has elicited in some practitioners within theatre of the real, an attempt at a more “democratic” subjectivity in their work; mixing disconnected narratives22 or foregrounding subjective perspectives, so that productions are allowed to be varied and inconclusive. It has also inspired makers such as Quarantine, not only to look at form, but also to explore ‘who theatre is for – and who should make it’23, so that the engagement with the social is reflected in the form as well as the content of its productions. Where previously, notions of truth in theatre of the real were associated with the personal testimony and documentation of people presented on stage by actors, those roles may now also be characterised by the people themselves, so that authenticity may be less bound up in facts and more connected to the actuality of presence.

Richard Gregory underlines the point when he comments about the company’s performers: ‘I’m not so worried if what they’re doing is a fiction or a fact. I’m interested in the fact that they’re in the same space with me.’24 Indeed one of Quarantine’s earliest dramaturgical questions to itself, ‘[w]hat is the performer there for?’ 25, suggests an interrogation of the role of the performer in all live performance, but in the context of the company’s work, it would seem to focus on a preoccupation with the impact and meaning onstage of a specific individual and their particular presence.

Indeed the term presence has two clear concurrent meanings: the state of being present, but also the ability to project a charismatic “aura” which can draw and hold the attention of others. For the professional actor it is the latter which is important in order to engage 20

Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation, translator Sheila Faria Glaser, (Ann Arbour University of Michigan Press 1994), p.79.

21 The word mediatized is used by Philip Auslander to indicate a cultural dependency on electronic media. Philip Auslander, Liveness: Performance In A Mediatized Culture (second edition, Routledge 2008), p.4.

22 As the Belgian company Campo did recently in the production FML F*ck My Life, featuring eighteen teenagers from Cork and London. Director Pol Heyvaert, dramaturge Bart Capelle, Cork Midsummer Festival and London International Festival Theatre, 2010.

23 Quarantine website, http://www.qtine.com/about/, accessed 26/07/10.

24 Interview with Richard Gregory, 07/04/10, addenda p.4.

25 Ibid.

Presence and Authenticity… p. 6

an audience and persuade them that the character being represented is worthy of interest.

‘To have presence’ in theatrical parlance, is to know how to capture the attention of the public and make an impression; it is also to be endowed with a je ne sais quoi which triggers an immediate feeling of identification in the spectator, communicating a sense of living elsewhere and in an eternal present.26 The ‘elsewhere’ and ‘eternal present’ that Patrice Pavis mentions here are dramatic constructs that allow other places and times to be the “here and now” of a theatrical space, and which are accepted as normal in dramatic theatre. However, if a person presents his or herself on stage without the artifice or “mask” of a fictional persona, these concepts are arguably challenged by the blurring of fiction and reality. Jane Goodall suggests in her book Stage Presence, that ‘[t]he instant of the here and now is almost impossible to bring into focus’27, however, working with the unmediated presence of the subject-performer may be an attempt by practitioners to do just that. The literal presence (and personal charisma), of the subject-performer may be a way to create a sense of a literal present on stage.

Reality TV and the Effects of Digital Media The growth of theatre of the real has its own distinct trajectory but is arguably also linked to Reality TV. Although practitioners may not consider this to be so in terms of their own work, the television genre has clearly created an environment of recognition within which theatre of the real exists. Reality TV, which explores the territory of personal narrative and behaviourism through the extremes of voyeuristic thrills or inspirational reversals28, has a relatively short history, notwithstanding its connection to the longer tradition of television documentary. The pervasiveness of the format arguably attests to a viewing public’s interest in other people’s lives and behaviour.

In Philip Auslander’s critique of live performance Liveness: Performance and Mediatized Culture, he contends that the pervasive nature of television (and the internet) along with its commercial and financial influence, has affected live art forms irreversibly, ‘…[i]f television once could be seen as ranking among a number of vehicles for conveying expression… we no longer have that choice: the televisual has become an intrinsic and determining element of our cultural formation.’ 29 He quotes Australian academic Tony Fry: ‘[w]hat the televisual names… is the end of the medium, in a context, and the arrival of television as the context.’ 30 Auslander also quotes Marshall McLuhan in relation to the impact of new media on old forms: ‘[a] new medium is never an addition to an old one, nor does it leave the old one in peace. It never ceases to oppress the older media until it finds new shapes and positions for them.’31 Although Auslander (et al) have the weight of fact behind them regarding the sheer numbers who watch television and use the internet, it is arguable that the relationship between new media and theatre is not all in one direction, or to be more precise, that theatre is not always compromised or indeed oppressed by the utilisation or ingestion of contemporary media.

26

Patrice Pavis quoted in Stage Presence, Jane Goodall (Routledge 2008), p.1.

Jane Goodall, Stage Presence, (Routledge 2008), p.159.

28 Such as those seen in television “make-over” shows.

29 Philip Auslander, Liveness: Performance In A Mediatized Culture, p.2.

30 Ibid.

31 Ibid, p.6.

27

Presence and Authenticity… p. 7

Television formats in fact relate very closely to traditional dramatic structure. Reality shows often cast participants in various stereotypical but recognisable roles, such as the “ugly duckling/swan” or the “villain”32 and create story arcs either within their structure or through editing or both (sometimes, like the Reality TV show Big Brother33, listing a writer in their credits). At some level this suggests audiences may simply want a variation on television drama, albeit one with a feel of authenticity. It is interesting to consider then that theatre in various post-modern incarnations has moved away from these traditional structures towards more fragmentary, deconstructed or “collaged” narratives, such as those employed by Quarantine. These are distinct from television’s linear narratives and, although they are also highly mediated, to some extent it is possible that they “echo” or indicate the complexity of “real life”. If as McLuhan suggests, television has ingested classical dramatic structure, some theatrical forms would seem to be shifting their position away from the dramatic and looking for other ways to construct meaning.

Quarantine’s interest in and involvement of “real” people in the making of theatre has coincided with the dramatic increase in Reality TV programming since 2000 34 (whether the company owns the connection or not35). The work of the company, as with much Reality TV, reflects a consistent interest with the behaviour of “ordinary” people, as well as an acceptance of “normal” lives as being worthy of investigation. Quarantine however, seem to be also actively pursuing McLuhan’s notion of ‘new shapes and positions’36 by eschewing more orthodox representations of the “real”. Their collaborative methodology and construction of work from ‘a series of fragments… thematically generated rather than chronologically’ 37, is in clear contrast to television’s strong narrative “hooks” and executive editorial control.

Indeed Quarantine’s shows rely intrinsically on the subject-performers’ involvement.

Richard Gregory is emphatic that everyone they ‘bring into the collaborative process; performers, designer, director, choreographer, is then a collaborator.’ 38 The dramaturgy and form of each production, according to Gregory’s description of working on Susan & Darren, would seem to grow organically out of this process and consequently the company’s shows seem substantially different from each other in both content and form.

At the same time Quarantine’s use of non-theatre rituals and events, such as meals and parties, suggests an attempt at creating a familiar, informal relationship. This experiential approach attempts to draw the audience into an active, participatory relationship, which the company website suggests ‘blurs, exchanges or even removes the distinction between spectator and performer’39.

32

The “ugly duckling/swan” role is seen in “transformation” or “make-over” shows where a person is “transformed” with clothes and grooming. Channel 4’s Big Brother often creates a “villain” from its housemates such as “Nasty Nick” or Jade Goody.

33 Big Brother, Channel 4, producer Endemol, 2000-2010.

34 Big Brother was first broadcast in the UK in 2001 on Channel 4. Its huge success has arguably affected the exponential growth of reality TV formats ever since.

35 In an article about the company’s production Butterfly Lyn Gardner recognises that ‘[p]lenty of people will see Quarantine's work as a theatrical spin-off from reality TV.’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2004/oct/11/theatre2, accessed 04/08/10.

36 Philip Auslander, Liveness: Performance In A Mediatized Culture, p.6.

37 Interview with Richard Gregory 15/05/10, addenda p.10 38 Interview with Richard Gregory 07/04/10, addenda p.3.

39 Quarantine website, http://www.qtine.com/about/, accessed 05/08/10.

Presence and Authenticity… p. 8

Auslander finds this contentious, however. He debates the argument that it is theatre’s integral liveness that fundamentally separates it from television and other forms of electronic media. He also questions what he calls the ‘often-claimed’ 40 belief that live performance entails a form of communication between the two groups (spectators and actors). He argues that this interaction, if it does exist, varies from the integral and effective (the booing or cheering of athletes), to the more formal and reserved (concertgoers responding to a symphony), the latter having, he contends, limited impact on either side.

As happy as performers and spectators generally are to be in one another’s presence, it is not necessarily the case that the performance itself is open to being influenced by the audience or that the audience wishes to assume that responsibility.41 In contrast Richard Gregory notes that the one of the company’s main concerns is to do with the audience’s experience and the impact of the performance on the them: We are constantly asking ourselves that question about where the viewer is in this. What’s their place in this performance? What’s their power in this?

What power do they have to make decisions about what they are experiencing? How involved do they become?42 Auslander is concerned with interrogating the notion of audience impact on live performance and vice-versa. This impact may be contentious in its supposed efficacy, but as Gregory’s questions about the audience suggest, the potential for human connection may still be of major interest to practitioners within theatre of the real.

As audiences for Reality TV have grown, it is arguable that they reflect not only a viewing public’s curiosity with “ordinary” lives, but also a tacit respect for them through the acceptance of the right of participants to be visible in the same arena as public figures. This is linked in part to a contemporary fascination with celebrity. However, in some of the more analytical programming, characterised by World In Action’s seminal Up series for Granada TV,43 the focus is not on celebrity, but on the notion of humanity reflected within a cross-section of individual lives. The fascination then with “ordinary” people may, as Lindholm argues, come from a desire for authenticity in order to counteract feelings of mass alienation. Reality TV may provide a sense of authenticity to a greater or lesser extent, however it does not provide the central authenticating element of live interaction through physical presence. Whether the situation is interactive or not, being in the presence of a person arguably creates a less disposable experience than that of electronic media and one in which the notion of interpersonal respect may still have significance.

In his seminal book Performance Theory, American theatre-maker Richard Schechner44 40

Philip Auslander, Liveness: Performance In A Mediatized Culture, p.67.

Ibid.

42 Interview with Richard Gregory, 15/05/10, addenda, p.11.

43 Originally a “one-off” commissioned in the nineteen sixties, the subsequent series, directed by Paul Almond and Michael Apted, films a group of fourteen participants at seven year intervals from the age of seven onwards. It is still being made and is arguably one of the precursors of modern reality TV. 44 Richard Schechner, Performance Theory, (Routledge Classics, London and New York, 2003).

41

Presence and Authenticity… p. 9

suggests that contemporary gatherings such as religious services, play and sports are linked to live theatrical performance by their shared ancestry in tribal ritual. The connection between all of these forms is that they share the necessity of human interaction and may therefore arguably be considered as types of spiritual or secular communion. If intuitive experience suggests that positive personal interactions counteract alienation, it is perhaps inevitable that some theatre practitioners would begin to actively explore the notion of performance as communion. By involving subjectperformers, who “mirror” the audience’s “realness” with their own presence, Quarantine could arguably be seen to be engaging with a communal approach. Within Susan & Darren the performers share very private information as well as offering themselves up personally for scrutiny in a question and answer section. The notion of sharing suggests a more active engagement to the show. One reviewer commented: You are essentially watching a real mother and son lay their lives out bare, and by the end of this brief 90 minutes, you will not only feel like you have known the Pritchard’s forever, but also honoured that you have been allowed to share in their lives.45 Audiences may therefore be drawn to this kind of work, not only for the perceived value of authentic experience, but also for the communal association of actual presence.

However, another reviewer’s response was to feel ‘slightly grubby at having gawped at their world’. With this type of theatre of the real then, there is potentially a thin line between a sense of communion and what Richard Gregory himself refers to as a ‘voyeuristic optic’46. It is perhaps inevitable that the show can be criticised, like other “reality” forms, for being voyeuristic, although Gregory points out that the company is at pains to ‘avoid’47 this kind of interpretation.

Susan & Darren Quarantine and Company Fierce’s production of Susan & Darren48 is indeed a candid evocation of the lives and relationship of Susan and Darren Pritchard, and takes the form of a series of narrative and physical sequences played out on a dance floor49.

As the audience enter, the two performers are already in the space establishing an informal atmosphere. Music is played and the pair dance or chat to spectators as a gradual shift into the formal performance occurs. This pre-show sequence seems casual, but it is a consistent part of the formula of the show. Its function would seem to be to align the audience’s expectation to the nature of the production by indicating the lack of traditional dramatic construct as well as setting a friendly and informal tone and seeding the notion of audience involvement. As such, it is arguably also a key part of the 45

Donald Hutera, The Times online, 13th May 2010, http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/stage/dance/article7124311.ec e, accessed 14/07/10 46 Interview with Richard Gregory, 15/05/10, addenda, p.8.

47 Ibid.

48 This production of Susan & Darren is a reworked version of the piece, which was first produced in 2006. I spent two days with Quarantine Theatre observing rehearsals at the Adelphi Building, Salford University, Manchester on the 13th and 14th April 2010. I subsequently watched three performances of the show at Sadlers Wells Theatre in London on the 11th, 12th and 13th May 2010.

49 The performance is in the round with audience on four sides creating an intimate atmosphere.

The set consists of a pole-dancing pole, chairs and a work counter defining the playing area as both a social and a domestic arena.

Presence and Authenticity… p. 10

dramaturgy as it indicates the importance of the actual presence of the performers (and the audience).

The show proper begins with Darren Pritchard describing the sitting room in the house which he shares with his mother. He manifests the objects and furnishings in the space by “drawing” them in the air and in this way creates both a personal and theatrical environment. This invisible drawing also connects with the fixed image of Susan Pritchard’s real sofa shown on video. Friends and family intermittently appear on the onscreen sofa to talk about one or other of the Pritchards and the performance space is therefore suggested as both a theatrical construct and a conduit into the performer’s offstage lives. (In this instance then electronic media is used to heighten the live nature of the performers’ actual presence compared to the recorded images of their friends and family).

Within the show dance and movement are also integral and are a part of Quarantine’s regular performance “vocabulary”. Co-director Richard Gregory feels that as a spectator movement allows him ‘space to colour [a performance] with [his] own reading.’ 50 In Susan & Darren the Pritchards dance together and separately and there are also two distinctive silent movement sequences. Gregory contends that the function of this material is to shift the focus of the audience so that the viewer is offered an undisturbed observation of the performers. In the first sequence, in which the Pritchards move around the space relating to each other in a series of small, intimate gestures in silence, Gregory notes: There’s an implicit invitation to look at Susan and Darren in incredible detail during that silence… asking the audience to look at them in a different way: their skin, look at the way they connect with each other physically, look at them in a direct way.51 From my own perspective as part of the audience this sequence can seem both intensely intimate and at the same time slightly boring. Gregory acknowledges that the spectator may ‘start to ask [themselves] if [they’re] bored’ 52, but argues that the silence gives the audience space to reflect (whether they are fully engaged for the whole time or not).

Within this sequence then, Gregory contends, the audience is able to concentrate on the Pritchards’ individual presence as well as that of their relationship. This intensification of the performers’ presence, is used as a contrast with other sequences so that the production repeatedly changes the spectator’s perspective of the performer.

These shifts create a complex sense of the performers and do not limit the notion of their presence to one thing or to a naturalistic (televisual) way of seeing them. Thus the abstract content of the “silent duet” is not a literally authentic representation of an interaction between the Pritchards, but rather an interpretation of the relationship which offers a sub-text of their love for each other (and which arguably could not be represented in the same way on TV). The changes in mood, tempo and form, of which movement is a significant part, therefore attempt to access other manifestations of authenticity through non-literal, highly theatrical, presence-based techniques.53 50

Interview with Richard Gregory, 13/04/10, addenda, p.6.

Interview with Richard Gregory, 15/05/10, addenda, p.9.

52 Ibid, p.11.

53 Gregory also suggests that because the abstract nature of the two silent movement sequences emphasises the presence of the Pritchards, it therefore establishes that there is ‘still also a 51

Presence and Authenticity… p. 11

Quarantine’s process, according to Gregory, is ‘full of accidents and responds to who[ever] is involved in it’54. In terms of their working process the company uses various exercises to elicit narrative or physical experimentation including ‘improvisation, writing exercises, dancing together’, as well as ‘setting tasks, sitting chatting’ and ‘doing informal things’. Gregory suggests the informality of the breaks in rehearsal can be ‘as, if not more important than what happens before and after them…’

The company’s starting point is usually the investigation of a philosophical or social concept or situation. There is generally a discursive “lead-in” period, which then shifts to a more formal development process before the final production phase. In the first, speculative part of the process Gregory describes ‘air[ing]’ and ‘pull[ing]…apart’ ideas to see if his enquiry is ‘interesting to other people.’55 Gregory notes that he tries not to start with too specific a theme to avoid creating expectation around a particular subject matter. He argues that if the performers used ‘are defined by something that has happened to them or something they’ve done56, you have a responsibility to that thematic core and their expectation, which may then be difficult if you start to move away from it.’57 Thus once a proposition becomes a formal project the company then identify the people with whom they wish to work58. Gregory points out, ‘[t]he reason we chose to work with people is a particular quality of performance… When I have worked with trained performers I’m looking for that quality too…’ 59 The focus on the individual means that finding the right performers is a significant part of Quarantine’s process; in contrast to matching a pre-existing character, or making a choice on the basis of performative skill, the company is looking primarily for personal presence and a sense of the individual. As the majority of the company’s performers have not trained as actors they have to become accustomed to performing. Darren Pritchard remembers the initial rehearsals for Susan & Darren: [w]e kept getting notes…, ‘don’t act, don’t try and act, just tell the stories.’

I’ve worked with Quarantine a lot so it’s easier for me to do that, but mum kind of went into “Susan mode” at first, which was like an actor persona, because she felt like she should present herself in a certain way.60 Being placed in the public eye is not easy for the untrained performer. Gregory explains that at the beginning of rehearsals he can spend a lot of time working with the performers so that they can be comfortable ‘doing nothing’ in front of other people, and ‘accepting the gaze’61 of the observer. This is a process of familiarisation for the performer with the experience of being watched by an audience. He recalls that Susan Pritchard had a habit of glancing at co-director Renny O’Shea or himself in rehearsals present’ in the performance (Gregory, 15/05/10, addenda, p.10), thus challenging Jane Goodall’s assertion that the ‘here and now is almost impossible to bring into focus…’ on stage. (Goodall, Stage Presence, p.159.)

54 Interview with Richard Gregory, 13/04/10, addenda, p.7.

55 Interview with Richard Gregory, 13/04/10, addenda p.6.

56 Such as the Sabena airline workers previously mentioned in a Rimini Protokoll show.

57 Interview with Richard Gregory, 07/04/10, addenda p.5.

58 Susan & Darren was one of the exceptions to this process, as Darren Pritchard originally approached Quarantine with the idea of making the show.

59 Interview with Richard Gregory, 07/04/10, addenda p.4.

60 Interview with Darren Pritchard, 14/04/10, addenda, p.14.

61 Interview with Richard Gregory, 15/05/10, addenda, p.12.

Presence and Authenticity… p. 12

looking for their approval. This “tic” had to be ‘drummed out of her’ 62 according to Gregory (by telling her that she didn’t need anyone’s approval to be on stage). The difficulty then for the performer is to do with issues of self-consciousness and stage fright63, which have to be overcome if the person is to be able to present themselves “normally” on stage. Gregory comments that notwithstanding Susan Pritchard’s nervousness, she had a ‘quality of presence and truthfulness’ 64, which she was able to reconnect with and present for the performances of Susan & Darren.

Once a show is cast Gregory notes that the process is more collaborative. During my brief visit to rehearsals this was borne out by the inclusive nature of the discussion I witnessed between all team members on aspects other than their own area of specialisation. Gregory notes, …the hats we have that say director and choreographer and writer and performer are there when you’re doing your bit but when you’re not you’re just a bunch of people in a room with valid opinions.65 He points out that the company’s methodology is as “bespoke” as each of the shows, ‘… our process is very discursive and full of accidents and responds to who is involved in it…’ Through this loose and contingent methodology, Gregory explains, the company is attempting to explore ‘all sorts of corners of experience’ 66 in order to create a dramaturgy of the performers’ lives within each show67.

This also means that a project cannot be progressed without the performers who have an integral role in contributing not only the content of the piece, but also the dramaturgy.

Thus dance became an integral part of Susan & Darren primarily because Darren was a dancer, but also because both the Pritchards use dance as a form of expression and release in their lives. As show choreographer Jane Mason notes, some of the choreography is an ‘extension of how they already dance[d] together’68, but she adds that it also suggests ‘subtle ideas’ about the mother-son relationship.

Verification of the “real” Subject-performer Susan Pritchard explains that the question, ‘are you really mother and son?’ 69, is one that regularly comes up during the question-and-answer section in the show. Whether the spectator has a prior understanding of theatre of the real or not, their acceptance of the performers as authentic would seem to be key (even if it may vacillate during their engagement with the performance, as they make sense of it within their own terms of reference).

One member of the audience70 said of the Pritchards: ‘they held us and it didn’t seem 62

Ibid.

Which Susan Pritchard suffered on her first ‘four or five shows’. Interview with Darren Pritchard, 14/04/10, addenda, p.15.

64 Interview with Richard Gregory, 07/04/10, addenda, p.4.

65 Interview with Richard Gregory, 13/04/10, addenda p.8.

66 Interview Richard Gregory, 13/04/10, addenda p.7.

67 Interview Richard Gregory, 07/04/10, addenda p.5.

68 Interview with Jane Mason, 25/07/10, addenda p.13.

69 Interview with Susan Pritchard, 13/04/10, addenda, p.19.

70 Short interviews were carried out with five members of the audience at a production of Susan & Darren presented at Sadlers Wells theatre, London on May 13th 2010.

63

Presence and Authenticity… p. 13

hard, but it didn’t feel like they were becoming more than themselves’71. This suggests the audience member considered the performance wasn’t unduly adding to or altering the subject-performers’ own behaviour. The audience’s understanding of the performers’ authenticity then, is arguably fundamental. If the Pritchards are taken for actors then the company’s professed interest in the presentation of the ‘banal and the ordinary’ 72 loses the impact of genuine evocation, along with its social relevance as a “snapshot” of specific people at a particular time.

The verification that Susan and Darren Pritchard are mother and son helps to clarify the audience’s understanding of the form, while the company’s playography and their growing reputation also means that there is more cognizance of how they work. O’Shea points out: ‘to a certain extent people have kind of got it…’ 73 and audience members after a performance of the show at Sadlers Wells seemed clear that the Pritchards were indeed who they said they were. One of them suggested: I probably wouldn’t have been so engaged if I’d been led to believe it was fictional. That’s the hook I suppose. If it wasn’t authentic it would take away from the experience.74 The performers’ authenticity then would seem to be a key element. Apart from creating pathos through the subtext of genuine feeling, it is also arguably a “contract” of engagment between the makers and the audience.

This “contract” of authentic presence would also seem to function as part of a strategy within Quarantine’s work to demystify the traditional line between performance and spectator. In Susan & Darren this demystification is arguably attempted by deepening the connection between the audience and the piece in three main ways; through the use of the abstract, through actual involvement and through dramatic identification. Abstract material is created with dance and non-verbal sequences in the show, such as the gestural sequence mentioned previously and the scene where Susan Pritchard washes her son’s entire body in silence. These sections potentially offer an unspoken impression of the protagonists’ complex relationship and their interdependence, while the latter also resonates with ideas of mortality and spirituality. At the same time the involvement of the audience in the show is an equally significant part of the dramaturgy and spectators are drawn into a more active role throughout, including taking part in tasks, asking direct questions and socialising75. In contrast, dramatic identification is one of the more traditional techniques. In Susan & Darren the presentation of “real” people telling their own stories creates recognition for members of the audience 76 to the extent that some felt moved to share parts of their own life stories in return. As Susan Pritchard recalls: 71

Interviewee 3, audience interviews, Susan & Darren, Sadlers Wells, London, 13/05/10, addenda, p.25.

72 Interview with Richard Gregory, 07/04/10, addenda, p.4.

73 Interview with Renny O’Shea, 13/04/10, addenda, p.2.

74 Interviewee 4, audience interviews, Susan & Darren, Sadlers Wells, London, 13/05/10, addenda, p.24.

75 Audience members help to prepare food and everyone is invited to a post-show buffet. There is also a “secret dance routine” in the show, which several audience members participate in (after a pre-show dance “class”), to the surprise and general delight of the rest of the audience.

76 Four out of five of the audience members interviewed after seeing a performance of Susan & Darren mentioned being reminded of their own families. Audience interviews, Susan & Darren, Sadlers Wells, London, 13/05/10, addenda, p.24/25.

Presence and Authenticity… p. 14

People were coming up to me and Darren and telling us revelations that they might have never told anyone else and I think it gave them that… That you can talk about these things.77 Because audience members are involved in these ways and are, like the performers, just themselves, the company arguably achieves a production that is insistently in the present. The impact for individual audience members may be greater or lesser depending on their acceptance of the form and interest in the content, but the company’s work does seem to challenge Auslander’s contention regarding the impact of live performance on the spectator; both performers and audience would seem to be necessary for its successful presentation. It is arguable therefore that the show is indeed a form of active secular communion78 as referenced in Richard Schechner’s writings. German dramaturg Florian Malzacher, who writes about the work of Rimini Protokoll, sums this up as the ‘banal’ but ‘fundamental principle of theatre – sitting in a room together with other real people’79.

Arguably then Quarantine use these various strategies in their work to attempt a kind of “necessity of liveness”. This includes the authentic presence of the subject-performers, the relationship of the audience to the performance and the highly individual nature of each show. It is this sense of immediacy, along with the unknowability of what the performers may bring to the production that is of particular interest to me in working with subject-performers in live performance. This was part of the inspiration then for creating my own performance project Mike & Karen80, which is the focus of the next section of this essay.

Mike & Karen In my own practice I have had an interest and preoccupation over the last two years with the use of non-fictional subject material and the effect of translating authentic experience into a theatrical format. I had previously created a verbatim project 81 with actors but had not worked with subjects as performers. With this project I aimed to investigate how such a working process might develop and how content might be negotiated and created.

As indicated with the work of Quarantine, theatre of the real requires the audience to 77

Interview with Susan Pritchard, 13/04/10, addenda, p.18.

Notwithstanding resonances of Susan Pritchard’s religious faith in the use of a choral mass and in the deconstructed image of Da Vinci’s Last Supper during the washing sequence.

79 Florian Malzacher, Rimini Protokoll: Experts of the Everyday. The Theatre of Rimini Protokoll, p.28 80 Mike & Karen is a twenty minute live theatre piece for four performers. It was developed with graphic designer Mike Wells and television writer Karen McLachlen through a process of formal interview and informal conversation which focused on their long-term friendship and the concept of friendship in general. Mike & Karen was presented as a script reading as part of the Goldsmith’s Writing for Performance MA readings at Soho Theatre, London on Tuesday 29th June 2010. The piece was performed by Mike Wells, Karen McLachlan and actors Sean Campion and Charlotte Moore. (A DVD of the performance is available as part of the addenda for this dissertation.)

81 Worksong, Project Brand New “scratch” performances, Projects Arts Centre, Dublin, 25 th July 2009. The culmination of this research project was a work-in-process verbatim performance with music, created from edited audio recordings of verbatim interviews. On stage the actors heard the audio through headphones and repeated it.

78

Presence and Authenticity… p. 15

understand its use of “real” source material 82 in order for its dramaturgy to be understood. It may be assumed that once non-actor performers are used within a performance their presence will become evident through their lack of professional training. Their ‘insecurity and fragility’, as Florian Malzacher 83 suggests, defining ‘what is understood by many to be authenticity.’ 84 It is unclear however, whether authenticity does in fact create its own particular manifestation of presence and if so, whether the uninitiated spectator can perceive it. As part of this investigation Mike & Karen also became an investigation into the spectator’s comprehension of authentic presence.

The starting point for the piece was the long-standing friendship of graphic designer Mike Wells and television writer Karen McLachlan, and the aim was to create a short script from verbatim conversations and interviews. My concerns, coinciding to some extent with Quarantine Theatre, focused on the individual as well as reflections of identity and social negotiation, rather than on “hard” topics (such as those presented within more traditional documentary forms85.) Subsequently the project also gave insights into the differing attitudes that the performer might have (compared to the theatre-maker), towards authenticity and use of material.

In the finished script the focus of the investigation was whether the presence of the subject-performers did in fact have it’s own “aura” of authenticity, which an audience might recognise. In order to facilitate this investigation the role of the performers was problematised by the inclusion of two professional actors, operating as doppelgangers for Wells and McLachlan, and also called Mike and Karen in the performance. Indeed, the choice of performers and aspects of the methodology for the piece were influenced by my observations of Quarantine, but our processes were different in significant ways including the inclusion of professional actors and the use of verbatim text.

Quarantine Theatre generally work with a writer. Sonia Hughes was the writer on Susan & Darren and her role was to free-write the text based on the performer’s stories and manner of speaking. In practical terms this meant Hughes developed the text in workshops and rehearsals and tested the evolving script for effect and acceptance by the Pritchards and the creative team as part of the process. This gave it a high approval level from the performers in terms of their sense of authenticity and meant that although the words delivered in the show were written by a writer, the Pritchards still felt that they were authentically theirs. As I was undertaking an interview-based rather than workshop-based process and didn’t have the comparable contact and process time 86, I opted to work with verbatim text in an attempt to create a similar level of authenticity and also because of my previous experience and interest in working with the speech patterns and rhythms of interview subjects. The script was constructed with material taken from audio recordings with Wells and McLachlan which were partially transcribed; sections were then used in their entirety or edited together.

Sonia Hughes had mentioned that she found it easier and faster to work with the 82

Whether in the form of documentation or actual human presence.

Referring here specifically to performers in the theatre of Rimini Protokoll.

84 Florian Malzacher, Rimini Protokoll: Experts of the Everyday. The Theatre of Rimini Protokoll, p.27 85 A well-known example of documentary theatre with a serious political agenda would include the Tribunal plays presented by the Tricycle Theatre.

86 The piece was developed and presented over a three month period and involved four interviews with the participants, two face-to-face script feedback sessions with the participants, some email script feedback and one three hour rehearsal with full cast.

83

Presence and Authenticity… p. 16

Pritchards because she already had a pre-existing relationship with them. Without this personal connection she noted that work on another show had been harder: …there’s a much longer process for people to get to know you, to get to trust you, so you almost haven’t got enough time because no one’s comfortable with each other, nobody really knows each other.87 This was also a factor in the decision to work with people I knew. It meant I could “fasttrack” the process of initiation, but more fundamentally it meant, that through my friendship with the performers, I already had a sense of Wells and McLachlan’s personality and the dynamic of their relationship.

As with Quarantine’s work, Mike & Karen, was made to be performed by its subjects but, unlike the practice of Quarantine, it was constructed in limited collaboration with the performers. The informal agreement between myself and the participants was however based on Quarantine’s practice, in which the performers are ‘their own censors’88, so that Wells and McLachlan had the final say on everything used in the performance script.

As previously mentioned the idea that Mike and Karen should have doppelgangers was included during the early drafting stage and was introduced to test whether an audience could recognise “real” people on stage. The notion of using actors to “shadow” Wells and McLachlan also became an investigation of the dramaturgical impact of this technique. The nature of the investigation then was whether Wells and McLachlan had an identifiable authentic presence. It was also to assess the impact and potential effect of combining subject performers with mimic performers in theatre of the real. An audio section, taken from an interview recorded with Wells and McLachlan, was played approximately half way through the twenty minute piece in order to end the “guessing game” element of the performance and (potentially) allow the audience to compare the real Mike and Karen with the facsimiles. The source of the script, from verbatim text, was explained to the audience during a brief introduction and the programme information indicated that Wells and McLachlan would be played by themselves and two other people.

The performance of Mike & Karen attempted to combine two types of presence at once then: the authentic and the professional. Initially the performance presented two friends called Mike and Karen played by four people. As it was not possible to know categorically who were the real Mike and Karen, the audience had to make a decision about who they considered them to be. This section therefore also asked the audience to note the (obscured) presence of authenticity in the performance and assess its role.

The piece was introduced by the performers on the first page of the script as ‘a construct, made from real interviews’89, establishing the potentially contradictory nature of its dramaturgy. The dialogue was for the most part separated into distinct sections between the two actors or between Wells and McLachlan, but at times all four performers were integrated within the same sequence. On one occasion, after the audio had been heard, McLachlan also shared dialogue with the actor Mike. The choices around line allocation then, were mainly to do with separating the subjects from the actors, but there was also 87

Interview with Sonia Hughes, 14/07/10, addenda, p.22.

Interview with Richard Gregory, 13/04/10, addenda, p.8.

89 Mike & Karen, by Michelle Read, and , final draft, 29/06/10, addenda, p.31.

88

Presence and Authenticity… p. 17

an initial exploration of the integration of the four roles together and also the effect of sharing dialogue in alternate pairings.

The performance was presentational and used a combination of direct address and interpersonal dialogue. Its tone was “warm” and humorous and music was used to change mood and pacing. Come Rain or Come Shine, one of McLachlan’s favourite songs, was heard in three short snatches during the performance sung by different artists.

This was used to add a through-line to the piece and create an emotional subtext underneath the unsentimental and humorous nature of Wells and McLachlan’s dialogue.

Once the audio was played (in order to reveal the real Mike and Karen and clarify the spectator’s perception), the audience were then theoretically able to assess their choice.

It also allowed the viewer to align their recently aquired knowledge of Wells and McLachlan to their actual presence. Thus once the uncertainty was removed the audience were able to engage with the effect of the actors alongside the real Wells and McLachlan.

At the end of the performance each cast member was identified and the audience were asked to give written responses to feedback questions. Out of an audience of approximately forty-five people (made up of actors, members of the MA course, friends, family and theatre industry professionals), thirteen people filled in feedback sheets90.

In response to the question, ‘were you able to identify which performers were Mike and Karen?’, only one person identified both performers correctly (without knowing them beforehand), whereas three people wrongly identified both of them. Three people were able to identify Mike, while two failed to identify him and one person identified Karen, while three people failed to identify her.91 This question then, asked about presence and whether the authentic persona of the “real” person can be identified in performance. Within this small cohort slightly more respondents failed to identify Wells and McLachlan than succeeded. The fact that all the performers were reading from scripts may have affected the full impact of performance, however this was consistent. Notwithstanding the ability of the professional actors to look up from the text more often (which is indicative of training), the audience responses were inconclusive and the authentic presence of Wells and McLachlan was not immediately recognisable to the majority of respondents92.

In a separate question about authenticity, the audience were asked whether it was important for the real Mike and Karen to be included in a performance about themselves. Out of the respondents four people thought it was important, five people were positive but non-commital and four people thought it wasn’t important. Nine out of thirteen people felt it was either important or interesting and cited such reasons as the addition of ‘intensity’, ‘emotional tone’, ‘a fascinating tension’, ‘tenderness’ or ‘reality’.

It was also considered by one respondent to be ‘more revealing/exposing and live’ 93. Out of the four people who didn’t think it was important, one did however consider that it 90

For copies of feedback sheets see addenda p.46-57.

Of the rest of the respondents five people knew one or some of the performers beforehand, one response was unclear and one respondent had not understood that Wells and McLachlan were in the show.

92 Audience feedback, Mike & Karen, 29/06/10, addenda p.26/27.

93 Ibid, various responses to question 2, addenda p.27/28.

91

Presence and Authenticity… p. 18

added ‘authenticity’94. The comments of more than two thirds of the respondents indicate that some kind of value was added to the performance for them by Wells and McLachlan being present as themselves.

The answers to these questions seem to indicate that the respondents were not able to intuit “real” people on stage, but once the premise was understood, then the notion of genuine presence became meaningful and by association the comprehension of the performers’ authenticity became relevant. Respondent eleven noted that it brought ‘a level of reality to the work’95, respondent twelve suggested, ‘because it’s real you invest in it.’96, and respondent five added ‘[t]he reality [drew] us in.’ 97 This would seem to reiterate the anecdotal responses of audience members for Susan & Darren that, despite an increased complexity in the dramaturgy of such work, the “contract” of authenticity set up between the maker and the audience is still the significant element of theatre of the real.

To determine the dynamic between authenticity and inauthenticity within the piece the audience were also asked what they considered to be the effect of combining a real and an acted relationship. Several respondents considered it to be a form of distancing device. One person commented: ‘[i]t gives a universality to the piece and depersonalises it in a beneficial way’ 98, while another noted: ‘[i]t generalised [the performers] particular relationship into something universal…’99 Another person commented: ‘you emotionally became more involved as you watched the real people listen to their own opinions of each other.’ 100 This feedback suggests the form creates a gap between the subjects and their own experience, which in turn allows the audience space to reflect on the fact that for two people on stage these opinions, reminiscences and experiences are genuine. This is illustrated in the following sequence, which takes place towards the end of the piece (after the audience have heard the audio recording of the real Mike and Karen):

94

ACTOR MIKE:

I don’t think I do know anybody else who’s like her. Even though I’ve known her for such a long time, she still says surprising things to me or has a surprising opinion. Sometimes she’ll say something and I’ll think where has that come from, where has that bit of her knowledge or that opinion been hiding for all this time.

ACTOR KAREN:

I think Mike is very pretty. I think he looks a bit like Jane Fonda. I do think he’s got a very pretty face. And it’s funny because he doesn’t think he’s pretty any more and I think he really is.

ACTOR MIKE:

I can’t think of anything I wouldn’t say to her, unless it was something I just wouldn’t say because it would hurt her so much. And that would have to be something that was completely untrue.

Ibid, respondent 10, question 2, addenda p.28.

Ibid, respondent 11, question 2, addenda p.28.

96 Ibid, respondent 12, question 2, addenda p.27.

97 Ibid, respondent 5, question 2, addenda p.28.

98 Ibid, respondent 10, question 4, addenda p.30.

99 Ibid, respondent 3, question 3, addenda p.28.

100 Ibid, respondent 2, question 3, addenda p.28.

95

Presence and Authenticity… p. 19 MIKE:

Are there things you wouldn’t say to me?

KAREN:

Oh god yes. Definitely.

ACTOR KAREN:

I think surprisingly for someone who has so much going for him, who has built up his own business and has so much security, Mike can sometimes be quite insecure and I hope I give him confidence.

This sequence of personal comments are given to the actors to perform (with a brief exchange from Wells and McLachlan in the middle) and through it, the two subjectperformers can be observed hearing their own text spoken about them by their doubles.

This gives the audience an insight into Wells and McLachlan’s private feelings for each other without their stating them directly101. For some respondents this seemed to heighten feelings of emotional involvement 102, while the presence and authenticity of the subjects was emphasised overall for several of the respondents through the distance created by the actors.

Another aspect to the process of making Mike & Karen was the experience for the subject-performers of having their text103 interpretated by a theatre-maker. This relates to issues of representation and the “ownership” of authenticity within the piece. At the end of the project both Wells and McLachlan considered that I had made the piece, but because it was constructed entirely from their words, that they owned it collectively without me104. The verbatim text in this particular short-form process, therefore became a signifier to the participants for authenticity and ownership. This in turn became challenging for McLachlan, when the script was being constructed, because of the editing and re-ordering of the original material.

The creation of Mike & Karen necessarily evolved as it went along. However, the process was explained to the participants as partially collaborative 105. This referred to reading and feedback sessions with the participants at each stage of drafting and the power of veto which they had over the script. The process began with a series of four interviews106, two with both participants together and two separately. The first draft of the script was then constructed from the combined, abridged transcripts of these interviews, and the participants were asked to read and give feedback on it. This was also the case with each subsequent draft until a final performance draft was reached.

There were four drafts altogether as part of this process and between the first and final draft, material was removed through my own edits and on request from McLachlan.

Sections of text within the script were also rearranged by me.

I therefore became active as the “writer” of the piece as I began to re-order the material.

101

This text came from separate interviews with Wells and McLachlan.

This was also mentioned anecdotally after the show by several people who were reminded of their own friendships.

103 I am using text here to denote recorded interviews and conversations and the transcripts of these, from which the script of Mike & Karen was created.

104 Follow-up interview with Mike Wells and Karen McLachlan, subsequent to their performance in Mike & Karen, Thursday 15th July 2010, (not recorded), addenda, p.43.

105 The process was not fully collaborative as the script was not constructed in discussion with the participants.

106 They both agreed to take part on the basis that it didn’t take up too much time and meetings could be scheduled in the evening.

102

Presence and Authenticity… p. 20

When editing together the initial draft I had focused (as a playwright), on emotional, dramatic or comic material, pulling together text sections that had some kind of dramatic impact on me. Because of my initial focus on this kind of material, McLachlan felt that I was overstepping the original brief and that the script had moved away from the central idea of friendship. Wells, on the other hand, did not have any issues with the developing script: ‘[t]he content didn’t surprise me. I didn’t feel any problem with [it]’ 107. However, he commented later that McLachlan’s issues made him wonder if he ‘should have more concerns’ and whether he was ‘considering that enough.’ 108 These discussions were all robust but amicable. McLachlan’s growing awareness of how the material was being structured was matched by my own, and text, which she considered gave a skewed representation of her, was removed from drafts. At one point McLachlan felt she had been given a narrative about ‘the lack or loss of things’, which she thought gave an inauthentic, ‘negative’109 impression of her. The material (concerning death and separation), was subsequently edited out. It became clear that it was problematic for an exploratory, work-in-progress project, such as this, to try to engage with the more personal and potentially sensitive areas of the participants’ lives in such a short time.110 Darren Pritchard comments with regard to the original development process for Susan & Darren: It took a year to establish... We went to Blackpool together, [Gregory and O’Shea] came to the house, we talked about the show. So that was a long history before we started in the rehearsal room.111 Not all Quarantine productions have had such a long lead-in period, but Renny O’Shea’s recollection that ‘[t]here was a lot of sitting around talking, really a lot, a lot’ 112, suggests that continuous discussion is part of a familiarisation process between subjects and makers. This would also seem to be part of developing mutual trust between makers and participants, which for Sonia Hughes facilitates getting ‘to the heart of people’s experiences’113. Notwithstanding my friendship with the participants, this level of familiarisation was not possible on Mike & Karen and consequently affected our ability as collaborators to find a fully agreed notion of authentic representation.

McLachlan’s professional life as a television scriptwriter (which gave her an insight into fictional narrative), may have been one of the reasons she was challenged by the process of construction which was used to turn her verbatim text into an art-project. In contrast, Wells was enthusiastic about the transformation of the original material. An exchange between the two during the project’s final feedback session indicates their different positions in relation to the piece: KM: It goes back to Eisenstein’s principle about putting two things together to create a third thing. That’s how editing works. And if the participants aren’t involved it’s someone else’s story.

107

Follow-up interview with Wells and McLachlan, addenda, p.42.

Ibid, p.43.

109 Ibid, p.42.

110 Indicating how much time and investment a full-scale production, such as those created by Quarantine, requires from both maker and participants.

111 Interview with Darren Pritchard, 13/04/10, addenda, p.16.

112 Interview with Renny O’Shea 13/04/10, addenda, p.3.

113 Interview with Sonia Hughes, 14/04/10, addenda, p.23.

108

Presence and Authenticity… p. 21 MW: But I think it needs to have a structure. Someone needs to make that decision and then it needs to be discussed and I think with a longer working situation you’d have a chance to do that.

KM: I think you can work harder to get closer to the truth that you feel when you’re telling your own story. So this wasn’t necessarily my story, it was [the director’s] version of my story inflected with Ray Charles, and it was [Michelle’s] version.

MW: But I think that’s the point of theatre, to put things into a different context, to create different resonance...114

McLachlan’s argument is to do with maintaining personal authenticity and control and recreating ‘the truth that you feel when you’re telling your own story’. In contrast, Wells considers the necessity for an authorial presence to shape and structure the disparate material and create alternative suggestions or ‘different resonance’. This would suggest that the subjectivity of those involved is also an issue in theatre of the real’s search for authenticity. An individual person has a “close-up”, internal notion of who they are and what is authentic to them. The theatre-maker’s view, although that of an interested party, is distanced and external. Both are therefore subjective views, albeit from different perspectives.

The aim of the maker in the context of Susan & Darren or Mike & Karen is to present an authentic sense of the individual through their actual presence, but also to create a piece of theatre (or as Quarantine suggest ‘an artistic reflection’ 115). The theatre-maker then has the editorial role. Darren Pritchard notes during his experience on Susan & Darren: ‘…the buck has to stop somewhere, it has to stop with Richard and Renny, so we’ll debate ideas but they shape the ideas.’116 O’Shea argues, ‘…you can work… in [this] way and still apply an aesthetic and explore some philosophical ideas. I think we were always very ambitious with the frame of the work.’117, and Hughes reflects on the creative interest of the writer in the process, ‘I have to find out what I’m interested in because it’s not just a biopic. What do these particular people present to me?’118 The process of making Mike & Karen showed me that authenticity is a contested term for theatre of the real, not only from outside the process, but also from the point of view of the subject-performer. Arguably, it is how these different perspectives are negotiated that is a significant part of the process of aspiring to create authenticity in a mediated form. The piece also showed me the level of time and development required to create a working collaboration with subject-performers, which, when successful, offers the potential for the complexity of an artistic project combined with the authentic immediacey of genuine social interaction.

Conclusion The investigation of the two pieces within this study would seem to show that the “authentic presence”of the subject performer brings something particular to live performance and to the experience of the audience. The critical and popular recognition of Quarantine’s work suggest a definite interest from audiences connected intrinsically 114

Follow up interview with Wells and McLachlan, addenda, p.44.

Quarantine website, http://www.qtine.com/about/, accessed 05/08/10.

116 Interview Darren Pritchard, 13/04/10, addenda, p.15.

117 Interview with Renny O’Shea, 13/04/10, p.3.

118 Interview with Sonia Hughes, 14/04/10, p.22.

115

Presence and Authenticity… p. 22

to the unique quality of watching “real” people on stage. As Donald Hutera notes of the Pritchards: ‘These aren’t actors but two people sharing parts of their lives with us’ 119.

The fact that the Pritchards present the dynamic of their relationship as well as an insight into their personal experience, invites the audience into a relationship with the performance that is different from that created by actors. What the performers tell the audience is not invented but real, and because of this there is arguably a sense, as Hutera suggests, of something being genuinely shared.

The content of both Susan & Daren and Mike & Karen gives the audience an insight into two recognisable relationships; that of mother and son, and close friends. In these instances the authenticity of the performers offers a kind of “mirror” to the audience, arguably more literal than in drama, in which the spectator can reflect on his or her own relationships (and additionally share their own stories in the case of Susan & Darren).

This kind of interaction also adds to the experience of the performance feeling unique for both audience and performers and arguably creates the sense of a communal rather than passive event.

In contrast with other theatre of the real, the work of Quarantine is not concerned with interrogating a specific incident in the participants’ lives or pursuing an argument based on their experiences. Instead the company’s dramaturgy seeks a more complex exploration of its subject matter. The programme note for Susan & Darren clarifies the company’s methodology: We choose to work with what our performers tell us are, or remember as, reports of real events – but we don’t set out to present this material as any kind of complete factual record of their lives. Rather we use this ‘found’ stuff as source material and, with them as (usually) the performers of their own stories, fabricate something that moves back and forth along a line of veracity during the performance… This is what interests us – exploring and exploding the idea of authenticity, and the notion that we can ever be certain of a performer’s, or our own, recounting experience.120 Indeed the company’s shows seem to both present and obscure the performers, giving an audience more personal information than a conversation between strangers, but less than a linear story narrative. The scenes and sequences seem to blur ‘the boundaries between real life and "acting", audience and performers’121, and avoid placing the subjectperformers in a spokesperson or “truth-teller” role. Allowing them rather to be different elements of themselves offering a combination of facts, fictions and abstractions.

Thus the performers are “presented” rather than “represented” to an audience and as a performer from a previous Quarantine show notes: ‘I sense that a representation does the thinking for an audience to find; whereas a presentation lets the audience find something to think about.’122 This comment returns to the notion of a subjective engagement, where the spectator is presented with the contingent nature of “authentic presence” and asked 119

Donald Hutera, The Times online, 13/05/10, http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/stage/dance/article7124311.ec e, accessed 14/07/10.

120 Programme note, Susan & Darren 2010, addenda p.45.

121 http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2004/oct/11/theatre2, accessed 05/07/10 Lyn Gardner, And This Is Me, Monday 11th October 2004 122 Lowri Evans, performer in Quarantine’s production Make Believe, 2009, via Quarantine website, http://www.qtine.com/media/MB/Performer_perspective.pdf, accessed 02/08/10.

Presence and Authenticity… p. 23

to decode the performance from their own experience. In contrast to Philip Auslander’s assertions, it also implies the increased agency of the audience in its relationship to the performance.

The work of Quarantine Theatre has changed and developed over their several productions, but the inclusion of collaborations with non-professional performers has remained one of the consistent elements of their playography. Their dramaturgical process also shows a deep engagement with both form and content, which indicates an ongoing interest in, and commitment to this way of working. The presence and authenticity of their performers are two of the qualities with which the company constantly engages. However, their relationship to authenticity differs somewhat to the way the company engages with presence. As has been shown, Richard Gregory considers presence to be one of the central considerations of the company’s work, around which the performances are often constructed. In contrast the company’s engagement with authenticity is more circumspect; proposing a ‘line of veracity’ 123 in their productions, rather than a fixed truth which is employed both to ‘explor[e] and explod[e]’124 the idea of authenticity within their shows.

The presentation of untrained actors, and the fact of their having stepped from the world of the audience into the world of the performer, is both a challenging and engaging premise. In the absence of technical performance skills and the charismatic “aura” associated with professional performers, the authenticity and the actual presence of the performer would seem to define how the performance operates and is perceived. The way in which presence is manifested through the performance is not simply a case of placing a subject-performer in front of an audience, but requires a level of intervention to delineate the nature of the performer’s presence clearly for the audience. As has been seen, the two pieces in this study use different methods to indicate and emphasise the presence of the performers to the audience.

In Mike & Karen it is arguable that because the audience do not initially know who the “real” Mike and Karen are, their presence is manifested through the challenge within the piece. When the subject-performers are revealed their presence is then emphasised for the audience by the use of the doubles. This draws attention to the difference between the subjects’ authentic presence and the actors’ professional presence. Within the performance the actors both used a naturalistic performance style and seemed to draw, for the most part, on their own personalities to create their versions of Mike and Karen.

However, this was still an acting strategy compared to the untrained performance of Wells and McLachlan. It is arguable that the subjects’ presence was primarily manifested in Mike & Karen through the construct of the form, rather than the simple fact of the subject-performers presence. At the same time the presence of subjectperformers within Quarantine’s work is also highly mediated by the form, along with the training they receive in order to be comfortable presenting themselves on stage.

However, the fact of the performers’ unique nature is still arguably the most significant factor in the appeal of this particular form of theatre of the real. Thus in Susan & Darren, the Pritchards can only be played by themselves, and the same is true of Wells and McLachlan. Indeed in Mike & Karen the relationship presented by the actors Charlotte Moore and Sean Campion does not exist for them outside the performance; Moore and Campion did not meet at college on a Wyvan hunt, whereas Wells and 123 124

Susan & Darren programme note, addenda p.45 Ibid.

Presence and Authenticity… p. 24

McLachlan did125. Thus once they are authenticated for the audience they are, like the Pritchards, inseparable from who they were before the show and who they will continue to be afterwards. If the audience accepts this authenticity as the “contract” for the performance, then consequently they are able to shift their expectation away from the virtuosic or the technically achieved (notwithstanding Darren Pritchard’s skill as a dancer), and towards a focus on recognisable, personal experience. The presentation of the person on stage then, arguably creates a unique event because it is not reproducable with a different performer in the role. Once a performer is also themselves, they not only perform the defined material of the production (which they have helped to create), but they also embody, through their presence, the complexity of their unfinished, real existence.

Indeed, once the audience acknowledges the presence of the subject-performer this effectively acts as an “anchor” or “touchstone” for the notion of authenticity within the piece. This may then help the theatre-maker experiment with form and structure around the performer’s text, because the performer offers a consistent point of reference to the audience. Thus the presence of the Pritchards in Susan & Darren creates an authentic “through-line” for the audience. They connect the fragmentary and at times abstract nature of the piece, which seems to be extremely candid, but arguably also contests the idea that people can be easily known. In contrast to some of the narratives used in Reality TV, Susan & Darren offers only partial and disconnected insights into the Pritchards’ lives rather than a highly defined, linear story arc. The piece arguably attempts to avoid a neat summation of the Pritchards, offering instead a ‘collage’ 126 of impressions. It stands in contrast to forms that aim to give a conclusive sense of a person’s “story” and instead suggests an attempt at reflecting post-modern notions of subjective viewpoints. The presence of “real” people therefore, allows Quarantine a cogent methodology for diverging from more traditional “reality” forms and offers a way of challenging the perception of authenticity itself within theatre of the real.

Quarantine’s Richard Gregory states that it is the presence of a person that is of most interest to him in performance, rather than the veracity of what they might say. He also notes that because of this conviction the company professes to make only an ‘“attempt at truthfulness’”127 in its work. In Mike & Karen the notion of authenticity was contested by the participants themselves128. However, whether the text gave what they considered to be a genuine impression of them or not, the “value” of their performance, as reflected in the audience feedback, was arguably manifested through the authenticity of their presence. Karen McLachlan’s comment however, that: ‘[A]n authentic impression… is an almost impossible thing to achieve.’ 129, is something that I would tend to agree with.

Instead it is Gregory’s idea of an ‘“attempt at truthfulness’” or Renny O’Shea’s suggestion of a ‘level of honesty’ 130 that is of interest to me as a theatre-maker; as with Quarantine’s challenge to the notion of authenticity within the structure of Susan & Darren, both definitions acknowledge the problematic nature of attempting to reproduce 125

Mike & Karen, Final draft script, addenda p.32.

Interview with Sonia Hughes, 14/04/10, addenda p.23.

127 Interview with Richard Gregory, 07/04/10, addenda p.4.

128 In response to an email question which asked whether he felt the piece represented him authentically, Mike Wells wrote: ‘It was authentic in as far as information about me was presented and the facts contained were true, but not authentic [like]… when you meet me in a social situation.’ 30/07/10, addenda p.44.

129 , by email, 01/08/10, addenda, p.44.

130 Interview with Renny O’Shea, 13/04/10, addenda, p.2.

126

Presence and Authenticity‌ p. 25

what may be perceived as reality or truth in live performance. However, if the theatremaker and the participant are able to acknowledge and agree the gap between the performer’s sense of themselves and the performance, the presence of the performersubject arguably does offer insights for an audience into authentic lived experience, while also allowing that experience to contain elements of a shared communal event.

Presence and Authenticity… p. 26

Bibliography Books Auslander, Philip Liveness: Performance In A Mediatized Culture, (second edition, Routledge 2008).

Baudrillard, Jean Simulacra and Simulation, translator Sheila Faria Glaser, (Ann Arbour University of Michigan Press 1994).

Croydon, Margaret Lunatics, Lovers and Poets: The Contemporary Experimental Theatre, (New York Delta 1974).

Dreyse, Miriam and Malzacher, Florian (editors) Rimini Protokoll: Experts of the Everyday. The Theatre of Rimini Protokoll, (Alexander Verlag Berlin 2008).

Fuchs, Elinor The Death of Character: Perspectives of Theater after Modernism, (Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis 1996).

Goodall, Jane Stage Presence, (Routledge 2008).

Lindholm, Charles Culture and Authenticity, (Blackwell Publishing 2008).

Martin, Carol (editor) Dramaturgy Of The Real On The World Stage, (Palgrave Macmillan 2010).

Read, Alan Theatre and Everyday Life: An Ethics of Performance, (Routledge 1993).

Schechner, Richard Performance Theory (second edition), (Routledge Classics 2003).

Articles Evans, Lowri, performer in the Quarantine Theatre production Make Believe, in an interview with Amy Evans of the Centre for Applied Theatre Research at the University of Manchester, 2009, http://www.qtine.com/media/MB/Performer_perspective.pdf, accessed 10/04/10.

Bottoms, Stephen Putting the Document into Documentary: An Unwelcome Corrective?, The Drama Review, 50:3, Autumn 2006, (New York University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology).

Gregory, Richard, paper to “Common Work” social engagement conference, Tramway, Glasgow, April 2007, http://www.qtine.com/media/articles/Social%20engagement.pdf, accessed 10/04/10.

Tellas, Vivi Kidnapping Reality, an interview with Alan Pauls translated by Sarah J. Townsend, http://www.archivotellas.com.ar/kid.html, accessed 05/05/10.

Young, Stuart Playing with Documentary Theatre: Aalst and Taking Care of Baby, New Theatre Quarterly, 25:1, February 2009, (Cambridge University Press).

Presence and Authenticity… p. 27

Websites Quarantine Theatre, http://www.qtine.com/.

Clare Howdon, The Public Reviews website, review of Susan & Darren, 4th May 2010, http://www.thepublicreviews.com/susan-and-darren-brittania-sachas-hotel-manchester/, accessed 14/07/2010.

Donald Hutera, Review, The Times, review of Susan & Darren, 13th May 2010, http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/stage/dance/article712 4311.ece, accessed 14/07/10.

Lucie Davies, Preview and interview about Susan & Darren, Metro Life, 8th May 2010, http://www.metro.co.uk/metrolife/12969-metrolife-susan-and-darren, accessed 14/07/10.

Jenny Gilbert, Review, The Independent, review of Susan & Darren, Sunday 16th May 2010, www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/reviews/susan-anddarren-lilian-baylis-studio-londonbrla-danse-frederick-wiseman-159-mins-pg1974350.html, accessed 14/07/10.

Live Performances Best Before, directors Helgard Haug, Stephan Kaegi , Rimini Protokoll, LIFT Festival, ICA, London, 3rd July 2010.

FML (Fuck My Life), Director Pol Heyvaert, a co-production between Campo (Belgium)/Cork Midsummer Festival/ London International Festival Theatre, ICA London, 14th July 2010.

Lifegame, director Phelim McDermott, , Lyric Hammersmith, 12th July 2010.

Soldiers Song, director Renny O’Shea, Quarantine Theatre, Battersea Arts Centre, London, 10th July 2010.

Susan & Darren, directors Richard Gregory and Renny O’Shea, Quarantine Theatre/ Company Fierce, Sadlers Wells Theatre, London, 11th, 12th, 13th May 2010.

Video of Live Performances Grace, director Richard Gregory, Quarantine Theatre, 2005.

Susan & Darren, directors Richard Gregory, Renny O’Shea, Quarantine Theatre/Company Fierce, 2006.

White Trash, director Richard Gregory, Quarantine Theatre, 2004.

Addenda p. 1-3 Interview with Renny O’Shea, co-director Susan & Darren and joint artistic director Quarantine Theatre, during rehearsals in the Adelphi Building, Salford University, Manchester on April 13th 2010, (recorded). p. 3-5

Interview with Richard Gregory, co-director Susan & Darren and joint artistic director Quarantine Theatre, by phone 07/04/2010, (not recorded).

Presence and Authenticity… p. 28

p. 5-8

Interview with Richard Gregory during rehearsals for Susan & Darren in the Adelphi Building, Salford University, Manchester on April 13th 2010, (recorded).

p. 8-12

Interview with Richard Gregory at Sadlers Wells Theatre, during the London run of Susan & Darren, May 15th 2010, (recorded).

p.12

Interview with Richard Gregory, by email, 3rd August 2010.

p.12-14

Interviews with Jane Mason, choreographer Susan & Darren, by email, 19th and 25th July 2010.

p. 14-16

Interview with Darren Pritchard, performer Susan & Darren during rehearsals in the Adelphi Building, Salford University, Manchester on April 13th 2010, (recorded).

p. 16-19

Interview with Susan Pritchard, performer Susan & Darren during rehearsals in the Adelphi Building, Salford University, Manchester on April 13th 2010, (recorded).

p. 19-24

Interview with Sonia Hughes, writer Susan & Darren, during rehearsals in the Adelphi Building, Salford University, Manchester, 14th April 2010. (recorded).

p. 24-26

Short interviews with audience members after a performance of Susan & Darren at Sadlers Wells, London, 13th May 2010. (recorded).

p. 26-30

Audience Feedback Mike & Karen, Goldsmiths MA Writing for PerformanceWriters Readings, The Studio, Soho Theatre, Dean Street, London, 29th June 2010.

p. 30-41

Mike & Karen script, final draft, 29/06/2010.

p. 41-44

Follow-up interview with Mike Wells and Karen McLachlan subsequent to their performance in Mike & Karen. Karen’s flat, London Bridge, 15th July 2010.

p. 44

Mike Wells by email 30/07/10.

p. 44

Karen McLachlan by email 01/08/10.

p. 45

Programme for Quarantine Theatre’s production of Susan & Darren, Sadlers Wells, 11th – 15th May 2010.

p. 46-58

Copies of the thirteen feedback sheets from the audience-respondents at the performance of Mike & Karen, Soho Theatre, 29th June 2010.

DVD of the presentation of Mike & Karen, filmed at Soho Theatre, 29th June 2010.