How To Co-Create Theatre... according to us! Featuring COMPLEX (working title): our latest project
- Info At
- 14 minutes ago
- 10 min read
At RAT, it’s really important for us to focus on what we can do, rather than what we can't do. As survivors, so much of our lives can be defined by what we have lost or had taken from us, and it is so often assumed that we can't do things at which we then prove to excel, that we work very hard to shift that narrative. And boy, do we love it when we're trusted with a challenge.
We were a little taken aback at the end of March when we were asked, “Can you make a brand new play in a month?”... but then, how could we possibly say no?
The PATHWAY Study, based at King’s College London and City, University of London, was a national research project into pathways into complex trauma care. Our founder Nell Hardy was part of the Lived Experience Advisory Group (LEAG); most of the researchers were also survivors. The study was going into its final stages when RAT’s core group started convening last year, and by the time the LEAG was presented with the findings in December, our core group had already expressed an ambition to put on a performance that communicates some of the common themes of survivor life that kept coming up in our sessions. And with each new finding, I could hear the voices of several core group members in my memory.
Survivors having all choices taken away from them, or being given no help at all. Assessments being carried out in culturally insensitive ways. Western models of psychiatry pushing for inappropriate diagnoses and medication, rather than acknowledgment of trauma and therapeutic and cross-sector support to meet us where we are. Labyrinthine services systematically making the vast majority of survivors ineligible for treatment, branding us “too complex” for complex trauma care - while the effective professionals have to work against these systems rather than with them to do good. The experience of these systems feeling reminiscent of the abuse we have faced in our lives and retraumatising us rather than supporting us - while the best support most of us can get is from community peer spaces, i.e. each other.
Everything we had anecdotally reflected on was spelled out with official, approved authority. We knew how validating this would be for our core group. And when the researchers said they were keen to produce some artistic outputs to bring the findings to a wider audience, the shared ambitions were no longer a surprise.
It was several months before we got the go-ahead, with a tight turnaround, but we were rearing to go. We gathered as many of us as were available at short notice to get together a few times a week, and had a complete rehearsed reading together by the end of the month. Undoubtedly, a huge factor that made it such a natural process was the trust the researchers put in us: far from being protective of their findings and wanting to police the experience we gave our audience, they wanted us as survivors to respond authentically to our shared ground. Not that we would expect any different from a survivor-led team.
The process
We knew from the moment the core group said they wanted to do this, that it had to be our first theatrical co-creation. Having tested out that way of working on a smaller scale with Anew, the short film exploring the experience of breaking free from coercive control that we made earlier this year, we knew we were ready, while as always remaining aware that it was bound to be a learning curve.
We started by pulling out 8 key themes from the study’s findings and sticking them to a wall. A slightly more detailed explanation was then slowly read out while our company was poised with pens at the ready to note down by each theme, what images, characters, sounds, senses or phrases came to mind from what they were hearing. We observed some interesting antithetical archetypes emerging from this task - Death and the Saviour; the Moth and the Weaver; the "Administrator and Administratee" (that one made the final cut!) - and observed that the perception of them as opposites often created something of a false sense of “them and us”.
We observed that this “them and us” is central to what goes wrong in so many relationships between survivors and front line professionals. Don't we all ultimately want the same thing? And yet, so often when systems get in the way and those upholding them are too far removed from their impact aren't listening, we end up at each other’s throats rather than tackling the real beast. From this, and our and the study’s recognition that there are professionals out there who really put themselves on the line for what they know is right, we decided our play needed two central characters: a survivor and a psychologist. Recognising the study’s observation that peer support is often the most effective intervention, and our own awareness that often those best placed to help us within or without of professional spheres are survivors themselves, we decided to play with this role reversal in the action of the play: the survivor who becomes a supporter, and the supporter who has to come to terms with also being a survivor.
Further playing with the specifics of some of our antithetical archetypes gave us some stylistic gears, including some absurdist down-the-rabbit-hole-esque wordplay in confrontation with bureaucracy and a trope of the characters progressing from being constantly interrupted, to being stunned into silence, into having no voice at all. Knowing what experiences and traits our central characters shared, we were then ready to explore the ways in which they differ, by mapping out what each of them needs, values, what their strengths and weaknesses are, and how confident they are of achieving what they want to achieve. From this, we developed a series of still images responding to individual words we had picked out about the characters.
With the beginnings of a physical language around the characters, what's the next natural thing to do with them? Put them in a zoo, of course! Two brave participants agreed to “step inside the cage” and figure out what happens when the characters are watched, fed, disturbed, etc. Do they prioritise protecting their young, or themselves? Are they prepared to kill to find food, or are they grazers? Are they perfectly happy to occupy just one small area, or are they desperate to spread out? This not only gave us an understanding of what reactions these characters would have when faced with the systems we are exploring, but also a basis for the topographical language of the piece: where would our audience be in relation to the performers? Would each character occupy a certain area of the stage, or would they swap in and out of each other’s worlds?
From here, we could figure out what we needed to see happening in our characters' personal and professional lives around their dealings with mental health systems - eventually giving us a full scene list. Put together that list, with our understanding of the physical, intentional, emotional and topographical worlds of the characters, and the beginnings of our stylistic basis for the piece as a whole - and we’re ready to mess around a bit. We listed a load of different genres - from science fiction to period drama to TV talkshow - and improvised each scene using one of those genres. The freedom to be daft and come up with ideas we wouldn't possibly actually use (spoiler alert: we ended up keeping a lot of them in), really allowed us to delve and be brave and discover things that we wouldn't have found if we had been trying too hard to get it “right”.
What we learned
We’ve come out of this with a few observations about things we think work when trying to co-create theatre:
Plan as little as possible
We’ll be honest, we mostly didn't plan because we weren't given enough time! But there was something about going into the process almost as blind as everyone else that prevented us from holding too tightly to the reins. This both gave us room really to listen to what everyone else thought the process and purpose of the work should be and respond to that, and showed everyone else in the group that they could and needed to put their best feet forward. If they were too shy about it, there simply wouldn't be a play at the end!
Don't focus on one element for too long at a time
Some of your participants may be great with words, others may express themselves better with movement. Some may find a way into the story by seeing how it will look in front of them, others by making a timeline of events. Some will need to hear a character's voice to know who they are, others will need to see them move; some will want to get to know who they are when they’re on their own, others will need to see how they interact with others; some will get to know them by what they do in the play, others will get to know what they do in the play by getting to know them first. Spending too long purely in language or in movement, in stagecraft or in story building, in character work or in the wider world of the play, risks alienating certain participants while crucial decisions are being made. Jumping around a bit balances the space and keeps everyone as invested as possible, while giving everyone the experience both of leading and of being held through uncertainty.
Don't write anything off too soon - but don't hold onto anything too tightly either
Sometimes, to move forward with confidence, you have to have some placeholders. This might be as big as what happened at the end, or as small as a character’s name. There’s nothing wrong with flagging uncertainties about if something will ultimately work - but you’ll probably find that you can't all agree on nuances until you have a bit more worked out. If that name really isn't right or that isn't how the play really wants to end, you're more likely to find the solution when something else fits into place and you can adapt it to fit what is working, than by reaching blindly for anything that isn't wrong. You’ll probably find yourselves killing some darlings that way, too, when something you all got really excited about early on doesn't make sense anymore by the end. Don't worry - this doesn't have to be the last play you ever make…!
Be transparent about your framework for co-creation, and when that changes
Pure co-creation in a capitalist world is almost impossible to achieve - especially with limited time and resources. It’s also natural and right that people with different skill sets, interests and availabilities will organically end up taking different roles and responsibilities. Spelling out from the start why co-creation is right for this project, what if anything you would like to be able to do but can't under the circumstances, and the next best thing you are offering as a model, means everyone knows where they stand in theory and in practice and you can make sure everyone feels safe within that - or offer compromises if they don't.
There will also come a time when more of the reins are handed over to a few individuals, for example when and if you script the piece or need to have a clear director to prepare it for an audience. Voice it when these shifts have to happen, and why, so everyone still knows they’re on the same journey with you.
Value inexperience as much as experience
Sometimes we can feel completely sure that something doesn't work - because we’ve tried it a million times before and it never has, or we’ve seen it done badly again and again, or we have a method that has been serving us well for ages and don't want to fix what isn't broken. Sometimes people who haven't done much theatre before will come up with ideas that just don't seem to fit into our landscape at all, and we can't see how they could possibly be useful. But every story, every project, every company and every instance is different, and sometimes those who don't “know how it’s done” come at things from angles that just completely revolutionise how you think about what you’re doing.
On the other hand, it’s of course possible that you’ll often be right and things won't work - but people need to see that for themselves, rather than just trusting your word on it. And most importantly, sometimes you as a company need to see what doesn't work to know what will work. So try everything that anyone in the group is invested in, and be open to any possible outcome.
Create an atmosphere that celebrates mistakes - but instil confidence in your leadership
There’s a difference between being able to make a fool of yourself within a company, and being able to do so in public. Making mistakes and being vulnerable in front of each other is likely to be a big challenge for some people anyway, so making it really clear that during development, getting things wrong or doing daft things is actively good, not just acceptable, is really important.
Still, really to invest in that, people need to trust that they’re doing it eventually to make something brilliant. And especially if they will be presenting it to a public audience, they need to know that they are not being set up to humiliate themselves. So make sure that you let them know that you will not let anyone look like a fool when presenting what you eventually come up with.
There’s automatically a bit of a contradiction in the idea of “leading” a co-created process, of course - but like so much survivor-led work, it takes someone to come forward with an idea and a framework for a process to begin. Being intentional about that, and aware of yourself and others as you go along, is crucial to upholding the integrity of what you are doing.
We are now actively looking for opportunities to develop the piece properly and stage it - so we look forward to telling you when and where you can see it!
Comments