The longer I spend at Bristol Old Vic, the greater perspective I get on my previous theatre training back home in Wellington, New Zealand.
____________________
I should preface this blog post by stating as clearly as possible that I truly loved, absolutely categorically loved, every second of dramatic training, classes, rehearsal and production work that I experienced at university (and secondary school) in Wellington.
I would also like to state for the record that the theatrical education I gained at Victoria University of Wellington was what inspired me to seek out further training. My three-year degree ,and extracurricular dramatic exploits whilst studying at uni, catalysed my love for performing arts and I completely advocate the way that theatre is taught to students in New Zealand. I did not choose to pursue further dramatic training outside of New Zealand because of any opposition to the teaching methods employed in our country, but rather I was driven to explore, investigate and be exposed to other training methods.
______________________________________________________
Upon reflection, I think that in many ways New Zealand’s culture and sociology has a fundamental, underlying influence on our theatre community. The way that theatre is taught to students at a wide range of levels, the styles of ensemble work that are oft called upon, our thriving fringe scene and the very ethos of our localised performing arts are all influenced by a wider sense of ‘New Zealand-ness‘.
The question of ‘what makes a New Zealander a New Zealander?’ is a larger kettle of fish that I won’t dip into; however there are certain aspects of us as a collective peoples that are fundamentally present in our theatre: our politeness, our liberalness, our passivity, our freedom of expression, our diversity, our love of discovery. This shouldn’t come as a surprise; of course who we are as group influences how we behave in an art-form that is intrinsically focused on exploring other people, humanity and relationships.
______________________________________________________
And this is just one thespian’s opinion.
My views are based on a single, personal theatrical upbringing and education, which may well be completely different to the perspectives of other young New Zealand actors. I only studied theatre at one University. I do not pretend to know what goes on in every theatre class across the country. However, in my experience, the work of international theatrical practitioners is not explored in any great depth back home.
Yes, you are unlikely to go through any form of tertiary dramatic education in New Zealand without receiving a rudimentary run-down of Stanislavski’s principles. But the techniques of other great theatrical minds- Checkhov, Laban, Meisner, Alexander, to name but a few- are left somewhat untouched. I was an over-working, academically gifted, theory-interested Theatre Major at uni, and yet I hadn’t been introduced to any of these names & concepts until two months ago.
New Zealand theatre education tends to place emphasis on:
– Ensemble work
– Devising pieces
– The classical canon: Commedia dell’arte, Ancient Greek, Shakespeare,
– Personal theatre: work inspired by our own experiences, self-discovery & introspection
– Naturalism & realism
An alternate list of theatrical ‘buzzwords’ that I have been introduced to over the last ten weeks is as follows:
– Alexander Technique
– Chekhov elements: archetypes, the four brothers, polarities
– Dialect phonetics
– Vocal production
– Laban movement
Why is does the typical New Zealand theatrical education focus so heavily on the first list, and miss so much of the breadth and variation that there is to explore in the second?
_________________________________________________________________
Perhaps New Zealander practitioners simply value devised ensemble pieces, self-created works and exploration of the natural-self on stage more highly than rigorously inspecting 20th century theatre methodologies?
Perhaps variance, diversity and individuality are prioritized over practices that have clearly dictated frameworks?
Perhaps we are simply, on the whole, less informed about international techniques?
Perhaps, due to some distant cousin of the ‘tall poppy syndrome’, we choose to largely separate ourselves from international techniques?
Perhaps ‘theatrical theory’ is just isn’t seen to be very interesting?
Perhaps I’m completely wrong about all this…
_________________________________________________________________
In some ways I feel as if ten weeks ago I was completely ignorant about a great number of (what now seem like) crucial theatrical ideas.
In other ways, I consider the possibility that being a relatively ‘clean slate’ theatrically speaking has actually been a positive for my training. Being less informed about specific methods and ideologies than some of my classmates has allowed me to be a proverbial sponge, eager to soak up any and all of the concepts being thrown about by tutors. There are days where I reflect on the notion that perhaps my New Zealand theatre upbringing & education was somewhat … sheltered … ; and yet perhaps that is completely advantageous in a profession where thinking you know everything at a young age is crippling to your growth.
I’ve certainly come to understand that I have few, if any, preconceived notions.
JCL.
"Doing The Work"- Reflections on Drama School. 