Real Human in this Fantastical World: Political, Artistic and Fictive Concerns of Actors in Rehearsal

265 Pages·2015·2.22 MB·English

by  Terence Crawford

Copyright and use of this thesis
This thesis must be used in accordance with the
provisions of the Copyright Act 1968.
Reproduction of material protected by copyright
may be an infringement of copyright and
copyright owners may be entitled to take
legal action against persons who infringe their
copyright.
Section 51 (2) of the Copyright Act permits
an authorized officer of a university library or
archives to provide a copy (by communication
or otherwise) of an unpublished thesis kept in
the library or archives, to a person who satisfies
the authorized officer that he or she requires
the reproduction for the purposes of research
or study.
The Copyright Act grants the creator of a work
a number of moral rights, specifically the right of
attribution, the right against false attribution and
the right of integrity.
You may infringe the author’s moral rights if you:
- fail to acknowledge the author of this thesis if
you quote sections from the work
- attribute this thesis to another author
- subject this thesis to derogatory treatment
which may prejudice the author’s reputation
For further information contact the
University’s Copyright Service.
sydney.edu.au/copyright
Real
 Human
 in
 this
 Fantastical
 World:

Political,
 Artistic
 and
 Fictive
 Concerns

of
 Actors
 in
 Rehearsal:

An
 Ethnography

by

T.M.
 Crawford

A
 thesis
 submitted
 in
 fulfilment
 of
 the
 requirements
 for
 the
 degree
 of

Doctor
 of
 Philosophy

Department
 of
 Performance
 Studies

University
 of
 Sydney
 2015
ABSTRACT

This
 study
 adopts
 an
 ethnographic
 and—in
 part—autoethnographic
 stance
 in
 the

observation
 of
 professional
 rehearsal
 rooms,
 with
 a
 view
 to
 identifying
 the
 division

of
 interests
 and
 responsibilities
 of
 actors
 working
 in
 mainstream
 Australian
 theatre.

From
 a
 position
 of
 intense
 professional
 locatedness
 as
 an
 actor
 and
 acting
 teacher,
 I

examine
  and
  interpret
  rehearsal
  practices
  utilising
  an
  ethnographic
  rubric
  that

embraces
 the
 legacies
 of
 Pierre
 Bourdieu,
 Clifford
 Geertz,
 and
 Michael
 Jackson,
 and

through
 the
 lens
 of
 my
 own
 experience.

The
 study
 pursues
 a
 centripetal
 action,
 beginning
 with
 a
 focus
 on
 industrial
 and

social
 realities,
 toward
 an
 identification
 of
 distinctions
 between
 artistic
 and
 fictive

concerns,
 and
 so
 identifies
 three
 notional
 compasses:
 symbolic
 spaces
 that
 actors

occupy
 in
 their
 journeys
 through
 professional
 engagements.
 These
 are:
 the
 political

compass,
 representing
 industrial
 and
 social
 restrictions
 and
 liberations;
 the
 artistic

compass,
 lying
 within
 the
 political,
 enormously
 divergent,
 and
 determined
 by
 the

nature
  of
  the
  text
  under
  pursuit,
  and
  the
  influence
  of
  the
  director;
  the
  fictive

compass,
 lying
 wholly
 within
 the
 artistic,
 which
 is
 found
 to
 be
 of
 a
 consistency
 and

reliability
 that
 belies
 its
 prominence
 in
 the
 canonical
 literature
 on
 the
 craft
 of
 acting,

particularly
 in
 the
 Stanislavskian
 tradition.
 That
 is
 to
 say,
 these
 actors
 in
 rehearsal

are
  found
  to
  concern
  themselves
  most
  consistently
  and
  reliably
  with
  artistic

challenges,
 as
 distinct
 from
 fictive
 challenges,
 and
 in
 the
 constant
 light
 of
 their

industrial
 and
 social
 circumstances.

Along
 this
 centripetal
 path,
 notions
 of
 acquiescence,
 compliance,
 agency,
 mystery,

roguery,
 epistemology,
 democracy,
 friendship,
 loneliness,
 and
 phenomenology
 are

encountered
 and
 examined
 in
 the
 context
 of
 actors’
 weird
 working
 lives.

Finally,
 claims
 are
 made
 for
 actors
 as
 artists,
 and
 these
 claims
 are
 held
 to
 the
 light
 of

prevailing
 industrial
 structures
 that,
 perhaps,
 neither
 admit
 nor
 utilise
 the
 actor
 as

artist.

  i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This
 study
 has
 been
 a
 deep
 pleasure
 and
 privilege
 to
 undertake.
 I
 am
 profoundly

aware
 of
 the
 mechanisms
 that
 have
 allowed
 it:
 the
 University
 of
 Sydney
 and
 its

officers;
 and
 the
 policies,
 structures,
 and
 people
 of
 the
 Australian
 Postgraduate

Awards.

Although
 I
 hope
 I
 have
 credited
 them
 fully
 throughout
 the
 work,
 I
 must
 here
 thank

the
 artists
 and
 managements
 that
 allowed
 me
 into
 their
 rehearsal
 rooms
 for
 the

purposes
 of
 this
 study.
 All
 actors
 were
 kind
 and
 open
 in
 their
 forbearance
 of
 my
 odd

presence,
 and
 some
 went
 further,
 offering
 time
 outside
 and
 inside
 rehearsals
 to

discuss
 their
 work:
 Matilda
 Bailey,
 Kate
 Cheel,
 Tom
 Conroy,
 Lizzy
 Falkland,
 Jude

Henshall,
  and
  Deirdre
  Rubenstein
  deserve
  special
  thanks
  in
  this,
  as
  does
  Alirio

Zavarce,
 who
 inadvertently
 provided
 me
 with
 the
 study’s
 title.
 The
 four
 directors

were
 extremely
 generous
 in
 the
 access
 they
 allowed,
 and
 the
 kindness
 and
 interest

with
 which
 they
 allowed
 it:
 enormous
 thanks
 to
 Geordie
 Brookman,
 Adam
 Cook,

Chris
 Drummond,
 and
 Rosemary
 Myers.

My
 pursuit
 of
 this
 research
 compromised
 my
 commitments
 to
 my
 regular
 students,

and
 to
 my
 colleagues,
 at
 Adelaide
 College
 of
 the
 Arts,
 and
 I
 am
 grateful
 to
 them
 for

their
 patience
 in
 this.
 In
 particular,
 I
 thank
 Ian
 Grant,
 whose
 “blessing”
 was
 required

to
 undertake
 the
 study,
 and
 who
 gave
 it
 with
 the
 greatest
 enthusiasm.
 Ian
 is
 not
 only

a
 fine
 institutional
 arts
 manager;
 he
 is
 also
 an
 expert
 gardener,
 and
 having
 built
 a

metaphorical
 garden
 around
 my
 study
 with
 his
 support,
 he
 came
 to
 my
 house
 and

built
 an
 actual
 garden
 around
 the
 backyard
 shed
 in
 which
 I
 worked:
 an
 unforgettable

kindness.

As
  associate
  supervisor,
  Dr
  Glen
  McGillivray
  has
  made
  well-­‐timed,
  provocative

incursions
 into
 my
 work,
 for
 which
 I
 am
 very
 grateful.

Associate
 Professor
 Ian
 Maxwell’s
 support
 and
 guidance
 has
 been
 steadfast,
 caring,

enthusiastic,
 highly
 sensitive,
 and
 expert.
 I
 could
 not
 have
 hoped
 for
 more
 from
 a

principal
 supervisor,
 and
 I
 thank
 him
 with
 great
 respect
 and
 affection.

I
 believe
 that
 context
 is
 the
 source
 of
 all
 meaning,
 so
 finally
 I
 must
 acknowledge
 the

context
 of
 my
 fortunate
 life,
 my
 friends
 and
 family,
 and
 the
 stars
 of
 that
 show:

Louise,
 Lotte,
 Jack,
 Ava,
 Cassius…
 and
 Henry,
 a
 Labrador
 who
 might
 have
 expected

something
 a
 little
 different
 for
 his
 middle
 years
 than
 lying
 at
 my
 feet
 hearing
 about

ethnography.

  ii
TABLE
 OF
 CONTENTS

EPIPHANY

  1

GENERAL
 INTRODUCTION

  2

• Colloquially…

  2

• Study
 methods
 and
 provenance

  3

o Positional
 ins
 and
 outs

  4

o A
 many-­‐shouldered
 thing

  6

§ Maurice
 Merleau-­‐Ponty

  7

§ Pierre
 Bourdieu

  8

§ Clifford
 Geertz

  10

o Ethnography,
 reflexivity,
 and
 autoethnography

  12

o Sydney-­‐siders

  13

• What
 I
 did

  14

• A
 voice
 from
 somewhere

  16

o Tone

  16

o Michael
 Jackson,
 and
 getting
 to
 thinking
 how…

  17

o Components
 and
 alignments

  18

o Tense

  19

o Names
 and
 pronouns

  19

• Architecture

  20

PROLOGUE:
 AMONG
 FRIENDS

  21

• Introduction

  21

• Double-­‐agent

  21

• Conclusion

  31

SECTION
 ONE:
 THE
 POLITICAL
 COMPASS

  32

CHAPTER
 ONE
 -­‐
 THE
 REHEARSAL
 ROOM
 AS
 INDUSTRIAL
 SPACE
 AND
 PLACE
  33

• Introduction

  33

• Rehearsal
 rooms
 and
 their
 others

  33

• Spatial
 demarcation:
 meanings
 and
 maintenance

  37

• Conclusion

  43

  iii
CHAPTER
 TWO:
 INDUSTRIAL
 AND
 SOCIAL
 CONCURRENCES
 AND
 NEXES

  44

• Introduction

  44

• Industrial
 relations

  44

• Before
 the
 beginning

  47

• Momentum
 vs
 lunch

  48

• Ease
 factor:
 camp
 kitchens
 and
 workshop
 boys

  56

• Work-­‐friend-­‐ship,
 and
 other
 social
 games

  61

• Of
 work
 and
 play

  69

• Conclusion

  71

SECTION
 TWO:
 THE
 ARTISTIC
 COMPASS

  73

CHAPTER
 THREE:
 DIFFERENT
 ROOMS,
 DIFFERENT
 WORLDS

  74

• Introduction:
 The
 play
 (and
 the
 production)
 is
 the
 thing

  74

• First
 mornings

  75

• Other
 times

  80

• Stumbling

  86

• Running

  89

CHAPTER
 FOUR:
 (SELF)
 PORTRAITS

  91

• Introduction

  91

• The
 primacy
 of
 perceptions
 of
 the
 director

  91

• Toward
 a
 typology
 of
 directors

  101

o English
 Master

  102

o Sports
 Coach

  106

o Mistress
 of
 Revels

  109

o Sculptor

  116

• Conclusion

  119

  iv
CHAPTER
 FIVE:
 DIMENSIONS
 OF
 DISCOURSE

  121

• Introduction

  121

• On
 theorising

  121

o Assumption

  123

o Slippage

  123

o Inclusivity

  124

o Empowerment

  125

• Metaphor

  126

• Meta-­‐text

  129

• Notes
 sessions

  131

o Notes
 as
 Dimensional
 data

  134

o Discursive
 variances
 as
 industrial
 and
 artistic
 responses

  135

o A
 division
 in
 discourse

  136

• Primacy
 of
 the
 Aesthetic

  137

o Complicity

  140

• Conclusion:
 See
 you
 on
 the
 other
 side

  144

SECTION
 THREE:
 TOWARD
 THE
 FICTIVE
 COMPASS

  147

• Introduction

  148

CHAPTER
 SIX:
 THREE
 ANGLES

  151

• Angle
 one:
 Knowing
 to
 knowing/doing

  151

o Telling
 the
 same
 story

  151

o Please,
 please
 make
 the
 right
 sound

  153

o Singing
 freedom

  154

o Real
 human
 in
 this
 fantastical
 world

  156

o Bodymind

  159

o Balance
 and
 imbalance

  160

• Angle
 two:
 Toward
 a
 fictive
 habitus

  161

o On
 habitus
 and
 field

  162

o Playful
 cracks

  163

o Coordinates
 and
 vines

  166

o Political
 to
 artistic
 habitus

  169

o Artistic
 to
 fictive
 habitus

  175

o Un
 denouement

  179

• Angle
 three:
 Going
 native

  180

• A
 remark
 in
 summary

  183

  v
CHAPTER
 SEVEN:
 STRATEGIES
 AND
 ENABLERS

  184

• Introduction

  184

• Strategies

  187

o Sub-­‐rehearsal

  187

o Horizonal
 projection

  191

o Road
 Runner
 Theory

  194

• Enablers

  198

o Personalisation

  199

o Feel
 for
 the
 game

  207

§ Adaptation

  207

§ Faith

  208

§ Blood

  209

o The
 state
 of
 ARIA

  210

• In
 summary

  215

CONCLUSIONS,
 QUESTIONS,
 AND
 PROVOCATIONS

  217

• Summary
 of
 findings

  217

• Art
 and
 the
 actor

  224

• Positioning
 the
 artistic
 actor

  227

o On
 creativity,
 agency,
 and
 silly
 fuckers

  228

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Works
 cited

  232

• A
 selection
 of
 other
 influential
 works
 read

  245

APPENDIX:
 REVIEWS

  253

• The
 City:
 “Mazy
 tour
 through
 interconnected
 lives”

  253

• The
 Glass
 Menagerie:
 “Return
 to
 the
 dim
 rooms
 where
 great
 playwright
 made

his
 memories”

  254

• Land
 &
 Sea:
 “Lost
 in
 sea
 of
 troubles”

  255

• Pinocchio:
 “Flair
 and
 style
 bring
 this
 wooden
 boy
 home”

  256

  vi
EPIPHANY

Alirio’s
 character
 passes
 through
 this
 scene:
 Gepetto
 searching
 for
 his
 lost

son.
 Alirio
 goes
 to
 behind
 the
 production
 desk
 to
 look
 at
 the
 set
 plans
 in

order
 to
 figure
 out
 where
 he
 enters
 from
 and
 what
 the
 entrance
 will
 look

like.
 Having
 established
 an
 answer,
 he
 and
 the
 director
 are
 content
 for

him
 to
 sit
 down,
 take
 the
 entrance
 “as
 read”,
 and
 move
 onto
 the
 next

scene:
 a
 virtual
 rehearsal
 (Pin,
 31-­‐5-­‐12,
 wk1).

The
 above
 moment,
 ten
 weeks
 into
 my
 fifteen
 weeks
 of
 observing
 rehearsals,
 was
 a

signal
 moment
 in
 the
 process
 of
 this
 study.
 It
 was
 startling,
 bamboozling,
 tantalising,

and
 finally
 clarifying.
 It
 sustained
 through
 the
 following
 years
 of
 thinking,
 reading,

and
 writing,
 as
 an
 emblem
 and
 a
 kind
 of
 haunting.
 I
 asked,
 and
 continue
 to
 ask,
 What

kind
 of
 activity
 is
 a
 rehearsal
 when
 an
 actor
 can
 look
 at
 a
 map
 on
 a
 desk,
 point
 to
 the

map,
 agree
 with
 the
 director
 on
 a
 path,
 then
 assume
 the
 rehearsal
 done?
 Although

this
 was
 a
 radical
 manifestation
 of
 rehearsal
 behaviour,
 it
 nonetheless
 sheds
 light—
in
 its
 extremism—on
 more
 regular
 practices.
 It
 seems
 almost
 like
 a
 parody
 of
 some

kind
 of
 belief
 structure,
 but
 what
 might
 that
 belief
 structure
 be?
 What
 kind
 of
 social,

industrial
 and
 artistic
 agency
 is
 at
 play?
 Where
 is
 the
 Stanislavskian
 project
 in
 this

moment?
 Where
 is
 Gepetto’s
 broken
 heart?
 Where
 is
 fiction?
Real
 Human
 in
 this
 Fantastical
 World

  T.
 M.
 Crawford

GENERAL
 INTRODUCTION

COLLOQUIALLY…

All
 PhD
 candidates,
 I
 imagine,
 have
 their
 study
 period
 regularly
 dotted
 with
 the

dubious,
  interested,
  or
  merely
  polite
  enquiries
  of
  friends,
  acquaintances,
  and

strangers:
  “What’s
  you
  PhD
  about?”
  When
  I
  have
  sensed
  an
  interest
  beyond

politeness,
 or
 some
 investment
 in
 the
 field,
 or
 when
 asked
 by
 academic
 or
 theatrical

colleagues,
 I
 have
 tried
 to
 sincerely
 and
 succinctly
 explain
 my
 project.
 It
 is
 with
 a

refined
 version
 of
 this
 colloquial
 answer
 that
 I
 would
 like
 to
 begin:

I
 am
 interested
 in
 all
 the
 things,
 including
 but
 also
 beyond
 the
 fiction,
 that

we
 obsess
 with
 or
 negotiate
 as
 actors.
 There
 are
 two
 propositions—or

hunches—that
 are
 my
 catalysts:
 first,
 that
 when
 we
 walk
 onto
 a
 stage
 we

are
 in
 some
 sense
 walking
 into
 a
 fiction,
 but
 it
 is
 also—and
 perhaps

more—significant
 to
 say
 that
 we
 are
 walking
 into
 an
 artwork,
 yet
 the
 vast

bulk
  of
  teaching
  and
  writing
  about
  acting
  respects
  only
  that
  we
  are

engaging
 in
 fiction;
 second,
 when
 we
 meet
 a
 colleague
 who
 is
 in
 the
 early

stages
 of
 rehearsal
 for,
 say,
 The
 Crucible,
 and
 we
 ask
 them
 how
 rehearsals

are
 going,
 they
 are
 very
 unlikely
 to
 say
 something
 like,
 ‘Oh,
 it’s
 tough,

because
 it’s
 very
 cold
 in
 Salem,
 and
 those
 witches
 are
 hard
 to
 pin
 down.’

They
 are
 much
 more
 likely
 to
 say,
 ‘Yeah,
 it’s
 going
 well.
 The
 director
 has
 a

really
  strong
  idea
  of
  what
  she
  wants
  to
  do,
  good
  cast,
  lovely
  stage

management.
  The
  money’s
  crap/good’,
  etc.
  These
  are
  not
  comments

about
 the
 fiction
 but
 about
 the
 prospects
 of
 the
 art-­‐work,
 the
 society
 of

the
 room,
 and
 the
 realities
 of
 the
 industrial
 arrangement,
 yet
 they
 are

representative
  of
  how
  we
  predominantly
  experience
  being
  an
  actor.

Given
  this,
  I
  am
  interested
  in
  how
  we
  negotiate
  the
  fiction.
  I
  am

interested
 in
 the
 politics
 of
 being
 an
 actor.
 By
 that
 I
 mean
 the
 industrial

and
 social
 realities,
 gig
 to
 gig.
 I’m
 interested
 in
 the
 way
 we
 industrially

construct
 and
 engage
 in
 theatre,
 the
 things
 we
 agree
 to
 believe
 in,
 and

whether
 they
 are
 assumptions
 worthy
 of
 challenge.

I
 have
 been
 heartened
 by
 the
 reception
 this
 colloquial
 response
 has
 received
 from

friends
 and
 colleagues.
 I
 hope
 to
 honour
 that
 kind
 and
 enthusiastic
 response.

  2