HÉLÈNE BEAUCHAMP
This article is about research on theatre as an ongoing theatrical practice. It discusses the often contradictory demands of proximity and distance, ofinvolvement and observation/recording, of advocacy and objective analysisall using the author's approximately twenty years of activity in the field oftheatre for young audiences as the basis for the discussion. It asks questions,and does not always provide answers. It proposes that the artists of the stageare researchers in their own right. Without them, there would be no theatre,and no theatre research. It points to the fact that theatre is a living art, in aconstant state of transformation, and that to try to pin it down is hazardous.
Cet article traite de la recherche sur le théâtre en tant que pratique théâtrale. Il interroge des options de recherche qui sont parfois contradictoires comme la proximité et la distance, l'implication et l'observation, la défense d'un genre et l'analyse objective-à partir de mon activité personnelle dans le domaine du théâtre enfance/jeunesse pendant près de vingt ans. J'y pose des questions qui ne trouvent pas toujours leur réponse. J'y propose que les artistes de la scène soient considérés comme de véritables chercheurs en théâtre. Sans eux, il n'y aurait pas de théâtre et, partant, pas de recherche sur le théâtre. L'article, enfin, souligne à quel point il serait dangereux d'utiliser la recherche sur le théâtre pourfixer/figer cet art vivant qui est continuellement en mouvement et en transformation.
I was not aware before 1975 that professional theatre could be targeted at young audiences. I knew that children and young adults could act on stage and in movies, and that they would occasionally be spectators at theatre presentations, but it had never occurred to me that audiences might be mainly made up of youngsters gathered specifically to appreciate the work of professional artists. Nor that artists would willingly create and perform for the young. Circumstances changed this, for me as for others who were to be involved in the development of theatre for young audiences (TYA).
The emergence of this "other theatre" happened in the latter half of this century along with many social and cultural changes that hastened the universal reconsideration of children and youth in the socio-political mosaic. The movement was worldwide. It accompanied a renewed interest in educational and pedagogical approaches, as well as actions favouring a democratic access to artistic practices and events. But mainly, TYA came into existence through the determination of artists who were aware of art as a means of self-expression and of understanding others, who had a growing knowledge of the essential function of drama and theatre in education and a full respect for art and the young. Artists were the ones to suggest new forms and energies, other ways and styles: an "other theatre." They were the creative ones.
The circumstances-artistic, social and personal in nature-that brought me to recognize and acknowledge theatre for young audiences were fourfold, and they cross-fertilized. They explain-partly at least-why I chose to direct research projects on theatre for children and young people, why I conducted them the way I did and why I came to understand theatre research as a practice: a practice in theatre. Other circumstances would have oriented my work differently.
Theatre research constantly requires the development of tools and skills because its object-theatre-is in a state of continuous development. Otherwise it dies. Theatre research relies on experimentation; but, more important, it implies commitment to the artists and to the art. Otherwise it is empty of meaning.
This article is about theatre research as an ongoing theatrical practice. It refers to approximately twenty years of activity, discusses proximity and distancing, observation and recording, personal involvement and objective analyzing. It asks questions and does not always provide answers. It proposes that the artists of the stage are researchers in their own right. Without them, there would be no theatre, and no research in theatre. It also points to the fact that theatre is a living art, in a constant state of transformation, and that to try to pin it down is hazardous.
Our need for this strange, added dimension in human life which we vaguelycall "art" or "culture" is always connected with an exercise through whichour everyday perception of reality, confined within invisible limits, ismomentarily opened. While recognizing that this momentary opening is asource of strength, we recognize also that the moment has to pass. (Brook)
Circumstances
Many groups were founded by young québécois artists between 1968 and 1978. All aimed to create a theatre of their own, outside of existing, even though young, institutions and away from imported traditions of writing, directing and acting. This Jeune Théâtre movement contributed immensely, over a brief but very intense period, to the very fundamental changes that would occur throughout the entire field of theatre production. These changes defined an alternative way of doing theatre, led to a reconsideration and a reorganization of artistic work per se, and had a great influence on québécois theatre as a whole. The majority of these new theatre groups were collectives, whose members decided collectively on artistic and administrative orientations, and who created theatre collectively. This idea of the collective, important because of its social, economic and political implications, would evolve over the years but would remain as the most potent artistic structure that theatre people could invent for themselves.
Many of those collectives chose to create theatre for children. This decision was seminal. It meant writing and performing for a large, already existing, and potentially endlessly renewable public, accepting constraints the importance of which were not immediately perceived, and, finally, acknowledging that theatre was not necessarily a universal experience, and that audiences could be targeted. This also implicitly pointed to the fact that theatre is in a constant state of evolution, that theatrical discourses vary, that there are differing ways of creating, receiving, criticizing and analyzing its products and processes. Because of its artists, theatre in Québec stood at one of its major turning points.
The first Festival de théâtre pour enfants was organized in 1974 by the city of Longueuil as part of its Summer Festival. This event was paramount in the recognition of this "other" theatre and of its artists, as well as being the starting point of an associative process which would stimulate quite a few achievements. Having been recognized, the artists and their collectives proceeded to restructure the theatre scene.
They formed standing committees within the Association Québécoise du Jeune Théâtre, joined ASSITEJ (Association Internationale du Théâtre Enfance Jeunesse), and acquired international representation through the "Canada francophone" section of the national association; they organized an annual festival (except between 1985 and 1990) which soon became international in status; they founded la Maison-Théâtre in 1982, celebrated its inauguration in 1984 and continue to administer it collectively; they were instrumental in the reassessment and renegotiation of union and contract rules with the Union des Artistes and to this end founded Théâtres Unis Enfance Jeunesse JUEJ) in 1985. Because of its artists, theatre was positioning itself socially.
The teaching position I then held was specifically in the twin fields of children's theatre and drama/theatre in education. Teaching usually helps you to have a better understanding of a given phenomenon, and training artists on the one hand and teachers on the other obliged me to embed theoretical reflections in practical contexts. In this case, it involved exploring the potential relationship between children or teenagers as students and theatre as an art form. The teaching of drama/expression dramatique and theatre had been formally introduced in the public and private school systems by 1973. It was not present in every school and was not satisfactorily established everywhere, but the situation was healthy enough to give hope for future developments in the teaching of structured courses and in the practice of stimulating theatrical activities. What would live professional performances bring to those young students? Was this experience necessary and, if so, how would those occasions be prepared?
The artists themselves, on the other hand, having chosen children and youngsters as spectators, organized workshops so as to know them better, so as to acquaint themselves with their specific vision of the world and thereby nourish their own creative writing. Quite naturally, they elected the school gymnasium and auditorium as performance spaces for their productions. But was the school the best meeting ground for theatre and the young? Artists and teachers do not pursue comparable aims: art questions, refuses, defies accepted codes, stands at breaking points; school integrates, teaches codes, tends to give answers. What kind of situations would that contradiction bring about?
The birth of a son, a circumstance of a very personal nature, instilled in me a powerful sense of responsibility, an urgent need to question the world, as well as the desire to concentrate my research efforts in a domain where children and theatre could meet and mingle. This also provided me with the opportunity to interrelate the personal and the academic worlds. Had I not had a child, would this field have appealed to me? I doubt it. Similarly, artists who think of offering art to children usually have regular contact with them.
Circumstances such as these were rich with opportunities, and the artists' projects were powerful and new; but I soon realised that I did not know how to position myself in that constellation of persons, ideas and events. Could artists and theoreticians/theatre historians work together, and if so, in which way and to what end? Were methods and tools available to the researcher? In 1975, the sciences of sociology, anthropology and linguistics were barely present in the field of theatre research, history was still related to the study of the distant past, and culture was an élitist concept. The broader concept of performance was not discussed and "reading theatre" still meant reading scripts. I chose for myself the function of witness, of observer-participant.
Je suis ici en qualité de témoin, pour rappeler que "ceci" a eu lieu. Commentporter témoignage? En décrivant, en expliquant, en justifiant( ... )? Quel estle devoir du témoin: raconter en détail, par allusions, par métaphores,oralement, par dcrit, pour tons on seulernent pour les rares que cela intéresse?Se taire? Masquer le silence sous des mots? (Barba)
I observed as this "other theatre" took shape through the work of young professionals, the majority of whom were trained in acting, had not yet had any children of their own, and had little experience in the field of education. Some groups worked from traditional tales and children's literature, rewriting and modifying the originals so as to meet their own requirements and ideals. Others encouraged members of their collectives to write. The majority of them approached writing through acting, by using improvisation techniques and otherwise sharing directing, acting, designing, composing and administrative tasks. There were no models to imitate, no set rules to follow. The invention of new and significant forms of theatre was of prime importance: all the uncharted ways beckoned.
Is it the work of the artists, I asked myself, to pursue all the tasks necessary to the production of a theatre piece, from concept to performance, from idea to materialization to marketing, from invention to construction shop to publicity and administration? Theirs was a global approach to theatre, the plurisemic art of the stage where a great quantity of information is produced and communicated simultaneously through a great number of channels, audio and visual, and also sensual, emotional, mnemonic, imaginative, intellectual, physical.
Ideologically, I noticed that they favoured "soft" forms of socialism, a tendency which resulted more from a sympathy for the political left and for québécois nationalism than from a strict adherence to given ideologies or specific political programmes. They wanted their theatre linked to communities, regions and, more widely still, to a society-theirs-that was seeking to name and define its cultural identity. Theirs was a theatre of commitment or of Sartrean "engagement"-a theatre of belief in social change, designed and performed to be an active ferment in consciousness raising processes.
I, the privileged observer, was present when companies performed in schools, small venues, cultural centres and festivals. I took part in special events, witnessed scripts being written, shows being rehearsed, sets taking shape and colour. I shared the happy moments as well as the frustrations. I inscribed it all in my memory with the purpose of describing and transmitting. Of course, myriad questions sprouted in my mind. Would I act as historiographer of this "other theatre" or would I analyze the work of specific individuals-artists and explorers of new continents? Would I focus on the critical analysis of specific performances and designs or evaluate the significant turn those collectives were giving to theatre as a socially involved art? I observed as the artists, cartographers of their own territories, invented and performed, researched and created!
I also observed the children and teenagers who were sitting with me, all around me, on the floor of school gymnasiums or in the seats of auditoriums: we appreciated the same actors, the same plays and songs, the same costumes and sets. Were we experiencing the same theatre? I listened to their conversations, took note of their reactions, noticed how they laughed and were moved, tried to evaluate what they understood. I observed the teachers and the parents, adults who had the power to authorize or refuse the rendez-vous between theatre and the young. I also paid close attention to the reception and appreciation of this theatre by the newspaper critics and the representatives of the ministries of Culture and Education.
And, immersed as I was in the process, I became involved. I participated in formal and informal discussions, gave talks and conferences as well as workshop sessions on specific themes or techniques. My contribution was both artistic (co-director, director, dramaturg) and administrative (member of committees and boards of directors).
Through all this, questions remained, insistent, haunting. Was objective research still possible? I had chosen to believe and to be involved. Is it possible to analyze what you are part of, immersed in? Moreover, the object of analysis itself was very much alive and constantly changing. I was working with young artists who were forging the present: but could I simultaneously act in the present and reflect upon it? Had I chosen to be directly involved in order to have a better understanding? Was I losing autonomy as a researcher, credibility as a scholar, or was I gaining precious insight into the creative process itself? But then: can the researcher, however sympathetic, really have insight into the act of creation or can she simply record the mechanics of it, the apparent workings, the visible craft work? What is it that can be heard, seen, photographed, recorded of a creative process happening now, here and now?
For several years, I have attempted to combine practical, creative theatre work with research. In the former context, I am perhaps running the risk of being criticized for being a bad actor; in the latter, I am perhaps an unscientific researcher.
Nevertheless, I believe that the two activities are so close to each other that it is not only possible to arrive at a third activity, where practical work is combined with theoretical insight, it is also necessary to attempt to do so in order to move the theatre in new directions. (Christoffersen)
I do remember that my strongest motivations came from the artists themselves, from their energy, their creativity, their desire to act upon themselves, the present and the art of theatre itself.
In this context, I experienced being a "researcher in proximity," a proximity that made me a contemporary of authors Suzanne Lebeau and Louis-Dominique Lavigne, director Claude Poissant, actress and artistic director Monique Rioux, scenographer Daniel Castonguay and composer Michel Robidoux. It also made me a contemporary of Volker Ludwig and Reiner Lücker of GripsTheater für Kinder (Berlin) and their theatre of emancipation, of Françoise Pillet of Théâtre de la Pomme Verte (Paris) and her poetically social plays, of Joâo Brites of Teatro O Bando (Portugal) and his search for a community theatre, of Dennis Foon of Green Thumb Theatre (Vancouver) and his child advocacy theatre. Those artists had indeed established solid categories, philosophies and theatrical practices. Were they the only true theoreticians of their own theatre?
In order to be able to record, describe and analyze, I endeavoured to find tools and methods appropriate to the understanding of a living process, of an organically developing theatre. There were numerous handicaps. Collective creation was the predominant mode of creation in TYA, but it had not yet been theorized about. The socio-political colours given to plays and performances were "soft" and could not be accounted for through the materialist approach. Could I challenge the scripts using the epic form as foil or through comparative readings of Brecht, Fo, The Living Theatre? Semiology as a guide to the reading of scripts had been explored and validated through the analysis of the works of 17th century authors: to what extent would this method weigh on a new corpus of plays and, furthermore, what would the results speak of? Of cultural differences and geographical distances? The literary and thematic approaches were discarded since those artists' very first concerns had been to challenge the traditionally written play, to explore themes and dramatic structures of their own choosing, and, most important, to create theatre and not literature.
Out of respect for the artists and children, out of faithfulness to my contemporaries and my own artistic and ideological choices, I resolved not to use the systematic normative theories that would not take process into account, nor attempt to understand mobility.
Scholars in the field of theory should no longer develop normative theories about theatre or about good theatre as part of their scientific work. By the time the theories have been formulated, theatre makers have often invented new forms of theatre which do not conform to these theories.(Schoenmakers)
Theatre artists are the seismographs of their times and theatre is an art in the present. Process is continuous creativity.
Distances
Having observed the creative process, I worked at establishing distances between myself as analyst, critic and historian, and the artists who were continually transforming the theatrescape, After having developed an acute capacity for reading and recording in my own memory the superimposed multiple languages of live performances, I led a small research team (1977) which travelled the width and breadth of Québec in order to interview artists and to videotape and photograph their productions. The findings were published in a report commissioned by the Ministry of Culture (1978) and distributed to all the schools in the hope that teachers and administrators would awaken to the existence and to the characteristics of "intelligent theatre" for young audiences. A video was produced showing a collage of scenes from the 1977-1978 productions and excerpts from interviews. Cameras and microphones were again used as distancing devices in 1979.
This activity again raised questions. Would performances, ephemeral by nature, survive because they were videotaped? Was I suggesting to companies that they should not only create theatre but also transform their creative work into archive material for the next researcher? I came to understand that the imaginary archives of the privileged theatre observer can-like Malraux's imaginary museum-hold more treasures than a video tape collection. Certainly, some elements from theatrical productions can be preserved; but the emotions felt because of an actor's work, because of the colour and rhythm of a lighting design, because of the subtle meeting of a movement and a sound in a given space, belong specifically to the hic et nunc of the performance. No audio-visual record, however sophisticated, will ever replace the experience of the living art.
I next examined the written, printed and published transmission of this theatre. By now, the artists had established a vocabulary specific to their creative work so as to name, define, and elucidate their own relationship to writing, acting, directing (designing would appear later). Would scripts, published along with commentaries and introductory notes, support the oral tradition and perhaps carry it further-geographically as well as theoretically? "Jeunes Publics," a collection of twelve plays published by Québec/Amérique (1980-1982), pursued this specific aim: to document the creative process and the first performances of plays. Most of the artists and collectives agreed to the project while some argued that the printed form freezes theatre in time and on the page: they consequently refused to hinder the evolution of their performances by giving their scripts a definitive form.
The reading of the published plays and of their accompanying documents so many years after provides an interesting insight into the making of Québec's theatre for young audiences. One cannot help but notice, however, that the books were prepared in the traditional fashion-dialogue and stage directions, black on white, photos-and that they do not transmit the basic nature of this theatre of movement, gesture, space, music, colour, sounds and noises, participation. On the other hand, the hoped for impact of the accompanying booklets on teachers, parents and other adults did not materialize. The collection did not, therefore, contribute significantly toward linking the world of theatre and that of the school.
Another task had to do with encouraging the critical appreciation of the performances by reviewers and school teachers. Many adults were inclined to leave the critical appreciation to the children. If they liked it, it was good; if they were restless during the presentation, it was not! In another fashion, it was traditionally thought that if a production was simple in content, happy in mood, visually colourful and offered characters more like playful elves and fairies than recognisable human beings, it was definitely "meant for kids." Such prejudices had to be countered, and instruments for understanding had to be made available to the adults, parents and teachers alike. This was achieved through weekly radio programmes (1978) and the writing of articles for a variety of different audiences, articles that were submitted to popular magazines, Saturday editions of newspapers as well as to theatre review journals and scholarly publications. The results of the fundamental research were made public, but not only to already informed readers: its purpose was the dissemination of quality information and analyses over as wide a perimeter as possible.
Nevertheless, this "other theatre" had to prove itself time and time again in order to be legitimized. Time and time again, themes, contents, styles and options had to be explained to inquiring parents and teachers. Questions were numerous. What is the benefit of art to children? Do they enjoy it? What is specific about theatre for young audiences? Should teachers rather than artists present theatre to the young? Should themes, contents, stories, characters be directly related to school programmes? Who should decide on the ideological orientations and artistic choices of companies who come to the schools? Consequently, the relationship of the artists to their young spectators was rarely experienced as a free one, and it was soon observed that children are placed in "learning" situations more often than in pleasurable ones-pleasure being a close cousin to the esthetic experience. Artists, it seemed, had chosen their own spectators only to be kept at a distance from them. Would research in audience reception change this? Not necessarily so. Adherence to art forms can never be compulsory and no research should ever transform theatre into an obligation. On the other hand, nobody can ever be absolutely certain of the quality of an esthetic experience. Openness, receptiveness, freedom to relate are the true parameters of art appreciation. Children are usually capable of this if they are allowed.
Through all of those years, one gap was never truly bridged, one legitimization process never quite achieved. Artists doing theatre for young audiences were very rarely known, seen, appreciated by their colleagues in the adult theatre. Authors writing for the young, actors extraordinaire, composers of the greatest talent were ignored. A quick browse through books and journals published on dramatic literature and theatre in Québec and in Canada over the past two decades eloquently underlines this fact.
The next distancing exercises took me back to the 1960's and 1950's. Did theatre for young audiences in Québec have a past? Were perspectives possible? I started gathering material-written, drawn, photographed, recorded-and acquired the investigative tools as I proceeded. I had to decide which material to collect, how to assess the significance of what I found and of what had not been preserved. I felt like a puzzle maniac and the official cleaning lady of dusty theatre storerooms.
Artists are usually busy with the present; they do not classify the past, especially not their own. Their present is also their past, stretched in a continuum of inspiration and cross-references that is rarely linear but mostly as complex as multi-thread weaving or crazy-quilting. Artists can rarely lay down their past and close files on finished products; their works are but momentary pauses in a creative process that is continuous.
When a play or its synopsis could not be found, I asked that it be given orally and compared the account with the existing material. When the play was handwritten or dispersed into many "acting scripts," I took it upon myself to assemble it, transcribe it and have it validated by the author(s). I dug out negatives from under piles of paper, found posters in the strangest hiding places and administrative files in dank basements.
I had to win the trust of the key persons in my investigation. There are always human beings involved in the making of theatre, not only as creators or crafts people but as sensitive individuals. Theatre is usually quite entangled with personal lives, with emotions. How does the researcher interpret memories, respect the person in the artist, the intimate feelings? How can she separate the personal from the public? Is there a code of ethics specific to research in theatre?
I set out to conduct interviews with individuals and groups: a microphone was again an indicator of distance. The questions were meant to elucidate moments of the past, to back up my understanding and interpretation of facts, as well as to discuss certain concepts. I asked about children and theatre, about the tasks and needs of the artists and their companies. Other questions were geared toward helping the interviewee recall events far removed in time which, at that moment, had not seemed important, or which had been so important that they were bluffed with emotions. Here again, words put into unusual contexts acquired new meaning. And a vocabulary to recollect and describe surfaced. Old words met new ones. Were distances being abolished? Was objectivity secured?
Those research activities and their results usually brought a sense of pride to the artists so exposed, pride in their own achievements: somebody was asking questions, trying to read traces and reconstruct intense moments of creativity. Did it also shed light on their present work? Not necessarily.
The international situation developed as rapidly as the local and national ones and contacts were established with the few experts in the field. Joyce Doolittle in Calgary, Alberta became a close fellow-worker for Canadian matters; I associated myself with Roger Deldime, psycho-pedagogue and sociologist (Université Libre de Bruxelles), for the publication of a bibliography and for research projects of diverse nature; I exchanged views with Jeanne Klein (University of Kansas at Laurence), who conducts research on empathy and audience reception.
It became clear, through international festivals where companies from Québec were seen and appreciated (Berlin, Lyons, Tokyo, Brussels, Montréal, Vancouver, Toronto, Seattle), that questions asked in other countries and cultures about theatre for young audiences were similar to those asked in Québec. Even though geo-political contexts differed, the political stands and the social consciousness that had given rise to this type of theatre were similar. International conferences were organized, either under the aegis of ASSITEJ or convened by researchers: Théâtre et Adolescence, Montréal, 1987; Théâtre et Èducation, Mohammedia (Morocco), 1988; Théâtre et Formation des enseignants, Brussels, 1991; Le Théâtre et les autres arts, Lyons, 1992. Some inroads were being made, some boundaries marked out.
The Living Art
Companies founded specifically to produce TYA gradually acquired distinctive traits and colours that provided each one with a "collective artistic personality." Their thematic proposals and production choices came to constitute recognizable signatures along with, for instance, their ideological orientations, their material resources and the specific abilities of individual artists. Over the twenty year span, those "artistic personalities" transformed themselves, and yet kept surprisingly close to their declared founding principles.
The idea itself of the collective evolved through at least three stages in those twenty years. As a lieu/place, a working centre, it was inhabited by strong impulses towards cultural and socio-political affirmation, then defined by obligations due to administrative and managerial routines, and finally stimulated by the continuously changing concept of theatre as a performance art.
At the beginning, the idea of the theatre collective (or "troupe") stemmed from the same idealism that led to the foundation of urban and rural communes in the 70's. Here, recently trained young artists were in the process of introducing themselves into a society in which they wanted to inscribe their artistic practice. They invented a production structure that could allow for ensemble work and for dramaturgical/theatrical creation. It was, all at once: a small enterprise with a collegial administration (in dehierarchized work structures), an extended family where the reinterpretation of interpersonal relationships was possible (towards different societal forms) and a small society functioning according to socialized forms of economy. Positioned against the institution and the companies symbolizing it (mainly Théâtre du Nouveau Monde, Théâtre du Rideau Vert and Place des Arts) this original structure was in itself an affirmation of identity, a declaration of autonomy and a refutation of the traditional theatre training then offered.
Strong because of their socio-economico-cultural inscription and their collective identity, the young artists set out to create and produce an "other theatre" for children and teens. Since they were actors, they did it through acting, improvisation and collective writing. The work was rarely anonymous, and as the little enterprises grew in scope, strong individual talent emerged that asserted themselves progressively within as well as outside of the troupes, through writing, directing, acting, administering, designing, composing, etc. The troupes were/had been incubators of talent, genuine schools in all of the sectors of theatrical activity.
By then however-the 1980's-Québec had entered the era of managers and management, and the theatre companies were made to understand that they were expected to become bona fide administrative structures. Quite unskilled in the kind of management and marketing techniques that government and ministries were asking for, they had to quickly master new vocabularies, languages, unfamiliar codes and patterns. This was truly a difficult moment, a moment of crisis where idealism could have been lost as well as artistic energy. The creative spirit was most at risk. The groups had to provide themselves with boards of directors, integrate new persons and skills, and give themselves approved ways of managing budgets, buildings, personnel, touring, equipment. All of a sudden, or so it seemed, new words appeared in conversations: spectators became clients; productions were products; markets, showcases appeared; the price of tickets, percentages became all important. The same faces, expressive hands, the same hard-working and inventive persons-but other words.
The one positive result of this otherwise troubling epoch was the opening up of these groups to artists from elsewhere: from other practices, other generations, companies and countries. Artists started travelling from one nucleus to another, freelancing, proposing projects related to their own creative strength as writers, directors, lighting or set designers, composers, administrators. Companies became centres for artistic dialogue. The concept of theatre as a performance art defined the new collective strength, and co-conception became the perspective to work from.
Co-conception here defines the collaborative efforts of mature individual artists who are masters of their art towards designing a piece of theatre through a process where the interaction of languages and art forms is significant. Co-conception refers to a work structure where an author, a composer, a scenographer, a director, actors, a lighting designer, and so on, meet in order to collectively conceive theatre. The process involves receptiveness to the cross-influences of music, words, images, movement, colour, sounds, objects, lights, forms. It is not a multi-disciplinary process by addition or multiplication of inspirations or specialities, nor is it a pluri-artistic endeavour where all or some of the art forms meet on a stage: it is the conception of a theatrical object by recognised artists from the different realms of the theatre who work in interrelation; it is an activity of dialogue, differentiation and osmosis that leads to an organic realization where the individual voices and propositions are present but remain distinct in the resulting performance.
Such theatre productions are based on, and result in, strong scripts, designs, mise en scéne, acting, composition and management. Individual contributions are identifiable in the stage product itself as well as, potentially, in other publication/distribution forms: books, drawings, three dimensional models, recordings, screens, and so on.
The collective, the most potent of structures, continues to fully meet the ideals and the needs of the artists of the theatre who know, instinctively or otherwise, that theatre has always relied for its existence on close-knit groups, families, troupes or ensembles. And it will continue to transform itself and to transform theatre as the following have: Théâtre de Quartier, Théâtre de l'Avant-Pays, Théâtre de l'Oeil, Théâtre du Gros Mécano, Théâtre des Confettis, Théâtre du Sang-Neuf, Théâtre de la Marmaille/Les Deux Mondes, Théâtre Sans Fil, L'Illusion, La Grosse Valise, Dynamo Théâtre, Théâtre Sans Détour, Théâtre de Carton, Le Carrousel, Théâtre Petit à Petit, Productions Ma Chère Pauline, Théâtre l'Arrière-Scène, Théâtre Bouches Décousues.
At first immersed in groups, individual artists contributed to the collective work while forging their own style.
Over the years, authors have remained faithful to their young spectators. The very first characteristic of the plays they write, produce, and publish is that they are addressed to their specific audiences. Clearly, the writing processes take into account the experience, knowledge, opinion, social status, emotional development and eventual capacity to react of the young. Being aware of the "mirror effect" and of the "recognition factor," authors elect themes and subjects close to the preoccupations of the young, and make use of styles which favour empathy. Authority will be dealt with, for example, in situations centered on the adult/child relationship; friendship will be explored by characters experiencing it for the first time; encounters with the different other will be set in a school yard. Towards this dramaturgy, authors recognize the young person her/himself as a key influence on the choice of vocabulary, images, dramatic situations and structure, rhythms, the inclusion of music, songs and rhymes and, of course, the invention and construction of characters.
The major achievement for authors has been to successfully replace the traditional elves, fairies and animals with child and teenaged characters who appear as protagonists, and who have distinct personalities, individual wills, preferences, activities, ideas as well as visions of the world. The task was most complex since those characters need to have credibility as children/young adults, and as characters played by adult actors. Teenage characters at first appeared in gangs or in couples: apparently they were more difficult to depict as individuals than children were. By the late 80's, however, they start appearing in all of their very provocative and fascinating complexity.
Authors experienced the most difficulty with adult characters. Whether they were parents, teachers, policemen, neighbours, or social workers, most of the time adults represented attitudes of refusal, punishment, authority, greediness, abuse. Subsequently, they have been depicted by turns as villains and, at the opposite extreme, as "good persons" who possess all of the character traits of perfect absent-minded individuals incapable of asserting themselves!
A new character has recently appeared in certain scripts: the older brother. He is the listener who understands, gives advice and a helping hand. He knows about life and can, without condescension, propose models of behaviour to younger friends and family members. His dramatic function is to give permission, to allow things and to explain the young and the old to each other. Interestingly enough, teenage and young adult characters have started migrating, and are now seen in plays by young dramatists not necessarily writing for young audiences.
Some authors have experimented with the poetic, and others have become quite skilful in their reappropriation of folk and traditional tales. For the most part, the plays remain within the limits of the "believable," as if the authors' first concern was communication: to be heard, understood. The decade of collective creation produced plays designed to explain or demonstrate behaviours or social attitudes: problems stated at the beginning found solutions at the end (problem-solving structure). Their didactic and educational overtones were evident. Authors then wrote plays where the main character, introduced at the beginning, goes through a series of situations orchestrated so as to provoke her/him to action, accomplishment or revolt. The dramatic structure here allows for an accumulation of events/elements, the make-up of (mostly tragic) atmospheres, the construction of plots that are inexorably brought to their end, sometimes in spite of the young characters who are, themselves, caught in a (dramatic) world where all of the signs are not decipherable all of the time.
Recently, authors have extended their reach beyond the borders and frontiers, beyond the limits of the known and perceptible, towards the universal and the mythologic. Time and space, crumpled together like pieces of paper, lead the spectators elsewhere. The theatre experience itself, in its all-encompassing totality, proposes other "realities" and incites the young to imagine ... something else. To go beyond.
If I were to situate the work of québécois authors for young audiences, I would point to the fact that they have developed a dramaturgy that succeeds in mixing a realistic outlook on life through recognisable situations with politically engaged attitudes, in styles which are mostly lyrical and free of moralistic tones. The plays of Louis-Dominique Lavigne, Louise Bombardier, Jasmine Dubé, Pascale Rafie, Suzanne Lebeau, Yves Masson, Marie-Francine Hébert, Sylvie Provost, Serge Marois now constitute a body of works waiting to be confronted by exacting methods of analysis.
Scriptwriting evolved organically as the authors found their own way through and around poststructuralism, postmodemism, semiotics, postcolonialism and multi-culturalism. Acting, directing, designing were not as quick to find their own qualities in theatre for young audiences.
Actors had to develop the ability to play children and young adults without relying on exaggeration and caricature. They had to bring themselves to feel in sympathy with their young spectators and to establish a relationship of complicity with them. Québécois actors usually have a "warm" rapport with their audience. There is rarely an operative fourth wall between stage and public, and this type of acting suits young spectators whom the actors address, or seem to address directly. Actors Jean-Guy Leduc and Dominic LaVallée have recently practised telling/acting in ways that point to potentially very interesting experiments in the relationship between performing and storytelling.
Another style of acting that would be worthwhile exploring is related to animation, where characters are outlines or silhouettes, alive through their external features. The emphasis is not on the psychological make-up but on the physical actions and gestures. Here, a study that would point to interrelations between acting and cartoon strips, stand-up comedy and videoclips could be revealing.
It has to be stated here that although actors were the most instrumental in founding companies, in bringing TYA into existence and in promoting this "other theatre," they are the ones who have gained the least from their involvement in the movement. They have been the least recognized of its artists and, therefore, did not benefit from it as they should have.
Directors, when working on TYA productions, have based most of their work on rhythm and pace in order to help focus the young spectators' attention. In so doing, they have successfully imitated the young and introduced themselves into their audiences' forms of energy. However, they still have to research ways that will allow them to present strong artistic concepts to the young. Claude Poissant, Reynald Robinson, Michel Fréchette, André Laliberté, Gervais Gaudreault, André Viens, Serge Marois, in their respective approaches and styles, are presently producing theatres of image, movement, rhythm and sound that are quite exciting. Their next challenge, as metteurs en scéne, is to meet the young on the terrain of the newest and most exciting technologies of representation, communication, interactivity and virtuality.
The most successful scenographic creations in theatre for young audiences have offered visual worlds that stand in contrast to the apparent purpose of the play or to the rhythm of acting, or again scenographies that extend meaning beyond the words and the story line of the play or the chosen style of delivery. Paul Livernois, Daniel Castonguay, Michel Demers, Yvan Gaudin have led spectators beyond the evidence of given dramatic situations and themes into the realm of space, perspective and atmospheres where contemplation meets action so as to multiply and magnify the result of their cumulative effects. Similarly, the compositions of Michel Robidoux invite other understandings. Latecomers to theatre productions for the young, visual and sound components add space and time dimensions to performances.
My conclusion at this point is that theatre, the social art, is essentially a living art. It is first and foremost organic in its development because it is conceived and produced by living persons who are in a continual state of transformation. To impose rigid methods of analysis on a living art is to work against it. Theatre, by definition, is the closest to life of all the arts. Methods, by definition, can be rigid and can be best applied to objects with a fixed form.
If I had to choose among the multiple processes and attitudes evoked here, I would still elect as the most promising, albeit the most demanding, the process of direct involvement. I would still choose commitment and accompaniment. I would continue to ask questions and to act as a witness. Research has to be ongoing, flexible in its approaches, and capable of change, because the artists, the creative ones, are with the flow and flux of things.
WORKS CITED
Barba, Eugenio. Le Canö de papier, Traité d'anthropologie Théâtrale. Lectoure: Bouffonneries, no. 28-29, 1993.
Brook, Peter. "The Culture of Links." The Shifting Point: Forty years of theatrical exploration 1946-1987. London: Methuen Drama, 1988.
Christoffersen, Erik Exe. The Actor's Way. London: Routledge, 1993.
Schoenmakers, Henri. "The shift from the study of theatrical products towards theatrical processes." études Théâtrales, Université Catholique de Louvain, 1/1992.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
All the material gathered during the research projects mentioned in this article is available either through the author or the Service des Archives of Université du Québec à Montréal.
Beauchamp, Hélène. Le Théâtre à la p'tite école. Québec: Ministére des Affaires culturelles, 1978. 2e édition augmentée, 1981.
________. Bibliographie annotée sur le théâtre québécois pour l'enlance et la jeunesse 1970-1983, Montréal, UQAM, Département de Théâtre, 1984.
________. Le Théâtre pour enfants au Québec: 1950-1980. Montréal: Hurtubise HME, 1985.
________. 'L'ecole, lieu de représentation?" Les Cahiers du Soleil debout, no 15-16. Lyon: Théâtre des Jeunes Années, 1981.
________. "Theatre for Children in Québec-Complicity, Achievement and Adventure." Canadian Theatre Review 41 (1984).
________"Les trois saisons de la Maison-Théâtre: Bilan critique de la programmation de la Maison Québécoise du Théâtre pour 1'enfance et la jeunesse 1984-1987." Canadian Children's Literature 48 (1987).
________. "S'imaginer dans le monde-Regards sur les pièces créées pour les jeunes spectateurs de 1980 à 1990." L'Annuaire Théâtre 10 (1992) and Canadian Children's Literature 67 (1992).
________. "Forms and Functions of Scenography in theatre productions for young audiences in Québec." Canadian Theatre Review 70 (1992).
________. "Daniel Castonguay: artiste scénographe." Jeu, Cahiers de théâtre 62 (1992).
Deldime, Roger, Bibliographie annotée et sélective sur le théâtre pour enfants. Bruxelles: Centre de Sociologie du Théâtre, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1981.
Deldime, Roger and Jeanne Pigeon. La Mémoire du jeune spectateur. Bruxelles: De Boeck-Wesmael, 1988.
Défi (Le) du théâtre pour enfants au Québec et au Canada-The challenge of Children's Theatre in Quebec and in Canada, sous la direction de Hélène Beauchamp. Paris: Théâtre-Enfance-Jeunesse, 1985.
Doolittle, Joyce and Zina Barnieh. A Mirror of Our Dreams, Children and the Theatre in Canada (with the collaboration of Hélène Beauchamp). Vancouver: Talon Books, 1979.
Passeron, René. La Création collective. Paris: Clancier-Guénaud, coll. "Recherches poïétiques," 1981.
Pigeon, Jeanne. Théâtre en mouvement-La creation théâtre pour les jeunes spectateurs dans l'espace artistique européen. Lyon: Les Cahiers du Soleil debout, 1990.
Première Conférence internationale sur la gestion des Arts /First International Conference on Arts Management. Actes / proceedings, sous la direction de François Colbert et Clare Mitchell. Montréal: École des Hautes Études Commerciales de Montréal / University of Waterloo, 1992.
Swortzell, Lowell, ed. International Guide to Children's Theatre and Educational Theatre, A Historical and Geographical Source Book. New York: Greenwood Press, 1990.
Théâtre et Adolescence. Actes du colloque international, sous la direction de Hélène Beauchamp en collaboration avec André Maréchal. Montréal: UQAM, Département de Théâtre, 1988.
Théâtre et Éducation. Actes du colloque international de Mohammedia (1988), F. Chami, A. Massaïa, B. Oufrid, éditeurs. Casablanca: Société Marocaine d'Édition, 1990.
Théâtre et Formation des enseignants, acres du colloque international, sous la direction de Roger Deldime. Morlanwelz: Ed. Lansman, 1991.
Un théâtre intervenant: ACTA/AQJT 1958-1980, Jeu, Cahiers de théâtre 15 (1980), sous la direction de Hélène Beauchamp et Gilbert David.
Vidéo: Défense de jouer sur les murs-le théâtre Pour enfants au Québec 1977-1978, 50 m., par Jean Beaudry, François Bouvier, Hélène Fleury, sous la direction de Hélène Beauchamp, 1978.
Vigeant, Louise. La Lecture du spectacle théâtre. Montréal: Mondia, 1980.
Wallace, Robert. "Understanding Difference-Theatrical Practice in Quebec and Canada." Producing Marginality. Saskatoon: Fifth House Publishers, 1990.