Initially, I wasn’t sure what to think of Rose’s comment regarding Shakespeare being an insult and something that was not difficult enough for the students to work on. What she wasn’t saying was that
the previous shows had been hard. She speaks of the school productions as being known for singing and big Broadway musicals which said they had not been about the students. Students had been measuring their shows based on how hard they were to accomplish. When Rose heard about the Shakespeare production she immediately thought there would be no singing or dancing. This uncovered my inability to communicate quickly enough that we would still have singing and acting and to be able to be heard for long enough to explain that it would not be the traditional Midsummer Night’s Dream.
This was the first time I learnt that Rose considered herself to be an ‘avid novelist’. The idea that she had not known where to begin with writing a script I learnt very quickly as the writing circle began. Questions, included how to master the physical structure of the script, through to how much
information was given to set a scene and the directions of the playwright. Stage directions were often given verbally as ideas and not written down as they were actively workshopped. These became collectively remembered and accessed later in the rehearsal of scenes. The writing process included the evolution of the collaboration to achieve their shared script and process of collaborative writing and all that this brought with it.
Students would discuss the need for a comma or bracket in some depth, at one point they discussed whether or not they should use abbreviated text message language to quicken the process in areas. At one point she stated, “Some things take time, and it is the time spent that make them worth-while. Do we want a show that only we can understand? We have to think about who is going to receive this message from us.” Other students responded with, the likes of “OMG, my parents wouldn’t have a clue about text message lingo.”(Mary) This group decision was a very early understanding from the student cohort that they would make a message for meaning for their projected audience. In writing the script the students began to think and project how their performance might be received by an audience and they made decisions with the audience in mind.
Rose noted that there was less time in rehearsal. In my experience there was approximately five to six weeks longer spent in rehearsal on this project. This was partially because students were used to a much longer rehearsal period and partially my realisation of this. Students were panicked when I initially said that we would have a period of seven to eight weeks in rehearsal. I decided to stretch this out a little so that the students could feel confident that they had enough time to complete a show, given that they didn’t know the way I worked.
The writing process undertaken by students lessened the need for the ‘tedious rehearsal’ time as students identified with characters as they had written and made connections with other characters. Some students knew their lines and characters intimately, while most students knew the entire story
line and where their character fitted into this storyline. This is shown through Rose’s comment that they ended up with a script they ‘loved.’ You cannot love something without investing something in it. They had invested their ideas, discussions and voices, these original aspects of the script hung within a deep-seated memory.
Rose speaks of the script taking ‘so LONG’ but also states it was worth it. This comment alluded to the idea that when you do invest a lot of time into something that is worthwhile, then it feels good afterwards, so much so that she referred to the script as a ‘masterpiece’. The script is very good for a script mostly workshopped and written as a collective. In some ways I can understand that it did feel like a masterpiece for these students who, when they set out to write a script, didn’t know where to begin. Not only had they achieved a script, they had achieved an amazing theatre production that they effectively owned and could claim as their own work. Every moment expressed upon stage had been considered by these students. Rose mentions the songs were selected for actors and meaning, she missed that they were also selected for musicians and in some cases where we could not find a song, one was composed and written. The students who wrote or partook in writing the script had to consider the whole picture to develop the stage show that they did.
Rose has understood her experience so deeply that she has drawn comparisons with her previous experiences. At one point she articulates very poignantly, ‘But talent wasn’t wasted this year.’ I don’t particularly see this as talent as much as I do drive and potential. Whether a child had talent or not had not registered for me. (By talent, I mean an ability to perform something either miraculously through their natural abilities or a lifetime of hard work learning particular performative skills.) If a child wanted to manage back stage or choreograph a dance then I wanted to ensure they had the opportunity to do so.
Rose uses the language, ‘allowed,’ as if I had allowed them and in a way it was partially this.
However what is underlying this statement is that in previous years they were not allowed. This raised the issue for me that the production in the past for Rose and her peers had very much been structured around what teachers did, the teacher making aesthetic decisions and the students doing what was expected. This idea of the students being, to some degree mute in the making of their own production required questioning, it required further unravelling and I found myself wanting to understand more.
I asked Rose what she had meant by the statement, “Talent was not wasted this year.” Which she responded with,
“Oh! Come on Gill, you know what I mean! You had Charli and Kathy
choreographing, Kevin composing, us writing, people directing. I mean you even had people organising props lists and stuff. If that was another production it would be,
you need to be at Friday’s rehearsal and know your lines! This year it was totally different. The process was a democratic one, where everyone made the choices and everyone could have an opinion (Pearl and Knight 1999). I thought sometimes, just tell them to shut up and listen to you, but you would hate that.’ Rose expresses that she felt that the students had been empowered to have a voice in this production. She reiterates this several times with, “I’m not used to people believing in me,” and “I had a voice and it was heard.” She seemed to have had an overwhelming experience in her final year of secondary school of being listened to. She was listened to by me, her peers, her audience and community.
Rose spoke on behalf of the students to the newspaper and I was taken aback to see this now very confident girl begin to shake. After the phone conversation, with tears in her eyes she said, “Thank you! No-one has ever trusted me enough to do something so important. That was the best feeling ever.” I have copied the newspaper review below.