Ensemble

The emancipatory principle of theatre is rooted in the practice of ensemble. Ensemble was Boyd’s watchword for the RSC during his time as Artistic Director. He was clear that ensemble means a whole greater than the sum of its parts, but where each of those parts is also instrumental to the success of the whole. Boyd also favoured ‘collective’ as a descriptor, viewing it not as an antonym to democracy’s focus on individual freedoms, but rather as egalitarian participation in a learning culture where the purpose of

rehearsals is ‘to learn and make art at the same time’ (2008, p.4), similar to Leadbeater’s idea of ‘the collaborative exercise of individual responsibility’ (2008, p.19). The education department of the RSC grew in numbers, confidence and reach as Boyd brought it into the heart of the company from its previous troubled existence on the fringes, and his

142

vision of ensemble strongly shaped the department’s developing practice of working with young people.29

Through his work with an artistic ensemble brought together for three years to perform the eight plays of Shakespeare’s epic Histories cycle, Boyd (2009) developed ‘a set of values and behaviours’ or conditions for ensemble working:

 Cooperation: the intense unobstructed traffic between artists at play; the surrender of self to a connection with others, even while making demands on ourselves

 Altruism: the moral imagination and the social perception to realise that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The stronger help the weaker, rather than choreographing the weak to make the strong look good.

 Trust: the ability to be appallingly honest, and to experiment without fear.

 Empathy: caring for others with a forensic curiosity that constantly seeks new ways of being together and creating together.

 Imagination: keeping ideas in the mind long enough to allow them to emerge from the alchemy of the imagination and not the factory of the will.

 Compassion: engaging with the world and each other, knowing there may be mutual pain in doing so.

 Tolerance: accommodating differences and allowing mistakes.

 Forgiveness: allowing and recovering from big and potentially damaging mistakes

 Humility: the expert who has nothing to learn has no need for creativity because the answer is already known.

 Magnanimity: the courage to give away ideas and love, with no thought of transaction or an exchange in return.

 Rapport: the magic language between individuals in tune with each other.

 Patience: this is only really possible over years. Art can be forced like rhubarb, but it tends to bend in the wind.

 Rigour: dancers and musicians take life-long daily training for granted, and theatre could do with catching up.

This list of abstract notions can seem idealistic, yet it is also deeply practical as a way not just to exist together but to flourish and achieve together. Boyd’s extension on the notion of humility is that it contains a paradoxical arrogance, ‘a collective arrogance that you can actually aspire to something that sublime, as opposed to just getting away with it and getting nice reviews’ (2009, p.6); or in an education context, aspiring to far more than a stamp of approval from Ofsted. The sum of each condition can be seen as the

emancipatory principle of theatre-based practice, and (with perhaps the exception of rigour) can be seen as a world where the activity of the right-hemisphere of the brain is

29

143

accorded full value unlike the dystopian vision of left-hemisphere dominance McGilchrist presents (2009, pp.428-434) which is disturbingly similar to our current systems of fragmentation and bureaucracy in education. Boyd describes an ensemble as requiring ‘dynamic difference’, celebrating a diversity of perspectives, ideas and cultural

backgrounds with the confidence that such diversity builds a firmer foundation for innovative progress.

Boyd’s ensemble values are reflected in Frank Cottrell-Boyce’s (2016) moving defence of the importance of culture in our lives to reach out in an ethos of negative capability. Considering examples of creative generosity, including the gift of time and energy

altruistically donated by so many for the 2012 Olympic Opening Ceremony, he concludes: Innovation doesn’t come from the profit motive. Innovation comes from those who are happy to embark on a course of action without quite knowing where it will lead, without doing a feasibility study, without fear of failure or too much hope of reward.

Through living generously, taking the time to listen, learn and share, moment to moment, we cannot predict what opportunities for progress and innovation may arise, but, as Nussbaum (2010, p.81) points out, ‘ignorance [of others’ cultures] is a virtual guarantee of bad behaviour’. She calls for a focus on culture in education that supports young people ‘to understand both the differences that make understanding difficult between groups and nations, and the shared human needs and interests that make understanding essential if common problems are to be solved’, a call repeated by many, including the OECD (Schleicher, 2016).

Boyd (2004) acknowledges criticism that ensembles can result in a ‘beige homogeneity’ or a mediocrity where potential stars are squashed. He argues that ensemble does not mean ‘imposing false glass ceilings on talent, charisma or charm’ but instead inspires each individual to greater achievement through the greater challenge of collaboration; a form of Leadbeater’s (2008) ‘We Think’. A contrast can be seen here in the more traditional views of policy makers who believe that all young people can be successful ‘stars’ of society ‘like me’ - if they sufficiently apply themselves to individual achievement

regardless of their peers, an attitude that generally supports divisions in schooling along lines of wealth, faith and ability as providing for quality. Hattie’s (2009) data, however, suggests students are more likely to succeed in a more diverse and co-operative learning environment where competition is with the self to continuously improve (Boyd’s ‘rigour’)

144

rather than through achieving at the expense of, or separated from, others. Commenting on the ensemble that Boyd brought together, experienced actor Richard Cordery

describes, not a beige homogeneity, but ‘a family […] where the protective shields between the individuals have been lowered’ allowing innovation and risk alongside encouragement and appreciation (RSC, 2007, p.51).

Boyd’s vision of an ensemble is not just about a company of actors working together, it is about the personal growth and practical development that being part of an active ensemble creates and the strength of shared meaning that an ensemble can bring to an audience. In a similar way, a class can be a group of students learning in the same space or an ensemble of young people learning in collaboration with each other to achieve more than they could have done alone. What characterises Boyd’s ensemble as a vision rather than a strategic plan is his investment in the human narratives told on, off and beyond the stage. He poses the question, ‘can an ensemble company act in some sense as a maquette version of the real world; a better version of the real world on an

achievable scale which celebrates the virtues of collaboration?’ (2004). Boyd’s vision is a role for theatre, not in solving the world’s problems but in collaboratively understanding them, a vision tempered by pragmatic concerns for the professional development of actors, and for teachers. He believes that rigour and risk-taking go hand in hand, reflecting the hemispheric duet our brains have evolved to dance.

Gonsalves describes directing as a phenomenological art form arising from making conscious the continuous unconscious human processes of social interaction, particularly our pragmatic responses to the needs and desires of others, and shaping how these responses are expressed. She explains: ‘The first ensemble is the family, the family dynamic. It was about conflict of course – I was very tuned into conflict in my family and how to avert it, but in plays you’re continually trying to provoke it. Although, as in life, the elusive search for harmony drives us on.’ All young people experience moments of

conflict and harmony in their own circles of family and friends and increasingly recognise those moments in the wider world around them; a safe classroom can provide the ensemble ‘family’ Cordery describes to explore and rehearse those moments.