Lineage of Transformation and Imaginative Improvisation
The lineage of my practice sits robustly and unbroken in its derivation in the work of Jacques Copeau (1879-1949). It has been handed down from
teacher to assistant, starting with Copeau, who passed it to
his nephew Michel Saint-Denis (1897-1971), to John Blatchley (1922-1994) and then Catherine Blatchley (Clouzot), and
finally to Gabrielle Moleta, Hilde Hannah Buvik and Birgit Nordby.
John Blatchley had joined Glen Byam
Shaw and Michel Saint-Denis at the Old Vic School. Blatchley then went to
France with Saint-Denis, where he worked as an actor and director and assisted
Saint-Denis in his new school.
Cathérine Clouzot was a student at Michel
Saint-Denis’s school in Strasbourg where she was taught by his assistant John
Blatchley whom she was later to marry. They worked together at The Central
School of Speech and Drama and then at The Drama Centre, (which John Blatchley had founded with Yat
Malmgren), their teaching being based on that of Jacques Copeau. Catherine taught at Arts Ed London from
1981. John Blatchley died in 1994.
Gabrielle Moleta, Birgit Nordby and Hilde Hannah
Buvik trained with Catherine in the
late 1990s in the School of Acting at Arts Ed. In 2005 they were invited by
Catherine to become
her apprentices and Catherine passed on her work at Arts Ed to Gabrielle.
Gabrielle is currently the only
practitioner in the UK teaching in this unique lineage and now in the main, teaches the work
on the MA Theatre Lab at RADA as well as giving masterclasses nationally and internationally. She applies her particular approach to theatre devising and making, to performance and motion capture, to both contemporary and Classical text (Globe, RSC), to dance and she works continuously developing it with actors who have trained with her.
She has a commitment to the training of actors, is focused on the creative process, and her approach gives her ensemble of actors a common starting point for creative work.
- Could
you briefly outline your practice? What you do and what you see as the
main things it facilitates for the actor?
My practice is called Transformation and Imaginative Improvisation.
Transformation is a detailed,
imaginative approach helping actors to transform. It includes the specific work for the actor of real life and continual observation of mammals and birds in order to incorporate them into the body as
completely as possible. Once every pore of the actor is absorbed in this focus,
a second stage of transformation from animal into human is possible. At this point the common ground is laid for developing work, (with and ensemble trained and receptive to this approach). Imaginative Improvisation, equally important in the approach, is the
detailed and specific creation of the world around the actor in space. In the
same way as with Transformation, the actor is required to return repeatedly to
her imagination, memory, senses and stimuli and in doing so she works with body and mind
to live truthfully and freely in a detailed imaginary world.
The main things this facilitates for
the actor are the development of the actor’s imagination, her concentration
and her commitment to active observation. The ability to transform is the
rich outcome for those for whom this process fits. An obvious, easier to come by
but nonetheless important result of the work in Transformation, is a deepening
of the actor’s physical capabilities and a liberation of her habitual choices,
both physical and psychological. In all cases the work looks to unlock the
uniqueness of the actor through an absolute focus on a specific set of
circumstances, (an animal and its environment). It helps them make visible the
invisible world and to create truth onstage.
I encourage actors to use the work in the
development of character for performance, though this should be their private
work and not the domain of the director.
- How do you think your perspective is unique?
There are several points here:
I think an aspect of its uniqueness
is that the actor is not trying to become an animal for its own sake, but
instead the absolute focus on the ‘other’- the subject, (the animal or bird),
enables the actor’s focus on self to diminish, thereby allowing other choices,
both physical and imaginative to come to the fore.
Transformation does not deal with any
preconceived (human) ideas about how the animal behaves. It is not anthropomorphic in its approach- it is the antithesis of this. Playing a cunning
or proud character is no reason to give an actor a fox or a lion. If a bird of prey stretches its wing and it happens to 'feel as if the raptor is embracing you', this is no reason to think it likes you; it is merely opening its wings. I do not deal either with preconceived ideas of animals' drives e.g. hunger, survival, exhaustion. This again would lead to anthropomorphic, limited and dull work.
A further unique aspect of the work
in actor training with this process, is that not all animals are used as
subjects. Some, through a combination of experience-both learnt and handed
down- are not ones I would suggest to the actor to begin working in. Mammals and
birds are the main subjects, though many particular mammals and birds are more useful than others. Reptiles, amphibians, insects, fish are not useful in the teaching of the work.
The study of animals is important,
but it is only one source of inspiration for the transformation work.
Another is the level of physical and
physiological rigour required to invest in this approach in order to move
beyond a very basic work in an animal. It is demanding, and the actors are
completely exposed. This work cannot be taught once a week over a quick term.
And lastly, the unique aspect of
this work is that the two strands, Imaginative Improvisation and Transformation
are taught together. That is the Transformation element, which often lends its
focus to the observation of an animal, (but not always hence why people
incorrectly refer to this particular approach as animal studies), does not get
taught on its own, but rather needs a deep and full understanding of the
Imaginative Improvisation approach first. Without it the work is thin.
- Have you developed the work beyond what you were taught by Catherine Clouzot?
Catherine was keen when I took this work
on to develop it in two ways, both of which I have done.
Firstly, she hoped that by handing
me the work I would develop it beyond the training of students taking into theatre
for actors in the profession. I do this both in work I make- with this approach
at the heart of the development process- and with companies who bring me in as
movement coach. I work in most of these instances with actors who have already
studied the process with me and who are gifted at the approach. They will be clear about the amount of observation and perseverance required and will be uncluttered by connotations of what I mean by working 'in the animal'. This means we are able to go further with the work taking it into the very fabric of the creation of the piece
In my theatre making work is not only the actors who use Transformation
as part of the devising process but also writers, choreographers and composers. Their scripted and structured material (choreography and composition) is informed by this focus on the animal and the world of the animal, in combination with the particular situations and texts I have as starting point for the piece.
Secondly, Catherine wished me to develop the
approach by incorporating into the process a rigorous physical maintenance
section. Hence alongside the substantial work of Transformation and Imaginative
Observation I incorporate a whole body of physical training to support the
actor’s body in order for them to be able to challenge and develop their
physical and psychological strength, stamina, flexibility, commitment and
concentration. This has become embedded
in the approach.
© 2019 Gabrielle Moleta
