Articles & Essays Book Reviews

McAuley, Gay. Not magic but work: An ethnographic account of a rehearsal process. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2012. ISBN 978 0 7190 85437

As both a scholar and a practicing theatre maker myself, I read Gay McAuley’s book, ‘Not Magic but Work’ with a keen interest, as well as with a feeling of trepidation. My interest was to see if her description of the rehearsal process was comparable to my own experiences working with various directors and companies (it was), and my trepidation was that the inner sanctum of the rehearsal room and the backstage area of a theatre, places of discretion and ritual, would be stripped of their ‘magic’ and exposed as merely places of work (they were not).

McAuley’s book is subtitled ‘An ethnographic account of a rehearsal process’, and she meticulously describes the process of theatrical production from the first day of rehearsals to closing night in order to uncover ‘the complex nature of collective creativity’. (p. 28) From her close observations and interpretations of the production of the new play, Toy Symphony written by Michael Gow, she is able to provide an invaluable and detailed study of Neil Armfield’s working process with Company B, which is housed at the Belvoir Street Theatre in Sydney, Australia. At the heart of this book is the complex and fluid three-way creative process between playwright, director and actors. However, McAuley also details the vital and often unacknowledged contributions of the production staff, designers and crew. Through the qualitative data collection method of participant observation, McAuley not only records the work happening in the theatre but also shares her personal responses and commentary on the whole process as it unfolds.

This dichotomy between being a ‘participant’ in the rehearsal room and noting her responses as an ethnographer to the activities she observes, is reflected in the layout of the work. Part One chronologically details the rehearsal process; Part Two is McAuley’s ‘Reflections after the event’. This is a useful division as it clearly separates the participant observer’s field study phase from the reflexive process of analysis and theory.

Part One constitutes the largest section of the book reflecting how McAuley was given practically unfettered daily access into the rehearsal room, production meetings, and the theatre performance space throughout rehearsals and up to the final performance of the production in 2007. After some preliminary observations to contextualise her study, such as what a rehearsal is, the history of Company B and of the main participants, she moves on to outline the play text that was presented to the company on Day One of rehearsals. (pp. 1-32) This serves not only to inform the reader of the narrative of the play and the characters the actors are playing, but also illustrates how the play text develops thorough the process. This interrogation and redrafting of Toy Symphony by the writer, director and actors is what that gives this section its framework. McAuley amasses in chronological order observations of rituals, processes, conflicts and social interactions in considerable detail, as well as drawing out the complex relationships that develop. Part Two is a more reflective account of the whole process of production through a considered ethnographic lens and it is here that McAuley stands back and places the study of theatre production within a scholarly frame.

Her day-to-day account of how accomplished theatre director, Neil Armfield, guides the actors, and in particular lead actor, Richard Roxburgh, towards their performances in Toy Symphony is peppered with examples that demonstrate how the text for a new play is merely a starting point for a production. That this is a study of a new text is an important point and McAuley illustrates the extensive redrafting that takes place when developing character, narrative and staging. The negotiations that happen between all the participants are well written and reflect the intensity, tension and importantly the humour that emerges. Much attention is given not only to the important role of the playwright, Michael Gow, but also to the extensive dramaturgical input from Armfield and the actors, so much so that McAuley feels the need to reassure the reader that nothing was ‘lacking in the script’ from the outset. (p. 67). Even though Gow was not physically present during all the rehearsals it is apparent that his reputation, experience and previous working relationship with Armfield and Roxburgh were key components in how the text was viewed and tested in rehearsal. When Gow was absent, Armfield would contact him by telephone and relay ideas and suggestions for any textual amendments that arose.

Although these changes were mainly initiated by Armfield, the actors and in particular, Richard Roxburgh, also contributed. For example, Roxburgh, as the character Roland, has to perform a long phone call where he is isolated on stage. During this he could not find a way for three words to ‘become a meaningful part of the overall emotional trajectory of the speech.’ (p. 85) These three words, ‘Jake? You there?’ were eventually cut. The process whereby this occurs is a complex negotiation and social interaction that highlights the personal professional relationship Armfield, Gow and Roxburgh have, but is a useful contrast to the relationships of that other participants that she describes.

During the times when Gow was present he contributed to the discussions around text. Following his visits, a new draft of the play text would usually be presented which solved certain practical, narrative or character questions. However, McAuley does not always clearly indicate in her book the times when Gow was present or absent, so a precise chronology of the textual development is blurred at times. Some formal notation of who was present in rehearsals on each day could help to inform this.

Even though Gow’s role was essential, the book mainly focuses on Armfield and how his directorial style, personal charisma, talent and extensive theatrical experience shaped the final production of Toy Symphony. McAuley often praises Armfield’s skill and attention to detail, as well as his personal concern and interest in everyone he works with. To her credit, she does not omit to describe the contestations to his directorial ‘authority’ that also occurred during rehearsals. She describes one particular incident that happened on Day 12 that illustrates how Roxburgh and Armfield negotiated a particular direction and how the tension and conviction of interpretation that can arise in rehearsal was resolved.

This example is described in detail in the chapter ‘Scene work (Days 4-14)’. (pp. 75-94). The play shifts in time and place and presents several ‘realities’ located around Roxburgh’s character, Roland. The transition from Scene 10 to Scene 11 involved a shift in realities from Nina’s psychiatric consulting rooms in the present to Nick’s hospital bed in the past. Initially, Roland’s dialogue for the opening of Scene 11 occurs while the character Nina is still onstage. On Day 10, Roxburgh concurs with Armfield’s direction to overlap the dialogue during the scene transition from Scene 10 to Scene 11. McAuley then records how on the following day, Roxburgh ‘was adamant that he could not make the moment work in the way Neil wanted’. (p. 92) After several unsuccessful attempts to realise Armfield’s direction, eventually an alternative solution to this stage action was found. It is through minute detailed accounts such as this that McAuley is able to highlight Armfield’s directorial style and interaction with the actors. She expands on this further in Part Two, but in summary she states that his is ‘a genuinely collaborative creative process’ and this will be addressed further below. (p. 186)

However, McAuley does concede that the past working relationship and friendship between Armfield and Roxburgh could have privileged Roxburgh to contest directions. She notes that the younger more inexperienced actor, Guy Edmonds, ‘was keen to co-operate’ and she implies he was ‘somewhat awed by the task involved in working so closely with artists of the calibre of both Neil and Richard.’ (p. 196)

On the whole, McAuley handles well the task of ethnographer as a participant observer. This is particularly apparent in Part Two when she describes Armfield’s process in detail. (pp. 186-212) However, the awe in which the company holds Armfield is at times apparent in McAuley herself. She is full of praise for his directorial style and his ability to create a community, which she details in the section, ‘Creating a community: the heart of the matter’. (pp. 208-212) Whilst she recognises that he has authority over the group and that most of the actors, crew and designers defer to him, a sense of community is seen as important to him in order for the work to be successful. It could be argued that it would have been useful for this notion of authority to be developed in more detail. McAuley cites Randall Collins’ work on how ritual informs the identity and legitimacy of a particular group, and she goes on to argue that in this context, the theatre production could be seen as a ‘sacred object’. (p. 220, Collins 2004) However, apart from anecdotes about casting Guy Edmonds, McAuley does not consider the process whereby these particular actors where admitted into this group. What were the criteria for inviting an actor to the group? Where there also auditions or were individuals only invited to be part of the production, and why? These processes are often intensely private within the theatrical community but they could greatly inform any scholarly work on theatrical culture and group formation. However, she was not able to extend this study to include the lead up to the rehearsal phase and McAuley acknowledges that this could be seen as a limitation of this micro-range participant observer study. (p. 188)

On this point of group formation, there is considerable research in the area of cultural matching where people are selected based on social, educational or cultural similarities. Although most of this research has occurred with particular reference to hiring personnel within the business community, it could be argued that cultural matching also occurs when a director casts a theatre production.[1] The director may be looking for behaviours and other interests that would serve her/his directorial style and create a particular working environment. Such a process may result in the exclusion of actors of equal or greater talent and experience, and select those that favour cultural similarity. This potential seeking of cultural matching could be related to the sense of community that McAuley sees as being important to Armfield, and I feel his authority position within this transient community could have been interrogated further. Whilst she refers to Armfield’s interactions as a ‘management style’, McAuley also states that rehearsals had an ‘egalitarian inclusiveness’. (p. 211, p.190) Despite the claim of inclusiveness, numerous incidents are recorded where Armfield is insistent or adamant, and which demonstrate that he has the final say on many outcomes. This authority could imply that the actors, crew and designers are expected to create not only the production he envisions but also the community and work practices (rituals) he demands. Once again, such a contradiction may have benefited from further interrogation.

Despite these minor comments, this book is a fascinating and detailed study of a cultural practice that is often hidden from the audience who only receive the outcome, that is, the performance. McAuley herself acknowledges that this focus on the process of bringing a single play into production ‘may overwhelm the reader with a plethora of what seem to be minute details’, but for me it is a well-written book that shines a light on a process I am familiar with. (p. 28) Indeed, it will be an invaluable resource not to only ethnographers and sociologists, but also to aspiring or practising theatre makers who are interested in how a renowned theatre director and playwright collaborate with a talented cast to make work.

McAuley quotes Brecht’s epigram, ‘Not magic but work’ to frame her book. Whilst Brecht was referring to his practice of making the mechanics of theatrical performance apparent on stage in order to encourage the audience to have an active as opposed to passive engagement with a performance, McAuley uses it here in a different context. For her, the work extends beyond performance into the rehearsal process and places theatre production into a wider social context. Nonetheless, ‘Not magic but work’ is still an appropriate title for this interesting and well-documented study of theatrical practice.

[1] For example, see Lauren A. Rivera, ‘Hiring as Cultural Matching: The Case of Elite Professional Service Firms’, American Sociological Review, 2012, 77:999.

Collins, Randall, Interaction Ritual Chains, Princeton University Press, 2004.