Oh, just another night in the company of Peter Brook

It is hard being a student in Paris, it really is...Today we were invited back to watch the Peter Brook piece as it will be (roughly) in the Theatre Bouffes Du Nord in Paris. How do I begin. Well on my walk home, I begun brilliantly. Let's go back to the beginning. Peter Brook is amazing. What he has achieved in Theatre in his lifetime is outstanding. He is still a massive inspiration to thousands of young and old theatre practitioners around the world. His book is still considered a bible to some young actors and a huge inspiration for others. Myself included. Yep, you guessed it...BUT. I fear he has become trapped in his own ideas. Okay so the piece of theatre I am reviewing is not particularly theatrical and I don't know how it can be. The story is complex and political. I say political, it is in fact about religion but I think here the theatre produced is political, even though it is not used to promote an idea for or against. In fact it is supposed to provoke questions. But I would describe that type of theatre as Political, rightly or wrongly. The story is extremely interesting and relevant. It is happening today as much as it ever did. The very basic outline. It's called 'Eleven and Twelve'. It is about Islam in Africa during a time of French colonialism. I cannot give dates. A Sheik turned up late for prayer blessings as his congregation were finishing their eleventh prayer. So as not to embarrass him they recite it a Twelth time. The next day after the Eleventh prayer they pause for their blessing. When it doesn't come they say it a twelth time and the blessing comes. And this goes on for a year until the Sheikh dies without advising them on whether they should pray eleven or twelve times. And so the practice of Twelve prayers begins. I am not clear on the details of how or when this new Sheikh arrives as we have skipped forward in time and the play gets a bit sketchy in the transition but eventually another Sheikh is practising Eleven prayers and the French view him as a threat and enemy and persecute him but he maintains he would not ask anyone to stop praying twelve times but wishes to be allowed to practice his believed right way of eleven times. That's the basic plot and it develops from there. It's interesting and relevant for us today as we are experiencing conflicts of religion, as we always have. The juxtaposition of two people who genuinely believe they are right is something we see every day, especially in politics. And it cannot be proven that either person is right. Take for example the reason I vote for the Conservatives. I don't believe that left policies work with the masses and I believe that within human beings is a natural tendency for conflict. I don't believe that a fundamental Muslim can ever live alongside a fundamental Catholic for example, without problems. But I know plenty of people who think this is utter crap. And I can't argue they are wrong anymore than they can argue I am as we both one hundred percent believe we are right. How do you solve that problem? I can't see an answer. Maybe my left wing friend can but I'll be amazed if he ever gets me to see it because I'm so busy believing he is wrong. And even if it's not human nature to think like me there is a HUGE number who do, as well as a HUGE number who don't but how do the people that don't turn the people that do? Exactly. You're head just exploded. Right. So it's a complicated and yet infinitely interesting concept. But how do you make it theatre? Well you don't is the simple answer. Well maybe you can but I don't pretend to have the answer. What we saw tonight is the easy way to stage a subject like this. Story telling. But story telling is not theatre. It's story telling. So you take a beautiful, grand, empty space like the Bouffes Du Nord with all it's theatrical possibilities (which I might add here in defence of Peter Brook has been explored many times) and in it you put a piece of theatre that stages itself as close to the audience in a 'Stage' like format as possible and you talk them through this complicated issue, with demonstrations, and what do you get? Disappointment. I go to the theatre wanting to be transported, yes to learn but to be transported and to be moved and inspired and awed. If I just want a story or to explore an idea I will read a book. It's satisfying, it is done in my own pace and if it doesn't answer all my questions I move onto another book. Theatre is supposed to ask questions rather than answer them, to make you want to go and buy a book and learn more about this or that. Or go visit that place Or just to take you out of your world. It should be exhilarating.

In 'The Empty Space' Peter Brook started with the line ''I can take any empty space and call it a bare stage. A man walks across this empty space whilst someone else is watching him, and this is all I need for an act of theatre to be engaged.'' He is of course correct but it can be interpreted in many ways. In the main I think what he has achieved is of taking theatre out of it's traditional proscenium arch stage with costumes and lights and bought it forward to a far more exciting place. But tonight it felt like he himself had got caught in his own idea, his own religious practice. Because it wasn't theatre and it wasn't entertaining or engaging. But it was an Empty Space with few props and few actors. It can be picked up and transported to any space basically but it will not be more interesting or engaging anywhere else. The space they have to work with is exceptionally beautiful and large and yet in this piece it was ignored. Peter Brook told me when I expressed my wish that they had played the back space more, that they have used the back wall many times including one production where they had ladders all along it with actors scurrying up and down. Fantastic. Sounds right up my street. But I didn't see it, I am sat here right now wondering what the point was of using this large theatre (it is his own theatre which is why he uses it) for me as an audience member watching this particular spectacle. And just the fact that it is in this space whilst the space is not being used lends itself to disappointment because it is such a waste of a great space. First rule is to ALWAYS use the space you have. You should be able to adjust you're work to any space but never ignore the space you are in. And this is where younger theatre companies have taken Peter Brooks ideas and brought them to the next stage. Take The Factory Theatre (apologies to all my friends who've listened to me bleat on about them for over a year but then again if you haven't been to see them yet you're an idiot and if you have, you'll probably agree and be doing the same thing). This theatre company plays a different space each week. Sometimes it's as simple as a car park, other times it's a Theatre or a Crypt. It can be anywhere. A number of actors in the cast can play principle roles. The audience play 'Paper, Scissors, Stone' to decide on the night which actor plays which part. And there are no costumes. No backstage, the actors mingle in the audience and watch the whole thing because the audience supply the props. The wackier the better. I once saw Hamlet's fathers ghost be played by an inflatable shark. But it was played with such feeling and depth that you believed Hamlet really was seeing his father. So the actors need to see everything. Not least because they also demonstrate death in different ways. In the best production I saw of their Hamlet people were killed by sound, which leant itself to an amazing duel between Hamlet and Laertes in which they fought using guitars and singing. It was brilliant. Yes, it's funny but at no point is the drama lost because the actors believe everything they are doing. They play it for real. If it's life or death it's life or death, even if the weapon is a guitar. And they NEVER ever ignore the space. If it's a car park they use everything they can. Even if it's a Theatre they never just use the stage, sometimes the director forbids them from using it for a whole act. The Space always helps inform the performance. It is another character and another dimension. And each performance is completely unpredictable and utterly exciting. You cannot come away without being at least entertained if not exilarated or inspired. They are taking Peter Brooks theory and making it work and they are also bringing theatre back to people who don't normally go. They are cheap. They involve the audience in a none threatening way and they have one hundred percent fought their corner for theatre versus film as you couldn't recreate what they are doing on film, unlike most theatre we see today. In fact the story I watched today could be beautifully told on film.

And there is my disappointment. A hero, without a doubt. Hugely influential and beneficial to theatre. But to have a hero puts an artist in a tricky place because art should always be moving. It cannot stay still and as soon as you agree one way is the way it stops being relevant. Which is a bloody good lesson for an actor to learn. Especially one who is training. And especially one who isn't even sure she agrees with training. Because unfortunately it attracts an awful lot of actors who want solutions and it encourages you to dissect yourself to such a degree you become no different to a dog waiting for a belly rub. There is no right and wrong way. Theatre, Art, writing is only relevant if the audience want more. Because without them you have no Art. And thousands will disagree.

And as a footnote in this epic tale...I have no idea what I am doing. Nor do I pretend to. I have no idea what is entertaining for others, only what is entertaining for me. And I indulge my tastes playing parts I want to play. My fundraising play was a prime example of this. However, throughout the whole process I felt huge guilt and doubt about what I was offering. To the point that I found it almost impossible to market. I asked people to come with 'It's a really difficult piece...i'm not sure you'll like it but...' You should believe in what you are producing but I do think you should also be able to justify it. Especially if it is a subject that may not be thought of as entertainment. And if you are not looking to entertain your audience then ask yourself what you are doing? Because first and foremost should that not be the point?