THE DILEMMA OF THE PROFESSIONAL IN UNIVERSITY DRAMA

(Theatre Quarterly Voume IV. Number 16. 1974)

Seven years ago I moved from the professional theatre to work in Birmingham University's Drama
Department. I am now leaving there to work full-time again in the theatre. Others have moved from
the university to the theatre. At least two, Hugh Hunt and the late Stephen Joseph, moved before me
from theatre to university, but they have never written about the experience. Tyrone Guthrie tried a
foot in both camps, and in his book "On Acting" reveals both the pain of the experience and, in setting
out the contradictions between vision and practice, his own humanity.

When I went to Birmingham there were few precedents for the job I went to undertake. In setting
down what I can of the experience I hope it may help anyone following me to avoid some of the
pitfalls, and so to take some of the advantages I have gained from it. I also hope it will contribute to
the debate within university Drama Departments as to the viability of practical work, and also the
problems raised in this area of their teaching. Because of the lack of direct precedents this must
essentially take the form of a personal statement about the work I have done in Birmingham.

Reason for Entering a University

Before going to Birmingham my career had developed along a number of lines. I had acted, directed
and written scripts which were performed. I had organized the Centre 42 Trades Union Festivals;
taught in drama schools; recorded and scripted radio documentaries; and done all the multifarious
back-stage technical jobs that one picks up along the way. I had also written a number of articles and
papers on various aspects of the theatre and cultural policy.

In the theatre the width of this experience was becoming something of a liability-possible employers
tend to think only of one line of work. The constant switching from one line to another ensured
continuous employment but worked against the normal practice in the theatre of raising one's salary
and fees by continuous and progressive employment. But to the Drama Department at Birmingham
this diversity was a positive asset-whilst for me the Department offered the opportunity of having all
the eggs in one basket, and of affording time and facilities for the further study of all aspects of the
history and practice of theatre, which is difficult to undertake working full-time.

Immediately before going to Birmingham I had tried to float a number of projects for various forms of
community theatre, and the failure of these to get off the ground gave me the feeling that either I was
ahead of my time or I needed to know more about the problems and possibilities involved. I have
attempted a number of articles and broadcasts relating to this whilst in Birmingham, but in thinking
about them I see that the detached position automatically removes one from being a participant
struggler. I see this as an inevitable characteristic of the purely 'academic' stance which I never
wanted to take. To prevent this happening, and for the theatre to make the best use of the products of
scholarship and research, is one of the main arguments for a close link between the universities and
the professional theatre.

When I first went to Birmingham the hope was held out that before very long there would be facilities
for a professional company working along-side the Department and integrated in some ways into its
teaching programme. This was never promised and depended upon the optimistic possibility of
outside funds being available to allow it. I finally disappeared as a dream three years ago at the point
where the necessity of having such a company was clearly demonstrated by the work I was doing.
The hope of it sustained a great deal of work. Its failure to materialize has left me feeling acutely the
contradictions of my position. One man cannot bridge two worlds, which for the most part are,
regrettably, poles apart. Sooner or later, he must choose between them.

The last reason for going to Birmingham, which it would be foolish to deny, was the economic security
it offered. The fact that one can work without worrying where the next pay-cheque comes from is a
real inducement. It can also be a trap.

The work I did in Birmingham falls into three clear phases-1966-69, 1969-71 and 1971 - 73. In the
first three years the major task outside teaching was overseeing and equipping the Department drama
studio and its ancilliary workshops. The headaches of carrying out the work were enormous, since
the university funding system works through a number of channels which have to be constantly
hammered to understand the problems of building a theatre or drama studio. The money to equip the
studio became available only after the building was complete - four years after the original estimates
and schedules had been drawn up by which time inflation had reduced purchasing power, and
equipment had often changed and standards of practice with it.

The Drama Department was accorded the same treatment as any other arts department in the
allocation of maintenance grants and at one time ours was £35 a year for nearly £60,000 worth of
plant and equipment. The financing of drama departments is haphazard, and varies from university to
university. In Birmingham, the funds available are inadequate for the work carried out, and are based
upon the power of the Head of Department to argue for every penny he can squeeze. There is an
urgent need in universities to recognize the special needs of drama departments, and to provide funds
directly related to and adequate for the work being carried out.

Professional or Academic Goals?

The teaching policy of the Department required that I should raise the standard of the Department
required that I should raise the standard of practice. The admirable theoretical principle was that the
study of drama and the theatre arts could not be separated from professional standards of practice.
The dangers involved in not following this policy and the temptation to ignore it, as Guthrie points out
are that 'economically (it is) convenient to pretend that drama is literature and can adequate be
studied as part of a literary curriculum. This is analogous to encouraging (students) to believe that
they can "do" surgery by taking a general course in biology.... Too many students, by the time they
achieve a degree in drama, are stuffed to the gills with theory, have imaginations which are
theoretically "liberated" (by improvisation classes) but which are in fact fettered because of their
almost total lack of practical know-how.'

The intention of the Birmingham Department has never been to train professional actors, but to make
it clear what the demands are of putting theory and study into practice. The problems of doing this are
enormous and run foul of the present University set-up at every single point, particularly in the amount
of time available. The course throughout the time I have been there has been non-vocational aiming
at as broad and comprehensive an introduction to all aspects of drama and the theatre arts as
possible. Single Honours students have about eighteen hours a week tuition of all kinds. Combined
Honours students nine or ten hours. The course by its very nature opens up large areas of theatre
study which the student is left to struggle with as best he can: he is expected to read widely outside
the tuition hours, and a two-hour-a-week seminar in Theatre History may well ask for eight hours
reading to take up the possibilities explored. When practical considerations are introduced, it becomes
clear that priorities have to be established or some restriction on the course imposed - for example,
one hour a day spent on movement, which is under the bare minimum required for any progress to be
made, would take up almost one-third of all tuition hours in the week.

In the first three years I was at Birmingham little integration of the study and practical work was
attempted. Students took courses in Theatre History, Shakespeare, and so on, and alongside these
took practical classes and some part in productions. Only in the course in acting style, which did block
coverage of classic acting, Stanislavskv and Brecht, was integration aimed at, through exercises
mounted to try out concepts encountered in the study.

No Time for Training

I had first and third year students for two hours each week for 'Practical Acting,' and second year
students one hour a week for 'Voice.' In addition, first year students had two hours each week for
'Movement' taken by the dance lecturer. It seemed at the time woefully inadequate. Looking back, it
seems to have been ridiculous to make the attempt. In the event, nothing was achieved except to
demonstrate this. The intention was to supply the practical training that would lead to the
understanding of other courses and to equip the students for production work. The folly of this is
demonstrated when one understands that basic movement was simply one element of this course
along with improvisation, narrative, stage technique and all the rest. One was left choosing between
two equally-unsatisfactory options. Either one could spend the whole course simply teaching students
to stand and walk, or one could cover the whole ground purely as demonstration, without giving the
student the slightest chance of ever learning how to do any of it.

In the event I opted for the latter course because it at least gave the student an intellectual and critical
tool through which to appreciate the work of others. Nevertheless, I left the door open for students to
take private extra classes with me outside normal teaching hours. A few came. The two hour classes
were a disaster from several points of view. University students are required to attend 60 per cent
overall of lectures and other classes. One was never sure that the same students would come to the
classes. Several had to be cancelled from lack of support. There was thus no chance of any continuity
of work. Some came and worked and others came and went through the motions. Some came and
were downright disruptive.

The problem of practical training in a university is exacerbated by the fact that many students are
physically unsuited for the work. If one were to be responsible, they would spend the entire three
years in a remedial stream doing no more than practice the basic skills of physical and vocal
coordination. A university cannot select students on the grounds of physical aptitude: a drama school
faced with the problem solves it easily by ejecting such students.

In my experience it is possible for the student in this category to make a serious committed effort
towards achievement in short periods of intensive work, which cannot be sustained for very long. Two
hours a week gives no hope of improvement and can only cause him anxiety, since he dwells on his
problems, or tries to avoid them.

Many students in universities, and indeed drama schools, come straight from the educational
pressures of examinations, with dreams of the theatre that disintegrate when they discover what is
actually involved in practice. The drama department provides a classic example of the double-bind.
The student stays on, wavering constantly between the positions of saying, 'What is the use of
studying when I should be practising?' and 'Why should I give so much time to practice when I'm not
going to be an actor?' The working out of these contradictions for each individual is very complex and,
in the majority of cases, destructive. There is a lot of time left over in the week, after the eighteen
hours tuition, to work in either area.

Some do: the majority brood or avoid it. The student needs to be pushed to the point of making a
decision to do one thing or the other, or ideally both. Many delay until after their three years are up
and they have to choose a career. The experience of Birmingham is littered with examples of good
students who lost energy during or at the end of the first year. During the first three years I was there I
lost whole classes, apart from the odd individual.

Any university drama department ought to realize that only a handful of students in any year are
equipped to undergo practical training to any rigorous degree, although almost all can gain from short
intensive courses. The only other worthwhile function of practical classes is to show what is involved
without making any pretension that the student is actually taking part in the activity. He acquires
knowledge about theatre practice in the same way that he acquires knowledge about the Japanese
'No' Theatre.
Within the normal course structure, there is, moreover, a blind contradiction in saying that one is not
training actors, but that one is in a position of understanding directly what is involved in acting. It
requires almost the same amount of work.

Pitfalls of Productions

During the first three years in the Department students were free to take part in student productions
outside the Department, and were required to take part in Department productions. These were
usually three small productions involving the students of a particular year, rehearsed during term time,
and one large production involving a three-week summer vacation course.

I have nothing against student productions, which seem to be as worthwhile as any other form of
amateur theatre. I would accept the argument that for certain students it is right and proper for their
personal development that they are allowed to experiment on their own to try out ideas. Allowances
can and should be made for failings in technique when there are other considerations to justify the
production-methods of staging, experiments in dramatic form, or whatever. But the practical work of
the Department, both in class and production, was weakened by these outside commitments.
Students had to choose between the time given to work in the Department and time given to work in
the student drama society. Invariably they chose to give their strongest commitment to the student
drama society, since those students who chose the other way withdrew entirely from student drama
activities. In certain cases students who were playing major roles in student productions stopped
coming to practical work at all. Once you have played Hamlet and been told how well you did it, it is
painful to come to a class and learn that you were never properly equipped to attempt it. It's easier to
move on to King Lear. More important than this, the destructive pressures brought to bear on some
students in trying to reconcile the two commitments led to several requiring some form of psychiatric
care.

The major productions in the Department, with the benefit of a three-week intensive vacation
rehearsal period, produced some good work. The small productions were a constant battle against
total failure, and the varying levels of commitment within the cast were at times impossible to
reconcile. Some actors threw themselves into the productions with enthusiasm and total engagement:
others resented appearing as Messengers when they could have been, or were, playing Polonius at
the same time. At least two productions arrived at the dress rehearsal with actors not having learned
lines, let alone worked on the part. Actors frequently failed to appear at rehearsals, which demoralized
the rest of the cast. Unfortunately for me I was always given the small productions in order to tackle
the basic acting problems. I was trying to train actors for other lecturers to direct: but the system didn't
give any chance of this happening.

The Departmental production poses many problems, though it clearly has its place in the present
structure. I have tried projects spread over periods during terms, but it has never been possible to
sustain the students' energy level unless some end result - the production-was being worked towards.
Yet productions in many ways helped to avoid the issues of practice. Guthrie understood this:
'academics tend to think that amateur performances under the direction of an academic can take
adequate care of serious drama.... We reflect that the drama departments in universities are run by
scholars, persons who know a great deal about the theoretical aspects of their subject, but who are
rarely knowledgeable about, or even interested in. the practical details of acting.'
Birmingham has been lucky in this respect.

During my time there, there have been four lecturers in the Department with some experience of
directing professionals. I think this is essential if a Drama Department is to have any pretensions to
engaging in the practice of the theatre arts.

I am very much in favour of scholars putting ideas into practice: but this experience can only be
supplied by professional actors, or by training. The Departmental production too often leads to the
academic trying to 'test' advanced ideas, in what should be a basic practical teaching situation. The
demands of the two are irreconcilable - and in any case the short-cuts and short-fallings of
undergraduate productions never get the ideas into practice.

The paradox of my first three years in Birmingham was that I best served the students in non-practical
areas - that is, in the areas of theatre administration, policy and direction, play analysis and dramatic
form, all of which I taught from the viewpoint of professional practice.

Benefits by the Way

I undertook one other major task during these years-the planning that was to have been the basis of a
research centre to study the relationship between the theatre and the community. This was in
response to the UNESCO Seminar on Theatre and Community in 1967, of which I was a member.
The plans I drew up were to include an information centre on all aspects of the European theatre in
general, and the British theatre in particular, which would serve anyone working in the theatre,
scholarship, or cultural administration. It would also have mounted surveys and practical experiments
to give information about audience response to theatre performances. It would have acted as an
advisory and 'research centre into cultural policies and administration.
In the end we were left with a sheaf of letters from all organizations in the field giving their whole-
hearted support and not a penny to set it up. It was useful to me, and the information and experience
gained has been fed into a number of theatre and community arts projects and has enabled me to
make a considerable contribution to the Working Party for a British Theatre Institute, which now gives
a real hope of something on these lines coming about. I could not have done the basic work outside a
university. If and when the British Theatre Institute is established there is still a lot more information
and experience to be fed into the project. In the meantime I know a lot more than I did when I first
came to Birmingham.

The other main advantages of this period for myself were the time to read outside the minimal class
hours, and the pressure to make my own work more systematic. When there is such a short period of
time in which to communicate the acting process one is forced to become very clear and precise
about what one does. The actor develops his work after training largely through trial and error. He
rarely objectivizes what he does when it 'works,' only when it doesn't.

I now understand myself, and other actors and directors and their work, much better, and the
knowledge gained has been fed into work with student actors and directors at Drama Centre, and into
work with professional actors. One other aspect of this came from two productions directed by the
Head of Department, John Russell Brown, in which I acted, and from which we both gained
considerably-myself from the clarity with which he could reveal the possibilities and choices that the
text allowed, and he from the demands I made to relate these to what the actor could and had to do.
Clearly, though, by the middle of 1969 the contribution I was making towards raising the standard of
the Department's practical work was minimal and was being severely hampered by the teaching
structure. Accordingly a new, experimental structure was introduced.

The Practical Option

Under the option system students were required to fulfil the normal quota of academic study subjects
but could choose either to take extra study courses or to commit themselves to an optional practical
course. It was clearly understood that the commitment would entail going well beyond the usually
accepted study hours, and in the option I ran this entailed up to 35 hours a week in addition to the
normal 'core' study courses. A pilot project had been run by John Russell Brown which centred on
productions and some training work. This had required students to concentrate all their production
work inside the Department, and had had some benefits both in the standard of work produced and in
the concentration of student effort.

But the girl who played Arkadina for the group left immediately afterwards to play Phaedra for the
student dramatic society. My own feeling was that the concentration on a string of productions did not
remove the major problems and I was asked to try to experiment with an open-ended option to see
what was possible.

Students were promised no set pattern of work and no productions whatsoever. They were simply told
that all the work should be developmental - that is, it would try to develop their abilities and resources
to put into direct practice what they were studying, rather than to teach them 'about' drama and the
theatre arts. The previous policy was reversed. Instead of students taking practical courses in order to
carry through ideas and concepts arising from the study courses, they would now centre their studies
on practical work, and then see what use they could make of it in studying the theatre. Whatever work
we undertook remained at the level at which the student was able physically to carry it out, or was
able to see the immediate steps necessary in order that he should be able to carry it out. The basis of
the work was the teaching ensemble. In the first instance this was possible because of the
experimental nature of the work. Although I had more experience and knowledge than the other
members of the ensemble, I had no direct experience of how the project should or could work.

Because of the stress upon total commitment without guarantees of productions or set patterns of
work, many students were immediately deterred from joining, and there was an immediate demand for
an alternative, less demanding practical option. This was set up and led by another member of the
staff. One result of this was that the budget was halved.
In order to create the ensemble some basic common ground acceptable to all had to be found. It was
clear that no political, religious, or philosophical system of beliefs would unite us and so it was agreed
that the basis would be a common concern for the 'human condition,' the life experience of man in
society. This evolved out of a practical exercise, in which the students and myself examined the
repertoire of world drama within our experience, and discussed at great length the content and values
of the plays that were suggested. The form of the exercise was the devising of the first season's
repertoire for a specific theatre in this country, and account was taken of audience attraction, finance,
publicity, size of company, and so on.

The work of the option was integrated as far as it was possible around three patterns or concepts.
'Man in Three-Dimensional Space and Time,' to develop the physical and imaginative resources of the
human being as the material assets for creating theatre; 'Man in Social Space and Time' - the study of
society and human social relationships, to provide the content material of the drama; and 'Man in
Theatre Space'-the study of theatre form and practice, or the methods by which content is made live
in the theatre and engages the audience. In the latter area the work was focused on the lessons that
could be learned from the past and present, to suggest or determine future strategies and forms for
the theatre to take in its inter-action with the social community.

A great deal of the work fell within what is normally the academic area of study. All of it was directly
linked to practice and possible action. The only justification was the use the student could make of the
work. All projects were as far as possible open-ended, and lasted as long as they continued to provide
useful work or experience. A number of other professionals and scholars came to the Department at
my invitation and met and worked with the group, and others we went to visit. This prevented too
close a concentration on my own ideas and work.

The amount of work carried out in the first year was vast. Rigorous technical classes were undergone,
alongside improvisations and imaginative explorations. These were related to the differing demands of
a variety of theatre forms and styles, and also to the students' own personal development. A series of
seminars were held regularly to discuss the structure, organizational form, audience and repertoire of
theatre at various times in history and today. The political and social significance of theatre and its
sociological basis were examined. One major piece of advanced research was undertaken by the
group - a study of the British theatre between 1830 and 1843 in all its aspects, of which the results
were summarized in my papers in Nineteenth Century British Theatre and TQ4. And throughout the
year the group worked towards a notional epic play on the human condition throughout history, which
we always knew was too large ever to be written.

A production of the Plautus of Aristophanes was mounted at the end of the period, after nine months
rehearsal. This project began by taking the text translated by a Greek scholar in the University and
using it as the basis of an exercise in text analysis. The text was then presented in a rehearsed
reading at a Classics week-end school. This led us to examine ways of producing the play which led
to a body of practical work on the techniques of clowning. The understanding of the play also led to a
study of Greek society. Some students took part with myself in a teaching project in a junior school.

The basis of the acting training was my work on meetings, encounters and relationships. Games and
exercises were worked on throughout the year, exploring the range of contacts and strategies through
which human beings interact. The sociological work of Erving Goffman also served as basic material.
In exploring the nature of human social interaction students began to become aware of their own
personality development, and in building up relationships within the group they began a process of
self-discovery. One important area of this work was the investigation of ritual elements within societies
and communities and within our own group. This led us back to the study of the ritual origins of the
theatre, and the place of rites and rituals in primitive and early societies. It also led to an investigation
of recurring themes in dramatic literature which point to common experiences in the lives of men
throughout history - in particular, the rites of passage from one stage of living to another. Finally, an
all-night identity ritual was mounted on the last night of winter and first morning of spring, in which the
group celebrated the common experiences they had passed through during the previous six months.

What came to be seen as the intention of the option project was a realization of the concept of the
scholar-clown - the integration of scholarship and practical expertise.
Success - and Crises

The most demonstrable achievement was that we disproved the University maxim that more practical
work meant lower academic standards. We upped the examination marks. I was forced to be clear
and objective about many of my ideas and beliefs, because I had to argue them continually in a
situation where nothing would be taken for granted. Since the students' commitment was total and all
the various aspects of their education and growth were integrated, we learned a great deal about the
processes of education and personality development. In fact, we probably learned more about
education than we did about theatre. I think everyone who took part learned a great deal about
themselves.

When it was stopped, the Department constructed its present teaching programme on the basis of
what was learned from the option. Whatever its limitations, it is a conspicuous improvement on the
programme it had before.

But the pressure of work precipitated a series of crises. The work continually questioned the students'
commitment to engage in theatre practice at the highest level, and continually faced them with
situations in which they were thrown back on their ability to develop their personal resources. For
some this was a growth situation. They discovered the true nature and depth of their previously
untested wish to engage in the world of theatre and the successive crises strengthened their resolve
and their resources. Others, however, discovered the limitations of their resolve and resources. For
some this was positive-they decided to do other things. Unfortunately, dropping out of the option back
into the departmental framework, which could offer no alternative positive direction, made them
appear in their own minds as failures. The sharp differentation between the option and the other work
in the Department, which had not found an equivalent strength of direction and purpose, created a
seeming, neurotic distinction between first and second class citizens. Other members of staff too felt
that I had the best committed students, whilst they took the others or picked up the debris in my wake.

The pressure of work through the first year carried us through almost all the crises. The splits only
began to appear at the end of the summer vacation-that is, after first year students had had time to sit
down and think. The older students remained totally committed, having served their first year under
the earlier system. The younger students began to think of easier ways of living and working. There
was a strong feeling that having gone through the work they now wanted to do only productions. They
wanted to exploit the work rather than develop further. In this respect we had only delayed the
production/practice conflict by a year. It became clear that a number had accepted the totality of the
work because it was a way to learn something about acting.

Unfortunately the split-up occurred at the precise moment that the new first-year students were being
invited to join. Having no experience of the benefits of the option, and seeing only the problems, they
demurred. It was the considered opinion of the rest of the staff that the small committed group raised
problems that the Department was not equipped to cope with, and that the work done within the
option should be extended to the whole Department. Throughout the year whilst the new framework
was being hammered out and discussed, I found myself coping with the on-going remainder of the
committed option whilst running a smaller version with a larger group of people, and mounting
productions to cope with the old option members who only wanted that part of the work. In the end I
became ill with strain and overwork.
The work created personal problems for myself. For two years I virtually never saw anyone over the
age of 21. The option was my only working outlet and the absolute concentration of all my energies,
apart from two small professional jobs outside the University, and this intensified the pressures inside
the group and in me. If I let go I pushed the students too hard; if, as I had to, I adjusted to their growth
rate, I frustrated myself.

Problems of the New Programme

The Department has returned to a basis of course teaching involving some options. Students undergo
a first year practical course in all physical aspects of theatre practice-basic acting, movement, voice,
lighting, stage management, etc. - with a minor element of academic work in theatre history, tutorial
discussions, history of dance. They also take short courses in phonetics and the physiological bases
of performance. The time allotted to all this work falls within the normal eighteen hours a week. There
is general feeling that too much time is allotted to the technical aspects of theatre equipment at
present. I personally feel that the increase of time to the present level in movement, voice and acting
technique is either too much or too little. Four hours a week movement takes the student into
dangerous areas where he learns a little about the subject and its practice, but isn't given enough time
for any degree of proficiency.

The same applies to the acting courses. They invite the instructor to go beyond demonstration but
they fall heavily short of the time necessary to start the student working in skills and development. A
little knowledge is a dangerous thing sometimes. The voice and movement courses are taught by
proficient professional teachers, but it is a curious phenomena that while the last two years of
students have had better practical training than the early students, they seem to be less able to make
use of it. What they acquire is a vocabulary which is extensive, and this obviously gets contused in
their minds with understanding. I find it difficult in my work with them to get them to let go of their
terms and definitions and get on with the playing-the fact that they have a definitive terminology leads
them to try to define every action in advance.

The first-year practical work has to be completed satisfactorily before the student can go forward into
production work in the second and third years, but this can only really be judged on attendance at
classes and takes no account of the student's stage of development or his ability to cope with
production work. The old problems return. Practical development stops when a production is offered.

In the second and third years, students can choose to combine several optional courses in addition to
the general core courses. A permutation is offered between practical options and study options,
although each student must take at least one study option. The individual developmental option is still
offered, though this has declined from the former 35 hours a week to two, which to me is
meaningless.

The core of the course is a series of 'themes', taking up two days in each week. One of these days is
given over to a lecture and seminars attended by all second and third year students. The other day is
given over to practical work exploring issues raised in the lecture and seminar sessions. It can also be
used for rehearsal exercises, or for rehearsals when the theme is scheduled to work towards a
production. Participation in the practical work associated with these 'themes' is itself a practical option.
The themes can be particular plays like All's Well That Ends Well: genres of theatre like farce or epic
theatre; the work of a particular theatre like the Royal Court; or the work of an individual dramatist like
Euripides.

All production work is intended to originate in these courses. To prevent the production programme
dominating the work, and as a notional gesture towards the work being developmental, the practical
work is intended to be exploratory and at some point in time a' possible production is intended to
devolve out of it, if necessary. This is thwarted by the need to commit the Departmental technical
resources early in the term, so that sets and costumes can be built, and by the student's customary
reluctance to commit himself o practical work inside a course structure unless the carrot of a
production is waved.

All productions are intended to be mounted out of intensive vacation rehearsal courses, but in the last
two years it has been found necessary to mount productions within term time in order to give all time-
served students parts, and because no answer has yet been found to practical work which produces
committed, concentrated energy from the student apart from a production. Many of the old problems
return.

The Disillusioned Practitioner

My practical involvement is limited to two one-hour movement classes, a short course on 'moving a
text', one 'theme,' and a two-hour practical option. My influence on the practical work of the
Department is once again minimal and I am back where I started - being most useful outside the
acting and directing process.
I think this is sad for the Department, and if this work were all I was to do, it would be disastrous for
me. In the last two years I have supplemented my work in Birmingham by doing more professional
work away from the University, and more teaching at Drama Centre. I have always done some
teaching and productions at Drama Centre, and this has been a healthy corrective to the pressures of
working in the University. Although both are teaching situations, they make demands at different
levels. In a university situation one teaches the simple practical skills through production. The student
actor at drama school is already being trained in these skills by other teachers, and one picks up the
work at a higher level of aptitude. In fact the two lines of work to some degree complement each
other. One tries to introduce practical considerations to the university student and intellectual rigour to
the student actor.

I have also worked in the Municipal Theatre in Cologne on leave of absence, directing productions
and working as acting coach to the ensemble there. For a time, the work done outside has 'paid' for
the work done in Birmingham and, with a different history, the balance might have been possible to
maintain. But, in the event, the balance has slipped too far one way and I now need the corrective of
working full-time again in the professional theatre.

But if my experience is to be of any value for either the University or for those who come after me,
some positive analysis must be attempted of how things might be changed, and of what lessons I
have learned through my experience. I am chastened by that experience but in no way bitter,
disheartened, or disillusioned. In the circumstances, without direct precedents it was probably
necessary for someone to try what I have tried. Now that it has been tried, it can be changed.

Some Practical Proposals

The largest single task that needs to be tackled is a systematic review of purpose, structure, facilities,
and teaching methods. The teaching of drama, in various institutions, has grown considerably since
the 1950s. Before the period of growth there were few precedents to go on, and the debate now going
on in educational drama, colleges of education, drama schools, and university drama departments is
indicative of the fact that the early precedents do not suit the present situation, and that enough
experience has now been gathered for some systematic review moving towards re-structuring to take
place.

1.An Official Government Enquiry

The forthcoming Gulbenkian Committee will provide some focus for discussion, but its terms of
reference leave much that is important outside of its scope. A systematic review is needed of all forms
of education in drama and theatre with a view to fully integrating this field inside the educational
structure, under the direct supervision of the Department of Education and Science. In the present
situation this needs a DES enquiry, and some standards and definitions of purpose need laying down.

The present situation entails a variety of educators and teachers working in an improvised fashion
inside a number of different educational institutions and structures, many of which, through their
established nature, hamper the work or fail to provide the facilities for it to be carried out effectively.
Facilities and funding need to be related to work being carried out. One small example of this is that
one can lecture to two hundred students, but one cannot take a practical class of more than around
twelve. Yet the staff-student ratio between departments remains constant. Many departments rely
heavily on the student spending much of his time at university studying privately in the library and at
home. Practical-work has to be led in a direct teaching situation. Yet the teaching hours allotted are
the same, in terms of the staffing of departments.

Such a review is crucial at this moment, as the University Grants Committee policy is to make fuller
use of existing resources by increasing the number of students. Birmingham is required to double its.
student intake in the next five years, at a time when applications for places are dropping drastically.
The Drama Department, however, has no direct access to the UGC, apart from some early
consultations, to relate facilities and funding to teaching needs. After this consultation, the university
takes over, and it is from the university block grant that all increases in staff and funds must be
wrested. This involves a continuous hassle with people who may be sympathetic, but who do not
always understand the nature of the work and its problems. The guide-lines and precedents that exist
are for departments of literature and language: these are inadequate. In the absence of direct
precedents it is probably inevitable that the present situation should have evolved. There is no reason
for prolonging it.

2. A Pre-Training Year

A great many student and teaching problems could be tackled if some form of pre-training year could
be introduced. I have said earlier that many students arrive with vague, untested ideas of their future
involvement in drama and theatre arts. This is due, apart from the other reasons given, to the fact that
interest has often been aroused by drama work done in schools, which is exploratory and
developmental in the widest sense and has no direction towards achievement or discipline. The work
is viable and valuable in a school context, but it does tend to produce a confused idea in the student's
mind as to what studying drama involves.

I think it would benefit all drama students, from every institution, if a pre-training year could be
introduced, to involve practical acting classes, a study of drama and theatre history, text analysis, and
also the developmental educational uses of drama. This would provide a year in which the student
could come clearly to understand the form of education he wished to undertake, before embarking
upon a specialized field of study or training. The teaching of all institutions - drama departments,
drama schools, or colleges of education - would also be enriched by the work carried out in the other
areas. A basic course of use to all students would not be difficult to lay down.

3. Integrated Professional Companies

The integration of the worlds of scholarship and the professional theatre, to the great benefit of both,
requires a professional company integrated into the teaching programme of drama departments. One
or two professionals can achieve a certain amount, and this should not be discounted or undervalued,
but in the end only a professional company can make sense of the work of a drama department, in the
same way that science departments and medical schools need to carry out advanced research or
practice as part of their teaching facilities.

In the end, the best teaching is carried out by people who are themselves learning more about their
field and who are continuously practising their skills. The major reason for my leaving Birmingham is
that I am no longer learning. I am simply repeating what I have learned, and this leads to a decline in
energy. The second major reason is that the opportunities for practising are limited by the course
structure, which ties me for long periods to Birmingham, and the opportunities for practice are all
outside Birmingham.

The work of a professional company in a department would have a number of strong advantages. The
practical relationship between scholar and undergraduate often leads to productions where the
scholar tries to achieve with undergraduates what would be difficult to achieve with professional
actors. The value of the work is diminished and the frustrations increase. 1 think scholars need to test
their ideas and research in practice. I don't think this can be done without professional actors.

Actors and directors would benefit from a period of work which involved training and greater demands
being made than normally exist in the professional theatre, where time and money limit the facilities
and the possibilities of development. I don't know any serious actor who is not interested and excited
by learning more about his craft, its history and choices of practice. The student gains because he can
see, at a high level of practice, the skills and processes he is being asked to work at in practical and
technical classes, which he often finds very difficult to relate directly to the productions he sees on the
professional stage.

The needs are not solved simply by having a professional company on campus mounting continuous
productions. Common language and practice have to be established through integration of part of the
work of the company into the teaching structure. In addition to this work, such a company would have
to mount productions in order to provide a framework for them continuously to test what they were
learning. One link between the teaching programme and the work of the company could be the
graduate school, allowing both for graduate students of the department to progress into the company,
and for many of the people who have left university for the professional theatre to take refresher years
out of work in order to advance their studies whilst maintaining their practice.

4. Professionals in the Departments

I think there is a clear need for the presence of the professional in a university drama department. Not
only can any aspect of theatre practice be taught solely by someone who has done it, but only such a
person can teach about it. All others teach what they understand from what practitioners have written.
To a lesser or greater extent a person can learn and acquire experience from putting book learning to
the test of a practical situation, but the result will only be his personal understanding of the process.
Only someone who has earned his living at it, and mixed with other people who earn their living at it,
can actually relate what Stanislavsky is writing about to the practice of acting today.

What is needed is a clear understanding of what the professional teacher is required to do. I have
pointed out that the original Birmingham brief 'to raise the Department's standards of practice' was
clearly unrealistic in the circumstances. Unless the facilities exist for the processes of acting to be
taught, it should be clearly understood that any practical classes are demonstration classes. The
students participate, but they are not being taught how to do it, only learning what is involved in an
objective way. And there should be no illusion in students' minds that the work will do anything to
equip them for acting. They are simply learning about what actors do.

If a department is clear in stating to incoming students that this is so, and that all practical work is
demonstration and not actual, then I think this would go some way towards dispelling confusion and
illusions in students' minds. If a student wants to go away and practice himself, or to try out in
productions what he has understood from classes, then that is fair enough. The onus is on the
student, not the teacher. The only practical classes which I think should be actual are basic movement
coordination and voice classes, and these should remain geared to the students' levels of actual
achievement and development, however small this may be, throughout the three years.

The alternative to this is to declare that a department is a school of purely theatre studies, and
remains firmly in the academic world. The establishment of such a school at Warwick would seem an
honest step in this direction, but even there the prospectus casts glances towards some form of
practice whilst retreating from setting up the facilities necessary to make it possible.

The virtues of the demonstration class are that the professional teacher does not get trapped between
the intention of achievement and the impossibility of achievement. He thus does not try to make things
happen which patently cannot happen. The working out of this contradiction is very painful. His job is
to communicate clearly what he does, and it is for the student to make what he can of it.

For various reasons, I believe the presence of the professional teacher should be regular but not
continuous. I have said earlier that I believe most can be achieved in practical areas by short intensive
projects or courses, and that continuous weekly sessions dissipate energy and concentration. Exeter
uses such a project system, but very much on a one-off basis. I think regular contact throughout the
students' time in the university is desirable, so that a student can have recourse to the original teacher
at different stages of his development. In this way the professional teacher also has the opportunity to
move into more advanced areas of his field. Even the process of teaching theatre practice through
demonstration requires a close relationship between teacher and pupil, if the student is to develop.
There is little agreement about a common language between professional actors and directors, and
each has his own way of explaining the processes through which he works. It would help to have a
common language established, through the teaching process.

A Personal Postscript

One of the pitfalls for the professional in academia is the seductive nature of the teaching situation
itself. I have been told too many times that I am a sucker for the teaching situation. I get too closely
involved with the students. I don't think this is peculiar to myself. I have seen it happen with other
professional actors I have brought to work with my students. One is so anxious to communicate what
one knows that one gullibly attempts the impossible. One goes on struggling with student problems
long after one should have realized that it is not possible to tackle them in that situation, and often
after one should have realized that the student isn't tackling them either. He's letting you do the work.
Academics who have other study, research and writing interests within the university learn very
quickly to protect themselves against this temptation. The professional who concentrates all his work
energies in the practical teaching situation gets dragged time and again into the morass, alternating
between over-enthusiasm and disillusionment.

The course teaching situation allows little time for the professional teacher to work elsewhere, since
he has to spend odd hours each week in the University. Opportunities have arisen for me to do
professional work outside the University, but at times I have had to turn work down, and at other times
looking for professional work seemed hopeless in the situation. The professional work is necessary
both for balance in the teacher and for the quality of his teaching. All that I have done in Birmingham
relies almost entirely on the theatre work I had done previously. Practical teaching can never be self-
generating. What one gains from teaching is objectivity and definition, but anything learned in the
teaching process still has to be taken back to the professional theatre to establish its validity. The
work done with professional actors in Cologne modified and developed a body of work that had
previously been done in the University and drama school setting.

On a purely personal level, a lack of contact through work with other professionals leads to a sense of
isolation. The theatre and the universities are poles apart at present. More is the pity: but I find it very
difficult to talk to friends in the theatre about what I am doing in the university. Many seem to think I
have given up working. Friends in the university do not understand the world of the theatre. It is
difficult to straddle both worlds, but unless a conscious effort is made to do this, one gets dragged into
the university world by default. At least I feel this is beginning to happen to me, and the feeling has
produced a strong counter- swing the other way.

One aspect of the isolation is the status of the professional in the University. My appointment was a
brave one since my qualifications were all from the theatre and in no wav in line with normal academic
qualifications. The only requirement was that I should publish a book in the first three years. The
sheer body of work in that time prevented this, and I wasn't ready to write it. In the event the
requirement was shelved, although I felt throughout my time at Birmingham that I ought to do it to
justify my existence. The next three years were even more difficult in terms of work to be done and
time available, and the last two I have had of necessity to use what time was available to do
professional work outside.

The two aspects of this situation have been slightly in tension in me'. I have been pleased to be
accepted as a member of the academic community through the value placed on my professional
work; the thought of having to prove myself in academic terms through writing a book has rankled
slightly. Most of this has been due to the sheer impossibility of finding time to write it, and I am sure
that given the time I would have easily got over the feelings. The fact remains, though, that, four days
after deciding to leave, I sat down to write, and finished the book inside three weeks. It could not have
been written if I hadn't come to Birmingham: it was not easy to write whilst I was there.

One of the problems I can clearly see of the professional teacher alternating between theatre work
and teaching will be that he is not a full-time member of the academic community, which is very
jealous of its status. I believe, however, that a professional working in a university should be accorded
full status, and not just be a hired hand helping academics. I think his professional work is, or should
be, the sole justification of his being there. I have a feeling, subjective I admit, that the books can only
be written after the work is over. I think scholarly books are needed on all aspects of theatre practice,
and particularly on the relationship of scholarship to practice, but I don't think one can do and write
about what one is doing at the same time. One needs the perspective of time, and often of distance.

I am sure, that if the years in Birmingham have been worthwhile, the future work I do in the theatre will
benefit from them. Natural talent and ability aside, I am sure I am a better-equipped
.actor/writer/director than I was when I came here. I have had the time and opportunity to try out ideas
that couldn't be worked at in the theatre. I have made my work systematic and methodical. I have had
the time and opportunity to learn a great deal more about all aspects of theatre and drama, and
particularly I have had the close acquaintance of scholars both in drama and other fields, whose love
of the theatre equalled my own. and who challenged my experience and understanding and pushed
me to learn more and to be more specific. I would like to think we have all gained from knowing each
other. I certainly have.
I still believe passionately that a close involvement of the worlds of scholarship and professional
theatre practice can only be to the benefit of both, and that everything should be done to bring about
this in whatever ways are possible, or can be made possible. Certainly, I would be sorry if I thought I
was going to lose contact with the world of scholarship for long. I have learned to speak both
languages, so I can offer my services as an interpreter: but for me at present the way leads back to
the stage door.