g n i h c i c t a a e m T a r d t s o P e r t a e h s a T i or s e p r A u s , o s e cl i s t e Di nxi n d D’Cruz A n a n e Gl Teaching Postdramatic Theatre Glenn D’Cruz Teaching Postdramatic Theatre Anxieties, Aporias and Disclosures Glenn D’Cruz School of Communication & Creative Art Deakin University Burwood, VIC, Australia ISBN 978-3-319-71684-8 ISBN 978-3-319-71685-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71685-5 Library of Congress Control Number: 2018936367 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the pub- lisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institu- tional affiliations. Cover illustration: roman makhmutov / Getty Images Printed on acid-free paper This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer International Publishing AG part of Springer Nature The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland P reface After teaching theatre, drama and performance studies for almost 30 years, I am now, more than ever, acutely aware of the gap between the academic vocabularies I use to teach theatre practice and those my students employ to make sense of the same phenomenon. Perhaps this is a consequence of growing older and realising we no longer share common cultural refer- ents. Then again, this generational anxiety about terminology may have more to do with a personal disposition than any general, quantifiable cul- tural condition. No doubt, readers of this book will form their own opin- ions about the extent to which my observations and arguments apply to their contexts. I first studied theatre in the 1980s. Although my desire to become an actor inspired my interest in the field, the critical theories popular in this era seduced me. Theatre scholars commonly cited philosophers such as Jacques Derrida, Gilles Deleuze and Michel Foucault and frequently drew on the discourse of postmodernism in the context of explicating experi- mental theatre. And, like many people of my generation, I believed that thinking about performance through adjacent disciplines enriched creative practice and generated new settings and techniques for teaching theatre. I still hold this view. However, I am sceptical about the truth claims made by all critical vocabularies, including my own. Consequently, this book often adopts the ironic tone of Richard Rorty’s pragmatist philosophy, aspects of which inform its central argument. Scepticism is not the same thing as outright dismissal, so while I often express frustration with the protocols and practices that govern academic approaches to theatre, I v vi PREFACE continue to invoke and use theoretical vocabularies and concepts in my teaching. That said, the disparity between this work’s anecdotal and scholarly registers is intentional and, to some extent, unavoidable. The book’s style performs its argument by exposing the tensions between its different stylis- tic registers: the work combines anecdotal reflections with critical analyses. It is important to declare at the outset that I have lightly fictionalised the short, reflective narratives to preserve the anonymity of my students and academic peers. The book’s primary thesis is that different vocabularies perform differ- ent functions, and we need to be mindful of the limitations of academic discourse when we teach creative practice. This is not to say that serious scholarship is pointless, or that it cannot productively inform artistic prac- tice. On the contrary, most of this book enthusiastically invokes a wide range of theoretical discourses. Moreover, I engage with Hans-Thies Lehmann’s critical vocabulary, derived from his concept of postdramatic theatre, to underscore its pedagogical value as well as its limitations within the context of creating theatre with students. Finally, this book intends to generate a series of provocative questions about the status of creative practice in academic institutions by approach- ing postdramatic theatre from the perspective of a pedagogue/practitio- ner as opposed to a scholar engaged in performance analysis. It does not suggest that analysis is anathema to creativity, or that theory necessarily impedes artistic practice. Indeed, this book frequently uses academic vocabularies to critique dramatic writing and performances. I hope my scepticism towards critical and institutional orthodoxy will resonate with teachers, students and perhaps even professional practitioners. Burwood, VIC, Australia Glenn D’Cruz a cknowledgements Many people have contributed to this book, but I am especially indebted to the students I have taught at Murdoch University, the University of Melbourne, Newcastle University, New South Wales and Deakin University. Thanks to my artistic collaborators at Deakin University, Tom Salisbury and Doug Donaldson, who have made an inestimable contribu- tion to my theatre productions over many years. Thanks to Palgrave’s anonymous readers who made a number of important criticisms and sug- gestions that helped me sharpen the focus of this book. Thanks to Clare Grant of The Sydney Front, Back to Back Theatre, Gob Squad and the Schaubühne, Berlin for kindly giving me permission to reproduce images from their work. Thanks to Carolyn D’Cruz and Leonard D’Cruz for their sage advice and editorial assistance. Thanks also to Sonia Sankovich for putting up with my cloistered lifestyle while I worked on this project. vii c ontents 1 Introduction: Pedagogy, Politics and the Personal 1 2 John Laws/Sade: Postmodern or Postdramatic? 17 3 F rom Drama to Theatre to Performance Studies 49 4 Ganesh Versus the Third Reich as Pedagogical Parable 73 5 Attempts on Her Life: A Postdramatic Learning Play? 95 6 T eaching History and (Gender) Politics: The Hamletmachine and the Princess Plays 119 7 D evising Postdramatic Theatre in the Academy 151 8 A n Enemy of Postdramatic Theatre? Or, What I Think About When I Think About Teaching Postdramatic Theatre 181 Index 201 ix l f ist of igures Image 2.1 “The Cream Bun,” John Laws/Sade, 1987. Courtesy of The Sydney Front Archive, the University of Sydney. Photographer: Regis Lansac 20 Image 2.2 “The Crotch Grab”: John Laws/Sade, 1987. Courtesy of The Sydney Front Archive, the University of Sydney. Photographer: Regis Lansac 31 Image 4.1 Ganesh Versus the Third Reich, courtesy Back to Back Theatre. Photograph by Jeff Busby 78 Image 5.1 Attempts on Her Life, Deakin University. Photograph by Glenn D’Cruz 100 Image 6.1 The Hamletmachine, Deakin University, 2006. Photograph by Glenn D’Cruz 133 Image 6.2 The Princess Plays, Deakin University, 2016. Photograph by Glenn D’Cruz 138 Image 7.1 War and Peace, Gob Squad (2016). Photograph by David Baltzer/Bildbuehne.de 153 Image 7.2 War and Peace, Gob Squad (2016). Photograph by David Baltzer/Bildbuehne.de 155 Image 7.3 From Noir, Group Devised Project, Deakin University, 2014. Photograph by Glenn D’Cruz 168 Image 8.1 Stefan Stern as Dr. Stockmann in An Enemy of the People, 2012, Schaubühne Berlin. Photograph by Arno Declair 184 xi ChApTer 1 Introduction: pedagogy, politics and the personal Prologue It’s 8.30 a.m., and the rehearsal hasn’t been going well. The student per- formers are lethargic. Some can’t stop yawning through the warm-up exercises. Others, though bleary-eyed and weary, gamely go through the motions. The lecturer is in a similar mood, but makes a valiant stab at appearing enthused and energised. These early-morning starts are a killer, but there’s no contesting the utilitarian logic that claims the new timetable regime makes the most efficient use of university resources. having dis- pensed with preliminaries, the students prepare to run through the first scene of the play. One older woman looks a little more agitated, and the lecturer can see that something more than the early-morning blues is trou- bling her. She fidgets a little before raising her hand to call time-out: “Can we talk about this, please?” “Of course, what’s the problem?” “This is just so sexist and offensive! Why does he have to use those words? And what is this play about anyway?” It’s a good question, but before the lecturer can open his mouth, another student, an unruly young man with some kind of attention deficit disorder, pipes up and declares with more than a hint of sarcasm: “The scene is about an absence of character. It’s a line from the fucking play.” © The Author(s) 2018 1 G. D’Cruz, Teaching Postdramatic Theatre, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71685-5_1