Jacques Le Coq
"There are three masks: The one we think we are, The one we really are, And the one we have in common."
(From, The Moving Body (Le Corps poetique) Jacques LeCoq with Jean-Gabriel Carasso and Jean-Claude Lallias. © Copyright The Estate of Jacques Le Coq, Jean-Gabriel Carasso, Jean-Claude Lallias 1997. Translation © Copyright David Bradby 2000. Routledge 29 West 35th Street New York, NY 10001 ISBN0-878-30140-2 (Hb)
Towards a Young Theatre of New Work
The aim of the school is to produce a young theatre of new work, generating performance languages which emphasize the physical playing of the actor. Creative work is constantly stimulated, largely through improvisation, which is also the first approach to playwriting. The school's sights are set on art theatre, but theatre education is broader than the theatre itself. In fact my work has always nurtured a dual aim: one part of my interest is focused on theatre, the other on life. I have always tried to educate people to be at ease in both. My hope, perhaps utopian, is for my students to be consummate livers of life and complete artists on stage. Moreover, it is not just a matter of training actors, but of educating the theatre artists of all kinds: authors, directors, scenographers as well as actors.
One of the school's unique features is to provide as broad and as durable a foundation as possible, since we know that each student will go on to make his own journey using the foundations we provide. Students we train acquire an understanding of acting and develop their imaginations. This allows them either to invent their own theatre or to interpret written texts, if they so desire, but in new ways. Interpretation is the extension of an act of creation.
Improvisation is at the heart of the educational process and is sometimes confused with expression. Yet a person expressing himself is not necessarily being creative. The ideal, of course, would be for creation and expression to go hand in hand, in perfect harmony. Unfortunately many people enjoy expressing themselves, 'letting it all hang out', and forgetting that they must not be the only ones to get pleasure from it: spectators must receive pleasure, too. There are many teachers who confuse these two points of view.
The difference between the act of expression and the act of creation is this: in the act of expression one plays for oneself alone rather than for any spectators. I always look for an actor who 'shines', who develops a space around himself in which the spectators are also present. Many absorb this space into themselves, excluding spectators, and the experience becomes too private. If students feel better after doing the course, that is a bonus, but my aim is not to provide therapy through theatre. In any process of creation the object made no longer belongs to the creator. The aim of this act of creation is to bear fruit which then separates from the tree.
In my method of teaching I have always given priority to the external world over inner experience. In our work the search for self-enlightenment and for spiritual bliss has little attraction. The ego is superfluous. It is more important to observe how beings and objects move, and how they find a reflection in us. We must give priority to the horizontal and the vertical, to whatever exists outside ourselves, however intangible. People discover themselves in relation to their grasp of the external world, and if the student has special qualities, these will show up in the reflection. I do not search for deep sources of creativity in psychological memories whose 'cry of life mingles with the cry of illusion'. I prefer to see more distance between the actor's own ego and the character performed. This allows the performer to play even better. Actors usually perform badly in plays whose concerns are too close to their own. They adopt a sort of blank voice because they retain part of the text for themselves without being able to hand it on to the public. Neither belief nor identification is enough - one must be able genuinely to *play.
My first response to any performer's improvisation or exercise is to make observations, which are not to be confused with opinions. When a car tyre bursts, that's not an opinion, it's a fact. I observe. Opinions can only be formulated afterwards, based on this observation of reality. Observations are made by the teacher surrounded by students. While I am observing, I sense the students anticipating what I shall say. My job is to articulate the observation, but it must be shared by all. There is not much point, after seeing an improvisation, in a teacher saying: 'that gave me pleasure', or 'I liked that a lot.' Different people will like different things. But for an observation to be made one must pay close attention to the living process, while trying to be as objective as possible.
The critical comments one makes about the work do not attempt to distinguish the good from the bad, but rather to separate what is accurate and true from what is too long or too brief, what is interesting from what is not. This might appear pretentious but the only thing which interests us is what is accurate and true: an artistic angle, an emotion, a colour combination. All these aesthetic elements can be found in any durable work of art, independent of its historical dimension. They can be sensed by anyone and an audience always knows perfectly well when something is accurate and true. They may not know why, but it is up to us to know, because we are, after all, specialists.
My comments are always related to the movement I see. Why did that bit of movement fade? Why did we feel that another bit would go on forever? These are simple observations, placed at the service of a living structure. Now every living structure emerges from movement which rises and falls and has its own *rhythm. This organic process can be found at work i every improvisation. In this sense, the school could also be seen as providing an education in seeing. Anyone can suggest a theme for an improvisation; it is far more difficult to comment on it afterwards. Rather than handing on a set body of knowledge, it is a question of reaching a common understanding. Master and student must both reach an enhanced level of insight. The master articulates for his students something which he would never have been able to formulate without them, permitting the students, through their commitment and curiosity, to assist at the birth of new insights.
Of course students also need to have their own point of view. In their work they must have ideas and opinions. But if these ideas are not grounded in reality, what use are they? The same phenomenon can be found in painting: Corot, Cezanne or Soutine were able to paint all kinds of trees, to transfigure them or to capture a particular facet, an unusual light for example, but if 'The Tree' had not been there in the painting, nothing would have happened. We always return to the observation of nature and to human realities. I have a strong belief in permanency, in the 'Tree of trees', the 'Mask of masks', the balance that sums up perfect harmony. I realize that this tendency of mine may become an obstacle, but it is one that is necessary. Starting from an accepted reference point, which is neutral, the students discover their won point of view. Of course there is no such thing as absolute and universal neutrality, it is merely a temptation. This is why error is interesting. There can be no absolute without error. I am fascinated by the difference between the geographic pole and the magnetic pole. The north pole does not quite coincide with true north. There is a small angle of difference, and it is lucky that this angle exists. Error is not just acceptable, it is necessary for the continuation of life, provided it is not too great. A large error is a catastrophe, a small error is essential for enhancing existence. Without error, there is no movement. Death follows.
