Directrices para la elaboración de las concreciones curriculares de FPB a) Objetivos de la formación profesional básica

Pasifika theatre makers incorporate collaboration in every stage of theatre making. An example for the total involvement of theatre makers is the making of A Frigate Bird Sings. Lees was inspired by an incident of abuse of a fa’fafine he had seen on K Road.48 He discussed the incident with Kightley, and Kightley and Small decided to write a play about fa’fafines. Lees took part in every stage of the production; he helped write and finally directed the play.

Devised theatre was seen as ideal for collaborations because it allowed practitioners to be involved during the entire production. During the development of Vula, the actresses brought their own background and experiences to the play. Nawalowalo, the director, remembered that ‘the actual making was very collaborative; I worked closely with […] the original women. […] That is the inspiration. It is so interesting that while you are doing something quite personal and it becomes universal in a way’ (NAW). The actresses were from different Pasifika cultures, and both director and actresses brought their personal stories, interest, and artistic background. In the end, the

collaboration enriched the story, by becoming ‘universal in a way’, and was not a source of conflict. A Kila Kokonut Krew rehearsal reveals a similar collaborative style, but while members of the company work collaboratively, when working with emerging performers, there was a hierarchy between practitioners. My journal entry describes a rehearsal:

48 _{K Road is a street in Central Auckland, its original name is Karangahape Road. It is known for its eclectic}

165

Members of the company are scattered in a church’s hall, leaving and entering, but someone is always here. Anapela [Polataiavo] and Stacey [Leilua] are sitting behind and old desk, and opposite them are the ‘contestants’. Anapela comments on their style and give them advice. […] After Leilua’s interview, we are sitting in the hall with Anapela, when some of the New Kila Playwrights start to rehearse choreography. It is five men; they discuss and copy each other while making up moves. [...] There is a lot of noise, laughter, Stacey joins the actors, and they all work on the choreography. Next time we look up, they have a whole sequence. Anapela comments and then scolds them for being too loud. (Journal entry, 2010, October 7)

The hierarchy between members of the company and contestants is clear, especially because the show is set up like a talent show. In the case of the Young Kila playwrights, the gap is significantly smaller, but while they work on their separate pieces, members of the Kila Kokonut Krew give them advice. Even though in this example differences between members and non-members imply a hierarchical relationship, the interactions show that collaborative style does not mean lack of task distribution and leadership.

Collaborative working styles were described as organic to Pasifika people. The Naked Samoans, as Heka and Kightley pointed out, had a collaborative working style from the start. Heka described collaboration as characteristic to Pasifika cultures: ‘Pacific Islanders have a specific way, a collective way of writing stories, like Oscar and the Nakeds’ (HEK). The ‘special way’, can also be described as collaboration influenced by collectivism. Members of The Naked Samoans brainstormed, wrote, and rehearsed together, as Kightley remembered: ‘we thought oh man, we can work together. […] Easiest thing, get together, write a story and rehearse it, stage and such an organic process, goes back hundreds of years, [I] love it’ (KIG). The collaborative process is described as easy and natural because in is traced back to practitioners’ Pacific heritage.

Collaborative Pasifika working styles were different from European companies’ working methods, which became visible when Pasifika theatre practitioners worked with European companies.

Practitioners reveal that Pacific Underground members’ collaboration with Court Theatre intensified the differences. Practitioners explained that members of Pacific Underground ‘are used to do a lot of things, multitasking’ (ANO1). Writing, production, directing, acting, funding, music and design and so on are all organised by company members. Pacific Underground members took part in various parts of the production of Angels, they wrote the play, provided music and acted in it. However, they remarked that tasks were distributed differently from Pacific Underground’s usual collaborative style:

From a PU perspective we write, and create, and direct, and have total control over everything we do. So working together with another company and having a director who worked toward his own vision in terms of his interpretation […] It’s always a challenge

166

because most of it is brilliant, but there were some aspect where were disappointed… (Muagututi’a)

The individual vision of the director in Angels is juxtaposed to the company’s collective vision. The process of theatre making with Court Theatre was compared to being part of the ‘Court machine’ (ANO1), and to a manufacturing process where there is a clear task distribution between all

participating members of Pacific Underground. Members of Court Theatre described the difference as ‘PU works very spontaneously; they have a lot of air of freedom to work on the development process. We work on strict schedules all the time’ (ANO2). The different working styles are not attributed to cultural factors but to institutional differences between Court Theatre and theatre companies on the fringe.