Ensemble

I was listening to a couple of radio interviews by two of our cast members today - John McAndrew and Joshua Jenkins - to publicise our current week at the Bristol Hippodrome; and they both mentioned a word that gets bandied around a lot with regard to this show: 'ensemble'.

Most directors like to use this word, because it implies that we're all in it together. But so often, it's just a lazy way to refer to a large cast. A proper ensemble production is something that many directors aim for, and few succeed at. The reason for this is simple: a true ensemble spirit means, to a degree, a surrender of ego; and, when you're talking about actors, that's very rare. For a true ensemble to work, actors need to be happy with the fact that they can be forgettable, even faceless. The production is the only star.

As I've implied, I've watched directors try and create this atmosphere a few times, and it often doesn't work. I was in one show where I was described as a member of the ensemble and yet wasn't invited to attend the first month of rehearsals - a contradiction in terms if ever there was one. To build a theatre company where actors can truly work together as equals is a rare thing; and it demands a director and a cast that are united in pursuing this vision. A couple of strong egos, or a director who simply doesn't know how to build a company, and the whole thing becomes a charade.

I'm very happy to say that I think this is genuinely an ensemble piece. Many of us play numerous parts throughout and there's a real team spirit. Of the fifteen actors, there's quite a wide spectrum of involvement in the play, but we're a team and we view it as such. We pop up here and there, sometimes as named characters, sometimes as bits of furniture; but it all fits together cohesively and democratically. When, in rehearsals, we were addressed as "ensemble", I didn't mind. Because, for once, we actually were.