Some Observations about International Co-Production
Download this article as a .pdf file
Introduction
Looking at the current - rather intense - practice of theatre production, it is hard to imagine that, at one time, there was no international production or co-production. International (co)productions seem to have become self-evident. Especially our contemporary (European!!) stages and festivals are populated by them. The rather classic forms of producing and presenting (in city-theatres, on assignment AND in the local area AND with a steady group) still exist and keep having a significant quantitative effect on the daily cultural supply. But where a certain newness, adventure and tension are required, interest grows to create these conditions through internationalising. Look for example at the Dutch Zuidelijk Toneel or Toneelgroep Amsterdam and the Schaubühne in Berlin.
Still, international (co)production is a relatively young phenomenon.
Firmly planted in the early 80s, reaching a certain maturity in the 90s and becoming quite self-evident in contemporary theatre-making during the first lustrum of the new century. But has it really become that self-evident? Yes, focussing on our part of the world, it has. Certainly in the former Western Europe. Partly in the US. Sporadically in the former Eastern Europe (at least in those parts that are now or will soon be members of the EU). And increasingly in Asia.
So, we have to look at, and certainly speak about, these matters within that context. For example, it is quite noticeable that neither Western Europe nor the US have been able to cooperate with African creative partners, except of course coincidental productions (and then mostly music). I would call myself - specifically in the 80s and 90s - a fortunate witness of this phenomenon. I am able to say that I could contribute to setting up this international practice. And by doing so, we managed to offer an example to quite a few colleagues. The story I share here, is a very personal story. It is part of my story and my view of how these things grew, and became "solid" in everday practice.
1.)
There is one constant that became evident through the years. International production is by its nature a practice for younger works, or for the rather avant-garde and the highly experimental; in short, the more exciting performing arts. The - let's call it - "common" theatre and the "common" ballet continue to be produced, and especially presented, nationally or even locally. The local presentation can sometimes be transcended by some or another exceptional, artistic quality, usually at the level of directing. So, not a lot of classical drama, except and only clearly professionally and artistically exceptional theatre, is still seen on the international stages. Where once the works of Peter Stein, Peter Zadek, Ingmar Bergmann, Patrice Chereaus, ... were presented in the Theatre with great radiance, and some of it was still seen in the 70s and 80s, today hardly any is left. Only young, risky or avant-garde work can be presented now. This affects not only presentation on international podia, in some theatres it even affects the daily methods of working. One can hardly say that the big scenes - like the Shaubühne or the Volksbühne in Berlin, and Toneelgroep Amsterdam or the RoTheater in the Netherlands, or the Publiekstheater and the Toneelhuis in Belgium, which were all valuable, purely classical text-theatres that presented innovating direction in the 70s and 80s - still produce only purely classical text- theatre.
Far from it: they were all greatly influenced by said internationalisation of the performing arts, and through this internationalisation, by the multi-disciplinary approach of these productions. Text-theatre cross-breeds seemlessly with dance, music, video ... and vice versa.
These great theatre companies of classical drama in the 70s and 80s were however a strong influence for a young generation of theatre-makers. But their influence was only in part. It was completed by new insights and the urge of young artists to create independently. Within the regular structures this was hardly possible, so new environments were explored in order to make and present new works.
Our experience in the practice of that time can be an example. Of course it isn't identical in other countries.
Strikingly it is often very similar though.
In classical ballet, things went slightly differently. Ballet was always a travelling art. Mainly because it isn't bound by language, and because of its rather limited supply, ballet always travelled internationally. This has also changed. The profiling of international ballet is hardly a matter for the prestigious stages anymore. Its place has been taken by contemporary ballet and dance. And this contemporary dance coincides almost completely with theatre as described above. And there are so many productions for which it is impossible , and unnecessary, to categorize them. What can still be called "dance"? What can we call "theatre"?
2.)
In Flanders, which is almost half of Belgium, and which is culturally autonomous (and specifically: it is able to manifest itself within this autonomy), a very active theatrical scene came into being in the 70s. A generation that had problems to manifest itself in the 50s and 60s, all of a sudden could do so, in the 70s. In this period legislation was passed that focussed on socially correct employment-conditions for the artistic personnel. This legally organised care - though necessary - at the same time caused the field to be "locked down". This generation not only occupied all available jobs and structures, but was also handed a legal (read subsidised) context to work in.
The young generation couldn't enter into this fenced theatre practice.
In a time (after 68!) where youth became verbal and wanted to be independent AND claimed evolved insights, people didn't passively wait for the big gates to open a crack and sneak in. Attempts were made to produce independently.
Internationally a diversity of young, innovative theatre had been realised. Often, but not exclusively, politically engaged. International attention for this young, dynamic work grew. The focus was mainly at festivals like the Festival de Nancy (no longer in existence). Started as a festival of international university theatre, it became a unique meeting point for the new theatre, the avant-garde of that time. Especially there, young theatre groups from then communist countries were given a stage. There turned out to be quite a lot of innovation there. With barely disguised political messages. Originally linked to intellectual, university scenes, these innovative groups were components of resistance against the regimes of their countries.
These artists, together with surprising performances from that side of Europe, but also from the United States, culminated into a rather dynamic climax, and a point of reference for all of the innovative movements, however small they still were at the time.
Another exceptional moment that was represented by a festival was the Amsterdam Festival of Fools. The 1981 edition was a key event. A happy, apparently anarchistic organisation gave a lot space to a great variety of artists. Though the focus was mainly on "new clowns", also some "serious" artists were given the opportunity, and contemporary dance was programmed as well. It was very new at the time to present modern dance within this context.
3.)
Within this concept of working, a select group, held a key role. Specifically the group Radeis, a small theatre group. A number of young Flemish theatre makers - of the kind that didn't want to work within the establishment - started a group. First there were four of them, one of them left, was replaced and eventually kicked out again. They seemed to be a rock 'n roll band, complete with internal frictions. They performed a new kind of Movement Theatre. Very inventive, working with almost "nothing", and very humoristic. Because of this they soon became THE surprise act at many festivals. Their appearance at the Festival of Fools in Amsterdam was a key moment, as well as their presentation at the German Theater der Welt in Cologne. This resulted in extensive tours through Europe, Canada, the US apexing at the Olympic Arts Festival in Los Angeles in 1984.
I was more or less their producer, organiser, sales representative.. and so on. It wasn't really described then. I took care of all that was necessary organisation-wise, and tried to keep the party going (by watching the wallet).
An important factor in keeping it affordable, was of course the financing of new productions. The group performed rather internationally AND successfully so. This leaded to contacts with organisers that were willing to take risks and finance the next production of that funny Belgian troupe, or at least partly. And along came a second and a third to pitch in. In this way the mechanism of international co-production took shape, simply to facilitate the work. It resulted in an international network and slowly became more and more durable.
So, this fire had to be kept burning, and we had to keep offering quality. As a producer or presenter or curator, you can't do this artificially. You need to have valuable artists. We were lucky in that aspect. Through this group of interesting artists that stepped forward, in the 80s I came in contact with Anna Teresa De Keersmaeker. Today that name is an international, truly global authority in the field of modern dance, and rightfully so. Not at the time - then she was just an unknown, young, beginning dancer and choreographer. She wanted something though, rather a lot actually, and came to us with a proposal for a production. A danced, rather heavy on the theatrics, first creation entitled Asch. I was able to find some money to produce it (a really small amount, but enough to become euphoric at the time AND enough to make the production within reasonable terms).
This first born got some, not a lot, attention. But some time after that, the second creation (1982) Fase was made.
A breakthrough. And an international one.
With her and her work, Radeis could work on earlier ideas, and develop them. And we could broaden the spectrum. Contemporary dance was quite rare at the time, as said before. Not a lot happening, in this niche. We did however know many of the big names that were coming up: Trisha Brown, Lucinda Childs and the surprising and inspiring Pina Bausch.
For instance dance festivals or specific theatre for dance, didn't exist. Contemporary dance was usually presented in the "theatre frame". It was in this context that I saw Pina Bausch for the first time, at the Festival de Nancy in 1977. I was introduced to the work of Lucinda Childs as the choreographic contribution to Bob Wilson's Einstein on the Beach in 1976. It was specifically this type of presentations: new, rather visual, movement theatre. It was through this type of presentations that contemporary dance found its audience. Through the years quite a lot of influencing back and forth took place, which is obvious, looking at contemporary work.
After Radeis and Anna Teresa De Keersmaeker it was success after success; we were able to keep on working and expanding our activities with artists the likes of Jan Fabre and Jan Lauwers. And again: high quality work and international appreciation. These four were, without a doubt, the artists that enabled us to initially strongly penetrate the international market, and later attract international co-productions for this "hive" of exceptional artists and many of their colleagues.
4.)
What were, in general, the motives and instruments to realise this?
First and foremost, there was the quality of the artists and the appreciation that this quality afforded them, from (international) presenters and their audiences. On the other hand there was, in our country, at the time, hardly any support (read subsidies funding) for these very young artists that were deemed TOO experimental. This generation that is now the centre of the cultural field, and has had a major influence on national theatre policy of our country and other countries as well. But that is another, albeit very interesting, story altogether.
The need just to get the work produced made us get in touch with our international colleagues. Our proposition was a simple one: get us some money before the start of the rehearsals (basically the guarantee/buy-out plus a small fee for the right to be co-producers) and we will present our work in your theatre for the first, or one of the first times. When we had a couple of these partners we would have our investment and could make the work.
Also, we were lucky that the artistic results didn't disappoint - the opposite really, quality grew and with it artistic importance. It's not without reason that these artists (and by now others as well) are still considered trendsetters in the international field. This system of co-production could now be extended to include other artists. To name but a few: choreographer Michèle-Anne De Mey (now artistic director of Charleroi Danse), Josse De Pauw, ...
Just bringing together these various partners, getting a budget for an artist's production, was the second step in an ongoing story. For both the producers and the artists. From international presentation we arrived at international co-production.
Afterwards a third phase was added. A phase, more interesting still. Kaaitheater wasn't a festival anymore, but had become a theatre with a regular position in Brussels, and with an international trajectory, and from 1992 on, in our two own theatres in Brussels. Together with a number of co-producers we took the initiative, not only to co-produce performances of artists, but to enter into lasting relationships with certain artists.
By then, we were working with foreign artists as well. Amongst others Heiner Goebbels (Germany), Steve Paxton (US), ... but especially The Wooster Group from New York, USA.
It was with these people and six European producers, that we entered into an international cooperation for the duration of six (!) years. Several productions were realised and several weeks of presentations were staged throughout all of Europe. Together, dozens of presentations.
It was an international cooperation that has never been achieved again. It remains a unique experience. Not only did it give the different producers years of top-quality-theatre, the group - which was weakly supported in the US - was able to survive . According to their words, they would have been forced to quit had it not been for this cooperation.
Working together with different producers in Europe resulted in a strong artistic circle. Especially with the Theater am Turm (Frankfurt) and the Hebbeltheater (Berlin). But also with the Wiener Festwochen (Vienna, Austria), Mickerytheater (Amsterdam, The Netherlands), Théâtre de la Ville (Paris, France), among others.
5.)
It is important to list a couple of elements as a comment.
One is, that artists were influenced by these international, production activities. Art itself was influenced by it. I can't say if there was pressure from the producers (artists themselves could confirm or deny this). Rather, we talked about for instance the possibility to draw on the artistic potential in the surroundings of the producer, for the production. Or to rehearse for a certain period in a certain city. So, there were a lot of contacts and concrete results. Auditions were organised at the different locations, rehearsals were often done at the co-producers' locations, etcetera. Of course the work of these artists was easy to read for artists of a "foreign tongue", because it wasn't bound by language. Obviously this goes for dance.
We worked, as should be obvious, with many exceptional artists.
I'd like to focus on a moment on one of them. Jan Lauwers, artistic manager and director and author with Needcompany. Because of his remarkable results in incorporating the international aspects of productions into the creative process, and thus into the production, even at the level of the text of the script.
Jan Lauwers made a first, remarkably successful attempt with the production Invictos (1991). A production mainly with a Spanish co-producer, the Festival of Granada and the theatre school of Seville. The performance was strongly inspired by Hemingway's texts. One of the ideas was to also work with Spanish actors. Auditions were organized through the office of the co-producer in Seville, and four actors were selected. Together with four Dutch-speaking actors, among which Dirk Roodhoofd and Tom Jansen, the production was realised in Spanish as well as Dutch and English. The use of language changed, depending on where the production was performed. Sometimes Dutch was most important, sometimes English, and sometimes even French. A beautiful performance was the result. It became one of the success-productions of Needcompany.
Jan Lauwers was already engaged in these type of experiments; finding the right use of language, the way it is used varies from performance to performance. He still does this today, by the way. Look at his production Isabella's Room, a top-production that has been touring the best stages in and outside of Europe, since mid 2004.
In Invicto, it reached a very integrated level, for the first time.
Language is still a subject when we make productions. It is integrated in the performances in a very organic way.
Although many artists are interested in these matters, I saw them taking central stage for the first time, in the work of Jan Lauwers.
But not only this element - although it may be the most important one - influenced the internationally active artist. Especially in the field of - let's say - pure theatre language, it was a problem that had to be solved. Or to put it more positively: it is the dramaturgical component that is hardest to properly fit into an international production or creative process.
6.)
But there are certainly other elements as well, although they may be more abstract. For example, there is the element of travelling within an international community. Today you rehearse in the Netherlands, next month in Germany, to try-out in Italy and finally premiere in Spain. It can't be denied, however convinced one may be that Europe is culturally one (or could be), moving through regional, or national cultures is more of an influence on the cultural process than it is usually considered to be.
It is because of this that these artists, actively moving and working in a European international context, actually, unconsciously contribute to the founding of an integrated European identity.
It would be worth it to scientifically research this point of view on international activity. "How strongly does the internationally active podium artist absorb the different cultural realities that he or she works in, to produce the artistic work that is created as a new given?"
And isn't this the case of authors? Or musical composers? These artists that move through Europe or make work about it? Look at the Dutch author Cees Nooteboom, or the German author Hans Magnus Enzerberger. Indeed it's different. Although they do register a cultural diversity, and aim to analyze it in their work. And they do so marvellously. But they do so in their own cultural product, that is primarily situated in their own cultural environment: their own cultural identity. To be concrete: the country, the region, especially - for authors - the language. Even if their work is translated.
Possibly, this influence of cultural diversity on the artistic work itself, is most clearly felt during public presentations. Audiences is different European countries may react rather differently. I don't mean that their appreciation is different, but that these identical appreciations are expressed in different ways. A German, British and Portuguese audience may all appreciate a certain production, but will express their appreciation in different ways. Okay, visibly (audibly) by applauding at the end, but especially through the interaction during the performance itself. The tension, the relation between those on the stage and those in the audience is not only different, it also influences the performance. It influences the rhythm, the sharpness of acting, the duration, ...
An artist learns to know this, and this knowledge then contributes to the creative process - consciously or subconsciously - of the following production. Or more so, the artist will start to lean towards cultural environments whose tension is most similar to the temperament of his own creation.
7.)
By now, many years have gone by, and international co-producing is turning more and more, into an everyday and self-evident reality. It is interesting to see it strongly expanding to other continents. The US was already sporadically active in some co-operations. It may have even become more hesitant (interesting to analyse, because there certainly is no lack of European efforts in the direction of the US).
But interesting, for example are booming activities surrounding the international production in and with Asia and Asian colleagues. Especially festivals. A generation of organisers, producers, ... tries (and will succeed) to find a connection, especially with European artists and productions. And they are starting to realise that co-producing is an added value for both the festival AND the local artist AND the audience.
Of course it is interesting to follow them as they expand on the world map. That's the artists' advantage, that's where they overtake the regular, internationally working person (usually businessmen). Where businessmen try to make money by working everywhere they are allowed, their interest is usually limited to just that. Once their daily work is done, they retreat to their own homes and are pleased to consider themselves free of annoying foreign influences.
Artists and their producers are after maximizing their influence. Shouldn't they maximize it even more though?
How come there are only few, hardly any, co-productions with African partners (besides the sporadic activities with South-Africans)? Why is it that cooperation with South-America is virtually non-existent as well? In spite of concrete relations with European cultures?
Or, let's look at Europe. With how many countries of the former USSR do we cooperate? None, but the exception that confirms the rule. Suffice to say that there is no international (co)production with Belarus, Moldavia, Azerbeijan, ...
So, these matters are apparently tied up with economic prosperity, and the time and concentration it allows to occupy oneself with cultural, artistic development and innovation.
8.)
Of course, the essence of the creative process, also in an international setting, is still it's artistic side. The artistic efforts were what resulted in this entirely new professional, production frame for working internationally that we have today, which is a main condition to even produce a good result. In order to provide the artist with an environment where he can fully develop his creativity, a lot has to be solved 'production-technically'.
From contracts with artistic personnel that may be very different in different countries, legal matters, social security, travel infrastructure, hotels, food, drink, ... communication has to be managed. Publicity has to be arranged, press has to be addressed. Stage sets have to be built, transported and mounted on location. Intellectual property rights have to be covered, VAT plans need to be checked, working permits have to be arranged, ...
Contracts in several languages have to be agreed upon by several cultural institutions. And on, and on, and on.
Quite a hassle.
In working internationally, language is a given to the producer, organiser. Being multi-lingual is almost a necessity (and results are most efficient where one is available). One would say that the cultural world must be staffed by a very intellectually-able group of people. There are however quite a few colleagues whose knowledge of language is surprisingly limited.
Working internationally is fascinating. And this is not the end of the story. The international practice is still young. It will grow. Just look at Europe. We talked about it earlier: a lot of countries aren't being involved in this international practice. We know why and we don't have to discuss this any further. That this will happen is a certainty, however. And sooner than we expect. And also, we talked about that too, the Asian expansion is waiting to happen. We have to line up with the many social sectors that recognize the dawning dominance of the Chinese force. A dominance that is artistic and cultural as well.
And so on. The sector will need quite a lot of able production, organisational talent to settle this properly. To enable the artist to do his work, off course, and to help the audience put the reality of international productions into their own context. Because it is due to this internationalisation that quality is made stronger, and to an audience, this means that their cultural supply will be enhanced.
9.)
Within this practice, we must not forget the essence. We have to both optimize the artist's work AND give its presentation a more essential social support.
Artists need to do this by making their work stronger, through working internationally. Producers, organisers have a big responsibility there. However useful this work is, it is quite a hassle. Often it's not easy to give the work a logical feel within these local contexts. Local artists may feel like they are being put in second place, and with them local politicians and cultural administrations may feel the need to demand working conditions for their artists. Often supported by the local press.
This happens on a wide scale. Curiously, it even happened in Avignon this year.
Central artist was the Flemish Jan Fabre. With him, quite a few Flemish artists came to the festival. French productions were hardly programmed because of this. It was surprising to see how French producers and artists tried to reclaim their space by attacking the quality of the work that DID get presented. This bickering became the topic of the day in local establishments. Usually that's harmless, and part of the "couleur locale" of any event. But when it gets picked up by the local press, a whole new dimension is added. And that's just what happened.
But there's more than only this illustrative example. It happens regularly that budget cuts - or the threat of budget cuts - coincide with a renewed interest in the local, or a waning interest in international cooperation.
There's too little consideration for working international, as being potentially very valuable, at least by local politics. It is not recognized that it will support, and in fact determine, the local general cultural importance and quality.
Not only does this story seem very personal, it is also incomplete in its analysis of the phenomenon. But hopefully the essence and questions raised will be picked up on.