Devising from a Provocation
Five students must create an 8-minute original/devised piece from the provocation 'the things we carry'. They have four weeks (eight 60-minute sessions) and no script. After two sessions the group has generated 40 minutes of material: a physical sequence of carrying imaginary objects, three monologues about family migration, a repeated choral chant, and a comic scene about a lost suitcase. The material is disconnected and the group keeps adding new ideas each session instead of shaping what exists. Two members dominate; one member has said nothing in two sessions; one member wants the piece to be 'funny' and another wants it 'serious'. The assessment rewards clarity of dramatic intention, effective use of conventions, and genuine collaboration.
1. Diagnose why the devising process is stalling and propose a structuring method that turns the raw material into a coherent 8-minute piece.
Read the worked answer
The process is stalling for three structural reasons: no shared dramatic intention, generation without editing, and uneven collaboration. The group is behaving as if devising is only about producing material; in fact the second half of devising is selection and arrangement.
Diagnosis. Forty minutes of material for an 8-minute piece means the group is over-generating and under-editing. Adding new ideas each session feels productive but prevents depth. The 'funny vs serious' split is a symptom of no agreed intention - without one, every idea is equally valid and nothing can be cut. The silent member and the dominant members indicate the collaboration criterion is at risk.
Structuring method - intention first. The group writes one sentence: 'Our piece is about ___ and we want the audience to feel ___.' Everything is then tested against it. This is the spine.
Then a selection process. Each of the four material strands is scored against the spine (1–3). Likely outcome: the migration monologues and the physical carrying sequence share a theme (what people carry literally and emotionally); the comic suitcase scene can be a tonal counterpoint if framed as the absurdity of loss; the chant can become a through-line linking sections.
Arrangement. Build a montage structure: chant (opening image) → carrying sequence → monologue 1 → comic suitcase → monologue 2 → chant returns, transformed → final image. The chant recurring and changing gives unity without narrative.
Editing rule: no new material after session four unless it replaces something cut. This forces shaping.
2. Address the collaboration problems - dominance, silence, and tonal disagreement - with concrete rehearsal strategies that also improve the piece.
Read the worked answer
Collaboration problems are process problems that show up on stage, so they must be solved structurally, not by exhortation.
Dominance. Two members dominate. Use rotating roles: each session, one person is 'outside eye' (directing and note-giving, not performing) and another is 'scribe' (recording decisions). Rotating forces the dominant members to step back and gives others authority. Also use silent writing rounds - everyone writes ideas before discussion - so the loudest voice does not set the agenda.
Silence. The silent member may be excluded by the group's pace or may lack confidence. Give them a defined creative ownership: e.g., they design the soundscape or direct the chant sequence. Ownership produces contribution. Pair them with a supportive partner in a two-hander section so they have guaranteed stage time and a clear task.
Tonal disagreement (funny vs serious). This is not a problem to resolve by choosing a winner; it is a dramaturgical resource. The piece can hold both if the tone shifts are motivated. Strategy: assign the comic member to create the suitcase scene as the release after the heaviest monologue, and the serious member to shape the ending. Frame it as 'the comic scene earns the serious ending' - both members get authorship of a distinct section, and the contrast becomes a deliberate tonal structure rather than a conflict.
Accountability tool: end every session with a two-minute round - each member states one thing the group decided and one thing they will do before next session. This makes decisions visible and shared, which is exactly what the collaboration criterion rewards.