Verbatim Consent and Ensemble Conflict in a Devised Housing Project
You are facilitating a devised piece with eight performers, aged 17-19, for a 40-minute slot at a community arts festival. The source material is 14 interviews with residents of a housing estate facing redevelopment. One resident, Mrs Farrugia, gave a powerful 90-second monologue about her eviction notice. She signed a consent form for 'research and workshop use' but did not agree to public performance; she is recognisable from her job and street. One performer wants to use her exact words and name; another wants to fictionalise the monologue; a third wants to cut it because 'it's not our story'. The scratch performance is in 10 days, the final in three weeks. The ensemble has agreed to make decisions by consensus, but two members are now refusing to attend.
1. What do you do about Mrs Farrugia's monologue, and why? Work through the ethical and practical reasoning, not just the final decision.
Read the worked answer
The consent form is the starting point, not a formality. 'Research and workshop use' does not cover public performance. Using her exact words and name in a public festival would be a new use, and because she is identifiable by job and street, it could expose her to comment or pressure from neighbours, employers or the developer. That is a foreseeable harm.
Decision: Do not perform the exact monologue with her name in the scratch. I would ask for a meeting and seek specific re-consent for public performance, explaining who will see it, how she will be identified, and whether she wants her words used verbatim or altered. If she agrees, record the agreement in writing. If she declines or cannot be reached in time, fictionalise: a composite character, changed job and street details, and a monologue built from the cadence and concerns of several interviews rather than her exact words. The scratch can test that version. The final piece can be revised if she later consents.
I would tell the ensemble why: consent is not a one-off signature, and the most powerful story is not automatically the most ethical one. The performer who wants the exact words is right about their power; the question is how to keep the power without taking ownership of someone else's risk.
2. Design a decision-making process for the ensemble that resolves the conflict and keeps the deadline. Address the two members who are refusing to attend.
Read the worked answer
I would call a 90-minute facilitated session with a clear agenda, not an open-ended debate.
- Restate the shared goal: a 40-minute piece that is artistically strong and does not harm the people who trusted us.
- Separate non-negotiables from preferences. Consent and anonymity are non-negotiable. Verbatim versus composite, and who performs the monologue, are preferences to be decided.
- Put four options on the wall: exact words with name, exact words anonymous, composite monologue, cut the monologue. For each, list what it gains and what it risks.
- Use consent-based decision-making, with a fallback. Seek consensus, but agree in advance that if consensus fails after two rounds, the group will vote and the minority will support the decision for the scratch while it remains revisable.
- Assign roles: one person contacts Mrs Farrugia, one drafts the composite, one keeps the schedule.
For the two absent members, I would contact them individually, ask what would make the process feel safe, and make clear that withdrawal is allowed but that the group needs to know by a deadline. I would not shame them. If they return, they get a full briefing; if they do not, the group documents the decision and proceeds with the people present.
3. If the ensemble fictionalises the monologue, how would you preserve the piece's authenticity and avoid making it feel like a generic 'issue' drama?
Read the worked answer
Fictionalising does not mean flattening. I would preserve three things: specific detail, verbatim rhythm, and ownership.
- Specific detail: keep the concrete textures that made the original vivid - the date on the notice, the colour of the door, the walk to the bus stop - but change details that identify the real person.
- Verbatim rhythm: build the composite from the interviewees' actual sentence shapes, repetitions and interruptions. The performer should learn the rhythm as text, not paraphrase it into tidy stage dialogue.
- Ownership: credit the piece as 'developed from interviews with residents of the estate' and invite interviewees to a closed preview. If any of them say a composite line misrepresents them, change it.
I would also avoid making the character a mouthpiece. Give her a contradiction, a small comic habit, a moment where she is not sympathetic. Authenticity comes from complication, not from a summary of the issue. Finally, the ensemble should ask whose story they are telling and why. The third performer's objection - 'it's not our story' - is a useful check. The answer is not to abandon the material but to frame the piece as an encounter with other people's testimony, not an impersonation of it.