Route 47: adapting a devised piece after an injury
A Year 13 group of four is devising a 12-minute piece for the Level 3 devising standard. The piece, 'Route 47', is verbatim-style theatre about a bus route closure; it uses three interview transcripts, repeated choral movement and a single bench. With three weeks until performance, one performer, Mere, sprains her ankle and cannot bear weight or take part in the two lifts that currently end scene three. The group has a black-box space, six cubes, no fly tower and one 45-minute technical rehearsal. Their teacher says the piece must still communicate the central idea of being stranded and must give all four performers comparable opportunities to demonstrate devising and performance skills. The group is split: one wants to cut scene three entirely, one wants to replace Mere with a recorded voice, and one wants to keep the lifts with a different performer. They have 90 minutes of class time before their next showing.
1. What should the group do about scene three, and why? Recommend a specific staging solution that keeps Mere safe and preserves the piece's central idea.
Read the worked answer
Recommendation: keep scene three, but change its theatrical language from literal lifting to enforced stillness and ensemble orbit.
Reasoning:
- Cutting the scene removes the strongest evidence of the piece's central idea - being stranded - and also removes a major performance opportunity from Mere. It solves the safety issue by damaging the artistic intent.
- A recorded voice may be theatrically interesting, but it risks isolating Mere from the live ensemble and reducing her assessed performance evidence. It also changes the verbatim form from live embodiment to documentary voice-over, which needs more justification than three weeks allows.
- Replacing Mere in the lifts is the weakest option: it asks another performer to carry weight they have not trained for, creates a new risk assessment problem, and changes the relationships the lifts were built to show.
Practical solution: Mere becomes the still centre of the scene, seated on or beside the bench, while the other three move around her with the cubes to create a bus shelter that keeps shifting. The two lifts are replaced by a 'weight-sharing' image in which the ensemble leans away from Mere rather than lifting her, using levels and proxemics to show distance. Give Mere a 45-second direct-address transcript passage so she still has a substantial live presence. Rehearse the new sequence with a safety check, mark the performance area, and document the change in the devising log. This protects Mere, keeps the metaphor, and gives all four performers comparable material.
2. How should the group document and rehearse the changes so the assessment evidence remains fair to all four performers?
Read the worked answer
Documentation should make the devising process visible, not just the final product. The assessor needs to see that the group made a reasoned artistic decision in response to a real constraint, not that they quietly dropped material.
A workable plan for the 90 minutes:
- 20 minutes - safety and agreement: confirm Mere's movement restrictions, agree what she can do, and complete a risk check for the bench and cubes.
- 30 minutes - restage scene three: test the still-centre staging, the ensemble orbit and the direct-address passage.
- 20 minutes - run the scene in context: check that the new material connects to scenes two and four.
- 20 minutes - record and reflect: film the new version, note individual contributions, and write a dated devising-log entry explaining why the lifts were removed.
Each performer should have a named contribution to the change - for example, one designs the cube shelter, one reworks the choral motif, one coaches Mere's direct address, one updates the cue sheet. This matters because the standard assesses devising and performance, and a group mark can hide unequal input. The log should include the original idea, the problem, the options rejected and the final choice. Keep the before-and-after footage; it is stronger evidence than a polished final run alone.
3. One group member argues that a recorded voice would be 'more theatrically interesting'. How should the group test that idea without losing the live ensemble?
Read the worked answer
Test it as a controlled experiment, not as a permanent change. The group should run a 10-minute scratch version with the recorded voice and a 10-minute version with Mere live, then compare them against two criteria: the piece's central idea and the assessment evidence.
Questions to ask after each scratch:
- Does the recorded voice make the audience feel more stranded, or does it make the scene feel like a radio documentary?
- Does the live ensemble still have a relationship with the voice, or do the other performers start playing to a speaker?
- Does Mere still have comparable performance material, or does she become a technician of her own absence?
- Does the verbatim form gain or lose from the switch between live and recorded testimony?
A useful compromise is a short recorded fragment used as a transitional device, while Mere remains live for the main scene. That can satisfy the 'interesting' argument without replacing the performer. The group should show the experiment to two peers who are not in the piece and ask what they understood about being stranded. Decide on evidence, not on who argues most forcefully. If the recorded version is chosen, write down why it serves the concept and what Mere will do instead to demonstrate performance skills.