What is an Ensemble?
Posted by David New on 2/09/2006During a panel discussion among theatre directors in London recently, an audience member asked, “What is the difference between an acting company and an ensemble?” An impeccably dressed and erudite director drolly replied, “An acting company is a group of theatrical artists who come together with the intention of mounting a theatrical production. An ensemble – is what I am wearing.”
This anecdote made me laugh, but also made me think about the nature of ensemble. Our ensemble consists of thirty-five artists whose talents include acting, directing, playwriting, filmmaking, and textual adaptation who share an artistic home here at Steppenwolf. But what about ensemble acting style? What qualities characterize it? Are there any striking examples that come to mind of productions you’ve seen here at Steppenwolf or elsewhere?
Here’s what Bruce Weber of the New York Times had to say:
“Chicago actors tend to be less career-oriented offstage and thus less audience-oriented on. They play to one another here; they don’t mind turning upstage. Actors here speak of this as liberating, a license to challenge their colleagues with a vigor that isn’t necessarily appreciated elsewhere. The physically robust quality that many critics have attributed generally to Chicago actors is a manifestation of this.”
(exerpted from a review of One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest)
February 9th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
I feel that “ensemble” embodies a kind of unspoken culture shared among its members. As an ensemble that is by “invitation only,” Steppenwolf controls the type of artist that can call it’s stages home. In my view, an acting company is a group that do indeed come together, simply to mount a production. They are only together as co-workers, punching the clock towards completion of a project. The family nature of an ensemble requires that you are invited to dinner, to sit around the table, and enjoy the company of your fellow members. Ideas can be shared, borrowed, and built upon. You share a lifestyle in common. This reaches beyond simple stereotypes into the subjective nature of an artist’s perspective. You share the perspective that you should share your perspective. By the inclusion of ensemble actors on the Steppenwolf stages in a variety of productions, the organization is extended from the patron via the box office, administrative office, artistic staff, director, actor — back to the audience. The ensemble member creates the circle. This circle is needed if you believe that Chicago actors are less-audience oriented. By growing the company around a core base of artists, the actor does not have to direct their performance to the audience. The audience is a part of the company, part of the family.
February 9th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Ryan,
What a thoughtful response, and how right you are that there is something decidedly familial in the ensemble aesthetic. This of course is reflected in the production history of Steppenwolf which has included a large number of plays that investigate family dynamics. These plays seem to lend themselves to ensemble work in a way that is particularly stage-worthy. The dinner table metaphor you use seems particularly apt as I recall the many times I’ve seen scenes of family dinners on the Steppenwolf stage. I’m curious to know if you or any blog visitors have attended a production in which the spirit of ensemble acting style seemed particularly present – whether here at Steppenwolf or elsewhere.
February 10th, 2006 at 12:28 am
Ensemble is one of those words you can ask 10 people to define and know that you’ll end up with 10 definitions. It’s so fluid that way. Ryan’s points seem correct to me, but what he describes as an ensemble (sitting together, eating together, sharing ideas and input and a common lifestyle) could very well be called an acting company by someone using a different set of semantic parameters. Those ideas almost exactly describe the traveling “acting companies” or “acting troupes” of the Victorian era.
Victorian era? Semantic parameters? Jeez, David. You’ve got me writing like an egghead. Point is, it’s a hard word to define. Maybe that was the well-dressed British scholar’s point, too. I know one theatre company that’s had a whole lot of conversations about what to call its “ensemble”… anything other than “ensemble” please. The best we’ve come up with so far is “company” as in “I’m in the company” or “We’re thinking of making her a company member.” Not a whole lot more descriptive.
Whatever the word is, the company that exemplifies that ensemble spirit most often for me is Barrel of Monkeys. Twenty-something kids who create an ever changing evening full of short plays based on the writings of Chicago Public Schools students. They create the plays together with a real love for their source material, they mash them up together into a full night of hilarious entertainment, they write original music and choreography and dailogue and poetry based on their source material, and they perform it with as much attention and energy going to the audience as they spend on each other. It is an energizing night of theatre. That ensemble thing, for me, seems to be exemplified in this case by a real sense that they love what they’re doing, they love doing it with each other, and they love sharing it with us. It can’t be an ensemble without love.
February 10th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Thanks, Jake, for the post and for any of you bloggers who are interested, you can link to the Barrel of Monkeys website where you can find info on their current show, “That’s Weird Grandma.”
February 10th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
I think that an ensemble is created for each show in its own way. Naturally some companies are better than others in facilitating this, but I don’t know of any actor that doesn’t feel that the cast of their current show hasn’t become a second family to them, regardless of how dysfunctional that family may seem. What’s interesting is the notion of an ensemble of talented actors (Steppenwolf) that work together for many years, and develop, through those many shows, a shorthand, understanding, and trust that takes them to a whole other level of excellence. This is that extra little something that takes this talented group of artists to another level.
February 13th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
what sort of irks me, but also makes me think most, regarding Bruce Webber’s comment, was the notion that an “ensemble aesthetic” (whatever that may mean to each company) requires the exclusion of an audience. I believe it was actually the line “Chicago actors tend to be less career-oriented offstage and thus less audience-oriented on.” (italics mine) that got me thinking about this…
isn’t this what ensemble is for? to collectively ensure the audience is included in a cohesive way? I know this is how I’ve experienced the Steppenwolf ensemble aesthetic: one of the last plays I saw at Steppenwolf was The Last of The Boys, and watching a scene between Amy Morton and Tracy Letts, for instance, was a very different experience for me than, say, watching a scene between two non-Steppenwolf-ensemble-members. I’m not necessarily making a critique on acting value either – as an audience member I know more about the ensemble members (thanks to their detailed profiles and pictures on the web site), I feel more comfortable with them on stage (I’ve seen them more on stage than most other non-ensemble-member actors), I’ve seen their picture in the lobby of the theatre consistently for the last 5 years I’ve been coming to Steppenwolf, etc… What makes Barrel of Monkeys shows so wonderful (as an audience member), is that my experience of the show is so much more enriched because they are ensemble members. it’s a brand. as if to say, “it’s not just a production of True West, it’s The Steppenwolf production of True West with John Malkovich and Gary Sinise!” That they are ensemble-members doing that show makes it very different to me as an audience member.
Let us not ignore the importance of ensemble aesthetics’ affect on an audience. they are the offer half of the equation after all – or am I just crazy??
February 14th, 2006 at 9:31 am
Justin,
You raise some interesting questions. I think Bruce Weber’s point is that by not making the audience the primary focus, but rather concentrating on each other and the truthfulness of the character’s relationship and interaction, the actors end up not excluding the audience, but instead end up sharing something richer, deeper, more authentic.
You also identify something that is of high value to Steppenwolf, and that is that our ensemble is able to engage in repeatable creative relationships. Jake McCaffrey also spoke of this when he referred to a kind of “shorthand” that exists between actors who have worked together many times over the years.
February 15th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Czech this out, y’all:
http://blog.thehousetheatre.com/2006/02/political_theat.html
It’s a conversation on the House Theatre blog, that toward the end has some interesting responses from audience members regarding their feeling of inclusion in respect to the House ensemble.
Now, here’s my thing:
The view that during performance the audience is a partner is very exciting to me. We use it at an extreme level in 500 Clown, and companies like the House and the Hypocrites use it in varying degrees as well. All three work with the awareness that the audience is there, which makes the audience/actor relationship clear. Great “fourth wall” theatre is similarly inclusive, even though there’s no onstage acknowledgement of the audience’s presence.
Having a strong, communicating ensemble with a clear shared vocabulary is a great step toward great work. Including the audience INTO that vocabulary opens up the possibility of a more intimate relationship. If we keep the delicious “ensemble energy” candy all to ourselves, the audience feels less included, and in my view, less stimulated by the performance.
February 15th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Thanks for writing Molly.
I think it’s so fantastic that we have companies in town like 500 Clown and The House Theatre Company that are exploring the dynamics of interaction and play with the audience while creating really exciting work. Check out their websites to learn more about them.
February 26th, 2006 at 7:03 pm
Okay, so I know I’m a little late coming into this discussion, but I just found this.
I’ve always thought of an ensemble as a group of equals working together for a common goal. I know that when I say that the show I’m in is an “ensemble piece” I mean that no one person is especially important. Every cast member has equal importance. So that is how I think of an ensemble. Equality.
A company, on the other hand, I see as more competitive and self-centered. If you think of how the rest of the world thinks of the world “company”, you’ll think of business. A hierarchy. People working maybe more for the money than the art. That’s how I think of a company. People looking to advance their individual positions, not necessarily for the greater good.
I think that Steppenwolf is a very good example of an ensemble. It seems like everyone is working together for their art, not personal interest.
February 27th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Thank you, Aislinn, for weighing in on this. I think the point you make about certain plays being “ensemble pieces” is very interesting. Certain plays do seem to support an ensemble acting style by their structure. For instance, Balm in Gilead and Grapes of Wrath come immediately to mind.
March 31st, 2006 at 1:57 pm
Ensemble: From Old French, together, from Late Latin nsimul, at the same time : simul, at the same time.
We can’t have actors talking at the same time now can we? Harmony/together? No, not always. I’ve been in ensembles where there was a Diva (me! called one lovingly).
Not nuetral, not gray. I’ve worn ensembles that were not very together, one item (maybe shoes, maybe top) out shone the rest.
Is there always a favorite character or actor within the ensemble? Yes maybe, but individuals will vary on which they deem their favorite.
Somtimes one particular actor carries the weight of other members. There are members of Steppenwolf’s ensemble that are well known or ‘favorites’ of the public eye. That doesn’t necessarily mean members that are not as well known are not as talented or as gifted.
Oh! I better stop I’m totally confused.