Q & A with the directors
Carol Cooke asked the directors, Bill Martin and Leslie Simpson, some questions for a book. Extracts from their answers appear below.

Are there any directors / actors / companies in the past who have influenced your work and the work of threeovereden?

Cinema is a major influence on the work of threeovereden, (Vigo, Drifters, Hunting for Harold Lloyd) particularly early cinema. Bill and I share a passion for great cinema, whatever that may mean.

As an actor it is fair to say that everyone that one comes into contact with has some influence on you. From parents to the drunk in the park. 

I have never been one for heroes, although there are many people whose work I admire. I grew up watching films like an addict, so screen actors from the early to the middle part of last century, (Cary Grant, James Cagney, Laurel & Hardy, etc), likewise directors (Howard Hawks, Billy Wilder, John Sturges, etc) were ever-present in my youth. Then came a strong adolescent horror fixation, and the burning need to howl at the moon. That I have so far appeared in two critically acclaimed horror films (thank you Neil Marshall) is a boyhood dream come true.
In theatre there are many great companies working at the moment (Complicite; Kneehigh; Told by an Idiot; am I being obvious?), but there are clear differences between their work and ours. It’s true that Peter Brook, Meyerhold & Grotowski have had a profound influence on contemporary theatre and not without reason; so one has to admit that it’s hard to get away from these giants. But we try to be innovators not imitators; my feeling is that people imitate due to a high influence quotient.

It is difficult to understand the following comment without it sounding like some virulent strain of egoism or pretension, but my being alive and experiencing life and being stupid and all the facets that can be said to live off, live on or live within this thing called 'me' are the single biggest influences on my career. LS

My "work" (or is it play?) goes back 60 years, so it’s not a sentence that can answer this question but a book, which wouldn't be interesting. So, chapter headings - first influence definitely CINEMA (mostly American mainstream of 40s (musicals, westerns, war. Noir) - then MUSICAL THEATRE (esp. Opera and dance i.e. Action/lyric). SHAKESPEARE/PETER BROOK - saw early productions (eg Winters Tale) - clicked - recognised. At university discovered FEDERICO GARCIA LORCA'S "LA BARACA' (touring theatre in Spain) which became a model for me ( and led to touring a company in Spain).

JOAN LITTLEWOOD'S THEATRE WORKSHOP came in somewhere as an influence and set a standard for gutsy, lively theatre. A short spell in France with JEAN VILAR's THEATRE NATIONAL POPULAIR opened my eyes to the purpose of theatre, in galvanising the humanity of the audience through high quality, dynamic theatre productions. I did a lot of school/youth/college/art school theatre and set up a theatre company in an Arts Centre in South London, alongside renowned "experimental" groups (names like "Pip Simmons", "Freehold", "Bread and Puppet Theatre") in the 60s and early 70s. English acting/theatre tends to be word-bound and I prefer actors/theatre pieces to be plastic and body-bound. I don't think I've been influenced by actors. Mid-70s was a tricky time health-wise and I gave up "playing" and concentrated on writing, with modest success. Not until 2000 did I direct another play - so all my ideas are hopelessly old-fashioned - all memories and developments of years ago, which makes threeovereden very old hat or perhaps like vintage wine - it has matured and tastes distinctive. BM

+++++++++++++

What sort of qualities do you look for in a play and how do you select a play?

Can't answer that one without a major debate. We are concerned with the human condition, what it is to be human. We ask a lot of questions of ourselves as people. Why do we do what we do? We try to set our own views aside and look at situations with detachment. As a result we are not concerned with political or religious debate (both of which we feel are wholly subjective, and what’s the point of that?), but we may look at how one develops a viewpoint, how we allow ourselves to ‘Think’; and then we attempt to collapse it, return it to the source which is before analysis and the curse of thinking too much. Thinking too much inevitably leads people to disagreeing and disliking each other, or worse; so I suppose we look for plays that say 'thinking is bad for you!' We like plays that have something wrong with them; characters that are doing the wrong thing but are not aware of it; and how they come to be aware of their situation. LS

(i) Instinct - does it appeal?
(ii) does it "work" ( a lot of writing is hopelessly wooden) - will it transform into action?
(iii) what's it about? - anything meaningful? Relevant? Intelligent?
Original? Will it engage?
(iv) will it work practically? (we can only muster four or five actors and the production has to be cheap)
(v) does it fit our interests? (which we don't know until we've read it)
(vi) is it didactic? (if it is we don't want it) - about issues, party politics, religious propaganda, sentimental? (we prefer humanistic plays which are funny, shocking, satirical, dark, edgy)
BM

+++++++++++++

How do you rehearse?

We don't really have a fixed method, to be honest. As Shakespeare said, "Suit the action to the word, the word to the action." Suffice to say Bill and I would prefer to work continuously and at greater length than funding allows. We cheat our audiences by being under-rehearsed. In fact we have never presented a piece of work that we were satisfied with, or we felt was ready for consumption. This is perhaps why most serious drama practitioners leave the country. Suffice to say that we are very thorough and there is a lot of preparation, experimentation and debate, but we share an innate dis-satisfaction with our endeavours. Fortunately we also refuse to give up, which any reasonable person would suggest we do. LS

We read the script as a company.
We break down the actors into roles.
We discuss the ideas - the meaning - the approach.
We technically take control of the script.
Then we abandon the script, and start freely developing thoughts and ideas which have emerged. This can go in any direction and has no predetermined course. Anybody's contribution is welcome and a company approach emerges. The director tries to keep it all in check and acts as a kind of chairman. In our theatre the actor is the key and we are in his/her hands. His/her skills and abilities prescribe the parameters. Consequently the selection of the actors is crucial (and binding).

Then we come back to the script and attempt to articulate the space with the action to fulfil our take on the author's intentions. This tends to be physical/musical - but not if this is inappropriate. This process continues all the time, even after the play has been presented
to an audience, which in any case is part of the process but can't be incorporated in the rehearsal - it is unknown. The piece never stops evolving (which means that in the paltry number of performances we give, we can never achieve our full potential). BM

+++++++++++++

How do you work with the writer?

Our work is wholly collaborative. Every view, including the writer, is thrown into the stew. It is probably better to ask the writers how they cope with us!

Our process is about response. If we don’t respond to the work fully, then we are doing the wrong thing. The writer must accept that the actor performs the piece, as the director also accepts this. The actors must similarly accept that they are merely one part of a whole which is bigger than any individual. The writer is absolutely critical to that whole.
However, the audience is the thing. Unless one can connect with the audience, on as many different levels as one is capable; then neither the writer/s, the director/s, designer/s, lighting designer's, nor actor/s are worth anything.

Yes, you're right, the writer probably has a hard job. However, at least with us they get to work the material with the actors and director in situ, and get to change the concept and words as many times as they or we wish, which could include the last night of a run, (indeed it frequently has). However in my opinion it is the director, not the writer who has the final say. Even above the actor. The director essentially represents the viewing audience. And the more sensitive the director (to as broad a spectrum of one's potential audience) then the more thorough and complete the production. Having said that, what does the writer matter in theatre? If the actors won't play ball, you've got words on a piece of paper; which is most certainly not what playwriting is about. As I said earlier, its a collaboration, no one can claim to be king or queen. Writers are great and deserve respect. LS

The writer is a very important part of the process, and we wouldn't do without him/her. The writer sets the agenda, and we strive to be true to the artist's vision. Our job is to translate the text into a "theatre piece", and if possible a dialogue is engaged in as to the best way to achieve this.

Within the rehearsal process a lot of rough and tumble occurs and it is an anchor to relate to the author (if around). We like to question the writer minutely about meaning and style and encourage the writer to use our process to develop his script. As Les has said, this is a collaborative company and all voices are encouraged (including technicians, musicians, designers etc). BM