I had the absolute delight of chatting with Mark Rogers, writer and co-creator of POV, the genre-defying new work from ‘re:group performance collective’. From the very first moments of our conversation, it was clear that Mark is an artist drawn to risk, rigour, and radical forms of theatrical storytelling.

 re:group is a collaborative powerhouse devoted to mashing up theatre and movie-making to create what they call ‘live cinema’. Inspired by the highs and lows of pop culture, their work is sweaty, irreverent, and brimming with irony, sincerity, and heart. Their current obsessions? Loss, outdated media formats, labour relations, new technologies, and the art of difficult conversation.

 POV takes these preoccupations and wraps them into a high-stakes theatrical act of trust. Each performance is guided by an 11-year-old child, who directs two unrehearsed adult actors in a live reenactment of her family’s story — raising vital questions about agency, mental health, and who gets to hold the narrative.

Mark and I spoke about where the idea came from, how the team built such a risky and rewarding piece of theatre, and what it means to let a child take the lead — not just in story, but in structure.

 So, without further ado, here’s Faith’s Top 5 with Mark Rogers. Let’s get rolling!

Q1: The premise of POV is quite unique. How did the idea develop into the innovative and emotionally charged performance we see on stage today?
 

The company I work with, re:group, is interested in challenges. The harder it is to make a show, the more excited we are by the idea. About two years ago, I came to Solomon Thomas, who directs much of the work and is also a great theatre maker and video designer, with an idea: what if we make a show with just a child running the whole thing? That idea comes with a political aspect — if you ask an audience to sit with a child as the main performer of a show intended for adults, it raises questions about this child’s agency and their power to understand and handle difficult topics.

The show needed to be about situations where kids aren’t given power, or adults don’t have confidence in them to handle material they might actually be able to handle. We thought carefully about how to formalise this idea into an approach that reflects this. We considered whether adults should be rehearsed – but that felt wrong because it would create a power imbalance where adults do the real work and the child is just a prop.

To truly make a child the person with power on stage, we decided the adult actors would be unrehearsed. It’s important to note: the show is not improvised in the usual sense — the actors don’t know what they’ll be doing, but it’s scripted and controlled by the child. Because we are working with kids and adults meeting for the first time on stage, safety is paramount, and this structure also ensures safety. That was a crucial part of making the show.

Q2: The spark — what was the original inspiration behind the play’s content and themes?

Beyond the formal idea, the play deals with mental health and how we talk to children about mental health and mental illness. The story is about an 11-year-old girl named Bub, who is making a documentary about her mum’s art exhibition. However, there’s a shift in the family dynamic. Because of how sensitive mental health can be, Bub’s parents say she can’t use any footage she already shot of them.

So the audience sees Bub directing two actors to reenact her family story in the documentary. The spark behind the show was this question: how do we talk to kids about mental health, and how can we trust them to handle more than adults often assume? The whole show grows from this question.

Q3: As the writer, how did you approach shaping such an unusual story? What were some challenges or surprises in writing for a show that blends improvisation with scripted elements?

I work as part of a company, so the process is very collaborative. Although I’m the writer who puts the words on the page and shapes how language works theatrically, the ideas come from the shared brain of Solomon Thomas, Malcolm Whittaker, Steve Wilson-Alexander and Carly Young and me working together.

Once you accept that the actors are unrehearsed, it creates a specific space to write into, which is exciting. For instance, we’d explore ideas like giving the actors a guitar to play or how to get the kid actor to introduce the adults to their characters.

Writing for this form is about testing, experimenting, and discovering what works. I would write at home and send drafts to Solomon for feedback, then we’d refine it together. Because we had a short time frame, this iterative back-and-forth was very intense. And honestly, nothing motivates you to write faster like having a theatre booked!

Q4: How do you and the creative team prepare the young actors emotionally and practically for such an intense, unrehearsed performance? Have there been any surprises along the way?

We prepare the young actors very carefully, thoughtfully, and slowly, respecting the laws around child labour in New South Wales. We worked with the two performers for 10 hours each per week, mostly after school on a couple of days. We rehearsed extensively without them, using a larger ensemble to try out ideas, plot, block, and resolve problems privately.

By the time the young actors arrived, the process and material were fully worked out so they could feel confident and comfortable. We were extremely lucky to have phenomenal young actors, Edith Whitehead and Mabelle Rose. They have grown beautifully in their roles and skilfully manage their own and others’ emotions, guiding the audience through the show. Watching them return to the show after a year has been wonderful.

Q5: What do you hope the live-wire, unrehearsed format unlocks for audiences and performers? And what conversations are you hoping audiences leave the theatre having?

For me, theatre needs to be live and have a sense of liveness — the reality of what’s happening on stage needs to be apparent. Too much theatre doesn’t really care that the audience is there, but theatre’s greatest asset is that we’re all together, knowing we’re making it up.

I want audiences to feel that their attention and listening are vital parts of the experience. The performers on stage are also an audience for the work, probably thinking, “What would I do in their shoes?”

The conversations I hope happen afterwards involve how we talk to kids about mental health — their own, their friends’, or what they see in the world. Adults often don’t trust kids to understand what drives adult behaviour, but talking about mental health openly is important. The show advocates for that conversation.

Bonus Question: What is one question you were secretly hoping I’d ask and what’s your answer?

Who would be my ideal actor to perform in POV?

The thing with POV is you never actually know which actor you’ll see on any given night — it’s a bit of a lucky dip. If I could pick, I’d say Tim Crouch, a UK playwright whose work also features unrehearsed actors. I’d love to put him through what he’s put other actors through (laughs). I’d pair him with someone like Olivia Colman — he’s quite stoic, and she’s emotionally more volatile, so it would be an interesting combination to watch.

POV by re:group performance collective, plays: 2 – 5 JULY at Heartland festival /National Theatre of Parramatta and 10 – 12 JULY at The Bondi Festival/ See https://www.regroupperformancecollective.org/pov for details

🎭 If this interview hit the mark, follow Faith in Theatres for more sharp chats, smart reviews, and all things stage-worthy. Because theatre needs Faith.