12/31/05: Actual vs. Virtual Theatre

(actually written 11/27/05)

THOUGHTS ON ACTUAL VS. VIRTUAL THEATRE:

I've been trying to figure out what kind of theatre I want to do, and what kind of theatre experience I want to look for on this sabbatical. I come back to the idea of a "volatile" experience but I need to understand just what I mean by that word "volatile." Right now, I understand it to mean an experience which is unpredictable, in which anything might happen, and which is unrepeatable.

(I'm using the word "theatre" as opposed to "performance," because to me it takes the part of the spectator/audience. "Performance" is a word that seems to privilege the performer over the spectator.)

There's theatre that tells a story. Good theatre of this kind tells a very good story and tells it in a way which gives the audience the impression that they are having a genuine experience. Well, they are having a genuine experience (who am I to deny the validity of their experience?) but it is in the nature of a story to be repeated--that's what a story is. An expert enactment of a story can give me the impression that it is actually happening--it's that immersive. A very expert telling of a story can strip it down to the essentials so that I want to put myself into it, I imagine myself into it. I love a good story told well. But that's not exactly what I'm looking for. I'll call it "virtual theatre."

(One reason--the main reason--that I prefer "theatrical" theatre is that it goes farthest into fooling me that I'm having an actual experience, because it employes the actual reality of where we are and what the storytellers have to work with to tell the story. Sometimes it comes close to breaking through into actuality (Brook's Marat/Sade ending, even Wilder's Our Town). But I'm still basically listening to a story rather than participating in an event. And the more expert it is, the less volatile it is.)

I think (right now) that the only way to create actual as opposed to virtual theatre is to engage the audience in the action, to invite them to participate directly ("Sally's Rape," for all its faults, had its moments of actuality, and every night was a new experience). Of course, there's a history of such performances, much of it awful.

I tend to confuse the intensity of an experience with its actuality. Many "virtual" experiences are far more emotionally or even intellectually intense that the kind of "actual" experience I have in mind. But I think the actual experience has a greater chance of changing the participant--though I have no proof of that. But I think it's safe to say that many highly-charged emotional theatre experiences fade quickly (even if the memory stays).

So: Can an "actual" theatre experience be created around a story? Or does the presence of a text make it an unavoidably virtual experience? The question is important because I'm still looking for Shakespeare, but if I'm also looking for actual theatre, it may be impossible to find them both in the same place.

12/31/05: Fundamental questions

Here's my latest try at formulating three basic questions to ask everyone I interview:

1) In directing your current project, what is the relationship between "story" and "text" ("text" in the most specific sense: the words that the actors speak), and how does that understanding shape choices you make with actors?

2) What would you never do, and why not? That is: what for you is the line between what is acceptable in the present situation and what is unacceptable, and what determines where you draw that line? Would you draw the line differently in a different situation?

3) Is there anything that constrains you from what you would most like to do with your directing?


And here's a fourth question:

4) Are these questions of interest? What is a question you would most like to ask if you were in my situation?

12/17/05: Back to basics...

I've been trying to go back and re-think what the "organizing question" is behind this sabbatical research project; I wonder if it still makes sense to me.

I started out thinking about constraints: What constrains me as a director from taking chances, pushing farther, exploring more deeply while preparing a Shakespeare production? What constraints might other directors feel with respect to specific choices (of approach, concept, style, casting, or the shaping of individual moments)? From there, I've developed a question that I want to ask other directors: What would you never do? What kind of choice would you never make? Why? Still seems like a good question to me. Not the only one, of course, but one that could lead to other questions (of course, I've discovered that I can't begin with that question. I have to lead up to it in some way, or at least I'm embarrassed to begin with it.

As I think about constraints, the most obvious constraints are economic. In a way, this seems to me to be a less fruitful angle to pursue for a couple of reasons: 1) this ground has been gone over a good deal; 2) there's a way in which the answers are at least superficially obvious; 3) the area of economics is so broad that I don't feel willing or qualified to include it in this particular study. At the same time, economic viability is bound to be such an overriding concern that maybe a director isn't able to even get near an area of real risk, and so my question may be largely irrelevant.

All of which makes me question my choices of theatres and directors to seek out, since all of them must survive in the commercial arena to an extent (given the lack of substantial subsidy in this country). Maybe academic theatre, the one area I have been ignoring, is the most likely one where directors face these problems. But of course academic theatre faces a different overriding constraint: the lack of experience and training of most of the actors a director works with. So do I then focus on professional theatres allied with universities? Or programs with very strong graduate acting programs? Hmm...

Gotta run.

12/12/05: Tiny Ninja Theatre Presents Hamlet: more considered response

My son and I drove four hours (from Asheville to Durham, NC) to see this show, which ran less than one hour. We agreed that it was easily worth the trip. I was much, much more impressed than I thought I would be. I knew it would be a “different” take, but I was expecting a pure sendup, not a serious telling of the story, and--while my whole aim was to see “alternative Shakespeare” which this show definitely qualifies as--I was a little apprehensive that it would be basically a one-joke event (reviews to the contrary notwithstanding). Or that it would be a greatly entertaining parody (like "The Complete Works") but of little value beyond that. What saves it from being just a gimmick is the fact that Dov performs in such a way that you can tell he loves the language and loves the story.

Dov told me in a post-show interview that he likes doing Shakespeare because the stories are so great; he just wants to tell the story and help people hear the familiar words in a fresh way. An oddly conventional idea behind a truly weird and hilarious concept--but I believe him because it really works that way. I also like the fact that he said he doesn’t really want to manipulate the audience into preconceived reactions (that comment may be a little disingenuous but basically honest, I think).

Watching the show, I realized that he was fulfilling a fantasy that I’ve had but barely admitted to myself: the desire to do the whole of Hamlet by myself, for myself, not as a way to show off but just because it would be such fun! I guess that’s a common fantasy...

Again: I’m really struck by the fact that he doesn’t appear to be mocking conventional Shakespeare in what he’s doing; he’s just doing something different. Talking to him, I tried to see if he--like me, at times--had an axe to grind, or was at least very frustrated by most Shakespearean productions. While he seemed to agree that much of Anglo-American Shakespeare is pretty boring (a subject that we didn’t go into), he just sees his primary job as telling these great stories in the best way he knows.

There’s a level on which I’m a little disappointed by his conventional intent, because I tell myself I’m looking for “dangerous” Shakespeare, “volatile” Shakespeare (if such a thing exists). And I wonder if “telling a story” is the most important or most useful thing to be doing with performance. There are so many stories. But Shakespeare is stories, and they are great ones--our myths, as the critics have it. The world’s myths, now. So what’s wrong with telling them? It’s finding a way to tell them simply that’s important, so that the story is the thing, not the director’s or the actors’ techniques or concepts. And, in spite of his crazy premise, that’s just what Dov does.

12/12/05: Tiny Ninja Theatre Presents Hamlet at Manbites Dog Theater, Durham NC

What a terrific show! I'll write more later, but the thing that impressed me most was that Dov Weinstein managed not only to be terrifically entertaining voicing all the roles, enacting the scenes with the tiny ninjas, using "extreme video" with great creativity, but he did all of that in service to the story--he really did HAMLET! Great work with the language; clear, clean, honest acting. Not what I expected at all.

Here's the link: www.tinyninjatheater.com
And here's one to Manbites Dog Theater in Durham--a great theatre! www.manbitesdogtheater.org

12/11/05: A bunch of old performance logs (stuff I've seen)

Warning: This post contains a lot of material, descriptions/reactions to performances I've seen over the past few months (not at all a complete log, and not even necessarily the best stuff I've seen). I'm posting it mainly for my own purposes, but if you are reading this and if you think you might see any of these productions, STOP NOW!

Comments on:
Aquila Theatre's Twelfth Night
Theatre of 1000 Juliet's The Nina Variations
North Carolina Stage Company's Dirty Blonde
Manbites Dog Theater's Silver River
Raleigh Ensemble Players' Killer Joe
Mabou Mines DollHouse

--------------
Notes after Aquila Theatre’s Twelfth Night -- Diana Wortham Theatre, Asheville, NC 2/3/05

8 actor cast--good show, interesting and strong choices, some problems.

Mostly bare stage with two simple black bentwood chairs and large painted backdrop of rennessance street and buildings. Very simple. Began with open pine coffin on trestles center stage, long rope with noose, and Feste. Convention was that Feste orchestrated most entrances and exit. Opening section very nice pastiche and rearrangement of scenes and lines--Feste saves Viola, points out other characters to her as bits of opening scenes are played, interspersed with driving modern somewhat harsh music. Low lights. Dark comedy expectation (followed through for the most part).

Staging very nice. Lots of entrances and exits using up-tempo, curving, high-stepping travelling movement (courante), strong sense of debauchery and highjinks in the face of death Olivia’s brother’s to begin with--much later the coffin (on end with a little door eye-hight) turns into Malvolio’s dark house--very effective.

Only eight actors made for interesting double-casting and cuts: Orsino/Sir Andrew, Antonio/Malvolio, Feste straight through (no Fabian, which was good). Feste also played Sir Topas as coweled monk (no beard) and then became friar who betrothes Olivia & Sebastian. Doubling worked well until the end when we couldn’t have Sir Andrew berated by Toby, and Antonio just disappeared. Cuts and rearrangements worked except that Sir Toby’s pursuit of Olivia never established and reason for challenge and fight with Cesario wasn’t established (but worked).

Boxwood scene played behind three decorated Christmas trees brought on by Feste, Toby, and Andrew (with, of course, a tiny tree). Worked great. Malvolio’s speech started great (sat on letter which stuck to his ass) but went on so long--he milked “MOAI” mercilessly and not well--that I think audience was secretly glad when he left (though they applauded).

Acting choices were strong but my reactions quite mixed. Language clear--too clear, as if they were working too hard to make meaning clear yet at the same time not trusting the language and adding sounds, faces, etc. after lines to make them funny or make reactions clear. Annoying. Overall, acting pretty strong and very definite--which was good--but even interesting choices were often unbelievable. Feste carried it off the best--really fine, edgy, aggressive clown--not overtly melancholy but the schtick at the beginning where he comically tried to hang himself set the tone. Bare-chested with an open leather jacket (vest?). Really a fine performance except for the songs which were slickly done but had that smarmy, modern “sincere” yet showbiz style I hate.

Costuming very interesting mix of modern feel with renaissance feel (almost cavalier with high boots and all). Lots of skin but kept the slightly period (or mixed) feel. Sir Toby with renaissance-like doublet and hose/codpiece & boots? and bowler hat--worked. Sir Andrew wore black tights with no pants and suggestion of codpiece. Malvolio had kind of a cassock which he ripped off to reveal particularly outrageous yellow tights, cross-gartered, weird pantaloons with big codpiece (of course) and kind of an undershirt. Worked ok. Maria in a kind of leather top which still managed to look period. Viola & Sebastian in leathers, high boots, sword.

What made this production work? Music throughout and strong sense of visual style carried through in the staging--very modern/period feel. Feste really held it together as ringmaster. High energy. Very physical.

What made it not work? Some poor performance choices (Olivia seemed to be playing a spoiled JAP-esque girl, which made sense, but was trying awfully hard). An overall sense of trained actors making strong choices and very pleased with themselves--familiar sense of slickness with actors not revealing very much. Exception was a really terrific Cesario/Orsino scene (“patience on a monument”) which just worked like gangbusters in the simplest, way. Raw vulnerability with Viola doing her best to tell Orsino she loved him, laying herself wide open--til he laid a big kiss on her (an obvious “risky” choice but played through all the way) which shook them both to the core. Funny and wrenching.

I liked this edgy show, but the edge was mainly stylistic--not a “dangerous” show. But much, much better than I expected from Aquila.

I’m thinking my preconceptions about Anglo-American Shakespeare won’t last long. How much does a show like this owe to European Shakespeare? A lot, it seems to me.

-------------
THEATRE LOG: Summer 05


THEATRE LOG: THE NINA VARIATIONS

PLAY: The Nina Variations
DAY/DATE/CURTAIN: Thursday, May19, 8:00pm
COMPANY: Theatre of 1000 Juliets
DIRECTOR: John Catron
VENUE: Wedge Gallery, Asheville
HOUSE SIZE & TYPE: small warehouse space, 40 seats (8-10 people in house)
NOTABLE ELEMENTS:
VISUAL: very spare look in a bare concrete box with large rolling metal door which was lowered for performance; pillars (girders) dc and sr & sl; freestanding folding screen upstage for entrances & exits; desk w/chair and electric pencil sharpener right center; 2nd chair (moved around); small table with glass water pitcher (full) and glass. Scene titles (usually just numbers in sequence) projected on both side walls. I really liked the look of the space.

PERFORMER/SPECTATOR RELATIONSHIP: sort of proscenium set-up, extremely intimate; seats on low risers divided into two sections, each slightly angled toward playing space; pillar in middle which was used in action. Actors often spoke to audience--made intense contact (particularly because so few spectators).

ACOUSTIC: sound quality was amazing because of echoing nature of space (all hard surfaces, enclosed box). Sometimes obscured words but mainly effective, interesting. I can’t remember if there was taped sound--don’t think so.

TEMPORAL:
TEXTUAL:
OTHER:
ACTING: pretty bad, really; much too much effort, all on the surface, no hiding, rarely any layers (particularly frustrating since the play was based on Chekhov). Actors obviously very committed to each choice, terrific concentration, yet rarely any real contact. Interesting problem. Too bad because I like this company so much. Possibly a problem with doing script written by someone else (like Otrabanda).

STAGING:
COSTUME:
MOMENTS:

OTHER STRIKING CHOICES:

MISCELLANEOUS:


--------------------------------------------------------
PLAY: DIRTY BLONDE, Claudia Shear
DAY/DATE/CURTAIN: Sat., May 21, 7:30 pm
COMPANY: North Carolina Stage Company
DIRECTOR: Nina Munoz
VENUE: NC Stage
HOUSE SIZE & TYPE: 90 seats, shallow, wide thrust
NOTABLE ELEMENTS
VISUAL: projections on rear wall identifying time, place; very simple scenic elements, props (mostly mimed); vis. emphasis on actors, costumes especially denoting time (dresses at end become important plot element); piano up center; usual entrances (ul, ur, dl, dr); near end of show the Vegas number included footlights and little chase lights on edges of set.

PERFORMER/SPECTATOR RELATIONSHIP: intimate. actors frequently addressed audience, usually very close; Mae West sat in audience member’s lap once (only phys. contact);

ACOUSTIC: live piano (one of the actors played ocassionally, not full songs); at one point, Chris (another actor) faked playing piano for one of Mae’s numbers--very well done, terrific timing. Can’t remember specific transitional music but it set the period (along with costumes). Recorded. Wonder: did it come with the show? One number at least had recorded music.

TEMPORAL: Most of the show moved easily at leisurely pace but pace was good with all the short scenes; as went on, pauses between scenes became a problem for me impeding the overall tempo of the show (necessary because of frequent and fast costume changes, but still a problem). No dramatic tempo changes that I recall.

TEXTUAL: I liked the script pretty much. Nice interweaving between past and present, between Mae West story and contemporary romance. Entertaining script, pretty slick, not outstandingly interesting (except in portraying a fascinating character). Nice business near end of meshing past and present.

OTHER:

ACTING: Very good, especially Chris. Three actors playing multiple characters (woman played Mae and present-day fan, 2 men played a number of characters). All actors very good (older actor seemed a bit unsure but still a pro); woman playing Mae did a really find job of portraying without characaturing character. Struck by her use of stillness as older Mae. Very high status (but also fragile in a way). Chris just seemed right on the button with each character he played--not trying to hard, not mannered (as he has seemed in the past), direct and clear.

STAGING:
COSTUME:
MOMENTS: Chris’s character (male) is onstage in Mae West dress and wig (he likes dressing up as her); the girl comes in wearing another Mae West dress and wig. She refuses to look at him at first. Struck by the visual mirror image (sort of) with one character in drag.

OTHER STRIKING CHOICES:

GEN. REACTION:

======================


PLAY: Silver River by Romulus Linney
DAY/DATE/CURTAIN: Fri, 5/27/05, 8:00 pm
COMPANY: Manbites Dog Theater Company (Durham, NC)
DIRECTOR: Jeff Storer
ACTOR: Christine Morris
VENUE: Carol Belk Theatre, UNCA
HOUSE SIZE & TYPE: maybe 50 people in house of 150? (half theatre’s arena seating
NOTABLE ELEMENTS:
VISUAL: nice set: square of molding enclosing carpet at angle w/ stool, table, desk; very simple, wood tones; lighting simple, very effective changes, especially in dream, church; hardbound journal central prop. The frame of moulding defined the acting area and effectively created the sense of character as trapped within the house (no break indicating doorway). At end of play she walked out of the box (and out of the light) and addressed the journal (I think) from outside the space. VERY effective.
PERFORMER/SPECTATOR RELATIONSHIP: pretty intimate, deep thrust created by half oval arena. However, first row well separated from acting area so no sense of intruding into the actor’s space (would be interesting in a different space).
ACOUSTIC: opened with taped sounds of anvil (sounded like train a bit) for recurring dream; in church scenes actor would start singing acapella and be joined by her own voice on tape (once changed to speaking, then shouting hymn lyrics while taped voice-over continued singing)
TEMPORAL: show moved amazingly well considering it was one actor talking to her journal for two hours. She wasn’t rushed but had good sense of tempo and attacked beats clearly--also didn’t dwell or draw out emotional scenes. In scenes where she would address other (unseen) characters, we only heard her half of conversation, but she was adept at making us hear other half without waiting for actual time--not rushed but really moved along. There were moments when action stopped (climactic moment in 2nd act especially) but action resumed quickly and even that moment wasn’t milked.
TEXTUAL: really interesting way of delivering lines, especially at beginning, almost as if reading journal entries without inflection. very effective. Convention of all dialog as journal entries worked better than I would have thought--made effective by the way she would often literally address the book, sometimes from across the space.

OTHER:
ACTING: Very strong. At the very beginning I thought it was going to be too “actory” but not at all. Very intelligent choices, especially in the first half where she is immensely repressed. An accomplished actor (in her 50s?). Would often play against obvious choice without violating the essentially realistic style of the play. The only problem I had (directorial choice?) was with the character acting out the other characters when describing a scene (top of Act 2 especially). Too animated, too much acting, creating of characters, seemed to cheapen an otherwise terrific acting turn.
STAGING: good use of the confined space. little sense of boring repetition, even though limited options given one actor within a rectangle. Again, moment of stepping outside the confines of the rectangle very strong after two hours inside.
COSTUME: black Victorian dress and top buttoned up to throat. during Act 2 she removed top, then skirt and shoes and stockings, revealing white corset and shift under. unlaced and removed corset until she was in somewhat unbuttoned shift and bare legs and feet. finally let hair down. Quite a contrast. Eventually added white blouse and skirt and pinned up hair. Still, white loose look at end contrasted dramatically with black corseted look at beginning and served idea of the play.
MOMENTS: one moment when she had her face averted and reached out her arm in a strange gesture, hand seeming to have a life of its own. another moment (climax) when she lies back on floor and, describing dream, seems to experience a moment of death or orgasm.

OTHER STRIKING CHOICES:

MISCELLANEOUS: I liked the play quite a bit though not really to my taste. at times reminded of Beckett’s Happy Days: in a strange way she was like Winnie. First act really strong, second act less so. The incest theme seemed overheated to me (obviously the dark secret repressed, repeated, to dire consequence. But only because the restraint of much of the writing/acting so effective. Not necessarily a play I would want to direct, but quite good. And a terrific piece of acting, though not really astonishing--just very good.

===============================

PLAY: KILLER JOE
DAY/DATE/CURTAIN: FRI, 5/28/05, 8:00 PM
COMPANY: R.E.P. (Raleigh Ensemble Players)
DIRECTOR: ?
VENUE: Carol Belk (UNCA)
HOUSE SIZE & TYPE: restricted seating of arena to sections on opposite sides plus chairs in front. Very full house: 150? Really interesting set-up: set (representing a double-wide trailer, with actors’ entrances from ends as well as through front door on my side) prevented audience movement to seating on opposite side, so audience entered from outside theatre on both sides.
NOTABLE ELEMENTS:
VISUAL: very interesting realistic representation of trailer (except that sides were removed leaving front door, windows, studs and solid roof). Floor raised as it would be in a trailer. Audience looked into living room/kitchen/dining area, with exits to bedrooms on each end. Interior very realistic with working televsion, running water in kitchen, practical lamps which provided almost all interior light except for some moonlight shining in through windows (all scenes were night scenes). Interestingly voyeuristic. Scene changes broke realism but in very conventional way: almost no light, actors left or entered quickly, stage hands moved props.
PERFORMER/SPECTATOR RELATIONSHIP: Intimate stadium seating--conscious of seeing audience through other side of trailer--yet “walls” of trailer made an almost cinematic distinction between performers and spectators. Actors approaching trailer from outside entered through audience on my side, and at one point Joe emerged from trailer to look around outside, yet never any acknowledgement of spectators. Nudity strong but
ACOUSTIC: realistic sounds of storm, thunder, rain. Every time someone arrived at or left trailer, vicious dog barking sounds from off stage on front door side. Sound of televsion when turned on accompanied and sometimes intentionally vied with or overcame dialog. No music except when Hank Williams tape was played quietly near end of first act.
TEMPORAL: realistic passage of time broken into several long scenes. Good acting sustained and varied tempo well, though 2nd act seemed very long, especially before violent climax: intentional long silence when eating dinner.
TEXTUAL: Very realistic dialog, well-crafted but not literary in any way (not even in Mamet way). Seemed like screenwriting. Language very strong, sometimes very funny (Father’s line in reaction to stepmother flapping her dress, “As soon as you’re done airing out the gates of hell...” got a big laugh).
OTHER:
ACTING: very good, very even, very realistic acting style (maybe actor playing Joe was weakest yet he, too, was quite strong--just didn’t make as interesting choices). Violence quite convincing, especially in such intimate staging--yet it seemed to be trying and failing to achieve realisitic quality of a film. Actors playing daughter and son were particularly effective (parts written to be) with wonderful intensity, focus, contact, clear strong actions played (true of all the actors). Yet my admiration of the realistic technique (not my favorite) didn’t make up for my dislike of the play.
STAGING: worked very well from my perspective. very realistic with no obvious sightline problems in spite of constricted set-up. Again, violence in an intimate setting pretty convincing.
COSTUME: good choices; my favorite was the Stepmother in tee-shirt and man’s bvds. Joe’s stature increased by cowboy hat (boots, too?) in that trailer.
MOMENTS: shocking moments: simulated fellatio with a chicken drumstick, violence of smashing a woman in the face, pounding the son with a club in the refrigerator, nudity of a large black man (in semi-darkness). Stiking final image: Daughter holding gun after shooting others, terrified. Only one short scene really knocked me out: Joe enters from bedroom, reading bible, Son enters from outside and tries to convince him not to kill mother; at end of scene--which is one long speech by Son with no words from Joe except a short line at the end--Son discovers that mother’s body is in trash bag under counter.

OTHER STRIKING CHOICES:

OTHER GENERAL REACTIONS: All the elements were there for a terrific theatre experience and altogether it left me cold. I didn’t like the play. It seemed to be trying to provoke me and shock me with incongruity of humor, sex, and violence but it didn’t take me anywhere. I didn’t seem to get it in the same way that many in the audience enjoyed laughing at these people--trailer trash--and I didn’t really care about even the sympathetic character of the daughter. Maybe I was offended or disapproved, which should be instructive or salutory in some way, but I end up feeling like the play was derivative, sort of Sam Shepard/Pulp Fiction combination that did nothing for me. Stylistically, the play was not to my taste: why not just make a film? I guess there’s something interesting about the extreme voyeuristic fourth-wall experience in live theatre, but it didn’t really give me anything. However, I find it interesting to think about my negative reactions, sort of.


=================================


PLAY: Mabou Mines DollHouse (Spoleto)
DAY/DATE/CURTAIN: Sunday, May 29, 2005, 3:30 (didn’t start till 4:00)
COMPANY: Mabou Mines
DIRECTOR: Lee Bruer
VENUE: Dock Street Theatre, Charleston SC
HOUSE SIZE & TYPE: 550 seats (?), proscenium with balcony (I sat in balcony), full
NOTABLE ELEMENTS:
VISUAL:
PERFORMER/SPECTATOR RELATIONSHIP:
ACOUSTIC:
TEMPORAL:
TEXTUAL:
OTHER:
ACTING:
STAGING:
COSTUME:
MOMENTS:
(copy from handwritten--add tarentella 2X in Act 2 (sheets with text); also “No more melodrama!” moment in Act 3)

Act 3
.... triumphant, balletic dance during his speech (initially goes out doors, lifted up behind walls, carried in around set). Ends by being deposited in bed (I think); at which point, Nora, standing facing down & leaning on small piano (?) growls in a low voice we’ve never heard before “I have tried so hard these past three days” (or whatever it is); then she removes her blouse leaving her corset on, moves toward him seductively and then away (but no little girl moves), saying, “I must change” provocatively and exits. Torvald is jumping on bed, very excited at the prospect. His speech follows about how wonderful his is to forgive her: he’s under the covers masturbating during the speech--he comes at the end and immediately falls asleep, snoring. Stage hands move the dollhouse walls back and fold them up and fly them out (word “FRAGILE” stenciled on outside) as Nora is revealed on what looks like a castle balcony high in the air upstage (she pulls red curtain back and ties it up, having a little trouble). She’s dressed in a white gown, her hair is different, she’s statuesque. Torvald says in his sleep, “You’ve changed.” “Ja” she says, dryly. He moves to down right (she’s high on her tower up left) and he pleads with her to reconsider her decision to leave him and the children: The distance between them and the difference in elevation starkly underlines the psychological gulf between them. She hands her wedding ring down to him and he crosses up left to get it--can’t reach, jumping up, another striking image. He climbs wall to get ring. Then (sooner? later?) , at her ringing response to his declaration that no man would sacrifice his honor for a woman--”Hundreds of thousands of women do”--the scene shifts into grand opera! The red drapes rise to reveal 3 tiers of galleries, each box seat holding a man and woman--who are almost life-sized puppets! Nora and Torvald sing (or rather lipsynch to recorded singing) their ensuing dialog with the female puppets moving and singing choral responses to Nora’s lines and the males doing likewise to Torvald’s. Incredible. Torvald is mock-heroic wrapped in a comforter (bedsheet?) delivering his arias. The scene is funny and enormously moving. At one point Nora rips off her wig (this might have happened earlier) revealing a bald head. She’s utterly different, alien almost . Finally, Nora disappears behind fog and drapes, and, as Torvald crawls downstage, still pleading, the pianist tears off her wig and costume in disgust (dressed in black underneath) and leaves the theatre. The drapes descend on the galleries of puppets. At about the same time, the little girl runs onstage with a wooden sword, gets on the rocking horse, and delivers Nora’s line demanding that Torvald return his wedding band. Torvald climbs off the apron of the stage into the audience and stumbles up the aisle peering at the audience and saying, “Nora? Nora?” As he exits through the back of the house, there is an enormous SLAM! and the lights go out.

OTHER STRIKING CHOICES:

OTHER GENERAL REACTIONS: Incredible, the ending especially. Even though one part of my mind was saying at times, They’re really pulling out all the old “experimental” bits (even a strobe for god’s sake), I was totally riveted. Really a great show. Seemed to me that it might have gotten close to making us feel what Ibsen’s original audience must have felt, especially by drawing attention to the melodrama.

12/9/05: First post: project description

I'm going to use this site to record sabbatical activities (Dec '05-August '06). Here's a description of what I want to do that I wrote almost nine months ago. It keeps changing, though...
--------------------------
Thumbnail description of Graham Paul's (revised) sabbatical project (January through August, 2006):

I propose to study selected American approaches to producing Shakespeare, focusing on the relationship of production to the text within the context of American culture; I hope to observe how cultural attitudes and circumstances may affect specific production choices. I plan to observe a wide range of approaches, to observe rehearsals and pre-production meetings as well as performances, to interview directors and others directly involved in Shakespearean production, and eventually to arrive at a sense of some of the different attitudes that inform American directors’ approaches to this kind of work. I’m particularly interested in the question of constraint. In essence: What determines why a specific director in a specific situation makes one choice rather than another, and what choices are rejected out of hand? What constraints is a director conscious of (and what constraints might she or he be unconscious of)? What is a director’s sense of obligation to the immediate audience? To the text? To the culture?

These questions are of particular interest to me because I choose to direct Shakespeare in a small American college, and I am acutely conscious of my own constraints in relation to the material. I think that the most immediate and long-lasting effects of my study will be on my own work as a director, as a teacher, and as the head of a theatre program that places Shakespeare at its center, and I will direct a Shakespeare production immediately after my sabbatical as one means of testing as well as sharing what I have learned. Because I also think that the search for answers such as those I have posed may be of interest to others in my position in academic as well as professional theatre, I also intend to submit results of my performance-based research to various theatre-related journals.