30 January 2023

"A Maharajah's Festival for Body and Soul"

by Richard Schechner

[Richard Schechner is a prominent teacher of and writer on theater and has made a lifelong study of Asian performance forms and practices, especially Indian forms.  (Full disclosure: Schechner was one of my professors in New York University’s Department of Performance Studies.  He’s now emeritus.) 

[Among his other credits, he is the editor of The Drama Review and was founder and artistic director of the Performance Group (1967-80), progenitor of today’s Wooster Group, and, from 1992 to 2009, of East Coast Artists  This article first appeared in the New York Times on 26 November 2000 in the “Arts & Leisure” section. 

[The Ramlila is an enactment of the tale of Rama, the hero of the epic poem the Ramayana who is often worshipped by Hindus as an incarnation of the god Vishnu.  In the Ramlila, the myth is presented as a cycle play, much like the mystery plays of Europe, and the whole celebration can last from seven to 31 days, depending on the region of India (each of which celebrates it in its own style at a different time of the year), and evokes the atmosphere of a secular festival as well as providing for religious observance. 

[The Ramlila of Ramnagar, described in Schechner’s report below, celebrated for almost 200 years, is the largest, longest, and most elaborate of the various festivals in India and the Indian diaspora.  For the interested reader, the Ramlila festival and performances are described in many books, including Anuradha Kapur’s Actors, Pilgrims, Kings, and Gods: The Ramlila at Ramnagar (Calcutta: Seagull Books, 1990).]

A king, his prince and his courtiers ride in full pomp atop richly caparisoned elephants. They, along with tens of thousands of spectator-devotees, their hands pressed together in the Hindu prayer-salute, admire and worship the gods Vishnu and Lakshmi in their incarnations as Rama and Sita. Titanic battles pit human-size gods against 50-foot-high demons.

For a whole month there is continuous theater, 31 daily episodes of love, war, exile, intrigue and adventure. The stages for this performance of great magnitude are locations dispersed, filmlike, throughout Ramnagar (literally, Ramatown), a midsize settlement across the Ganges River from the holy city of Benares [now called Varanasi] in the north Indian province of Uttar Pradesh.

Ramnagar is the seat of the Maharajah of Benares, Vibhuti Narain Singh, still revered by multitudes of Indians more than 50 years after losing his crown and his kingdom when the Princely State of Benares was dissolved into the Union of India in 1949.

This is Ramlila, or Rama’s play: participatory environmental theater on a grand scale. Ramlila is theater — and it is religious devotion, pilgrimage, a festive fair and political action. Audiences range from a few thousand for some episodes to 100,000 for others. Every Hindu Indian, and most Muslims, know the story of Ramlila; it is always being presented in films, on television, as graphic art and in literature, ranging from great poetry to comic books. There are thousands of local Ramlilas enacted all over Hindi-speaking India — and in the diaspora, too, from Trinidad to Queens.

But the Ramlila of Ramnagar is different. It features the Maharajah of Benares as patron, director and player. It is many days longer than other Ramlilas. It is more skillfully produced theatrically. It draws much larger and more devoted crowds. And its future may be more precarious.

During Ramlila, Ramnagar is transformed into a living theatrical model of the entire Indian subcontinent, from the Himalayan mountains in the north to Sri Lanka off the southeast coast. Nothing of Ramlila’s size, totality and intensity has been seen in the West since medieval times. Compared with Ramlila, the Oberammergau Passion Play and Peter Brook’s “Mahabharata” are small scale.

The text of Ramlila is a version of the poet-sage Valmiki’s 2,000-year-old classical Sanskrit poem known as “The Ramayana.” Like “The Iliad,” Ramlila tells the story of a great war waged to recover a stolen wife. The background for this tale is the rise to power of Ravana, the 10-headed demon king of Lanka (today’s Sri Lanka), who terrorizes humans and gods. The gods implore Vishnu and Lakshmi to take human form — as Rama and Sita — and subdue Ravana. This they do, but as humans they are bound by the laws of human nature and society.

On the night that Rama is to be made king of Ayodhya, a reversal of fortune occurs and he is sent into exile, along with his brother Lakshmana and his wife, Sita. In the forest, Ravana tricks Sita and kidnaps her. Rama gathers an army of monkeys and bears, led by the ever-loyal, much-loved monkey god, Hanuman. Across rivers, hills and jungle, Rama’s army chases after Ravana. Reaching the southeast coast, Rama’s army builds a bridge across the sea to Lanka. In battle, Ravana loses his son and a brother. Finally, Ravana himself is killed by Rama. Triumphantly, Rama, Sita, Lakshmana and Hanuman return to Ayodhya, where Rama is at last crowned king — heralding a golden age called Ramraj, or Rama’s rule.

Like all great art, Ramlila changes its meaning over time. Nationalist sentiments, present mostly as a vague background 25 years ago, now operate openly, especially among many younger male spectators. And today’s Hindu nationalists, wanting to turn India into a Hindu state, hold Ramraj up as their ideal.

Under the watchful eye of the Maharajahs of Benares, Ramlila has been performed in Ramnagar every year since the early 1800’s. But how long it will continue is no longer certain. The pressures of India’s ever-increasing population and the nation’s vigorous economic growth threaten this unique theatrical-religious cycle.

Ramlila needs lots of time and space — scarce in today’s India. People who once would support Rama in his war against Ravana now run businesses that can’t be ignored for a month. At the same time, forests, ponds and open sites are being eaten up by housing and highways. Even finding younger actors and technicians to replace those already well past retirement age is proving difficult.

As an American theater director who has studied Ramlila since 1976, I am fascinated by its scale, by the attention to detail in its staging, lighting, scenic design and costuming, by the acting and singing, and by the convergence of narrative, spectacle, devotion and politics. I have seen all 31 episodes twice and, along the way, interviewed the Maharajah, the Rajkumar (crown prince) and many participants and performers in the play, as well as a number of spectators. In September [2000], I went to Ramnagar to see portions of this year’s spectacle, as I have in other years.

Ramayana means Rama’s journey, and Ramlila suggests this journey literally. There are no seats. People sit on the ground, stand, watch from rooftops or perch on walls. When the action calls for it, the crowd moves from one location to another. Following in Rama’s footsteps is fundamental to Ramlila. This movement is a kind of pilgrimage, a worship-in-action.

The festival itself transforms an area of many square miles. Some of the stages are enclosures in the middle of the town, others are deep in what was once forest and jungle, or on grassy hillsides and in open fields, or amid large gardens of fragrant blooming trees and temples and marble gazebos built by former maharajahs. For one scene, the stage is the Maharajah’s own palace, known as the Fort, which it really once was.

Each episode is called a lila [‘divine amusement’ or ‘the playful activity of a god’]. On most days, Ramlila begins at 5 p.m. and continues until 10 at night. Some episodes last late into the evening and one, Rama’s coronation, does not end until dawn.

The staging is simple and iconographic, replicating images from temples, religious paintings and popular posters. The costumes are richly woven silks in resplendent gold and red. The faces of some actors are adorned with glittering jewels. Many colorful masks and large, brightly painted papier-mache effigies animate the performances.

Certain roles are passed down in families and are usually played by the same actors year after year. This year, for example, Ravana was played by Kaushal Pati Pathak, a farmer living about eight miles from Ramnagar. When I first saw Ramlila in 1976, Kaushal’s elder brother, Swami Nath Pathak, shared the role with their father.

But this tradition is no longer secure, though it has persevered for more than 100 years. Kaushal said he did not want his son to portray Ravana. “Life as a farmer is too hard,” he said. “The Maharajah has no money anymore. I want my son to work in the city.” The sentiment is heard frequently these days.

The original Ramayana poem itself is never spoken because Sanskrit is a language very few Indians understand. Instead, what people hear is the Ramcharitmanas, a 16th-century Hindi version of the epic. The entire Manas, as it is called, is chanted by 12 men sitting each night in a circle close to the Maharajah. But even though at Ramlila one can see dozens of people reading texts of the Manas, many others cannot understand its archaic Hindi. To enable everyone to follow the story, a maharajah in the mid-19th century, Ishwari Prasad Narain Singh, commissioned a group of poets and scholars to compose dialogue in vernacular Hindi for the Ramlila.

Until that point, the performers mimed the action but did not have lines to recite. Today, the dialogue is spoken — or rather, shouted with great vigor — by the actors. It is necessary to shout because Ramlila uses no microphones. This adherence to an earlier technology — kerosene lanterns and flares provide the lighting — is a major aspect of the production. Once, in the 1940’s, microphones were used, but angry spectators stormed the stage and smashed the equipment. Ramlila exists partly as a window in time, a conscious conservation of pre-Independence traditions.

Not only the techniques, but the underlying socio-religious structures of Ramlila are extremely conservative. Tradition, of course, has its own role in the presentation of the epic. Virtually all of the Ramlila actors are Brahmin men and boys, the highest Indian caste. The exceptions include a boatman and the small boys who play the monkey and demon armies. The roles of Rama, his brothers, Bharata, Lakshmana and Shatrughna, and Sita are enacted by young boys, usually between the ages of 8 and 13, whose voices have not yet changed and who have no facial hair. These children, it is believed, who are still innocent, are the only ones fit to embody the gods.

When I asked why a girl might not play Sita, I was told that any female onstage would be considered by villagers to be sexually compromised. It is also said that any girl who portrayed Sita would never find a husband because the action in Ramlila is considered real, including the wedding rites for Sita and Rama. Thus, “No one will marry a girl who has already been married.” When asked why the youth playing Sita does not face the same problem, my informant laughed: “He is a boy. He can’t be married to another boy.” The contradiction — that what is true for a girl-as-god is not true for a boy-as-god — did not seem an issue. As for Rama, no problem: a king can have more than one wife.

The boys who enact the five most sacred roles of Rama, Sita and Rama’s three brothers are “gods for a month,” and people literally worship them by touching their feet, singing hymns in their praise, or simply staring intently at these divine beings. This intense gazing, called “taking darshan” [the auspicious sight of a Hindu or Buddhist divine image or holy person] of the gods, is adapted from Hindu temple worship, in which looking at images of the gods is thought to be beneficial. The actual felt presence of the divine is the core of the Ramlila experience.

At the other extreme, thousands of people come to Ramlila mostly to enjoy everything from snacks to dinners and to obtain goods ranging from trinkets, posters of the gods, books and good-luck charms to marijuana and hashish. Ramlila is a time and place of pleasure as well as devotion.

The largest crowds attend the final battle between Rama and Ravana. This occurs on the 10th day of the Hindu month of Ashvina, almost always in October. It is the occasion for a great theatrical spectacle, a moment of supreme religious fulfillment and yet excited festive celebration.

First, the Maharajah ritually worships weapons and horses — the symbols of his royal power. Next, he and his court mount magnificently adorned elephants and parade through the adoring crowd from the Fort to Lanka. The Maharajah then proceeds through the battleground and departs. “It is not proper for one king to witness the death of another,” the Maharajah told me. “Therefore, I do not stay to watch this lila.”

After the departure of the royals, Ravana and Rama fight. Ravana’s death is marked relatively undramatically. The actor crosses the battlefield and touches Rama’s feet in humble surrender.

A three-hour celebration ensues. The people are happy: Rama is victorious, Sita liberated, Ravana dead. It’s a great, happy picnic on a warm early autumn night. People are eating, singing, socializing, flirting and praying. Towering over the scene is Ravana’s giant effigy.

About 10 p.m., in the words of Anuradha Kapur, an Indian theater director and author of a book on the Ramlila: “All at once, the effigy bursts into flames. Firecrackers explode, bamboos crackle, sprays of sparks shoot out. The customary five hot-air balloons ride into the sky. Ravana’s mighty spirit rises heavenward. The balloons soar into the clouds until they are no more than little yellow specks. The demon is liberated.”

One group that always gains maximum pleasure and devotion from Ramlila are the sadhus, holy men who have renounced worldly goods, live on alms and spend their days and nights singing praises to the gods. The Maharajah provides all sadhus with daily rations of rice and lodging. But despite this generosity, there are many fewer sadhus than before. “Who wants to renounce the world these days?” a man asked me.

And where there used to be lightly traveled paths leading into the quiet countryside, now there are streets clogged with diesel fume spewing trucks and buses, horn-blasting cars and motorcycles, not to mention bicycles, cows, water buffalo and goats. The deeply rutted dirt roads have not been filled or smoothed for years.

Why is the Ramlila so enormous? The most direct answer is that since the early 19th century, the Ramlila has been the defining project of the Maharajahs of Benares. The current line was established in the mid-18th century and, caught between a failing Mughal [Mongol conquerors of India or their descendants] power and an emergent British presence, was not secure on the throne. Sponsoring a large Ramlila was the way for the Maharajahs of Benares to shore up their religious and cultural authority at a time when they were losing both military power and economic autonomy.

Vibhuti Narain Singh ascended the throne in 1939 when he was a boy of 12. Ten years later, his kingdom was dissolved. But the Maharajah continued to rule, not in political fact but by virtue of his learning, his religious devotion and his patronage of Ramlila. Wherever he goes, people greet him with ringing shouts of “Hara! Hara! Mahadev!” (“Shiva! Shiva! Great God!”), because he is believed to be a manifestation of Shiva, the Hindu god of destruction and reproduction. Now 73 and frail, unable to walk unassisted, the Maharajah is doing all he can to pass the Ramlila on unchanged.

With the participation of Nissar Allana, a stage designer, and myself, the Maharajah is planning a Ramlila museum, which will take shape first as an Internet site with thousands of images, as well as sound recordings and scholarly and historical materials. Kapila Vatsyayan, one of India’s leading performance scholars, hopes to edit a facsimile edition of an early-19th-century illuminated manuscript, a four-volume version of the Manas with hundreds of original illustrations in a style influenced by Mughal painting.

I am helping to prepare a prompt book detailing all of the current staging — a how-to-do-it manual that the Maharajah hopes will assist his son, Anant Narain Singh, who is now in his 30’s, when it becomes his turn to oversee the Ramlila.

The Ramnagar Ramlila has thrived for nearly two centuries as a magnificent spectacle, a religious experience and a cosmic drama. But will it make it through the next 25 years? The crown prince has never known what it is to rule a state. Is his devotion as intense as his father’s? Can he command the same respect? He is a more modern man than his father. Is it an irony or a sign of the times that on several occasions when we have met, I was dressed in Indian kurta and pajamas, while he wore casual Western clothes?

BUT succession to the throne is not the only uncertainty facing Ramlila. A bridge across the Ganges that opened this year funnels hordes of trucks close to the Ramlila stages. New housing overruns rustic Ramlila settings.

Meanwhile, money is a big problem. Environments and costumes are beginning to look rundown. Performers receive a few hundred rupees as a contribution to those who do sacred work. At one time, this money amounted to something, but no longer. Atmaram, the 80-year-old supervisor of props, sets, lights, costumes and special effects, was not sanguine about the future. “I am training no one,” he said. “After I am gone, who will know what to do?” Atmaram has been on the job for more than 50 years. The knowledge he carries in his head is not replaceable.

Until now, few outsiders have attended Ramlila. It doesn’t make sense to go for one day, and Ramnagar does not have the infrastructure to accommodate longer visits, unless one is ready to rough it. For more foreigners to come — or even for upscale Indians from Delhi and Calcutta [now Kolkata] — Ramnagar will require extensive upgrading. The crown prince is studying the possibility of converting a portion of the Fort into a five-star hotel.

Yet everyone recognizes that Ramlila’s uniqueness is a function of its nontourist Indianness, of its being theater and more than theater at the same time. Will increased attention from outsiders help preserve or further disturb Ramlila?

[On 17 August 2018, I posted “Speaking Truth To Power” on Rick On Theater, a report describing the Shaliko Company’s production of its 1987 “Circus Opera,” Mystery History Bouffe Goof, conceived by company director Leonardo Shapiro.  A modern take on Vladimir Mayakovsky’s 1918/1921 Mystery-Bouffe, I made a comparison of Shapiro’s production to the Ramlila.

[I’m in the process of preparing a biographical post on Leonardo Shapiro, about whose work I’ve blogged many times (including the most recent offering, the four-part “Leonardo Shapiro’s Strangers: A Dramaturg’s View,” 8, 11, 14, and 17 January.  I hope to have it ready for posting shortly.]


25 January 2023

Dramaturgy Analyses, Part 2

 

[After my internship with the StageArts Theater Company concluded with the end of the Spring 1984 term at NYU, Cynthia Jenner, the instructor for Production Dramaturgy, the course I was taking in the Department of Performance Studies; the two StageArts artistic directors, Ruth Ann Norris and Nell Robinson; and I worked out a plan to continue my work as literary manager through the summer (21 May-31 August 1984, NYU’s Summer Term) as a Supervised Research. 

[As with the spring internship, the subject of “Dramaturgy Analyses, Part 1,” I was obligated to keep a journal.  At the end of the term, I turned in the journal, copies of all my work product from the project, and a “Summary and Evaluation” (dated 9 January 1985).  As I did with Part 1, I’m posting the final document from that Supervised Research.

[It isn’t strictly necessary for ROTters to gave read Part 1 before reading Part 2 below, but it’s probably a good idea.  I use some jargon terms and some individual expressions that I define and explain in the first post that I take the liberty of not re-defining here.  (Theater may be a somewhat commonly-understood  field, especially to readers of Rick On Theater, but dramaturgy is still an esoteric subject even among theater professionals.) 

[I have also identified StageArts, the co-artistic directors, and Cynthia Jenner in the first installment for ROTters.  “Dramaturgy Analyses, Part 1” was posted on ROT on Sunday, 22 January.  Earlier postings that are relevant to this one are “Dramaturgy: The Conscience of the Theater” (30 December 2009), “A History of Dramaturgy” (31 December 2022 and 3 January 2023), and my short series, “Leonardo Shapiro’s Strangers: A Dramaturg's View” (8, 11, 14, and 17 January).]

SUMMARY AND EVALUATION
StageArts Theater Company
New York City
9 January 1985 

I’ll start off with my conclusion: StageArts doesn’t really want a literary manager. 

First of all, neither Nell Robinson nor Ruth Ann Norris knows how to make full use of the services a good literary manager can provide.  That’s not an insuperable difficulty—they could be educated.  A persevering dramaturg could discuss with them what they need, suggest ways he/she could help, and demonstrate his/her abilities.

Norris, and particularly Robinson, both profess an interest in this.  They did seem to want to know what I can do, what a dramaturg’s area of operation can cover; they asked about this several times during the spring and summer period I worked with them.

The fact is that StageArts can use, even needs a full-fledged literary manager.  They have a woefully inadequate process of evaluating scripts, a haphazard Christopher-Columbus method of discovering material, and no organized system of getting scripts through the reading process. 

[The “Christopher-Columbus method” is actually a colloquial typing term.  Touch-typists know instinctively where all the keys on a typewriter are because they’ve learned the keyboard from hours of practice and experience.  Non-touch-typists use the Columbus method of finding the right key: they discover it and land on it.  A synonymous, perhaps more familiar expression is the “hunt-and-peck” method.]

The smallness of the StageArts operation means that Norris and Robinson shoulder the whole burden of running the company.  They desperately need a member of the staff who can take part of the burden away and organize the whole process of seeking, evaluating, testing, and returning scripts. 

This was what I tried to begin over the summer on the assumption that if I could work with them full time for an extended period, I could get a working literary department started.

I began by contacting literary agents on behalf of the theater to introduce StageArts and its artistic policy to these sources of new scripts and playwrights.  I also contacted some other sources I thought might pay off in the long run. 

I tried to forge a system of reading and evaluating the scripts that came in so that it would be a routine path.  I proposed a prototype workshop program for testing new material “on the ground” after it was accepted from reading.

All of this I did with an eye to creating a literary management program that could be taken over by anyone hired to do the job.  Norris and Robinson seemed enthusiastic and receptive to the ideas and plans I discussed with them.  They made all the indications that they valued my ideas, suggestions, knowledge, and opinions.  They always seemed genuinely interested in what I had to offer.

The problem was that I didn’t really seem to be getting anything accomplished.  I was reading a great number of scripts, most from the sources I had begun to cultivate, and sending off reams of seriously considered evaluations, in a new format I devised to make them detailed and complete for both present use and future reference.

[In “A History of Dramaturgy: The Modern Era” (on Rick On Theater on 3 January), I wrote about John Corbin, the first U.S. literary manager employed at a professional theater (New Theatre, 1908-10).  He resigned in frustration after only two years because he’d found himself “doing a lot of play reading”: five scripts a day, every day of the year for his entire tenure.  It’s the lot of most play-readers, lit managers, and dramaturgs the world over.

[In her marginalia, Cynthia wrote: “Solution: recruit a battery of 1st level readers so the process goes more rapidly.”  That’s fine advice—and rather obvious, since I did several gigs as a first reader myself, as a glance at the various postings of my script reports on this blog will attest.  But I wasn’t an actual staff member at StageArts, even if the internship had morphed into a Supervised Research project.  I didn’t have the authority to hire anyone on my own initiative, and StageArts didn’t have the money to hire readers. 

[As a newbie in the field, too, I wasn’t really in a position to recruit a bunch of readers to work for free—what could I offer them as recompense?  The next StageArts production wasn’t scheduled until February 1985, so I couldn’t even offer potential readers Annie Oakleys.]

Norris and Robinson both frequently asked for my estimation of a particular script they had received from one of their own sources, and they seemed to agree with my reports.  I thought I was beginning to understand their taste better, and was being more successful at finding scripts they would like and could consider.

I was also trying to convince them to broaden their sights a little in two ways: to consider some less-known older plays to compliment the originals they wanted to produce, and to consider some slightly less conventional plays to attract the attention of critics and producers who would be less likely to see a showcase that was predictably conventional.

Both artistic directors expressed interest in these two ideas, especially the former.  But in the end, little of what I was saying was resulting in any real action.

At first this was all just frustrating.  I kept thinking that I should just have to ease them into really listening to me.  I thought it was all a matter of getting them to hear what I was saying.  It wasn’t until the end of the summer that I realized what was really operating here.  They didn’t trust me.  They trusted my intelligence, experience, and reliability.  But they didn’t trust me. 

It wasn’t personal—they didn’t trust anyone from the outside to get into the inside.  They paid lip-service to the idea of having a trusted colleague to share the load, but they are so jealous of their control over the company, they won’t let anyone else’s ideas in.

[Concerning Ruth Ann and Nell, Cynthia remarked:

I think this is only partly right.  I think they also feel intimidated by more refined intellects against whose sensibility they are forced to examine preconceived prejudices and dated tastes they are loathe to part with.  People hate to change what they are comfortable with, as a general rule.

[She agreed with me, however, that they were “jealous of their control” of StageArts.]

All of this became clear to me when they began planning the opening of a show on which they were collaborating with another producer.  The production had run into a snag, and it jeopardized not only its production, but the production of StageArts’ own first show of the season.

They never told me what the problem was (it was no more than some problem with finding a suitable theater), and wouldn’t even confide the titles of the co-production or their own first show.  I was literally frozen out of the whole matter.

I wasn’t even enough of an insider to be troubled with the names of the shows being produced until they were announced to the general public.

Another indication of StageArts’ inability to trust me is in the shows they have chosen to produce this season.  Aside from the co-production, which was outside the StageArts’ season, they have selected three plays so far.  (They may expand to a four-play season this year.)

Two of the scripts were never passed to me at all, and the third is one the artistic directors asked me to read after they had read it, and to which I reacted somewhat coolly.  They are producing it anyway.  (The play is Don Nigro’s November.)

Only one play that I recommended was given an evaluation reading; none of the others received further action.  Some of these may still be under consideration, and may be included in future seasons, but no action has been taken since I passed along the recommendations and the scripts.

Some of the playwrights and agents are becoming understandably anxious, and I have received several phone calls and letters of inquiry about a few scripts we have in limbo.

None of this indicates that StageArts should not continue to produce.  Their work is usually high-quality, though often unexciting.  They produce good showcases for actors—the kind of show an agent can see and judge the quality of a performer in the best light.

This is a valuable service to the acting community.  Whether they are contributing to the artistic life of the theatergoing public, I can’t say. 

[Cynthia: “I can.  No, they aren’t.]

Their ultimate goal is to produce these same kinds of shows, both old and new, with stars.  It seems unlikely that they will reach that goal, and I doubt they will ever develop a program of introducing new plays of any real consequence. 

That being the case, I doubt they have any real need for a literary manager in the full sense of that title.  All they need, and all they want, is a full-time script-reader.

My experience with StageArts indicates that whoever fills such a position for them ought not to have ambitions beyond a literate go-fer.  Norris and Robinson don’t really want anything else, and they won’t accept anything more.

[As I reported in the earlier post, I took two dramaturgy courses at NYU.  The first was Directing and Dramaturgy (Fall 1983), taught by Carl Weber (1925-2016), who’d been an actor and dramaturg at the Berliner Ensemble (1952-57), and assistant director to Bertoit Brecht (1898-1956). 

[The term project for that class was to make a stage adaptation from non-dramatic material, a frequent assignment for dramaturgs.  My partner and I did a mash-up of Molière’s Tartuffe and John Henry Faulk’s Fear on Trial (book, 1964; CBS television movie, 1975).

[As I also explained, I took Cynthia’s class twice.  (I also audited it once as well.)  In the first class, the one during which I interned at StageArts, we had a term assignment of making a complete work-up of dramaturgical materials to accompany the rehearsal and production of a play.  I chose one of my greatest favorites, Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot. 

[While I was doing my lit management for the internship, I was also assembling useful information of Godot for the cast and director; an annotated bibliography on the play, its genre (Absurdism), and the author; proposals for the lobby display; articles for the program; and a students’ study guide.  There was also a breakdown of the play’s structure and a production history.  (I’ve posted parts of this project on ROT.)

[The second time I took Cynthia’s course was in the spring of 1985, and my internship was with Cynthia herself.  She was in the earliest stages of forming Theatre Junction, an incipient playwrights’ company she wanted to be run by dramaturgs and focus on both new plays and new performance forms.  This encompassed new adaptations of non-dramatic material and translations.

[TJ was ultimately never realized. (At the same time as Cynthia was trying to launch TJ, she was also a principal participant in starting Literary Managers and Dramaturgs of America [LMDA, now called Literary Managers and Dramaturgs of the Americas].  LMDA was established in April 1985 and I served as Vice President for Communications in 1986-87.) 

[Cynthia enlisted me to be her assistant after we’d become acquainted during the first Production Dramaturgy course I took from her and I did a number of jobs for her, including scouting new writers and plays.  I also read some scripts and other material to determine their potential suitability for TJ.  I’ve posted some of the results of the work I did for TJ on this blog from time to time.

[In Spring 1986, I audited Cynthia’s course and did an internship with the Theatre Communications Group, the service organization that promotes professional, non-profit theater in the U.S.  Among its many services, TCG publishes American Theatre, a monthly magazine; Plays in Process, a series of scripts of new plays produced in its member theaters; and the annual Dramatists Sourcebook (1981-2010). 

[During my internship with TCG, the literary services section was in the midst of preparing the 1986-87 edition of the Dramatists Sourcebook.  It was my principal assignment to assist editor M. Elizabeth Osborn (1939-93) and her staff with that task.

[The Sourcebook was updated annually, with detailed questionnaires sent to all member theaters at the beginning of the process (before I arrived on the scene in February) and the staff was in the midst of collating the information from the returns. 

[The end result was a reference book for playwrights about when and how to submit plays and musicals to producing theaters—the Sourcebook listed only TCG members—and for festivals and contests.  The Sourcebook listed theaters that are looking for new scripts (and which ones accept unsolicited submissions), and their typical submission criteria, time frames, and contact information.  

[It was a massive undertaking and included helpful advice from the field—i.e., dramaturgs and literary managers—about how to submit scripts, the best formats for typescripts, tips on making adaptations and translations (a sideline for many playwrights), and other issues facing working dramatists.

[In fact, the term project for this iteration of Production Dramaturgy was to make an adaptation or translation.  I paired up with a classmate who spoke and read Russian (his mother taught in the NYU Department of Slavic Languages).  He had obtained a microfilm copy of a 1910 stage script adapted by Fyodor Sologub  (pseudonym of F. K. [Fyodor Kuzmich] Teternikov, 1863-1927) of his Decadent and Symbolist novel The Petty Demon (romanized Russian: Melkiy bes, 1905).

[The novel had been translated into English four times (most recent: translated by S. D. Cioran; Ardis Publishers, 1983), but the script, popularly produced by a theater in Moscow, had never been translated into any language or published (even in Russian).  My partner had made a photocopy from the microfilm of the typescript from a Leningrad (now Saint Petersburg) library. 

[We translated a chunk of the play—one act, I recall—and then selected a scene to refine and polish as a sample to turn in.  We used the published English translation as a trot and my partner did the literal translation (his Russian was better than mine, plus the text was typed in the pre-revolutionary alphabet, with which I was not familiar) and I put it into actable American English and form (and did the typing—I had a word processor by this time).

[At TCG, I did a little (copy) editing, but mostly my job was collating the returned questionnaires and calling theaters that hadn’t sent theirs in yet.  (If you think that’s a simple job, remember that TCG’s membership covers not only the three time zones of the continental U.S.—so, when we get to work at 9 a.m. in New York City, it’s only 6 in the morning in California—but also Alaska—where it’s 5 a.m. when we start work—and Hawaii—4 a.m.) 

[As that effort was in progress, the data from the questionnaires had to be entered into the word processor (this was pre-Internet) and each theater’s entry had to be printed out and proofread so it was ready to be sent to the printer (which was still working from paper copy). 

[The TCG internship was demonstrably different from the StageArts placement, but I got a real overview of the variations among the regional theaters in the United States.  (I also got to speak to a lot of lit managers, dramaturgs, and artistic directors at theaters that work with new plays.) 

[I also learned quite a bit about editing, particularly for a book (as opposed to, say, a journal article) that came in handy later.  I had remarked in one of my StageArts journals that some response I’d made to a situation was like being a teacher, a position I was in at NYU at that time as a ”preceptor” in the undergraduate Expository Writing Program.  Cynthia added in the margin that it was also like an editor, which is an aspect of a dramaturg’s work along with being a critic.

[The term project for this class, by the way, was, like with Carl Weber’s Directing and Dramaturgy class, to make an adaptation from non-dramatic material.  Because I was auditing the class, I was assigned to work with a classmate taking the course for credit.  My partner and I decided to draw on the aphorisms and other sayings of Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) to compile an “illustrated lecture” of Wilde’s visit to the United States (1881-82).

[Our concept was that while Wilde was lecturing, the “slides” would be brought to life by a small cast speaking the writer’s words in brief scenes, the dialogue for which was taken from his occasional comments about America. The performance was to be fashioned in the style of a Victorian music hall entertainment.  (I posted this snippet of “Nothing But My Genius” on ROT on 12 May 2011.)

[Later, I did other work that bore on my qualifications as a dramaturg and literary advisor.  I said above that I served as LMDA’s VP of Communications.  My main responsibility in that position was to serve ex officio as the editor of the members’ newsletter, which I titled Program Notes during my tenure.  I also hired on as editor of the newsletter of the now-defunct American Directors Institute, a service organization for stage directors and artistic directors.  I started this quarterly publication, which I named Directors Notes, and edited it from 1986 to 1988.

[(Incidentally, the similarity in the titles of the two newsletters was coincidental.  They both refer to a kind of writing of which the members of the two organizations did a lot.  The simpler newsletter title Notes was in use at the time by a musicians’ publication.)]


22 January 2023

Dramaturgy Analyses, Part 1

 

[When I was a grad student in New York University’s Department of Performance Studies, I took two courses in dramaturgy, plus a Supervised Research in the field.  I took one of the classes twice: Production Dramaturgy (Spring 1984 and Spring 1985); it was taught by Cynthia Jenner, who also oversaw my Supervised Research in the summer of 1984.

[Cynthia (b. 1939) went by C. Lee Jenner professionally; she’d written for the Los Angeles Times, Newsday, the Christian Science Monitor, the Villager, the London Guardian, Theatre Crafts, Stages, Other Stages, Performing Arts Journal, and New York Theatre Review.

[Cynthia’d been a literary manager or dramaturg for New York City’s American Place Theatre (1981-84) and the Interart Theatre of the Women’s Interart Center before teaching at DPS in 1984-85.  She also taught at Brooklyn College, City College of the City University of New York, and Brown University.

[The Spring ’84 dramaturgy class included an internship at a theater company and Cynthia placed me with the small Off-Off-Broadway showcase troupe StageArts Theater Company.  That semester-long internship (18 February-2 May 1984) converted into the Supervised Research of the following summer.  In both assignments, I was required to keep a journal; at the end of the gigs, I also wrote up a summary of my work and my conclusions about the experience.

[Since I started this extended series on dramaturgy and literary management with my two-part “History of Dramaturgy” (31 December 2022 and 3 January 2023), I’ve decided to continue the effort by posting the concluding documents of the StageArts placements.

[(I followed “A History of Dramaturgy” with a four-part series, “Leonardo Shapiro’s Strangers: A Dramaturg's View” [8, 11, 14, and 17 January].  Before the current extended dramaturgy series, I posted “Dramaturgy: The Conscience of the Theater” on 30 December 2009.)

[StageArts was founded in 1977 by co-artistic directors Nell Robinson, a director, and Ruth Ann Norris, an actress.  (I was a few years shy of 40 in 1984, and I’d say Robinson and Norris were at least a half decade older than I was.)

[Created originally with the goal of producing plays that portray human nature in a positive, glowing manner, the company had presented such classics as Blithe Spirit (Noël Coward, 1941) in 1977, The Winslow Boy (Terence Rattigan, 1946) in 1978, Cap & Bells (Luigi Pirandello, 1916) in 1984, and Ira Levin’s first play, Interlock (1958).

[After 1982, StageArts began concentrating on the development of new plays and had premièred such works as Thirteen by Lynda Myles (1983), Zoology (a trilogy of plays) by Martin Jones (1983), Pigeons on the Walk by Andrew Johns (1984), Sullivan & Gilbert by Ken Ludwig (1984), and Jones’s Snow Leopards (1985).  (The company ceased producing at the end of 1987.)

[My responsibilities at StageArts included, among other things, establishing a script-soliciting, -reading, and ‑evaluating process, creating a reporting format, and advising and assisting the artistic directors in matters of script selection. 

[The company had reached a certain level of success in its seven years of producing, but it wasn’t attracting the kind of attention the artistic directors wanted—and needed if the company was going to advance in the competitive and crowded field of professional theater in New York. 

[The artistic directors wanted my help to find the kinds of scripts that would attract critical and funding interest.  One way to accomplish this, they observed from the theaters like theirs in the city, was to present new plays.  Towards this end, they wanted me to help them start a program for finding and evaluating new scripts.

[At the end of the internship, I handed in to Cynthia an “Internship Report,” concluding with a “Profile of Artistic Policy” for StageArts and an “Analysis of Literary Department and Recommendations for Improvement.”  Below are the last two documents, dated 15 May 1984.]

PROFILE OF ARTISTIC POLICY
StageArts Theater Company
New York City
15 May 1984

The StageArts Theater Company is an Off-Off-Broadway producer primarily of Showcases and Tiered Non-Profit Theatre Code productions, using a show-to-show rented space at The Actors’ Outlet, 120 W. 28th Street [in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan].  As described by co-artistic directors Nell Robinson and Ruth Ann Norris, the artistic policy of the company is to produce plays that deal with problems of the individual.  StageArts’ own statement of their “artistic goal” specifies their interest in

The production of beautifully crafted plays that speak to the best in us.  We believe that the qualities most absent on plays of the last few decades are a positive view of human beings and a respect for dramatic structure.  We want to give a chance to plays that strive for integration of plot, characterization, ideas, language and spectacle into that unique artistic whole which makes unforgettable drama or comedy.

The stress, according to Robinson and Norris, is on “beautifully crafted,” by which they mean the “well-made play.”  This translates into Realistic plays on a narrow scope and small scale, treating problems in a family or limited group.  Norris and Robinson offer as prime examples of this type of play, Terrence Rattigan’s The Winslow Boy and William Gibson’s The Miracle Worker [1959], both primarily Realistic, optimistic melodramas.

[According to a New York Times article on the topic, “Showcases are nonprofit productions meant to display the talents of actors to agents, casting directors and producers in the hope that they will be chosen for roles in other shows or that the play will be picked up by a producer.  The actors receive no weekly salaries.” 

[Participants who are Actors’ Equity Association members are supposed to be compensated for transportation costs and expenses, however.  The union also restricts the size of the audience, number of performances, length of run, hours of rehearsal, and admission charge.

[“Showcases also present works by new playwrights and directors,” wrote Andrew L. Yarrow in the Times (“Showcase Theater, Outlet for Inspired Nobodies,” 25 November 1988).  “Many producers use showcases to win potential backers, but others consider them the only affordable way to stage experimental theater in New York.”

[Since showcase productions don’t operate under an Equity contract, shows that want to cast union actors or employ a union stage manager must abide by certain rules set down by Equity in the Showcase Code.  These are known as “Equity showcases” and casting notices usually say so to attract union actors to the auditions.  There are also many non-union showcases, in which Equity members are not supposed to perform.  StageArts, of course, produced union showcases.

[The Showcase Code governed one-time productions, not theaters that produced regular seasons.  The Tiered Non-Profit Theatre Code was a set of rules governing showcase productions at theaters presenting annual multiple-play seasons and operating under larger budgets, like the Public Theater or the Roundabout Theatre Company.  It was “tiered” because the obligations increased incrementally for theaters with increasingly larger budgets.

[A well-made play is a dramatic form that arose in France in the late 19th century (la pièce bien faite) involving a tight plot, a largely standardized structure, and a climax close to the end.  The story usually depends on a key piece of information kept from some characters, but not the audience, and moves forward in a chain of actions that use minor reversals of fortune to create suspense.

[The genre was common at the turn of the 20th century, but modern writers like Alan Ayckbourn (b. 1939) and Noël Coward (1899-1973) continued to use it.  Even greats like Shaw and Ibsen applied the form to their work.]

The only production StageArts presented during my internship was Pigeons on the Walk by Andrew Johns and directed by Nell Robinson [March 1984].  The play was a “Grand Hotel” set-up of a number of people who meet in a Manhattan OTB parlor during the course of nine races on one day.  Some are regulars and know one another well, thus making this a somewhat closed group, like an extended family.  There was no unifying crisis, but several small, separate ones, most of which were, indeed, family-oriented. 

[Off-Track Betting, with parlors all over the city, was legalized in New York City in 1970 and closed in 2010 due to lack of profitability.]

Pigeons seems an excellent sample of StageArts’ artistic interest.  Other plays produced in past seasons include Blithe Spirit, The Winslow Boy, The Hasty Heart [John Patrick, 1945], and The Heiress [Ruth and Augustus Goetz, 1947], all clear examples of this kind of material.

[In the margin of my typed profile, Cynthia wrote where I observed that the plays were examples of StageArts preferred style: “But so regularly done in community and/or stock [productions] that they wouldn’t interest reviewers.  Useful only in all-star revivals or to showcase actors.”  The company had stopped presenting standards like these, 30-35 years old and more, in the early ’80s in favor of new scripts.]

Clearly, StageArts is neither experimental nor particularly socially concerned, though their shows are well-produced in all respects.  In the past, they produced a mix of old and new material fitting their taste.  This season, however, they switched to a policy of producing solely new works with an eye to attracting critical attention which they need to get funding.  So far, this policy has not produced results, and Robinson and Norris and I have discussed looking at some older, but less frequently produced plays.  Robinson has expressed an interest in Edmond Rostand [French. 1868-1918].

[Again, Cynthia commented, regarding the lack of critical response: “Need aggressive press agent,” a conclusion to which I also came.  After I raised the name of Rostand, my teacher merely wrote: “Oy.”]

I have begun to suggest some plays a little afield of StageArts’ usual material.  Robinson has become interested in a new play I recommended that has a broader scope and deals with a topical problem.  She has also become intrigued with the works of Yevgenii Shvarts [Russian, 1896-1958], certainly no Realistic playwright.  In the future, StageArts may produce a mixture not only of old and new plays, but of Realistic and non-Realistic (however slightly) ones.  It is unlikely they will become truly experimental, but some variety may be in the offing.

[I posted my StageArts script reports on three of Shvarts’s plays on Rick On Theater in “Yevgenii Shvarts: Three Script Evaluations,” 9 March 2020.  Three Rostand play evaluations are also posted in “More Script Reports IV: Classics,” 14 December 2021.

[The “new play” in which Nell Robinson was interested was one I gave her, written by a neighbor, Ken Greenberg, whose earlier play, Comes the Happy Hour!, I had directed in an independent showcase in 1982.  The play in question here was Little Boy, Fat Man, set in the years just before, during, and just after World War II and is an exploration of the moral and psychological implications of working on the atom bomb.  All the men—two Americans, a Viennese Jew, and a Japanese—met while studying nuclear physics in Germany.]

*  *  *  *
ANALYSIS OF LITERARY DEPARTMENT
AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT
StageArts Theater Company
New York City
15 May 1984 

It is difficult—if not impossible—to analyze a department that virtually does not exist.  Although StageArts lists Holly Hill as Literary Manager, she does not function full time, and does not seem to have any regular, specific responsibilities.  In fact, I have had no contact with her, and when I suggested I talk with her about the program, neither Robinson nor Norris thought there was any need.  If there is a dramaturgical program extant, I do not know what it is.

[Holly Hill was a reviewer for the short-lived New York Theatre Review (1977-79), the Gannett Westchester (New York) papers, Other Stages, and the London Times.  She taught at John Jay College of the City University of New York and was considered an authority on British dramatist Terence Rattigan (1911-77).  When I noted in my internship journal that Norris and Robinson seemed to hold Rattigan’s The Winslow Boy up as “their ideal play,” Cynthia, who knew Hill, remarked, “Holly Hill’s influence.  Dissertation on Rattigan.”]

When I first interviewed with Robinson and Norris, it was clear they had no specific idea how to use me.  (They had two specific tasks for me to perform, but no general plan for me.)  My estimation is that there is no program, and that it will be my responsibility to create one, with the advice and consent of Robinson and Norris.

[When I made the comment in my journal that the artistic directors “don’t really know what to do with me,” Cynthia wrote, “That’s the wrong perspective.  Don’t worry if they know what to do with you.  Do you know what to do with or for them?” 

[My response to Cynthia would have been that: a) I do worry about their not knowing how to make use of me because this was an internship, not a job.  I could—and did—do many things for StageArts on my own initiative.  Sometimes I checked with the artistic directors beforehand and other times I informed them after the fact, but I had only limited autonomy since I wasn’t a true member of the theater’s staff.  I could only be a self-starter to a limited degree.

[Cynthia, of course, had been the lit manager at APT for three years and had established a working relationship with artistic director Wynn Handman (1922-2020).  She’d been hired for an existing post that was a valued member of the theater’s staff.  She knew what her boundaries were and where she could push the envelop some.  As an intern in a post that hadn’t existed in practice till then (Holly Hill was lit manager in name only, really), I wasn’t in that position.

[And b): if Robinson and Norris didn’t know how they could use me/my skills, they couldn’t ask for help or suggestions where I might be effective but didn’t know they needed support.  “Intern” and “dramaturg” aren’t synonyms for “mindreader,” after all.]

Based on the two responsibilities laid out at the start of my internship [that would be 1) organizing the multistep script-finding process and 2) researching a play-reading series], I plan to work up a format for reporting the evaluation of plays, and a workshop program of readings of works under consideration to nurture them into—and possibly through—production. 

[There really were two different reading programs.  One, the developmental or “evaluative” (as Cynthia called them) readings, didn’t exist at all yet.  These were strictly for the playwright and the theater, to test the script for viability as it made its way to production.  I called these “script-readings” because it concerned the working text, not a form of performance of a finished play.

[The other was the play-reading series, which StageArts already had, but it was ad hoc, randomly scheduled, and only minimally promoted.  These were staged readings with actors who’d rehearsed and an audience made up largely of StageArts subscribers and other theatergoers (i.e., the public).  It’s a public relations and audience-building exercise that could present both old and new plays.]

For the present—and immediately foreseeable future—StageArts should restrict its program to testing viable scripts and doing only minor rewriting to smooth out small problems.  Perhaps in a few seasons, with a strong production/dramaturgic background established, they can embark on a program of developing material from an earlier stage. 

[In my journal for the Summer ’84 Supervised Research, I reported that Norris and Robinson wanted to work with developing playwrights, Cynthia wrote: “But they are incompetent to do this task.”  I, myself, concluded, “I’m not sure R[uth] A[nn] & Nell are equipped to work with someone w[ith] so much to learn,” to which my teacher merely added, “Yes.”]

Specific projects I plan to start on include a systematized evaluation process, so organized that a new dramaturgical intern can inherit the system without a glitch, and readers can be recruited and, with a standardized format, be able to produce evaluation reports all containing the same useful information.  At present, there is no format, and practically no guidelines. 

(Robinson and Norris specified only a plot synopsis and a statement of the theme; I had to fill in the rest on my own.  They are satisfied, but I am not.)

[Cynthia gave me some feedback on this—she’d devised several reporting forms for theaters and other evaluation programs like the Rockefeller Foundation Fellowships for American Playwrights Program—and I incorporated them in later reports.]

From the reading series Robinson and Norris wanted me to research, I plan to build a workshop program through which to take scripts selected from the evaluation process.  I would like to see a private, unrehearsed reading, leading to a semi-rehearsed private reading, and finally one (at least) staged reading before an invited audience.

In between, the literary manager will work with the playwright on changes and adjustments, with input from the director and the artistic directorship.

[Cynthia’s sole comment here was: “This game plan seems sound to use.”  A “private reading” would be before the artistic directors, the production director (if one is already hired), the lit manager, and the playwright.  The “invited audience” would include those people, plus a few specially selected knowledgeable friends and supporters—i.e., actors and directors, other theater artists, friends of the author but not subscribers or the public.

[An “unrehearsed reading” is one for which the cast would meet with the director (if no director has been assigned, the literary manager usually performs this task) and writer about two hours before the reading and read through the script to familiarize themselves with the words.  There’s no movement by the actors; someone reads the stage directions as necessary.  At a “semi-rehearsed reading,” the cast meets with the director and the playwright one time a day or so before the reading to put a little context (i.e., acting) into the reading.  There’s still no moving about the stage.

[In a “semi-staged reading,” the actors get up from their seats, scripts in hand, and face each other as they speak, perform some simple, sometimes mimed, movements, but there are no props or costumes and moving about the performing area is minimal and suggested. 

[The idea for all these readings is to put the emphasis on the words, not spotlight the actors’ skills.  The point is to reveal to the writer what works and what doesn’t and where potential problems might develop when the play goes into actual rehearsals.  It is a diagnostic tool, not a performance.]

Subsequent to these two developments, StageArts will eventually need someone to assume responsibility for production assistance in terms of program notes, subscriber information, and incidental projects such as lobby displays and intermission features.  Currently, Robinson and Norris do all this themselves, taking time away from directing and producing. 

[Nell Robinson directed most of StageArts’ productions. 

[Cynthia had what she labeled a “credo”: “I believe the experience of a play starts in the lobby.”  She also admonished me, “Research can help [a] dramaturg [with] support services designed to enrich the experience for theatergoers.”]

With an expanded and more complex program, the subsidiary duties will become far too time- and thought-consuming to be accomplished in stolen time.  When StageArts reaches that point, say after a season or two, I would like a system to have been worked out so a new literary manager can move in and the program will be self-perpetuating.

Until I have gone over all the particulars with Robinson and Norris, and begun to work out the steps, I cannot accurately predict the specifics of any of this; it would be premature to do so now.  Tentative plans have been made to begin the discussion stage shortly.  Based on the outcome of that, I will start making plans and working out details for the first trials.

[The “tentative plans” I spoke of above was, of course, the Supervised Research which continued the internship with StageArts through the summer of 1984,  There was a summing-up at the end of that stint as well, and I will post it next.  Come back to Rick On Theater on 25 January to see what I had to say at the conclusion of my gig as lit manager of the StageArts Theater Company.]


17 January 2023

Leonardo Shapiro's 'Strangers': A Dramaturg's View – Part 4

 

NOTES FROM VIEWING STRANGERS ON VIDEOTAPE

[I made the notes below while I was watching videotapes of two performances of the Shaliko Company’s Strangers during its workshop run at the Washington Square Church, in Greenwich Village, Manhattan.  The play ran 1-24 March 1990, and because it was a workshop, there were no reviews.  

[There was some press coverage, though, but only one neighborhood newspaper, the Villager, that came out during the run; two other articles came out later: High Performance in the Winter issue, 1990, which included an interview with the director, and a long and detailed analyses, also with an interview with Shapiro, in Text and Performance Quarterly, in October 1991.

[I have made some explanatory insertions (in brackets), but otherwise, I’ve left my note-taking shorthand as I wrote it.  I’m trusting that it’s not so arcane as to be incomprehensible.]

10/22[/1990] – Saturday performance [Washington Square Church, New York City; March 1990]

Choreography for party scene?  Phys. characters not clear or specific; movement frenetic, but undifferentiated.

Words not always clear – bad acoustics + tape fidelity?  May need more careful speech work.

Unfocus speakers @ mikes as you said [see Part 3: “A Conversation with Leonardo Shapiro,” 14 January] – shadows good – or mikes behind scrims?

Action scenes: more specific?  Activities/movement too general and unfocused; not nec. mimetic – more hard-edged.

What does aud. know at start?  Program?

Multiple-action scenes – very exciting and energizing.  Are they clear enough?

Multiple voices: Many actors as one char./one actor as many chars. –  very interesting; seems clear – depersonifies characters – OK?

[Shapiro employed this technique in several productions, including The Yellow House, the first Shaliko production I saw in 1986.  It’s a common convention in many Asian theater forms, most notably kabuki, and when I pointed this out to him and asked if he was familiar with Asian theater, he told me he wasn’t.  After that conversation, however, he read up on some Asian theater forms and consciously began using some of the practices about which he learned.

[Readers should note that Bertolt Brecht (1898-1956) and Jerzy Grotowski (1933-99), Shapiro’s principal theatrical models, were both heavily influenced by Asian theater.  One of Brecht’s favorite actors was Mei Lanfang (1894-1961), a renowned star of Chinese opera, and he borrowed a lot from that performance form.  Grotowski was influenced by, among other Asian forms, Indonesian wayang topeng (dance drama) and wayang orang (“human” drama).]

The more animated the vocal track, the more it takes focus from action track.  Which is more important and when?  May be OK – doesn’t happen all the time.

Radiation costumes (patients) and tape – repeatable symbols for other “waste”?  (re: Naipaul metaphor)

Yes, Robbie [McCauley] is best actress – most expressive (esp. body); others need to match her expressiveness for clarity.  She is less “non-person” than others – more “Stanislavsky,” less impassive automaton.  Which do you want? 

 Music is very evocative and effective.  [In performance, the instrumental track, composed by the late jazz percussionist Max Roach (1924-2007), was played live by musician Francisco Mora (b. 1947).]

Shadow visuals, too.  Esp. X’s [stage crosses].

Colors seem very subdued throughout.  Can you use some specific color bursts to focus special moments?  The contrast would be forceful way to attract attention where needed.

Why does Cathy [Biro] (Lisa [Steinberg]) become Hedda [Nussbaum], end Act II?  Why not continue w/Robbie?  Why confuse these characters/actors?

Is connection w/UFO’s clear?

Ghost Dance is beautiful theatrically.  Is it connected to rest?  Does aud. see this connection?  Can it be set up better?  [Ghost Dance is explained in Part 3 (14 January)—the conversation transcript.]

Aud. contact tentative (in Ghost Dance) – can it be strengthened?  Start earlier?  Model it by cast?  Can cast move into aud. and stay with them through end of scene?  Aud. does not seem to know what to do, how they’re part.  Aud. are the “living” – let “dead” cast “return” to them by staying among them.

Ending w/Hedda privileges her and spotlights her – why not end with Brazil?  Then Ghost Dance?  Too obvious?

§ §

11/5[/1990] – Sunday performance [Washington Square Church; March 1990]

Leide discovering the blue stuff w/Hedda as voice track is very effective theatrically.  Does it need focusing or pointing?  Should L’s movements w/stuff be more specific?  Less dialogue (Hedda)?  Split focus w/so many words to hear – want more on L?

I-5 (p. 10), “Share the Stuff,” seems very dark.  Is it the tape?  Would more light hurt it?

Specificity of movements for ea. char. in I-6 (Musical Sequence) is poor – needs to be sharper, too general.  ([M– G–] lacks energy and commitment.)

Words over mikes are very hard to understand.  Bad acoustics, bad tape fidelity, or bad vocal work by actors?  How well do you want us to hear words?

Example of lack of specificity: Leide after she throws up – what happens to her?  If lights still on her, she must continue action somehow, not just stop.

Overall, visual far stronger and clearer than dialogue.  Words sometimes just bkgrd. noise indicating emotional level, but not intellectual content.

Dumb shows are most vivid and clearest actions.  [These would be the Goiania story, which is told wordlessly.]  Actions and movements seem most specific, and commitment and understanding of actors seems strongest.  NB: Nativity Sc. (II-6).

Suggest need for more specific work w/actors on mvmt. and actions in other scenes.  Often seem to be moving solely as blocking, w/no content.  Is that what you want?  Abstract, non–mimetic OK, but not aimless and unfocused.

Am disturbed by conflicting focuses btn vocal track and action track.  Should be equal?  If not, which predominates?

Shadow plays in house is very striking.  [House set was a frame of metal pipe covered with newspaper.  Actors did shadow play behind it.]

Poetry scenes (e.g.: III-1) are also very powerful.  More commitment to language and to emot. content.  Freed from realism of language?  Seem cleaner-edged and more specific, less muddy and confused (on part of actors, therefore for aud.)

Visual image of III-1 is extremely compelling.  Lighting and positioning of actors work together wonderfully.

“New” script still does not reflect taped perf. exactly.  Change order of scenes in script after perf?  [This refers to the undated script Shapiro gave me which predated the performance on the tape.  Changes seemed to have been made in rehearsal that weren’t recorded in the script.]

Non-miked speech is much clearer – 100% intelligible.  Must be mikes in space that muffle voices.  [This is confirmed by Shapiro in Part 3.]

So much Hedda dialogue puts a lot of focus on that story – makes play seem to be about her.  Needs to be split up w/other material and deemphasized.

Really like Ghost Dance.  Is there more of this material to use elsewhere?  The non-literalness is very theatrical, striking, and provocative; can the final GD be set up by some early foreshadowing?

Aud. work in GD needs to be developed – very awkward and uncertain.  Are there other places to incl. audience to est. this convention?  Smaller places to foreshadow this big one?

Unimportant, personal question: Is there any other useful instrument than piano for GD?  Something more “native”––flute or string?  Piano sounds so bland and “white-bread.”

Are they saying the dedications as they hand out the candles?  I never heard that on first tape – other aud. can’t hear, either, I presume.  Should they?

Check German:   wieterwünschen should be wieder– 
                       allmahlich should be allmählich
                       Stromung should be Strömung

[Cathy Biro recites some verses of Rilke’s Duino Elegies in German.]

*  *  *  *

LATER RUMINATIONS

[Long after the 1991 Strangers project was abandoned, after Leo Shapiro left New York and retired to New Mexico, even 7½ years after Shapiro death, I had some thoughts about the play and the director’s relationship to it.  Plainly, these ideas weren’t pertinent to my abortive work as dramaturg for a potential Shaliko production, but I had profiled Shapiro and his company for TDR in 1993 ("Shapiro and Shaliko: Techniques of Testimony," The Drama Review (Winter 1993)), and I’d shadowed him for many months in 1992.

[Shapiro and I weren’t actually friends—we didn’t socialize together during the time I knew him (1986 to his death), but we were mutually respectful professional colleagues.  During the work on “Techniques of Testimony,” I watched Shapiro work on two productions and several other projects; watched him teach in the Trinity/La MaMa Performing Arts Program; interviewed him and his colleagues, collaborators, and students; combed his personal and company files; and dug up reviews of his productions, articles and other pieces he’d written (going back even to college and his time with the New Mexico communes in the late 1960s). 

[Though many people knew Shapiro far better than I did, I eventually knew more about his work—and even his life, too, probably—than anyone else, possibly including him.  After the TDR profile was published, I decided that I had so much more material on Shapiro and his work that I should expand it into a book-length endeavor.  That work was never completed, I regret to say. 

[“Techniques of Testimony” was specifically about Shapiro’s work with the Shaliko Company.  “Commitments and Consequences,” as the book was tentatively entitled, went back into his childhood and young adulthood before he founded Shaliko, and continued into his retirement and up to his death.  (I’ve posted parts of the book on Rick On Theater over the years.)

[As a result of this continuing focus on Leonardo Shapiro and his theater, even in 2004, I was thinking about him and his work.  (Kirk Woodward, my longtime friend and frequent contributor to ROT, often acted as my “reader,” and so he knew a lot about Shapiro, Shaliko, and “Commitments and Consequences.”)

[I’ve edited the two e-mails below slightly for ease of reading.  Some irrelevant remarks have been eliminated as well.  Otherwise, I’ve left my casual e-mail prose and abbreviations intact as I wrote them.  Unfortunately, I didn’t save Kirk’s responses and my e-mail archive doesn’t go back past 2011.]

From: [Rick]
To: Kirk Woodward
Subject: Re: Hierarchies
Date: Wednesday, 30 June 2004 3:00 PM 

Kirk—

. . . .

I had a somewhat peculiar thought late last night.  Actually, it was very early this a.m.—I have to take Thespie out in the middle of the night, usually 3-5 a.m. when I get up to use the john.  [My dog, Thespis, was about 16 or 17 at this time and, among other old-age issues, he was incontinent and couldn’t make it through a night without going out.]

The idea itself isn’t so peculiar—as a matter of fact, it’s embarrassing that I hadn’t thought of it much, much earlier—it’s the way it came to me that’s odd.  It’s usually already dawn when I go out with Thesp, so you can read news headlines pretty well. 

I pass the vending boxes for all the papers on my corner, and I glance at them as I pass—and the Daily News cover caught my eye.  Did you see it—it’s kind of a strange cover, almost an editorial and pretty harsh in its phrasing.  It’s about the release of Joel Steinberg [see Part 1 for a brief identification], and it got me thinking.  Hedda Nussbaum is a principal figure in Shapiro’s Strangers, as you may recall—he uses her testimony (incl. stuff about how JS hates being stared at—the very point the DN uses) as part of the dialogue. 

[The New York Daily News of Wednesday, 30 June 2004, had several articles about the release of Steinberg that day.  The one that mentioned his dislike of being stared at is “Daily News Says.”  There was a tease for the article on the tabloid’s cover, which was what I caught that morning in the newspaper vending box window.

[Other stories covering Steinberg’s release in the Wednesday issue were: “Sick Mind Survived Stretch Behind Bars” by Michael Daly, “After 17 Years, The Monster Walks Free” by Joe Mahoney and Tracy Connor, and “Say Lawyer Forged Judge’s Signature” by John Marzulli.  (The paper of 29 June also had multiple articles on the same topic.)] 

So the JS cover got me thinking about Strangers again, and I decided that that play, Leo’s last large company-developed project, was really sort of autobiographical.  (This is way too complex a thought to do here, and I haven’t sorted it all out cogently yet, so just go with it for the mo.)  Leo WAS a “stranger”: he saw himself as an outsider—not just an av.-gardist, but a real outsider.  He ID’d with all the “strangers” in the play—they were HIM! 

I began to think thru the other stuff he did and the people he admired and was drawn to ([American] Indians, David Wojnarowicz, the Beats, prisoners) and how he described himself in various situations (he was one of only 2 Jews at [Admiral] Farragut Academy [a military prep school in St. Petersburg, Fla.], for instance; he was a lone Anglo among “Cuba’s angry exiles” in his Miami schools, and so on) and the kinds of philosophy and politics he espoused—it’s all about being on the outside.  Not just ahead of the crowd, but completely different.  Strangers is an expression of this sense of himself in a way that all the other pieces only suggested.

The odd thing for me is that I have almost all of this in The Book [Kirk’s and my private reference to “Commitments and Consequences”] somewhere or another, but I never put it together coherently.  (Okay, this isn’t coherent, either—but it’s basted together some.)  I have to work it out and see if it’s consistent—at least as consistent as anything about a living person can be. 

(There was an article in yesterday’s Times’ science sec. that disparaged the tendency we all have to psychoanalyze people at a distance—like that book on the Big Men, as you have been calling them, I wrote you about some weeks ago which this article even mentions, and other such attempts at “literary psychoanalysis.” 

[The Times article is “The Perils of Putting National Leaders on the Couch” by Sally Satel (New York Times, 29 June 2004, in the “Science Times” section [sec. F]).  The book is either Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President by Justin A. Frank (Regan Books, 2004), or Leaders and Their Followers in a Dangerous World: The Psychology of Political Behavior by Jerrold M. Post (Cornell University Press, 2004)—both are mentioned in the article.]

(Even if I had the credentials to try that, I don’t have the standing to do it, so I have to guard against making psychological pronouncements.  But I CAN lay out my observations and suggest a connection/interpretation, I think.  In fact, I think I’m supposed to do that.) 

Usually when I take Thespie out in the early a.m., I have no trouble getting right back to sleep.  This morning, I lay in bed for several minutes pondering this connection (Leo liked to talk about “connecting the dots”—esp. in the context of Strangers) until I finally got back up, switched on a light, and made some notes so when I got up later, I wouldn’t have forgotten 1) what I had been thinking of and 2) how I got to it. 

(I’ve done that before—had an idea I thought was good, then later couldn’t remember what it was—only that I had had this great idea!)  Okay, this isn’t brilliant—esp. since I should have thought of it years ago—and maybe you saw it right away when you read The Book.  As I said, it’s all in there—just not connected up and labeled.  Think it’s anything?  When I get it more cogently worked out, with examples and evidence, maybe I’ll lay it on you again.

~Rick

 § §

From: [Rick]
To: Kirk Woodward
Subject: Re: Hierarchies
Date: Thursday, 1 July 2004 1:06 PM

Kirk—

. . . .

I may have known Leo, but I didn’t know him all that well.  Or that closely.  I also wasn’t analyzing him when we talked—even if I had known how to do that.  Also, a lot of what I know about him is second- and third-hand—stuff other people told me (and some of that was stuff other people had told them!). 

It’s also easy to cherry-pick—one of the faults the Times article pointed out (and, to an extent, what you suggest Holroyd is doing—tho’ it’s not for psychoanalysis)—by citing only the behaviors that fit our (my)  “diagnosis.” 

[Holroyd is almost certainly Michael Holroyd (b. 1935), an English biographer, because he wrote a four-volume biography of George Bernard Shaw and a one-volume revised edition (Bernard Shaw [Random House, 1997]) that Kirk read (and cited several times) in his “Re-Reading Shaw,” posted irregularly in five parts on ROT between 3 July and 2 September 2016).  Kirk is a great fan of Shaw and has posted on him several times on this blog.]

One difference may be that I didn’t decide first that Leo was this or that and then set out to prove it; I’m finding descriptions/diagnoses that fit the character I observed or have read about. 

(Remember, I actually said I thought he was manic-depressive—bipolar, they call it today.  Acc. to Rosalía [Triana, Shapiro’s last romantic partner], he may actually have been [diagnosed as] a “borderline personality with narcissistic tendencies.”  After I read up on that, it seems to fit—and he was taking medication that’s prescribed for it.  The same meds are prescribed for other conditions, too, however.)

Anyway, I haven’t said Leo was “borderline”; I’ve only reported that some people believed he was and he exhibited some of the symptoms. 

And furthermore, as far as the Strangers/stranger thing is concerned, I’m not really going to “diagnose” Leo, but offer an opinion—clearly my right, and even my responsibility, I think—on how he situated himself in that context. 

Clearly, he chose to make that piece for a reason.  (Remember, all art is a response to something—even if I’m the only one to have said that.)  He may have been introduced by one of his students to the story of the Brazilian family with the cesium, but he put the spin on it and assembled all the other materials that ended up comprising Strangers.  And he chose the title, didn’t he? 

I don’t imagine he actually thought of it as autobiographical, but he did acknowledge that many of his plays spoke to him about his own life—Kafka[: Father and Son by Mark Rozovsky, 1985, 1990, 1992] was about him and his father; so was Woyzeck [Georg Büchner, 1976] in a way (the guy who sold Woyzeck the knife was modeled after Leo’s dad in his production).

[Shapiro had a fraught relationship with his father, Irving Shapiro (1912-74).  Irving and Shapiro’s mother, Florence (1913-94), separated in 1949 and divorced in 1951,  He left her with Leo (his birth name; b. 1946) and his older brother, Gary (b. 1941), without money or an income.]

The revelation to me when I lit on this connection was the understanding that Leo wasn’t a leader of the opposition, a guy way out in front with others following behind him.  That’s Ibsen.  (Remember the Ibsen remark I quoted in defense of Leo’s reinterpretation of Ghosts?  “A crowd now stands where I stood when I wrote my earlier books.  But I myself am there no longer, I am somewhere else—far away ahead of them—or so I hope.”) 

Leo was outside the whole process, not just in front of it.  (It may be significant—altho’ unwittingly so—that one of the books he found important was Hermann Hesse’s The Glass Bead Game/Magister Ludi [1943].  One lesson of the book is that, when faced with the choice of playing a game one way or another—well or badly, say—there is always one other choice that is seldom recognized: Not to play the game at all.) 

Leo didn’t just elect to play the game by different rules—he elected not to play at all; he played his own game.  He suffered for it—society doesn’t take kindly to people who don’t play its game.  It is also significant, I think, that he admired the Situationists [see “Guy Debord & The Situationists,” 3 February 2012]—they made up their own games, too, usually to subvert the proscribed games society determined we should play.  The Situationists weren’t trying to lead society anywhere.  They were trying to break it! 

David Wojnarowicz [1954-92; see “David Wojnarowicz,” 15 March 2011] didn’t want to be admitted to the mainstream, he wanted to smash it.  The Beats didn’t want entree to the establishment’s salons—they wanted to create their own milieu.  The same with the Hippies—esp. the communards of N.M. in the ’60s [with whom Shapiro lived and worked in 1969-71]—a culture that was really “counter.”  And the anarchists are, by definition, against anything society structures—they want to tear it down.

(Many of his literary heroes are also stalwart outsiders: Horatio from Empire City [1959 novel by Paul Goodman], Woyzeck, Galy Gay [main character of Brecht’s Man Is Man (1926), a play important to Shapiro], the protags. of both Hesse books he liked—Steppenwolf [1927] and Magister Ludi, Konstantin Treplyev [character in Anton Chekhov’s The Seagull (1896), another play important to Shapiro, which he staged in 1996, just before his death], Spartacus [whose name he gave his own son], and so on. 

I also suspect that his affinity for sci-fi works in here somehow, too—but I’m not enough of an expert on the genre to spot it off-hand.  And if you remember my brief description of the TV play he wrote based on his own marriage [Runaway Sam in the Promised Land (1994)], the character of his wife was becoming a mainstream dancer—People mag. liked her, she was proud to assert—and he was an adamantly unmarketable artist whose works no one would buy.  That’s pretty much a committed outsider, I think.)

I’m just thinking on my feet—well, really my tochas: I’m sitting down—but I think this is making some sense.  He loved AmerIndian culture—and they were the ultimate outsiders (tho’ not by their own choosing).  The Taos Pueblos [Shapiro lived in the Taos area both in the 1960s-70s and in his retirement in 1993-97], whom Leo really admired, were—are still—steadfast in their opposition to assimilation.  They want to stay outsiders to the Anglo society. 

(By the way, if you’ve never read any Frank Waters [1902-95; a writer of Native-American heritage whom Shapiro greatly admired], pick one up.  Start with his novel The Man Who Killed the Deer [1942].  He also has non-fiction books about the Pueblo and Hopi Indians [Masked Gods: Navajo and Pueblo Ceremonialism (1950); Pumpkin Seed Point (1969)].)

~Rick

[One artist who was a true outsider and with whom Shapiro identified but whom I didn’t mention was Vincent van Gogh (1853-90).  The director not only admired van Gogh as an artist, but he created his most successful performance piece, The Yellow House (1986; see my post on 9 February 2018), from the painter’s letters to his brother, Theo (1857-91). 

[Quoting the title of a 1947 Surrealistic essay by Antonin Artaud (1896-1948), Shapiro called the artist “The Man Suicided by Society,” using the essay to suggest some of the parallels he saw between himself and van Gogh.

[Writing “Commitments and Consequences” gave me a perspective on Shapiro’s work that allowed me to recognize motifs and themes, of some of which he told me he wasn’t even aware.  (Some of them even had foreshadows in theater he’d made years before he formed the Shaliko Company.)  That’s how I eventually spotted the self-referential aspect of Strangers—and why I was somewhat chagrined that I hadn’t seen it years earlier.  (I did insert this revelation into The Book, by the way.)]