Showing posts with label actors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label actors. Show all posts

14 April 2025

Clowning

 

[I confess that I’m not a huge fan of clowning (though I’ve actually performed as a clown in at least one children’s show), but I’ve covered clown performances on Rick On Theater, such as Old Hats (22 March 2013) with Bill Irwin and David Shiner, Theater of Panic (in “Short Takes: Some Unique Performances” [28 July 2018]), The Second New York International Festival of Clown Theatre (in “Some Vintage Reviews from the Archive” [15 March 2021]), and “Chicago’s Physical Theater Festival: Moving in Many Senses” by Gabriela Furtado Coutinho (in “Physical Theater” [24 November 2024]), and one piece on clown school/clown training, “It’s A Clown’s Life: Lessons From Clown School” by Lara Bevan-Shiraz (in “Theater Education & Training, Part 1” [3 October 2024]).

[(There are also several articles on ROT that touch on clowns in various contexts, including mentions in a couple of posts on Native American performance events.  Clowns are important figures in the cultures of several American Indian peoples, including the Taos Pueblos and the Zunis.)

[In the spirit of full disclosure, let me quote something I inserted into my report on the above referenced report on Old Hats, a clowning duet by Bill Irwin (b. 1950) and David Shiner (b. 1953): 

Before I get too far into this report, let me cop to something moderately significant.  I’m not a fan of clowns.  I have nothing against them—I’m not coulrophobic or anything—and I don’t object to the people who play the clowns.  I’ve just never found clowning very funny, not in circuses or on stage and film.  I can admire the skill of Chaplin or Keaton, but I was never drawn to their movies; I wasn’t a fan of [Jackie] Gleason (I don’t like The Honeymooners even today), [Red] Skelton, Lucille Ball, or the Three Stooges, and I don’t much like Jim Carrey or Will Ferrell.  I also ought to admit that there have always been exceptions: the Marx Brothers and W. C. Fields, Carol Burnett, Robin Williams—and Bill Irwin and David Shiner.

[Nonetheless, a recent article in the New York Times caught my attention, and then I came across some other recent writing on clowns and clowning.  I collected some of them to post below.  This posting is part of my effort on my blog to cover aspects of theater and performance that aren’t as well known as mainstream theater, film, and television.] 

FUNNY GIRLS
by Michael Snyder 

[This article was published in the New York Times of 30 March 2025 in T: The New York Times Style Magazine.  A version of this article appears online with the headline “There’s Always Room in the Clown Car,” posted on 24 March.]

For centuries, clowns have mostly been men. A new group of talent is changing that.

As a young woman in Mexico City, Gaby Muñoz, a 43-year-old performer known onstage as Chula the Clown [mentioned in “Chicago’s Physical Theater Festival,” referenced above], recalls, putting on makeup with her friends was always a fraught experience. “There was this whole idea of how to be a woman. They had this beautiful hair and these divine bodies, and I would look in the mirror and think, ‘Well, I guess not in this life.’ That made me laugh,” she says. As Chula — her round face washed white, her lips a tiny red heart, her eyebrows painted into inquisitive asymmetry — Muñoz, who this spring will begin touring through Europe and Central and South America, has played a jilted bride and a doddering old lady. She’s used her open, expressive face and antic physicality to joke wordlessly about loss, aging in a woman’s body and other concepts that have long been overlooked in the male-dominated world of clowns. For Muñoz, laughter isn’t an end in itself but rather, she says, “a way to connect.”

Clowns, jesters, harlequins and fools have, of course, played a similar role throughout history. In ancient Greece, they served as ribald choristers in epic dramas, while emperors in Han dynasty China delighted in the buffoonish exertions of the court paiyou [comic actor, similar to a jester]. Shakespeare’s world-weary wags spoke truth to King Lear and other royals, while the heyoka, the holy fool of many Sioux tribes, inverted day-to-day logic to provoke healing laughter. The emblematic sad clown that we know today evolved from the melancholic, talc-dusted Pedrolino of 16th-century Italian commedia dell’arte [one of the stock character types known as a Zanni], while the contemporary circus clown, with his exaggerated face paint and physical wit, debuted on a London stage around 1800. (The one dressed in an ill-fitting suit and oversize shoes emerged as his clumsy foil seven decades later.) Though ritually and physically distinct, clowns have always been, as the heyoka John Fire Lame Deer [1903-76; Lakota holy man] writes with Richard Erdoes [1912-2008; artist, photographer, illustrator, and author] in their 1972 book, “Lame Deer Seeker of Visions,” “sacred, funny, powerful, ridiculous, holy, shameful, visionary.” They were also almost always men.

During her childhood in Estonia, the 29-year-old London-based clown Julia Masli dreamed of acting in tragedies for exactly that reason: comedy, she assumed, was a man’s game. When, in 2017, she watched the legendary English clown Lucy Hopkins [b. ca. 1979] perform in Brighton for the first time, “seeing a woman do something so absurd and free felt like a revolution,” she says. In Masli’s show “Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha,” which debuted at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival in 2023 and has since toured internationally [see below, “We All Have An Inner Clown” for a link to and comments on this show], she appears onstage as a doe-eyed Victorian vagabond who asks audience members to share their problems. As she offers solutions both genuine and absurd — enlisting a bored office worker to record the show’s minutes; duct-taping a lonely young woman to a group of strangers onstage — she transforms the emotional labor so often foisted on women into a source of laughter and catharsis.

Other rising female clowns, like the 26-year-old English actress Frankie Thompson and the 32-year-old Swiss Mexican theater artist Paulina Lenoir, use womanhood itself as a source of humor. In the former’s “Body Show,” performed with her collaborator the 29-year-old trans masculine anarchist clown Liv Ello, Thompson forgoes exaggerated makeup and costume, combining lip-syncing and confrontational bouffon (an approach to clowning that emphasizes absurdity and shock) to discuss her history with anorexia. Small and blond — “people treat me like this tiny-angel special little bird to be protected,” she says — Thompson makes herself grotesque by, say, licking the stage or choking down Marmite, eliciting laughter that implicates the audience in the humiliations of body dysmorphia. Meanwhile, Lenoir’s persona Puella Eterna feminizes the physical exaggeration of the classic male clown by wearing a corset, a flamenco skirt and a giant Minnie Mouse bow in lieu of a bulging nose. As master of ceremonies at her Fool’s Moon cabaret, Puella displays the kind of unearned self-assurance that usually wins praise for men and scorn for women.

[Marmite, a British food spread, is a dark brown, salty, and yeasty paste. It’s often described as having a strong, savory flavor, similar to soy sauce, but saltier and with a deeper, more complex taste. Because of its strong and unique flavor profile, Marmite is often considered an “acquired taste.”]

While Thompson and Lenoir blur boundaries between cabaret and comedy, the 41-year-old British performer Ella Golt, better known as Ella the Great, has incorporated sly observations about gender into characters rooted in traditional clowning. Since 2015, Golt has mostly played Richard Melanin the Third, a bearded magician who believes deeply in his own abilities. Richard was born when another of Golt’s characters, Babushka — a prototypical female clown in a frilly skirt and tiny jacket — was invited to participate in a London drag king night. Slow, silent and charming, Richard started out as a clown-world Victor/Victoria: a gender-ambivalent actor playing a woman playing a man.

[The reference is to the 1982 musical comedy film Victor/Victoria, written and directed by Blake Edwards and starring Julie Andrews, James Garner, and Robert Preston, or the 1995 stage musical with a book by Edwards, music by Henry Mancini, and lyrics by Leslie Bricusse, again directed by Edwards and starring Andrews, Tony Roberts, and Michael Nouri.]

Golt’s choices pay homage to the clowns who inspired her to join a London youth circus at age 7. Today she’s found similar solace as a queer Black artist in a genre that has only recently become more diverse. “Seeing people perform who look like you allows you to see that laughter is for you,” she says. “The permission to laugh and be laughed at can be empowering.” For these artists, clowning ultimately has less to do with putting on makeup than with stripping it away. It’s about “uncovering your inner idiot, the thing you’re taught to hide,” Lenoir says, “and learning to let that come through.” Foolishness, after all, is its own kind of freedom.

[Michael Snyder is a freelance journalist based in Mexico City focused on architecture, design, and food and their intersections with history, politics, economics, and culture. In addition to T Magazine, his work has appeared in a range of publications, including The Believer, The Caravan, The Nation, Lucky Peach, and Scientific American.]

*  *  *  *
THE SERIOUS BUSINESS OF SILLINESS:
HOW CLOWNING AROUND CAN BOOST
YOUR PERFORMANCE GAME
by Zoe Dumas 

[This article was published online in Backstage, the entertainment industry trade publication, on 4 June 2024]

Steve-O [Stephen Gilchrist Glover, b. 1974; stunt performer and comedian] famously attended the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Clown College, a boot camp-like experience that didn’t get him a spot with the circus—but did prepare him for his “Jackass” hijinks [see “‘Dante update neither divine nor comedy’” by Kyle Smith (1 December 2010)]. While not everyone in the industry finds themselves called to the clown’s oversized shoes and squeaky red nose, clown training can be highly beneficial to entertainers of all types. Whether you want to be the next Bozo or are just looking to hone your craft, learning to clown is a great way to expand your repertoire, improve your improv skills, and explore the great absurdities of life through the lens of comedy.

What is clowning?

Clowning is a type of performance that portrays exaggerated characters through a mix of comedy, physical performance, and costuming. This character has a long history as entertainer, healer, and truth-teller, leading to a wide array of types that can still be seen today. The circus clown, with its crazy-colored hair, white face paint, a honking red nose, and oversized shoes, is likely the one that people associate most with the profession. Some performers create character clowns, such as the classic tramp, where they exaggerate archetypal character traits to create hilarious scenarios.  

The art of clowning goes back millennia, with the earliest recorded instance of clowns coming from ancient Egypt. During the fifth dynasty, around 2500 B.C.E., pharaohs were entertained and advised by African pygmy clowns. Centuries later and continents apart, clowns held a sacred role in several indigenous American tribes such as the Navajo and Hopi, participating in religious rituals to entertain and expand minds. 

These traditions echo our modern conception of clowning, but closer to that were Grecian and Roman clowns in overstuffed suits and garish makeup. Performers took this tradition on the road during the Middle Ages, carrying over the jester’s specific brand of mockery to a broader audience. It was this that led to Italy’s famed “commedia dell’arte,” which in turn inspired the first clown resembling the character we most often think of today: Joseph Grimaldi [1778-1837]. The father of modern clowning, Grimaldi wowed 19th-century English audiences with his harlequin character, which overtook the then-standard country bumpkin clown as the de facto style.

How is clowning an important part of an actor’s training?

Accessing vulnerability: Clowning helps performers access their usually hidden selves, L.A.’s the Idiot Workshop founder John Gilkey [b. 1966] told the Hollywood Reporter. “We’re looking for your voice. Not your verbal, auditory voice. But your full personality voice, which is based on your vulnerability,” he said. “What we teach is the boldness to be you at your wildest, most fun, crazy self and, once you open that up, you’re going to take that wherever you go as long as the medium you’re performing in allows for that expression.” 

Connecting with audiences: Regardless of style, clowning is about creating an authentic connection with viewers. Director of the Highland Park Clowns and the Clown Church workshop Jet Eveleth described clowning to the Los Angeles Times as “a celebration of the physical and vulnerable side of the human experience. When the performer embraces this ‘muchness’ of life, they serve as a mirror for the audience to see and laugh at themselves from a safe distance . . . . Clown is poking fun at the human condition.” In other words, clowning allows performers to let loose and open up while showing audiences the profound beauty of being human.

Refining comedic chops: Clowning requires an excellent sense of humor and the ability to make people laugh. David Bridel, the founder of the Clown School in L.A., emphasizes that learning the art allows performers to improve their skills in comedy and make fun of themselves. This “is obviously a huge part of the work of a clown and is also very therapeutic to some people,” he told the Hollywood Reporter. 

Broadening horizons: All this is to say that clowning is a feat of vulnerability that pushes performers to step far outside their comfort zone and explore aspects of themselves they may never have thought possible. Clowns have a long tradition as theater characters; Shakespeare, for example, used the clown quite heavily because they are a character that can speak truth to the absurdities of everyday life without fear of consequences. Far from the laughable doofus we often make the clown out to be, this is a character and type of acting that allows for endless creativity from a performer. They can put themselves in the vulnerable position of being laughable, certainly, but they can also explore the vast contrasts and eccentricities of being human.

Clowning ideas and exercises

Even if you don’t decide to don the big shoes and red nose, incorporating some aspects of clowning into your regimen can go a long way in taking your performance art to the next level. If you’re a performer looking to explore the art of clowning, there are several activities and exercises you might do to open up and stand out.

1. Immerse yourself in theory. Books such as Christopher Bayes’ “Discovering the Clown, or The Funny Book of Good Acting,” Henry Jestworth’s “How to Clown,” Paul Bouissac’s “The Semiotics of Clowns and Clowning,” Jon Davison’s “Clown Training: A Practical Guide,” and Eli Simon’s “The Art of Clowning” encourage performers to connect with their inner clowns. Simon, UC Irvine chancellor’s professor of drama and founding artistic director of the New Swan Shakespeare Festival, has been teaching his students clowning for years; he specializes in the development of original clown shows that he’s directed and produced around the world. In his book, he provides a complete regimen of exercises and techniques that “[yield] swift and deep access to the clown in you.”

2. Take a workshop. Clowns love sharing their art with eager audiences and performers, so there are a wide variety of workshops and classes available throughout the U.S. and the world. Research the clown classes available in your area to find a troupe that can brighten up your act. Alternatively, you can also attend online classes and workshops such as those offered by the Clown SchoolUniversity of Southern California, the Online Clown Academy, and the Clown Institute

3. Practice with a group. If you already have a troupe of actors or even just friends you prefer working with, try performing some clowning exercises together. There are countless improv activities out there to release your inner clown. These include dolphin training, where audience members guide an actor to perform specific tasks only by clapping or laughing, and the exaggeration exercise, where one actor follows another, comically exaggerating the first’s movements and expressions. A third actor might even join this one and exaggerate what the second clown is doing.

4. Put a routine together. Another way to try clowning is to simply do it! Create a simple character and routine—it could be joke-heavy, something with more props, or perhaps slapstick calls to you—and explore the world through new eyes. Bring your routine to an acting or improv class, or another place where you’ll have an accepting audience, and see what it takes to make your fellow actors laugh and clown around with you.

[Zoe Dumas, a freelance writer based in Fresno, California, covers the entertainment industry, with a specific emphasis on expert commentary and reviews.  In addition to her work for Backstage, she’s been a content writer at Movieweb.com.]

*  *  *  *
WE ALL HAVE AN INNER CLOWN;
ON RISKING HEARTBREAK FOR JOY
by Priscilla Posada

[The Los Angeles Times ran this article on 15 March 2025; it was also posted online as “A fool’s journey: Notes from a clowning workshop” on 13 March.]

This story is part of Image’s March Devotion issue, exploring various forms of reverence, love and worship.

[Eight times a year, the L.A. Times publishes Image, a themed issue covering style and culture in L.A. and beyond.]

We all have an inner clown, a wild self whose yearning for delight is greater than the fear of failure. A little one who wants to play during nap time, convenience to others be damned. Underneath layers and layers of socialization, we each have a clown willing to risk heartbreak for joy. Or at least that’s the idea.

Clowning, an ancient art form that includes but is not limited to the red wigs and big shoes of the circus, is difficult to define. Filed under “physical comedy,” a clown communicates primarily through their body rather than words.

All I’m sure of is that without an audience — to play with, to laugh or not laugh, and hopefully cry and transform — there is no clown. I’ll admit: When I started, I wanted the benefits of clowning, namely feeling comfortable and even coming to enjoy reading my work in public, without any of the scary bits (and clowns in America have quite a scary reputation). I had asked my first clown teacher for private (read: audience-free) lessons. She chuckled over the phone: “It doesn’t work that way.” Thus began my fool’s journey, if you will, from scared and lost to scared and lost with a dash more openness to being vulnerable.

I was glad I was wearing sneakers because I ended up running from the subway station to the midtown Manhattan building. I arrived at Room 315 on time and out of breath. It was a Saturday, and I was there for a two-day workshop, from noon to 5 p.m., with an hour break for lunch, with Christopher Bayes. His credentials, in a field where it feels funny to have them, include studying under clown masters Philippe Gaulier [French; b. 1943; master clown, teacher, and professor of theater; founder of École Philippe Gaulier; see “It’s A Clown’s Life,” cited above] and Jacques Lecoq [French; 1921-99; stage actor and acting movement coach] and working as the head of physical acting at Yale’s David Geffen School of Drama. While this all sounds technique-heavy, Bayes is known for valuing a heart-forward approach over an intellectual one. This was an honor for which I somehow justified paying $300.

We began with introductions — names, pronouns, why we were there. “I’m a writer,” I said, picking one job, out of the three I had, most suited to the moment. “And I’m writing a piece on clowning.” I scanned the room and my eyes landed on A, whom I recognized from another workshop. Our faces lighted up. We smiled — and clowns must smile only when they’re actually happy since, as I learned in workshop, a smile is a mask — and waved to each other. When it was A’s turn, they explained that whatever they were seeking from psychoanalysis, they were finding in clowning.

In this group of about 25 people, there was also a theater director who flew all the way to New York from San Francisco to take this workshop. There were a lot of people who loved theater and hoped a more honest connection with audiences would bring them back.

Next were the warm-up exercises. We started shaking our bodies, and I made another mental note: Actors and musicians all did warm-up exercises. What was the equivalent for writers? My thought was interrupted when Bayes instructed us to laugh very hard. It had been a confusing week, a mix of macro tragedy and micro wins. I cracked up, and it felt like sobbing. The group entered a frenzied state. I acclimated to the cacophony of primal sounds. We sounded like the animals we tend to forget we are.

“Now cry!” Bayes shouted. I wailed and made my ugliest face. I was screaming so loud my voice cracked and I had to cough to clear it. I said, “Why, oh why?” I slapped my hands down on my quads. I headed toward the floor. I curled into a ball and cried with my face hovering an inch above the wooden floor. I heard a voice from above: “Don’t hide your sadness.” I stood up awkwardly having just been reprimanded for crying the polite way. I needed to cry the clown way, that is, take up space. I balled my hands into fists and stretched my arms out and up. I turned my face toward the ceiling and blamed it for all that was wrong with the world. Sobbing from the belly and feeling like some sort of tragic figure, I doubled over in laughter and now I couldn’t tell the difference between the two.

Afterward, we separated into groups of four. We were given 10 minutes to devise a song, along with a dance. My group chose the chorus “I love it.” We all had solos when we sang about something we genuinely loved. I sang about my apartment, how I loved it. I got the instructions mixed up and tried to rhyme but learned I wasn’t supposed to, so I sang, “Ohhhhhh, that’s easieeeeerrrr.” My solo came to a dark end: I loved my apartment, but I couldn’t afford it on my own, without roommates, and even if I could, it would be selfish to live there alone because of the city’s housing crisis. I sang about how the rental vacancy rate was 1.4% and that 5% was considered an emergency. There was nowhere else to go, so I sang to the audience to think about that. Some of the faces in the audience looked scared. My group sang, all together, “I love it, I love this love, I love love love love, yeah I like it!” We broke for lunch, and someone added me to the “Clown NYC” WhatsApp group. It has 712 members, and there are multiple threads, including “Shows & Mics,” “Meetup & Hangouts,” “Prop/Costume Exchange” — and “Housing.”

When I saw my first clown show, Julia Masli’s “Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha,” my first words might have been, “What the f—?” Masli emerged on a blueish dark stage amid the haze of fog. I recall a Medusa-like nest of wires around her head with a light illuminating her face. A gold mannequin’s leg with an attached microphone substituted as Masli’s left arm. She was bundled in a witchy outfit resembling a duvet cover. Masli looked extraterrestrial, complete with the wide, innocent stare of a being looking upon our society and its problems from a fresh perspective.

As a clown, it’s ideal if you wear something so stupid, people laugh just glancing at you. A performer’s costume signals to the audience that they’re in a space operating outside of societal norms, a place of amplification. While a clown’s “look” can be idiosyncratic and interesting, what starts off as funny and absurd gives way to the profound. In this way, clowning appears light and gets deep. With the support of aesthetics, a clown communicates, “Isn’t being human with all of its striving for status and repression in order to fit in kind of ridiculous?”

In “Nothing Doing,” a work-in-progress, clown Alex Tatarsky announced at the top that they didn’t believe in work or progress. They entered the stage in a top hat, white sequined leotard, rhinestone heels, sporting a long, thick braid attached to their hair. When they turned around for the first time, I was treated to a grotesque mask at the back of Tatarsky’s head and prosthetic cleavage that might have also been the plastic molding of butt cheeks. By the close of their show, after having mimed chasing after the performance’s nonexistent plot, Tatarsky sat at the head of a table, facing the audience, eating Life cereal with milk, with their hands, out of an empty skull, and at one point chewed and swallowed a cigarette. They said something like, “Darling, I just want you to love me, but it’s repulsive when I’m this desperate.” This desperation, rather than repelling me, became a source of connection. I found myself falling in love with this clown and, in turn, with the parts of myself I tend to reject.

In the environment of a clown workshop, practicing loss of control (a clown can’t plan for an audience’s response) and being present with what is (a clown works with whatever they’ve got) can feel good. One eases off expecting specific results and being disappointed when things don’t turn out according to a rigid vision of success and delights in surprises no one could have imagined. If clowning is on the rise, and it certainly feels that way, it might be because it provides relief from having to keep it together.

On the second day of the workshop, we tried a different exercise. Two conventionally attractive men were onstage, and I was prepared to hate them both. Why? Because conventionally attractive men send me hurtling back in time to when I was an awkward preteen, and I’ve since developed an aversion. Bayes instructed them to get to know each other. They looked uncomfortable. One extended a handshake to the other. The crowd booed at the predictably masculine, business-like gesture. Then, Bayes told them to turn away from each other and walk to opposite ends of the room. One faced stage left, the other stage right.

They had to jump around to face each other and land at the exact same time. They kept failing. “Oh, come on,” I jeered. Ten minutes passed. The audience was exasperated. An eternity passed. One would turn around while the other didn’t move. Was I cursing them somehow? One wore a crisp white T-shirt that looked expensive with black wide-leg trousers. He had shoulder-length hair parted down the middle, like a model. The other, a white T-shirt that looked worn-in, black joggers and a delicate hoop earring. Both were barefoot. They kept missing even though they could technically cheat and set a pattern for the other to follow. It was agony. Bayes, who was sitting next to me, drew my attention to the man on the right. He was twitching. His eyebrows, his legs. The impulses were all confused. I laughed. I thanked the heavens that my performance of the same exercise didn’t go this badly.

Bayes told them, “You’re not getting it because you haven’t tucked in your shirts and raised your pants all the way up.” The two clowns followed the instructions. Now, they looked more ridiculous and endearing. We waited. We breathed. Finally. They jumped. They landed at the exact same time. People erupted in applause. A great tension was released. I rose from my seat along with others for a standing ovation. No matter how hopeless it seems, a clown can always win back the audience.

Now, the two men were facing each other. There were more boos. They lost us because they were “trying” again. I joined in, feeling like I was at a wrestling match where I wanted neither party to win. Now they were holding hands and squatting up and down vigorously. “Say, ‘Oh, yeah,’” shouted Bayes. They complied in unison. “Now say, ‘Oh, daddy,’” Bayes shouted. Again, the two complied, but they missed a beat and now they were saying “Daddy, O” in a guttural way as they continued holding hands and squatting up and down. I was laughing hard and clapping my hands. I was full of glee. In less than 30 minutes, I’d seen myself mirrored and altered. I could be someone who was afraid of being in front of others. Cocooned in the safety of a crowd, I could be cruel. I could be extravagantly generous. The clown wanted my love regardless. The clown was there to hold it all. I learned things that words fail to capture.

You had to be there. And that’s what I love most about clowning — it brings you into the now. Everything else fades away. It’s no longer about the shape something takes but about the attempt. No one is ever done as a clown.

Later that week, I found myself singing a stupid-sweet song from the workshop called “Open Like a Little Flower.” The next line was “Open like a different type of flower.” I remembered Bayes saying that when you go looking for beauty, you find it. I remembered too my pounding heart. Breathing hard from physical exertion. Buzzing with the high of a collective response, with the feeling of wholeness.

[Priscilla Posada is a writer living in New York City.  Her work can be found in the Los Angeles Review of Books, BOMB, and the Brooklyn Rail, among other places.]


09 April 2025

A Theatrical Showdown

by Kirk Woodward 

[Kirk Woodward’s “A Theatrical Showdown” is fundamentally a report on a production in his New Jersey area of Theresa Rebeck’s 2018 play Bernhardt/Hamlet, a depiction of Sarah Bernhardt’s audacious performance of William Shakespeare’s Danish prince.  Kirk, who’s a prolific contributor to Rick On Theater, has expanded this coverage to include aspects of the life and art of “the Divine Sarah,” as Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) dubbed her, that Rebeck—whose play is only partially factual—doesn’t consider.  Additionally, on 9 October 2018, I posted Bernhardt/Hamlet, my performance report on the Broadway production of the play.

[The principal subject with which Kirk deals that neither Rebeck nor I considered is the rivalry between Bernhardt and the other famous European theater diva of the Belle Époque, the Italian actress Eleonora Duse.  This rivalry was more than just personal or a matter of clashing egos; the actresses were models of two competing styles of acting, as Uta Hagen (1919-2004), one of America’s most influential acting teachers and theoreticians, demonstrated in her 1973 book, Respect for Acting.

[At a time on Western stages when Romanticism, which flourished from approximately 1800 to 1850 (but lingered in popularity through World War II), and Realism, which arose in about 1870 and dominated the stage through the 1950s and ’60s (and continues down to the present), were both seen and applauded by audiences.  Bernhardt was the prototype of the Romantic actor, expressing extremes of emotion in declaratory speech and melodramatic gesture, while Duse was considered then the epitome of the Realistic performer, with her emphasis on conversational speech, natural behavior, and psychological truth.]

I have been fascinated recently by the life and work of the actress Sarah Bernhardt (French; 1844-1923). She was almost certainly the greatest celebrity of her time, in the sense that she was celebrated for herself no matter what she did. Her acting career stretched over about seven decades (she first appeared on stage, at school, when she was seven), and to the end of her life she was famous, not to say notorious.

She was a handful – intelligent, skilled, and wildly willful and impulsive. She was not to be contained. Many great actors are no longer remembered today; some are remembered by specialists, like Bernhardt’s hugely admired contemporary Eleanora Duse (Italian; 1858-1924), about whom more below. Very few are household names today, especially in this world of instant notoriety.

But Bernhardt! My wife Pat’s mother Rose, when out of patience with Pat, would say to her, “Don’t be such a Sarah Bernhardt,” and Bernhardt had died before Rose was born. (Rose also said, “Don’t be such a Sarah Heartburn!” which a newspaper had called her during her lifetime.) No one alive today ever saw Bernhardt perform on the stage; but she lives vividly in imagination.

We can still see glimpses of her, incidentally: there are silent snippets on YouTube of her performing in a play (apparently La Tosca by Victorien Sardou, French; 1831-1908); in conversation on a bench with the actor and playwright Sacha Guitry (Russian-born French; 1885-1957); and in a play called “Daniel” (1920), in which we glimpse some of the physicality for which her performances were famous – although she does the scene in bed!

These observations and more were inspired by a production at the Studio Players of Montclair, New Jersey, of a play called Bernhardt/Hamlet by Theresa Rebeck (b. 1958), commissioned and first produced by the Roundabout Theatre Company in 2018. (For a report, including a review round-up, on the Roundabout production of Rebeck’s play on Broadway, see Bernhardt/Hamlet [9 October 2018] on Rick On Theater.)

The Studio Players production (14-29 March 2025) featured a stunning performance by the actor Melody Combs Williams as Bernhardt, so inspired that it left me feeling I had known Bernhardt personally. Williams captured Bernhardt’s determination, her quirkiness, and her physical expressiveness as well.

Before I saw Bernhardt/Hamlet I wondered if there was enough drama in the story to support a full length two act drama. Certainly there was controversy over Bernhardt’s Hamlet (1899), a role usually played by a male actor, but is that enough? Of course there was controversy over nearly everything Bernhardt did.

The play portrays her playing a male role as a scandal. In fact “trouser roles” – women playing men – were fairly common on the stage at that time, and Bernhardt played at least seven male roles on stage before and after her Hamlet, beginning in 1867.

Most remarkably, she played two in her old age – Shylock in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice in 1916, and a thirty-year-old male in Daniel (written by Louis Verneuil, French; 1893-1952, her grandson-in-law), when she was 75 years old. Both of those roles followed the amputation of one of her legs, which developed gangrene after years of dealing with injuries she had received during performances. She had spunk to beat the band.

Although she is often cited (including in Bernhardt/Hamlet) as the first woman to have played Hamlet in a major production, she was actually preceded by Mrs. Millicent Bandmann-Palmer (English; 1845-1926), who played the role at the Gaiety Theatre in Dublin for six performances during the week of 16 June 1904, in what appears to have been a serious performance.

Mrs. Bandmann-Palmer is referenced by the writer and caricaturist Max Beerbohm (English; 1872-1956), writing for the London Saturday Review (17 June 1899, in a piece about Bernhardt’s Hamlet titled “Hamlet, Princess of Denmark”), who says,

True, Mrs. Bandmann Palmer has already set the example, and it has not been followed; but Mrs. Bandmann Palmer’s influence is not so deep and wide as Sarah’s, and I have horrible misgivings.

Beerbohm, who writes of Bernhardt that he is a “lover of her incomparable art,” simply does not accept her in the role of Hamlet:

She would not, of course attempt to play Othello – at least, I risk the assumption that she would not, dangerous though it is to assume what she might not do. . . . But, in point of fact, she is just as well qualified to play Othello as she is to play Hamlet. . . . Sarah ought not to have supposed that Hamlet’s weakness set him in any possible relation to her own feminine mind and body. Her friends ought to have restrained her. The native critics ought not to have encouraged her. The custom-house officials at Charing Cross ought to have confiscated her sable doublet and hose.

So there is controversy, but I would say not enough to support a full length play, especially since Sarah, in the play as in real life, refuses to let the furor, whatever it is, bother her much – she lives for such moments, and, a shrewd and capable businesswoman as well as a skilled actor, she knows that controversy brings in box office business, which in fact it did.

Theresa Rebeck adds another element of drama to Bernhardt’s situation by introducing a fictional affair between her and the playwright Edmond Rostand (French; 1868-1918), the author of Les Romanesques (1894, the source of the remarkably long-running musical The Fantasticks) and Cyrano de Bergerac (1897), among other plays. Cyrano features significantly in the second act of Rebeck’s play, although Bernhardt doesn’t, and didn’t, appear in it.

Bernhardt/Hamlet has Bernhardt coercing Rostand into writing a new version of Hamlet for her. What’s not clear in the play is that since Bernhardt performed exclusively in French, Shakespeare’s play had to be rewritten – that is, translated – by someone. It was certainly not a scandal to “rewrite” Shakespeare from English to French.

The play has Rostand abandoning the project after an argument with Bernhardt; the fact appears to be that he had little to do with the translation, which was written by two others.

Bernhardt is presented as feeling that Shakespeare’s poetry gets in the way of the character of Hamlet, since he is, we might say, “all talk and no action.” Surely it’s at least dubious that Bernhardt felt this way.

She regarded acting as primarily a vocal art, with the physical a close second, and she was famous for her declamation of emotional speeches, a sample of which is on YouTube as she recites a poem by Victor Hugo (French; 1802-1885), again, in French, the only language in which she performed.

In one of the best scenes in the play, Bernhardt and her fellow cast member, the celebrated Constant Coquelin (French; 1841-1909), rehearse part of the opening scene of Hamlet, with Coquelin in the role of Hamlet’s father’s ghost. (The actual Coquelin did work with Bernhardt, but not on her Hamlet.)

In the scene, progress is slow and the lines are stale until Bernhardt, seizing an impromptu moment, urges her fellow actor to go with his impulses, and the scene begins to achieve a gripping reality.

This scene dramatizes one of the central issues in any discussion of acting. The issue goes by various names. It is frequently called the conflict between “internal” and “external” styles of acting. Sometimes, more confusingly, it is known as the conflict between “presentational” and “representational” acting.

“Internal” acting is best known today as “Method acting,” as described in Isaac Butler’s excellent The Method (2022). (See “The Method – a Review” [12 March 2022] and “Bombast to Beckett” [13 January 2025].)

In Bernhardt’s time its embodiment was Eleanora Duse, who was often considered Bernhardt’s great rival. “External” acting is best represented in the popular mind by, well, Sarah Bernhardt.

The two styles of acting are well described in the lively book Playing to the Gods: Sarah Bernhardt, Eleanora Duse, and the Rivalry That Changed Acting Forever (2019) by Peter Rader. The book apparently evolved from a screenplay, and Rader appears to make up some dialogue, but he is an entertaining writer.

The big difference between Bernhardt and all the stars that preceded her . . . was that other divas received their press coverage in the theater section. Bernhardt’s exploits usually made it to the front page.

He makes the major question about acting clear: Does acting emerge from the inner mental and emotional equipment of the actor, or is it a matter of showing, demonstrating, making clear to the audience what is going on in the play?

My own conclusion, and I suspect the conclusion of actors more skilled than I am, is that the issue is a matter of emphasis, and that the same actor may at one moment be more absorbed by the process of thought and emotion, and in the next moment by the awareness of what the audience needs to see and hear.

This combination is perhaps best seen in comedy, where continual consciousness of what’s happening in the auditorium (in particular, laughter) is often matched by the actor’s absolute genuineness, which only makes the performance more funny.

(Duse did occasionally perform in comedies, but Bernhardt, with rare exceptions, did not. Neither Bernhardt nor Duse were best known for their comedic performances.)

I strongly suspect that their opposing styles represent different poles of the planet, so to speak, rather than different planets, or perhaps a better metaphor is different points on a spectrum.

The two women had much in common, including difficult and largely loveless childhoods, in which they were manipulated by adults, sexually and in other ways, until they found out how to stand on their own and make their own decisions. Both were “theatrical” in nature, although Duse’s theatricality pointed inward and Bernhardt’s pointed outward.

Duse saw Bernhardt perform in 1882 in Naples, watching every performance during Bernhardt’s visit. Duse was younger than Bernhardt, and she represented a pendulum swing in fashions of acting. Their careers intersected. Throughout their careers both had their champions, of course. Sigmund Freud (Austrian; 1856-1939), for example, wrote of Bernhardt:

From the moment I heard her first lines, pronounced in her vibrant and adorable voice, I had the feeling I had known her for years. None of the lines that she spoke could surprise me; I believed immediately everything that she said. The smallest centimeter of this character was alive and enchanted you. And then, there was the manner she had to flatter, to implore, to embrace. Her incredible positions, the manner in which she keeps silent, but each of her limbs and each of her movements play the role for her! Strange creature! It is easy for me to imagine that she has no need to be any different on the street than she is on the stage!

Some stories about Bernhardt are simply too good to be true. For example, her only husband, Aristides Damala (Greek [Aristides Damalas]; 1855-1889; m. 1882), was said to have been an inspiration for Dracula in the 1897 novel of that name by Bram Stoker (Irish; 1847-1912). And some stories were true: she was a notable sculptor, as if being a great actor weren’t enough. She loved animals and travelled with many of them, including lions and cheetahs, none of whom appear to have bitten her.

As for Duse, her most famous champion (among many) was George Bernard Shaw (Irish; 1856-1950). As the extremely influential theater reviewer for the London Saturday Review (and Max Beerbohm’s predecessor in the job), Shaw promoted the kind of path he wanted theater to take, and it was in Duse’s direction: more true to life, more involved with social issues, less histrionic, less acting for acting’s own sake.

Theatrical fashions in general were changing in Duse’s direction (and have continued to). Henrik Ibsen (Norwegian; 1828-1906) wrote,

No declamation! No theatricalities! No grand mannerisms! Express every mood in a manner that seems credible and natural. Never think of this or that actress whom you may have seen . . . . [An actor should] present a real and living human being.

As Duse became more noticed, comparisons between her and Bernhardt in the press often favored her. Konstantin Stanislavski (Russian; 1863-1938) and Lee Strasberg (1901-1982), later to become highly influential theorists and teachers of acting, both saw her perform and found inspiration there.

The rivalry (for so it became, although the two had not yet actually met) reached a showdown in 1895, when Bernhardt and Duse booked performances of the play Magda (originally titled Heimat [‘Home’ or ‘Homeland’]) by Hermann Sudermann (German; 1857-1928) in London within two days of each other.

Magda, although largely unknown today, was a sensation in its time, featuring a heroine of independent bent, frequently described during that period as a “New Woman.” It was in other words a basically modern play for its time, and in accepting it Bernhardt, who would not try an Ibsen play for years to come (the lovely The Lady from the Sea, for one performance in 1906), was directly challenging Duse’s increasing status as the preeminent modern actress.

George Bernard Shaw’s review of the two performances, entitled “Duse and Bernhardt” and published in the Saturday Review on 15 June 1895 (not in the Times of London as Rader states – Shaw was not a staff writer for the Times then or ever, although he contributed articles and letters to the editor over the years), is a classic, an indispensable piece of writing on theater. Here are excerpts:

Sarah was very charming, very jolly when the sun shone, very petulant when the clouds covered it, and positively angry when they wanted to take her child away from her. And she did not trouble us with any fuss about the main theme of Sudermann's play, the revolt of the modern woman against that ideal of home which exacts the sacrifice of her whole life to its care, not by her grace, and as its own sole help and refuge, but as a right which it has to the services of all females as abject slaves. In fact, there is not the slightest reason to suspect Madame Bernhardt of having discovered any such theme in the play; though Duse, with one look at Schwartze, the father, nailed it to the stage as the subject of the impending dramatic struggle before she had been five minutes on the scene.

Madame Bernhardt has the charm of a jolly maturity, rather spoilt and petulant, perhaps, but always ready with a sunshine-through-the-clouds smile if only she is made much of. . . . The dress, the title of the play, the order of the words may vary; but the woman is always the same. She does not enter into the leading character: she substitutes herself for it.

Obvious as the disparity of the two famous artists has been to many of us since we first saw Duse, I doubt whether any of us realized, after Madame Bernhardt's very clever performance as Magda on Monday night, that there was room in the nature of things for its annihilation within forty-eight hours by so comparatively quiet a talent as Duse's. And yet annihilation is the only word for it.


Bernhardt finally met Duse in 1897, in what sounds like a polite wrestling match. Bernhardt offered Duse the use of her theater in Paris at no cost and Duse chose to open with one of Bernhardt’s starring roles, Marguerite Gautier in The Lady of the Camellias. When she watched Bernhardt in a play, she stood every time Bernhardt came on stage. When Bernhardt watched Duse perform, she was illuminated by a small spotlight she had had installed. She also gave Duse an inconvenient, uncomfortable dressing room. 

Did I say that neither of these performers excelled in comedy?

For me the most interesting part of this story is that, although Bernhardt remained herself, she continued to do her best to evolve, commissioning new plays and rethinking older productions. And, of course, she played Hamlet. (She also shared with Duse a play written by one of Duse’s lovers, the dramatist and poet Gabriele D’Annunzio, Italian; 1863-1938, as well as the poet himself).

Bernhardt did her best to keep up with the world; she was not habitually old-fashioned. She used the latest available technology in her theaters, including electricity; she embraced the Art Nouveau style (popular between 1890 and 1910) for her advertising posters; she continually reexamined her repertory, although she returned to the old warhorses of plays when money ran low. She modified her acting style somewhat. She taught acting so she could encourage those starting young.

During the First World War, right after her leg was amputated (22 February 1915), she joined a theater company that brought entertainment to soldiers on the front lines. She toured the United States – in 1916-1918, when she was 72 to 73 – to raise support for France in the war. She made movies. “Now that the public is willing to accept me as I am, I’m going to do new things,” she said.

Duse, more fragile than Bernhardt (who had her own physical challenges), retired early from the stage, returning, shortly after Bernhardt died, to make a film and to do a rapturously received last tour of the United States (1923-1924), where she died (Pittsburgh, 23 April 1924).

So who won the showdown? Certainly Bernhardt is still better known, while Duse’s approach to acting is more in vogue. But, as noted above, actors do their best with what they have, and one may have an “official” opinion on technique which varies from actual practice. “Whatever works” could be a motto for many actors, and many theaters as well.

Theater is protean, a shape-changer. Society changes, technology changes, fashions change, so theater changes too, and does its best to keep up, or even to get ahead. That may be the reason for its resilience.

And speaking of resilience, my admiration for both Bernhardt and Duse has grown enormously as I’ve learned more about them. They persisted through all sorts of things, when it was difficult to do so, and they gave so much of themselves. May their tribe increase.

[Ironically, though Duse was 14 years her rival’s junior, the two renowned women died almost exactly 13 months apart: Bernhardt first at 78, then Duse at 65.  This little factoid, seemingly insignificant, brings to my mind something upon which I remarked in another recent post almost four months ago, about another actress who died about a century ago.  (Coincidentally, the thought also originated in a post from Kirk Woodward.)

[Above, Kirk remarks, “No one alive today ever saw Bernhardt perform on the stage; but she lives vividly in imagination.”  In an earlier post, my friend observed how close we actually are to events that “seem buried in the mists of history.”  No, no one today would be old enough to have seen either Bernhardt or Duse perform live . . . but we’re not all that far removed from the two divas.  A little more than a generation in my case, actually.

[My mother was born nine days after Bernhardt died (7 April would have been Mom’s 102nd birthday); my dad would have been almost 4½ years old (a little over a year old and 5½ for Duse).  Clearly not old enough to have seen the two women act, but it was almost within both my parents’ lifetimes.  Not so far back as we might think.  Of course, I’m pretty old now—some of you youngsters’ll have to go back two generations. That’s still just a hop, skip, and a jump.

[On a less metaphysical note, here are some additional thoughts I had in regard to Sarah Bernhardt and Bernhardt/Hamlet (and maybe some other semi-related topics:

[In a remark early in his post, Kirk states of the Montclair, New Jersey, production of Rebeck’s play by the Studio Players that “a stunning performance by the actor Melody Combs Williams as Bernhardt [is] so inspired that it left me feeling I had known Bernhardt personally.” 

[It seems an almost impossible coincidence that in my own 2018 report on Bernhardt/Hamlet, I observed: “I’ll never forget my reaction to seeing Pat Carroll become Gertrude Stein in Gertrude Stein Gertrude Stein Gertrude Stein at the Provincetown Playhouse back in June 1980.  I literally found myself thinking, ‘Man, Stein’s a really fascinating person.  I’m so glad I got to meet her.’  I had to remind myself constantly that I was watching an actor in a play.”  (Four years later, I reiterated that response in a tribute to Carroll, who had died a few weeks earlier.)

[Aside from the “fictional affair” with Rostand, there are some facts about Bernhardt’s professional association with the playwright that aren’t in Rebeck’s play or Kirk’s article.  I did some rudimentary research on Rostand when I was reading plays for a small theater, and I read three of his non-Cyrano de Bergerac plays (the reports on which are on this blog).  Here are some pertinent factoids: Bernhardt did play Roxane in Cyrano, just not in the 1897 première, but in many revivals, including in 1900 opposite Constant Coquelin, the original Cyrano, on tour in the U.S.  (On this same tour, he played the gravedigger—not old Hamlet’s ghost—to her Hamlet.) 

[Bernhardt also played Mélissande in Rostand’s La Princesse Lointaine (1897; presented in the U.S. as The Lady of Dreams); starred in La Samaritaine (1897; The Woman of Samaria), many times playing the title part the author wrote for her; and originated the title role, Napoléon’s son (another “trousers role”), in L’Aiglon (1900; The Eaglet), also created for her.  Rebeck also has Rostand writing Bernhardt’s adaptation of Hamlet, but he had no hand in that production at all.

[As for that French translation Bernhardt used for her Hamlet performances, we actually know who did that for her: Eugène Morand (Russian-born French; 1853-1930), a playwright and painter, and Marcel Schwob (French; 1867-1905), a symbolist short-story writer.  Their text was published in 1900 as La tragique histoire d'Hamlet, prince de Danemark (Charpentier et Fasquelle; “The tragic story of Hamlet, prince of Denmark”).

[The “rewriting” of Shakespeare, as Kirk puts it, reminds me of something my father told me—and which I’ve put on ROT a few times.  Dad, who studied German in high school, was amused when he was assigned to read German translations of Shakespeare and other works of literature, to find the title page of the texts inscribed with the phrase: übersetzt und verbessert.  In English, that means “translated and improved”!

[A few notes about Dumas, fils’s La Dame aux camélias: The play was/is often called Camille in English, but the character Bernhardt played is called Marguerite Gautier (sometimes spelled “Gauthier”).  Calling Marguerite “Camille” was a solely American thing—not even “English-language.”  American actresses took to calling her Camille, but Bernhardt wouldn’t have (though her 1915 film of the play was entitled Camille).

[I recalled that Uta Hagen says something about the two acting styles on stages around the turn of the 20th century using Duse and Bernhardt as examples of each style in Respect for Acting.  I looked it up and confirmed my recollection (see pages 11 and 12).   

[(I tried to identify the play Hagen cites in her example, but I couldn’t.  The only title that came up was The Lady of the Camelias, but I have a French text of the play, and the line Hagen quotes (“Je jure, je jure, JE JUUUURE!” – “I swear, I swear, I SWEEAARE!”) doesn’t appear in it. There are a couple of lines that are close—Marguerite says “I swear . . .” a few times, but there’s no line where she says it three times. 

[There were, however, several later adaptations of the novel, and we don’t know which version Bernhardt used.  We also don’t know how accurate Hagen’s recollection was, or if she was even trying to be verbatim.

[(It’s also hard to figure when Hagen might have seen the actresses perform; she was born in 1919—and emigrated to the U.S. in 1924 when she was only 5, and Bernhardt and Duse died in 1923 and ’24, respectively.  Seeing either actress on film wouldn’t have sufficed, as they’d have been silent movies—no spoken dialogue.  Could she have been recounting hearsay, not first-hand observation?)

[I considered that what Hagen said the actresses did (whether she’d seen it or it was described to her) was actor-chosen, not textual.  But in the scenes in which Marguerite swears in the script, there also isn’t a child on stage with her.  Hagen describes Duse as saying the words twice and then putting her hand on her son’s head.

[There are several other reasons that La Dame doesn’t fit, the two most significant of which are that Hagen says that the “wife” swears to her “husband” and, as I noted, that Duse put her hand on the head of “her son.”  In La Dame, Armand is Marguerite’s lover, but they are never married, and Marguerite has no son (by Armand or anyone else).  

[There is also the fact that the oath that Marguerite makes to Armand (and also, in another scene, to his father) is that she loves Armand, not that she has been faithful to him, which is what Hagen asserts in her book.   

[So, I’m leaning towards the solution being that the play Hagen meant wasn’t La Dame, but something else altogether.  Duse and Bernhardt did the same plays relatively often, so it could well have been a different play, but I haven’t yet been able to isolate a likely play that both actresses performed. 

[By the way, I also tried to find out why some references spell Marguerite’s name “Gauthier” rather than “Gautier.”  Aside from my French copy of the text, I checked a few online (including the novel), and they all spell it without the h.  The French Wikipédia also uses “Gautier.”  Only a couple of the entries on the Internet Broadway Database spell it with the h, but several of the cast listings only name the actors, not the characters, so that’s not particularly helpful.

[There doesn’t seem to be any rationale for when the name is spelled one way or the other.  There’s also no discernable difference in the names themselves—it’s just a variation and doesn’t seem to signify anything meaningful.

[On IBDB, none of the entries that listed the character names used Camille for Marguerite, either, but a lot of the domestic productions only listed the performers name, so it’s impossible to know how common or rare the use of Camille was on Broadway.  (Several of the listings did use Camille for the production title, and many film versions used that title, but most still called the character “Marguerite.”)

[Aristides Damala, Bernhardt’s husband (as Kirk calls him above), apparently mostly went by “Jacques Damala,” but his Greek birth name was “Aristides Damalas.”  I’d never heard of him; my “research” on Bernhardt for the performance report on Bernhardt/Hamlet was cursory and Damala(s) doesn’t feature in Rebeck’s play.  

[In my report on Bernhardt/Hamlet, I write that the Czech Art Nouveau artist Alphonse Mucha (1860-1939), who designed many of the distinctive posters for Bernhardt’s plays, is a prominent character in the play.  Rebeck’s family is of Czech and Slovak heritage and while visiting the Mucha Museum in Prague around 2008, Rebeck says, she was inspired to write a play about Sarah Bernhardt.  It took her a decade to complete the work.  The 2018 production in New York City by the Roundabout Theatre Company was the play’s world première.]


22 March 2025

"Fonda Doing Good"

 

[The article paying tribute to actress Jane Fonda (b. 1937), the 2024 recipient of the SAG Life Achievement Award, appeared in SAG-AFTRA, the membership magazine of SAG-AFTRA, the media performers' union, in the Digital Special Issue 2025 (Volume 14, Number 1).

[SAG-AFTRA, the union that represents film and television actors, journalists, radio personalities, recording artists, singers, voice actors, and other media professionals worldwide, is the successor in 2012 to the Screen Actors Guild (SAG, created in 1933) when it merged with the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (created in 1937 as the American Federation of Radio Artists [AFRA], becoming AFTRA in 1952 after merging with the Television Authority). 

[The SAG Life Achievement Award retains the name under which it was established in 1962.  It’s awarded for “outstanding achievement in fostering the finest ideals of the acting profession.”  Last year’s honoree was Barbra Streisand; see Barbra Streisand, 2023 Life Achievement Honoree of the Screen Actors Guild (17 September 2024) on Rick On Theater.]

The 60th SAG Life Achievement honoree embodies profound commitment to advocacy and self-actualization.

Throughout her nearly seven-decade career that began at the Omaha Community Theater in 1954 [making her début with her father in the OCT production of Clifford Odets’s (1906-63) The Country Girl], Jane Fonda has worn many labels. Growing up, her much-celebrated father, actor Henry Fonda [1905-82], convinced her she was “fat.” In 1958, legendary acting coach Lee Strasberg [1901-82] concluded she was “talented.” Early critical reviews of her work called her everything from “fragile” to “coltish” and even “translucent.” And in a recording made Sept. 17, 1971, President Richard Nixon [1913-94; 37th President of the United States: 1969-1974] opined that, “She’s a great actress. She looks pretty. But boy, she’s often on the wrong track.”

To be a high-profile woman is to be the target of those with an agenda. For many, Fonda was — and still is — something to be weaponized, celebrated, demonized, idolized, mythologized and chastised.

Few have been defined and redefined by the cultural narrative as thoroughly and frequently.

Of course Fonda, with her fearless commitment to authenticity, both in her craft and in her persona, has refused to take a passive role in any part of her public evolution. In fact, she’s been among the rare politically active Hollywood figures who’s managed to remain so consistently on the right side of history. A rewatch of Fonda’s many speeches from her early days of activism reveals well articulated points that are as relevant today as they were more than half a century ago. In countless Nixon-era interviews, Fonda’s demeanor is direct, her confidence unwavering, as she exposes the lies of multiple administrations, speaks about the unsustainability of capitalism and encourages her interviewers to question their own beliefs. “Everyone seems to think that the word revolution means violence,” she observes. “Any healthy country, like any healthy individual, should be in perpetual revolution.”

Revolutionary Performance

Onscreen, many point to Fonda’s Academy Award winning role as Bree Daniels in Klute (1971) as her first major artistic revelation. Still grappling with the nuances of feminism, Fonda initially hesitated to agree to a role that would have her play a sex worker. Once she understood that true gender equity is about “going deep” and depicting a human being — any human being — with honesty and authenticity, she and director Alan J. Pakula [1928-98] meditated on all the psychological ramifications of sexual abuse on an individual.

Prior to production, Fonda was undergoing a transformation — she’d gone to India, became an advocate and had experienced getting arrested (nearly half a dozen times). Thanks to her newfound personal and political growth, Fonda insisted that Pakula cast a woman, not a man, to be Daniels’ psychiatrist. And in her most emotional scene — where she recalls her visit to the morgue to view photos of female victims — Fonda found herself “crying for women . . . for the pain of women who are abused.” She was “changing,” “and that’s what made this scene right.”

Fonda’s much-acclaimed performance in Klute compelled film historian Richard Shickel [sic; Schickel, 1933-2017] to note in his Life magazine review [“New Heights for a Fallen Fonda,” 30 July 1971], “It seems to me unquestionable that Jane Fonda here emerges as probably the finest screen actress of her generation.”

A Feb. 22, 1960, feature in Life [Tom Prideaux, “Flowering of a New Fonda”] celebrating Fonda’s silver screen debut in Tall Story declares, “Like an ancient goddess who was born full-grown out of her father’s head, Jane Fonda at 22 has sprung up almost magically as a full fledged and versatile actress.” [In Greek mythology, Athena, a goddess associated with wisdom, warfare, and handicraft, had no mother and was born from the forehead of her father, Zeus.]

While Fonda’s life may have some parallels to the myth of motherless Athena to which the author was alluding — Fonda’s own mother died by suicide when Fonda was just 12 — it could be argued that her journey as an artist and an individual is more akin to the symbolism of Inanna, the Sumerian deity whose mythology, like the true nature of womanhood, contains more contradictions than can be counted. In her life, Fonda has lived communally as a Marxist, and then sumptuously on 2 million acres as a billionaire’s [CNN founder Ted Turner (b. 1938; m. 1991-2001)] wife. She’s a feminist working to “heal the wounds the patriarchy had dealt,” but whose journey toward authenticity has been heavily influenced by each of the marriages to her wildly diverse husbands [French screenwriter, film director, and producer Roger Vadim ​(m. 1965-73)​; social and political activist, author, and politician Tom Hayden ​(m. 1973-90); Turner]. Depending on the audience, she may be known as a subject of the male gaze (Barbarella, 1968), a symbol of feminism (9 to 5, 1980) or a fitness guru (Jane Fonda’s Workout, 1982).

One could even make a case for Fonda’s prophetic abilities following her prescient role in The China Syndrome (1979), in which she portrays reporter Kimberly Wells discovering a cover-up at a nuclear power plant. Twelve days following the film’s premiere, the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania experienced a partial meltdown [28 March 1979] — the most devastating accident of its kind in U.S. history. And then, mirroring 2023’s TV/Theatrical/ Streaming strike strategy, the film that enabled her to heal some of the emotional wounds inflicted by her father, On Golden Pond (1981), was produced thanks to a SAG interim agreement during the 1980 strike — a labor action that achieved the first-ever residuals for pay-per-view, video cassette and disk sales. Fonda, of course, donated $5,000 to the strike fund. Following a decade of established success in the ’80s as a star, producer and workout authority, Fonda — like the ancient goddess descending into the underworld [the ancient Mesopotamian goddess of love, war, and fertility, Inanna, descended into and returned from the Mesopotamian underworld] — took a 15-year retreat from acting. It was a time in the heroine’s journey for reassessment. Fonda’s conclusion following her hiatus? She needed to stop putting another person’s needs first.

“There was this angel on my shoulder,” she said in a 2018 interview with People about her divorce from media mogul Ted Turner [Gillian Telling, “Jane Fonda Explains Why It Took Her Until Her 60s to ‘Become Who I Was Supposed to Be,’” 19 Sept. 2018]. “If you stay, you will die without ever becoming who you can be. You will not really be authentic.”

The Third Act

Fonda has said it took her 30 years to understand feminism. Her frequently quoted epigram, “We are not meant to be perfect; we are meant to be whole,” is the crystallization of decades of lessons from acting, relationships, activism and living. It’s the type of wisdom that leads to performances that resonate with multitudes. In Fonda’s self-labelled “third act,” she has portrayed Grace & Frankie’s [Netflix TV series, 2015-22] Grace Hanson, a character who validates the vulnerabilities and complexities of older women. And, 50 years after their first onscreen pairing in Barefoot in the Park (1967), Fonda and Robert Redford reunited for Our Souls at Night (2017), a drama that allowed Fonda to deliver an intimate, subtle and exquisitely realized performance — an achievement crafted from a lifetime of devotion to understanding humanity and herself.

And all that understanding can make a woman extremely funny. It’s no wonder comedy has also been a defining feature of this onscreen chapter. Book Club (2018), Book Club: The Next Chapter (2023), 80 for Brady (2023), and Fonda and Lily Tomlin’s women-in-comedy celebration Ladies’ Night Live (2022) are all projects that showcase the unique humor and sexuality that comes from a life well-lived.

With the rare ability to question her role in the world, reflect on her own motivations and examine her interior life, Fonda is the embodiment of what it means to be an artist truly dedicated to the spiritual nature of performance. It’s the secret sauce that makes her work so stunningly, captivating.

Climate and Beyond

Now 87, nearly all of Fonda’s focus is centered on the most crucial issue of our time: climate change. Her Jane Fonda Climate PAC is a political action committee with a mission to “do what it takes to defeat fossil fuel supporters and elect climate champions at all levels of government.” Supporters are encouraged to sign up for updates at janepac.com.

Fonda’s lifetime of accolades include[s] two Oscars, two BAFTA [British Academy of Film and Television Arts] Awards, an Emmy, seven Golden Globes, the 2015 AFI Life Achievement Award, the Cecil B. DeMille Award, Elle’s Women in Hollywood Icon award and the Women in Film Jane Fonda Humanitarian Award, named after Fonda for her lifelong activism and philanthropic commitments.

She accepted the Harry Belafonte Voices for Social Justice Award at the 2023 Tribeca Film Festival. Most recently, in April of 2024, Fonda accepted the Time Magazine Earth Award.

On Sunday, Feb. 23 [2025], Fonda will receive the 60th SAG Life Achievement Award at the 31st Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards [at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles]. “Jane Fonda is a trailblazer and an extraordinary talent, a dynamic force who has shaped the landscape of entertainment, advocacy and culture with unwavering passion,” said SAG-AFTRA President Fran Drescher [b. 1957; President of SAG-AFTRA: 2021-Present]. “We honor Jane not only for her artistic brilliance, but for the profound legacy of activism and empowerment she has created. Her fearless honesty has been an inspiration to me and many others in our industry.”

“I am deeply honored and humbled to be this year’s recipient of the SAG Life Achievement Award.” Fonda told SAG-AFTRA. “I have been working in this industry for almost the entirety of my life and there’s no honor like the one bestowed on you by your peers. SAG-AFTRA works tirelessly to protect the working actor and to ensure that union members are being treated equitably in all areas, and I am proud to be a member as we continue to work to protect generations of performers to come.”

[The SAG Life Achievement Award Statuette is made using a process that involves creating two molds from wax models and then pouring in molten bronze heated to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit.  Once the bronze is cooled and freed from the ceramic, each mask is polished and refined.  After the comedy and tragedy masks are carefully welded together, the finished statue is then oxidized with a process that involves a mixture of chemicals and heating with a blow torch to give the award its green patina.]

*  *  *  *
ORIGINALS 

[In the 31st Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards special edition of SAG-AFTRA magazine, the union paid tribute to some of the 61 previous recipients for Life Achievement (in 1985 and 2000, the award was given to two honorees).  The union selected 18 former award recipients and quoted some of their remarks from their acceptance speeches (or from those who accepted the awards for them). 

[Needless to say, these are all esteemed and even beloved film actors whose names are known far beyond Hollywood.  Wikipedia has a chart of all 62 past awardees, and SAG-AFTRA has a photo montage of them all on which one can click for bios of each individual winner.]

As Queen Latifah said in 2008 [at the Kennedy Center Honors on 7 December in the Kennedy Center Opera House] while paying tribute to Barbra Streisand — the woman who would become the 2023 Screen Actors Guild Life Achievement Award honoree — “An original doesn’t conform to our expectations, she changes them . . . forever.”

Such is the legacy we honor in each of our 60 Life Achievement recipients chosen by the union’s Honors and Tributes Committee. They are talented originals who have made a lasting impact in creating a kinder, more equitable world while enhancing the art of the craft.

James Stewart [1908-97]

“This award you have so generously given me is ‘for outstanding achievement in fostering the finest ideals of the acting profession.’ Well, alright, I can live with that,” said sixth recipient Stewart. “There have been a lot of tears, but then also there have been a lot of laughs, and that’s what show business is all about. Thank you. Thank you very much.” [Stewart was the 6th recipient of SAG Life Achievement Award in 1968.]

Eddie Cantor [1892-1964]

The first Life Achievement honor [1962] was presented to Screen Actors Guild’s second president [1933-35] and first president of American Federation of Radio Artists (AFRA) [1937-40]. Unable to attend the presentation during the annual membership meeting, his friend, the legendary Jack Benny [1894-1974], accepted on his behalf.

Bob Hope [1903-2003]                                    

“This is a beautiful award. It looks like [Bing] Crosby [1903-77] before and after the honeymoon,” joked third honoree Bob Hope [1965]. “I don’t know what can possibly top this unless Lawrence Welk [1903-92] lets me run his bubble machine . . . I am proud to be a member of the Screen Actors Guild. I thank you very, very much for this award, and it just proves that a miracle can happen if you pay your dues regularly.”

Pearl Bailey [1918-90]

When SAG President Kathleen Nolan [b. 1933; President of SAG: 1957-62] presented the award, she listed some of Bailey’s past accolades that contributed to her being selected for this honor: “The March of Dimes award for 1968 and the USO Woman of the Year award for 1969 . . . [and] on Nov. 24, 1975, she was appointed by President Gerald R. Ford [1913-2006; 38th President of the United States: 1974-77] as special advisor to the U.N. Mission to the United Nations, a role which she feels will fulfill her desires to help all humanity more.” [Bailey was the 14th honoree in 1976.]

Danny Kaye [1911-87]

Wife Sylvia Fine Kaye [1913-91; m. 1940] accepted on his behalf, as he was in the hospital: “He . . . particularly wanted to be here today . . . He’s very proud of the acting profession, which has a long and glowing tradition of democracy in action and wholehearted public service, and if you feel that he has added luster to your traditions, he’s proud indeed and I thank you for him.” [Kaye was the 19th awardee in 1982.]

Katharine Hepburn [1907-2003]

“Good afternoon, everybody — I should say ‘fellow workers.’ That makes me sound revolutionary,” said 17th recipient Hepburn [1979]. “I am dumbfounded, and at the same time, I am very proud to have been chosen by the Screen Actors Guild as a good example, professionally and personally. It’s always heartening to be told by one’s own fellows that one is first rate, and that they wish to say so publicly.”

Audrey Hepburn [1929-93]

“I am more than ever awed and overwhelmed by the monumental talents it was my great, great privilege to work for and with,” 29th honoree Hepburn [1992] wrote in an acceptance letter just two weeks before her death. “There is therefore no way I can thank you for this beautiful award without thanking all of them . . . [who] guided and nurtured a totally unknown, insecure, inexperienced, skinny broad into a marketable commodity.”

Burt Lancaster [1913-94]

Daughter Johanna [b. 1951; film and television producer; “Joanna,” according to the website MyHeritage], accepting on his behalf: “I think my father is an enemy of anything that would erode the human spirit . . . My father doesn’t think of himself as a philanthropist. The word is too sedate to inspire him. I’ve always seen him more as a compassionate anarchist, someone who likes to stir it up and who feels an obligation to give back to the people and organizations which make a difference in his life. Thank you.” [Lancaster was the 28th recipient in 1991.]

Brock Peters [1927-2005]

“I could bemoan all the barriers and difficulties I have experienced and witnessed and fought over the years, but I have been extremely fortunate in my life to find friends who have gathered around me in the times of greatest need or who are just there to be helpful or to seek help from me or to just be friends,” said 27th recipient Peters [1990]. “Today I know that my family is even greater — you are all part of my extended family.

Kirk Douglas [1916-2020]

“You know what? When they first spoke to me about this award, lifetime achievement, I was scared. I saw a committee going over my medical file: ‘We have to give him something,’” joked 35th honoree Douglas [1998]. “Well, maybe then they learned that I have just finished a movie, they might want to take the award back! But what the hell, I am young, I have made 82 movies.”

Clint Eastwood [b. 1930]

“I got in the Screen Actors Guild back in the early ’50s, and Walter Pidgeon [1897-1984; President of SAG: 1952-57] was the president then,” recalled 39th recipient Eastwood [2002]. “I remember calling my parents and saying that I’m in the same union with Walter Pidgeon, [James] Cagney [1899-1986] and [Gary] Cooper [1901-61] and Barbara Stanwyck [1907-90] and Bette Davis [1908-89] . . . I thought I was hot stuff, until I started knocking on doors and getting the turndowns. So I appreciate everything that all of you have had to go through at some time in your life.”

Elizabeth Taylor [1932-2011]

“This award is especially important to me because it’s given by my peers,” 34th recipient Taylor [1997] penned in an acceptance letter. “Not only for my first career, acting — but, for what has now become my life: the eradication of the AIDS epidemic . . . Thank you for honoring me tonight.” [Throughout the 1990s, Taylor focused her time on HIV/AIDS activism. In 2001, President William Clinton (b. 1946; 42nd President of the United States: 1993-2001) awarded Taylor the Presidential Citizens Medal, the nation’s second-highest civilian honor, for her AIDS philanthropy.]

Dick Van Dyke [b. 1925]

“I am looking at the greatest generation of actors in the history of acting,” 49th honoree Van Dyke [2012] told the audience. “You’ve all lifted the art, I don’t know, to another place now. And besides that, you’re everywhere. You’re in Darfur, Somalia, Haiti, New Orleans, you’re all over the place, trying to do what’s right . . . And all I have to say is if this very heavy object means that I can refer to you as my peers, I’m a happy man.”

Mary Tyler Moore [1936-2017]

“In 1955 . . . I sought out the Screen Actors Guild in hopes of becoming a member. [Moore appeared in live TV commercials for Hotpoint home appliances that ran during The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet (1952-66).] But . . . there were six other Mary Moores on the SAG pages. Word came back: ‘Want to work in ‘the business’? Change your name, sweetheart.’ . . .  [Since at least 1933, SAG rules have prevented members from using the same professional name as another member, or a name that could be easily confused with another member’s name, to avoid confusion and ensure clarity.] Tyler was my middle name,” said the 48th recipient [2011]. “I spoke it out loud. ‘Mary Tyler Moore.’ It sounded right . . . SAG was happy. My father was happy. And tonight, after having the privilege of working in this business among the most creative and talented people imaginable, I too, am happy, after all. Thank you.”

James Garner [1928-2014]

“You look at the list of wonderful actors who have been recipients of this award — and I’m not at all sure how I got here. I’m just so humbled to be a part of such a distinguished group,” said 41st honoree Garner [2004]. “And, well, we actors, we seldom know how we are perceived by others, but this wonderful award lets me know, ‘Hey, Jim, you must have done something good.’ So to have actors think of me in these terms, it touches me deep, deep, deep, deep in my heart.”

Debbie Reynolds [1932-2016]

“God gave us talent, so we’re very fortunate, we all are . . . [.] My favorite movie was The Unsinkable Molly Brown [MGM, 1964; adapted from the 1960 Broadway musical of the same title by Richard Morris and Meredith Willson]. And I had a lot of fun doing that. In that movie I got to sing . . . a song called I Ain’t Down Yet. Well, I ain’t. Thank you all very much for this wonderful award.” [Reynolds was the 51st honoree in 2014.]

Morgan Freeman [b. 1937]

“These moments in one’s life usually will call for an entire litany of thank yous. I can’t do that because I don’t know all of your names. So I won’t try,” joked 54th recipient Freeman [2017]. “I do want to thank SAG-AFTRA for this enormous honor. This is beyond honor. This is a place in history.”

Sally Field [b. 1946]

“I’ve worked my whole life. I’ve ridden the highs and tried to learn from the lows. And in all of these almost 60 years, there is not a day that I don’t feel quietly thrilled to call myself an actor,” 58th honoree Field [2022] told the audience. “Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for this great honor from you, the people I most wanted respect from in my life: actors. Thank you.”