09 August 2020

Goiânia, Brazil, 1987


Most of us have heard the names Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.  If you’re old enough, you probably even remember the incidents that made those names famous—or infamous.

Both names are locations of immense nuclear accidents: Three Mile Island in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, in March 1979 and Chernobyl in the Ukraine, part of the Soviet Union at the time, in April 1986.  Both of these were accidents at nuclear power plants

While no deaths or injuries were directly attributed to the TMI near-meltdown, anecdotal reports asserted that deaths from cancer increased in the region surrounding the reactors; there had also been an increased incidence of cancer among wild and farm animals in the area according to similar reports.  The TMI reactors are no longer operating, though they’re still standing.

The Chernobyl accident involved an explosion and fire which killed two members of the reactor staff immediately; 31 plant workers and emergency responders died in the days and months following the explosion.  Approximately 14 cancer deaths within the next 10 years have been blamed on radiation.

The site of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant is still uninhabitable and stands as a ghost site with eerie music playing over the PA system.  The exclusion zone covers 1,000 square miles, including the nearby city of Pripyat (then with a population of just under 50,000 residents).

I suspect, however, that far fewer people know of the nuclear accident in Goiânia, Brazil, an interior city about 800 miles northwest of Rio de Janeiro, that occurred in September 1987.  It was far less spectacular than TMI and Chernobyl because it didn’t happen at a nuclear power plant and there was no melt-down or explosion.

The cause wasn’t a technical malfunction, it was carelessness and curiosity.  The people effected weren’t plant workers, scientists, or emergency responders.  They were ordinary residents of the city, the 11th-largest in Brazil (with a population in 1987 of about 1 million—around the size of San Jose, California) and the second-largest in the Central-West Region.  Most of the afflicted were poor and working-class Goianienses.

If you’re a regular reader of Rick On Theater, you might recognize the name of this Brazilian city (currently with a population of 1½ million), the capital of the large state of Goiás, from my report on Leonardo Shapiro’s production of Strangers with his Shaliko Company (posted on ROT on 3 and 6 March 2014).  The Goiânia tragedy formed the narrative core of the Shaliko play.

But Strangers isn’t a documentary play and my report on the production wasn’t a journalistic feature.  Neither Shapiro nor I gave more than the barest details about this disaster, which killed four immediately, irradiated another 249, with 20 of those suffering significant radiation exposure, and contaminated 85 homes which had to be abandoned and required 200 people to be evacuated from 42 of them.  About 112,000 Goianienses had to be examined and tested for radioactive contamination.

For more than a month after the accident, products of Goiânia and the surrounding area, a farming region whose economy is built on grain and beef, dropped in price by 49%--even though none was shown to be irradiated.  2,500 square miles of the city’s center were cordoned off for decontamination, which took over a year.  The clean-up took 11 weeks and 130,000 man-hours. 

During the clean-up, topsoil had to be removed from several sites.  Forty-two houses were demolished and the objects and personal possessions in them had to be incinerated.  It was the largest radiological accident ever in Brazil and all of Latin America.  

The Goiânia nuclear event was the largest accident in the world that wasn’t at a nuclear power plant.  Time magazine labeled the accident one of the world’s “worst nuclear disasters” and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) called it “one of the world’s worst radiological incidents.”

The IAEA classified the Goiânia radiation accident as a Level 5 on the International Nuclear Event Scale.  That’s an “Accident with wider consequences,” meaning that its impact is felt beyond the immediate event area.  It’s the same category as the Three Mile Island near-meltdown. 

(Chernobyl and the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan are Level 7, the highest level of radiation event—and the only two accidents in that class.  There’s only been one Level 6 accident, at another Soviet reactor in 1957.)

So, if there wasn’t a reactor meltdown or a power-plant explosion, what caused all this destruction of lives and homes and environment? 

This is where the carelessness and curiosity came into play.

There are many accounts of what occurred to precipitate the Goiânia radiation accident.  They come from interviews with different participants and witnesses and while the versions of events are consistent overall, there are some minor inconsistencies.  I’ve pieced together a narrative from several sources, including both journalistic media and scientific reports, that I think is fairly accurate.

On Sunday, 13 September 1987, two unemployed men, Roberto dos Santos Alves, 24, and Wagner Mota Pereira, 19, were scavenging for salable metal refuse in downtown Goiânia.  Alves had heard rumors that valuable equipment had been left at the Goiás Institute of Radiotherapy (IGR, for its Portuguese name: Instituto Goiano de Radioterapia), so they snuck into the partly demolished clinic.  

Most of the IGR building, together with some surrounding properties, had been razed.  The IGR treatment rooms, including the one where an out-of-date nuclear-medicine device, described as “a cross between an enormous telescope and a dentist’s chair,” was located, were undemolished but left in a derelict state.  The intact parts of the building were apparently used by vagrants.

The physicians who owned the disused clinic, Orlando Alves Teixeira, Carlos Figueiredo Bezerril, and Criseide Castro Dourado, had moved IGR into new quarters two years earlier, leaving behind an 880-pound nuclear-medicine machine containing a lead-and-steel canister, the sealed radiation source capsule, holding a 93-gram (3⅓-ounce) cake of radioactive cesium (sometimes spelled ‘caesium’) chloride, a salt made with cesium-137.   

Cesium-137, which has a half-life of a little over 30 years, is the same radioactive material that contaminated the Chernobyl site and the Fukushima Daiichi area.  It was also present, among other radioactive substances, in the environment after the TMI accident.  Radiation from cesium-137, or in more modern equipment, cobalt-60, is used to kill cancer cells.  In tiny doses, it helps save lives; in bigger quantities, it kills.

There’d been an extended and convoluted legal debate between IGR and the building’s owner, the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul, a voluntary Catholic organization, about the disposition of the teletherapy machine and its radioactive element.  Court decisions appeared to prevent the doctors from removing the device. 

A security guard was posted to prevent scavenging and theft, but on 13 September, the guard took a “sick day” to see a movie with his family, leaving the clinic unprotected.

After partially dismantling the machine with a sledgehammer, Alves and Pereira removed the metal component, about the size of a one-gallon paint can, which housed the nuclear source.  The young men hauled their booty, which they thought might have some resale value, in a wheelbarrow to Alves’s home.  They began pulling the device apart.

Later that evening, both men began to throw up.  Unbeknownst to them, they were in the beginning stages of radiation sickness.  Nevertheless, they kept up their efforts to disassemble the mechanism.  On Monday, Pereira began to suffer from diarrhea and dizziness. 

The symptoms of radiation sickness are nausea followed by dizziness, vomiting, and diarrhea.  Infected people may exhibit these symptoms within a few hours after exposure to nuclear radiation.  It’s needless to point out, perhaps, that the working-class people in this tale wouldn’t have had a clue about what they were suffering from.  Most attributed the distress to something they’d eaten. 

It’s one of the tragedies of this event that it took days before someone recognized what they were dealing with. 

Swelling started in Pereira’s left hand, which soon developed a burn of the same size and shape as the radioactive source assembly.  He was probably the first Goianiense to see effects of the nuclear accident.  The 19-year-old eventually had to have several fingers partially amputated.

Two days later, on 15 September, Pereira went to a neighborhood clinic which told him his symptoms were caused by something he ate.  The clinician told him to go home and rest. 

Meanwhile, Alves continued his efforts to dismantle the device.  He eventually got the cesium capsule out of its protective casing.  Alves’s exposure to the radioactive material while he’d been working, however, caused his right forearm to become ulcerated and it would have to be removed.

On 16 September, Alves managed to dig a small hole in the capsule with a screwdriver.  He saw a deep blue light through the tiny opening and he stuck the screwdriver into the canister and scooped out some of the glowing substance.  Thinking it was some kind of gunpowder, Alves tried to light it, but the powder wouldn’t burn.

Ultimately, Alves’s house and its grounds were extensively contaminated.  The house was one of those that had to be demolished and the topsoil removed.

Alves sold the stainless steel canister to 35-year-old scrapyard-owner Devair Alves Ferreira for about $25 on Friday, 18 September.  Thinking the capsule’s contents, particularly the lead, were valuable or even supernatural, the scrap-dealer immediately brought it to his home, which was next to the junkyard.  Ferreira stashed the mechanism in his garage where, that night, he noticed the blue glow from the punctured capsule. 

In daylight, the cesium cake appears dull white or gray, but in the dark, it glows blue.  The salt, cesium chloride,  is granular and coarse.  Some crystals are as large as grains of rice, others as small as dust particles.  

It’s not unlike sodium chloride, ordinary table salt, because it absorbs moisture and forms into cake-like lumps when exposed to the air’s humidity.  That means it can easily stick to clothing, skin, and utensils, and be passed along to food which comes into contact with something contaminated.  Internal contamination can occur if someone eats the adulterated food—the most dangerous form of radiation exposure.

The luminescent material was very alluring, especially to children who considered it to be magical.  Visitors to the Ferreira’s house were mesmerized by the mysterious substance that glowed “‘like a firefly’ in a jar.”   People began to play with it, resulting in significantly dispersing the cesium-137 to people, clothing, furniture, paper, walls, floors, and household pets.  One man slept with it under his bed, another carried a lump around in his pocket.  

It also led to internal exposure in many Goianienses because not a few ingested it either deliberately (because of its supposed magical powers) or accidentally (from eating food irradiated by contact with the powder).

Ferreira brought the seemingly magical, luminescent substance into the house, where he kept it in his living room.  On Monday, 21 September, Ernesto Fabiano, 47, a friend and employee of Ferreira’s, visited the Ferreira house and managed to take the canister apart and pried open the platinum capsule that contained the cesium-137.  He broke the grains of cesium salt apart and sifted it through his fingers; he chose one of the bigger crystals to give to his younger brother, Edson Fabiano, 42, as a gift.

Edson Fabiano, thinking the blue crystal would make a good ring for his 38-year-old wife, Santana Nunes Fabiano, put it in his pocket and went to work.  Later, when Santana Fabiano saw that so many of her friends and neighbors who’d come into contact with the blue dust got sick, she became suspicious and flushed the crystal down the toilet.

Later, during the clean-up, the Fabianos’ septic tank had to be dug up and removed so that other local residents wouldn’t think that the water supply had been contaminated.  Edson Fabiano received intense radiation burns on his hands and on his right thigh, where the cesium-137 chunk intended for his wife’s ring had burned through his trousers.  He required skin grafts.

Ferreira and his wife, 37-year-old Maria Gabriela Ferreira, examined the powder closely.  Over the next three days, he invited friends and family to come look at the strange, glowing substance.  Then on 22 or 23 September, the crumbly cake of radioactive matter was broken into pieces and distributed to family members and friends, who took the mystical powder home for good luck.  

The house was covered with the cesium dust.  The tiny particles of cesium spread from friend to neighbor, parent to child, husband to wife.  Friends and relatives of the Ferreiras who came from other towns carried the crystals back home with them.  The Ferreira family, as you can see, is large in itself, and with cousins and in-laws, family members lived all over the area, spreading the cesium as they moved about..

During this time, Maria Ferreira, who’d slept in bedclothes dusted with the powder, began to fall ill with vomiting and diarrhea. The scrap-seller’s wife was examined at São Lucas Hospital in Rio de Janeiro on the 21st.  Her diagnosis was the same as Wagner Pereira’s, food poisoning from something she’d eaten, and she was sent home to rest.  Maria Ferreira’s esophagus would eventually develop radiation burns and her hair would fall out.

Maria Ferreira’s 57-year-old mother, Maria Gabriela Abreu, traveled to the junkman’s house for two days to nurse her daughter.  She returned home to Inhumas, about 30 miles north of Goiânia, carrying a substantial amount of contamination with her.  She soon became ill herself.

Maria Abreu was interned in the Marcilio Dias Naval Hospital (HNMD) in Rio on 21 October to treat an aggravated hematological condition.  On 26 November, she was transferred to the General Hospital of Goiânia for further treatment.  On 17 December, Maria Abreu was released from the Goiânia hospital and returned home to Inhumas.

Between 22 and 24 September, Devair Ferreira’s employees 22-year-old Israel Batista dos Santos and 18-year-old Admilson Alves de Souza handled and worked on the effectively unshielded remnants of the containment device to extract the lead.  Both incurred high doses of radiation exposure.

Wagner Pereira, one of the original scrap collectors, was admitted on Wednesday, 23 September, to Brasília’s Santa Maria Hospital, where he stayed until 27 September, when the skin effects of radiation exposure were diagnosed as a symptom of some disease, and he was transferred to the Tropical Diseases Hospital (HDT) in Goiânia. 

On 24 September, Ivo Alves Ferreira, Devair’s 39-year-old brother, scraped some of the radioactive dust out of the canister.  He took the powder to his nearby home where he spread some of it on the concrete floor and used some of the cesium chloride dust to paint a cross on his abdomen.  

He carried some of the radioactive powder to his farm and scattered it on the ground; two of his pigs ate some and died.  (Later a total of 23 chickens and ducks, five pigs, two dogs, and two rabbits were killed because they were contaminated.)

Leide das Neves Ferreira, Ivo’s 6-year-old daughter, rubbed the glowing substance on her body like the glitter used at Carnival.  Then she ate a boiled egg that became contaminated with cesium powder from her hands.  About 10 minutes later, the girl was vomiting, but her mother, Lourdes, 35, figured the egg had been rotten.

Both Leide and her aunt would be among the fatalities of the Goiânia radiation accident.  The little girl reportedly received five to six times the lethal dose for an adult—probably because she ingested the substance rather than just getting on her skin.  

The 6-year-old was so radioactive that anyone who came close enough to talk to her would have received radiation equal to a chest x-ray each minute.  When she was hospitalized and an international team came to treat her, they found that she’d been confined to an isolated room because the staff were afraid to get close to her.

Also on 24 September, another brother of the junk dealer, Odesson Alves Ferreira, a 32-year-old city bus-driver, took a piece of the cesium chloride home with him in his pocket by public bus, contaminating hundreds of passengers.  (During the subsequent clean-up, authorities had to dismantle a bus station and decontaminate two buses.)

On Friday, 25 September, Devair Ferreira sold the lead and the remnants of the source assembly to a second scrap-dealer. 

Between 21 and 28 September, heavy rain fell on the Goiânia area.  This not only soaked the radioactive contaminant into the soil for several feet—the ground water was somehow spared pollution—but also soaked the roofs of houses with radioactivity.  Ultimately, this phenomenon caused many houses to be too heavily contaminated for decontamination, necessitating their demolition.

On the other hand, the regular rainy season in the region, usually from October to April, was late in 1987, sparing the city additional environmental pollution and easing the clean-up efforts that started at the end of September.

Maria Ferreira had been the first person known to have noticed that many people around her had become severely ill at the same time after handling the mysterious dust.  She blamed this phenomenon on the glowing powder.  On Monday, 28 September, she and an employee of her husband’s went to the second junkyard and retrieved the remains of the radiation source assembly. 

The two put the mechanism in a bag and took it by bus to the Goiânia office of Health Surveillance of Goiás (VSG), a state agency.  They put the bag on the desk of a doctor from the VSG and Maria Ferreira told him, “This is killing my people.”

The VSG doctor let the bag and its radioactive contents sit on his desk for several hours, until he got worried and took it out into the courtyard and set it on a chair by an external wall.  Meanwhile, Maria Ferreira and her helper were sent to a health center where their symptoms were diagnosed as a tropical disease.

They were transferred to the Tropical Diseases Hospital, where Wagner Pereira had been sent earlier and where several others with the same symptoms had also been examined and given the same diagnosis. 

One doctor, however, began to suspect that the skin lesions of these patients had been caused by radiation exposure.  He contacted another doctor who worked at HDT but was also superintendent of the Toxicological Information Center. 

As it happened, that doctor had already been contacted by the Health Surveillance physician about the suspicious bag Maria Ferriera had left with him.  After the two HDT doctors had reexamined the patients, they decided that there were enough questions that the situation required further investigation. 

They called on a physician at the State Superintendence of the Environment of Goiás (SEMAGO), who proposed that they have a medical physicist look at the suspicious package.  The SEMAGO doctor knew that just such an expert, Walter Mendes Ferreira, happened to be visiting Goiânia at the time..

Early in the morning of Tuesday, 29 September, Walter Ferreira, who’s no relation to the scrap-dealer and his family, confirmed the presence of radioactivity and persuaded the authorities to take immediate action.  The city, state, and national governments all became aware of the incident by the end of the day, and the accident response started that evening. 

The pace of events quickened as the investigators began to appreciate the seriousness of the accident.  The Brazilian government requested assistance from the IAEA, pursuant to the governing international convention, to which Brazil was a signatory. 

Teams, individual experts, and equipment from the international organizations IAEA and the World Health Organization, along with the countries Argentina, France, the Federal Republic of (i.e., West) Germany, Hungary, Israel, Japan, the Netherlands, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States arrived in Goiânia and Rio de Janeiro.  The assistance was in both the medical area, to help in the treatment of the irradiated Goianienses, and the field of decontamination and radioactive disposal.

For 16 days, no one had known that the cause of their sickness was radiation exposure.  People treated at clinics and hospitals during those weeks were just released onto the streets of Goiânia to interact with and contaminate scores and even hundreds of relatives, friends, and neighbors.  Maria Ferreira, by her decision to bring the cesium container to the health authorities and voice her fears, possibly saved many additional lives—although she lost her own.

News of the radiation incident was broadcast on local, national, and international media.  Within days of the announcement, 112,000 people flooded hospitals concerned that they might have been irradiated .  Of those, 249 were found to be contaminated, some with radioactive residue still on their skin.  Ultimately, 20 people showed signs of radiation sickness and required treatment.

In the end, 22 Ferreira family members had direct contact with the cesium-137.  But they unwittingly went on to contaminate others.  One estimate is that a total of 2,000 people received high radiation doses, though not all became infected with radiation disease.  In the end, four Goianienses died from cesium-137 contamination.

On Friday, 23 October, two members of Devair Ferreira’s family became the first to die,  Maria Ferreira, Devair’s 37-year-old wife, became ill about three days after coming into contact with the substance.  Her condition worsened, and she developed hair-loss and internal bleeding, especially of the limbs, eyes, and digestive tract.  She further suffered mental confusion, diarrhea, and acute renal insufficiency before dying at noon of “septicemia and generalized infection” at the Marcilio Dias Naval Hospital—about a month after exposure.

Leide Ferreira, the 6-tear-old niece of the junk-dealer, gradually experienced swelling in the upper body, hair-loss, kidney and lung damage, and internal bleeding; she also suffered from severe lesions on her throat and tongue.  Leide died at HNMD Friday night, also of “septicemia and generalized infection.”

Israel dos Santos, aged 22, was an employee of Devair Ferreira who worked on the radioactive source.  He developed serious respiratory and lymphatic complications and was eventually admitted to hospital.  He died Tuesday, 27 October, at HNMD.

The last to die was the 18-year-old employee of the Ferreira scrapyard, Admilson de Souza.  He had also worked on the radioactive source at the scrapyard and developed lung damage, internal bleeding, and heart damage.  He died at HNMD on Wednesday, 28 October.

By 2012, the Association of Victims of Cesium-137 (Associação das Vítimas do Césio-137), an organization formed in December 1987 by Odesson Ferreira, who became a lifelong activist in behalf of Goianienses who lived near designated radiation hot spots, said that after 25 years, about 1,600 people had been directly affected and about 104 had died from cancer and other problems since the contamination.

Among these later deaths were the brothers Ferreira, Devair and Ivo.  (Odesson survived but suffered radiation burns on the palm of his left hand.)  Both men suffered from the extreme guilt of having introduced the deadly, glowing substance that killed members of their family.

Devair Ferreira survived the cesium contamination despite receiving a high dose of radiation.  He suffered hair loss and problems with several organs, including cancer from the radiation exposure, and died at age 43 on 5 December 1994 of cirrhosis aggravated by binge drinking and depression over his wife’s death.  After his daughter’s death, older brother Ivo Ferreira was also afflicted by depression, which had started him smoking around six packs of cigarettes a day, and died of pulmonary emphysema in July 2003.

As the illnesses spread and the severity increased, Goianienses who lived in the area surrounding Ferreira’s junkyard and house began to be afraid.  Some neighbors thought that the illness that was causing the symptoms exhibited by the Ferreiras’ circle of friends and acquaintances was AIDS, which in 1987 was on its way to being recognized as a worldwide pandemic and carried its own stigma.

Paranoia ran rampant in Brazil and beyond.  While residents of Goiânia shunned those connected with the Ferreiras or who lived in or near the irradiated area, people beyond Goiás and Brazil, “turned the 1 million inhabitants of this central Brazilian city into national pariahs.”

“People are just hysterical,” said Dr. Donald A. Binns, a Brazilian physicist and radiation protection supervisor who worked for the National Nuclear Energy Commission (CNEN).  “They think radiation is like an infectious disease.  It’s in the air.  They can smell it and get contaminated.”  

Health workers in Goiânia spoke of extreme “radiophobia,” the fear of radiation.  One Goianiense, for instance, went out at night hunting stray cats because he was afraid they were radioactive.  After some radioactive money was found, investigators spent hours checking stacks of currency in banks.

In Brazilian states far beyond Goiás, authorities—and even highway police—demanded people produce CNEN certificates to show the bearer wasn’t contaminated.  An estimated 100,000 Goianienses had lined up at a temporary medical center outside the city’s stadium by December to be tested for radioactivity so they could get the certificates.

“Some people have been back here four or five times,” said Binns.  Many residents also brought their pets, clothes, cars, furniture, household appliances—anything they were afraid could have come into contact with the cesium powder.

When little Leide Ferreira was buried in a Goiânia cemetery on Monday, 26 October, her funeral was met by rioters who tried to prevent her burial by using stones and bricks to block the cemetery roadway.  More than 2,000 protestors gathered in the cemetery out of fear that the girl’s corpse would poison the surrounding land. 

At the funerals of Israel dos Santos and Admilson de Souza on Friday, 30 October, 30 camouflage fatigue-and-visor-wearing riot police with shields and batons stood guard.  There were also 90 other officers, some with police dogs.  Goiânia authorities took no chances after the violence at Leide and Maria Ferreira’s burials.

Local residents said that the bodies of cesium-137 poisoning victims should be treated like nuclear waste.  Leide, her aunt, and the other fatalities of the radiation accident were buried in special fiberglass coffins layered on the inside with lead to prevent the spread of radiation.  The coffins weighed 1,200 pounds each and were lowered by cranes into graves specially prepared with concrete linings.

To add insult to injury, the four cesium-137 victims were interred in the paupers’ section of the cemetery.  Their graves were unmarked.

Radiophobia caused businessmen in other parts of South America to cancel orders from Goiás and moved people in other Brazilian cities to stone cars, stop buses from Goiânia, and cancel hotel reservations of travelers from Goiânia.  Two airline pilots were dismissed after they refused to pick up passengers in the city.  

After the accident, the value of property around the affected area dropped.  Many of those who lived in Goiânia wanted to leave, but other Brazilians’ fear of the potential radiation in the region’s air discouraged the purchase and construction of new homes in and near Goiânia.

In an apartment complex across from the Ferreira junkyard, only 16 of the 88 apartments were occupied as of early November.  According to one report, a woman living there was being threatened with dismissal by her employers unless she moved out.

Some families from the Ferreira’s neighborhood who had to evacuate their homes reported that hotels in Goiânia denied them accommodations once their identities were revealed.  Others said that they’d been forbidden to rent other places to live and that even their relatives refused to put them up.

Mailmen and telephone repairmen were reported to be refusing to make service calls in the part of Goiânia where the junkyard and the Ferreira house were.  The relatives and colleagues of the local residents there avoided them.  Several shops and bars lost their clientele and employees and closed down. 

“If you go on a bus, everyone draws back,” said a woman who lived near the scrap-collector Roberto Alves.  “They make sly remarks.  They say we are from ‘that street,’ that we’re all contaminated, that later everyone on the street is going to die of cancer.”

One old man who came to the medical center to get one of the certificates said that he’d just been forced off a bus for Brasília.  He had tumors on his hands, but he explained that they were old skin cancers   “The driver thought I was dangerous,” he said with panic in his voice.

“A relatively minor accident like this has affected an entire state’s internal and external economy,” said Dr. John S. Petterson, a U.S. specialist in nuclear waste, “and this comes from people’s perception of danger rather than the actual risks.”

Many people who had planned to come to Goiânia for various reasons canceled their trips and concerts were canceled.  Even places far from Goiânia suffered, such as a hot-springs resort 100 miles from the Goiás capital.  The town reported that two months after the radiation incident, hotels in the resort had lost as much as 86% of their usual occupancy.

An international trade fair in Rio de Janeiro in October banned products from Goiás, prompting angry businessmen and officials to launch a campaign in November to combat such discrimination.

Buyers of meat, produce, and goods around Brazil, concerned that radiation may have touched cattle, crops, and manufactured products, shunned goods not just from Goiânia, but from across the rolling cattle lands and expanding urban centers of the state of Goiás, which includes the federal capital of Brasília, 126 miles northeast of Goiânia. 

A Goiânia city council member asserted in early November:

Sales of the state’s products are down almost 50 percent.  People in Sao Paulo, for instance, are no longer accepting our milk, and a Sao Paulo wholesaler rejected a shipment of rice, offering to take the stuff only for half price.  That’s nothing less than blackmail.

As the clean-up and decontamination operations began, about 4,500 tons of topsoil had to be removed from the affected sites at the junkyard, the houses of the infected people, and the many other locations where the cesium dust was spilled.  Houses were evacuated and the possessions inside were removed. 

The dirt and the objects were all sealed in steel drums or ribbed metal boxes.  This included irradiated  pets and livestock, which were killed and interred in the barrels, too.  The Brazilian government, however, hadn’t decided how to dispose of the contaminated materials. 

This problem was partly caused and partly exacerbated by agitation from the local residents, as well as those in other areas of the country where the radioactive waste, which eventually amounted to 13½ tons, might be buried or stored.  They all resisted keeping the stuff “in their backyards,” so to speak. 

Protestors included Indians who lived in remote parts of the Amazon rain forest near one proposed waste disposal  site.  Every Brazilian state declared that it would not accept nuclear waste from Goiânia.

So while the soil, clothes, and household goods were gathered up and sealed in the drums and boxes, the containers themselves remained in the yards and on the grounds of the buildings from which they’d been removed.

Almost 13,000 cubic feet of contaminated material in about 12,500 drums and 1,470 boxes was eventually removed from Goiânia to a temporary storage site in a sparsely populated area 12½ miles from the city. 

Fourteen distinct areas in Goiânia were designated as contaminated, most of them at very low levels.  The inhabitants of an area of 2,400 square yards (half an acre) were evacuated, of which about 290 square yards were determined to be contaminated by cesium chloride.  The quarantined area, which included the street on which Devair Ferreira lived, contained 25 small houses and two junkyards.

The three physicians who owned and operated the clinic, a former owner of IGR, and the IGR physicist were arrested and charged with inflicting fatal wounds.  They claimed that CNEN hadn’t inspected the facility for five years before the radiation accident—though records suggest that it was closer to twice that.  

A special commission appointed by the Goiás legislature concluded that the owners of the clinic and CNEN were both responsible for the occurrence of the accident.  “Culpable homicide” indictments were being prepared against officials at three federal and state agencies, including the director of nuclear installations of CNEN and the coordinator for health inspection in the state of the state of Goiás.

The Federal Court of Justice for the State of Goiás determined that Wagner Pereira and Roberto Alves, the two scavengers who took the radioactive material from the derelict IGR, couldn’t be charged with theft because, having been abandoned, the radiotherapy machine didn’t belong to anyone.  The court judged that the law required that a stolen item had to have belonged to someone else for theft to have occurred.

The two government officials charged saw their cases dismissed because the court decided that though CNEN and the VSG had been guilty of wrongdoing, individual officials couldn’t be charged for the misdeeds of an entire agency.

The three doctors and the physicist at IGR were the only people convicted of anything connected to the Goiânia radiation accident.  They were found guilty of manslaughter and causing bodily harm for having left the hazardous material unprotected and failing to report its presence in an insecure location to the proper authorities.

The four men were sentenced on 29 July 1992 to three years in prison, but the judge reduced the penalty to prohibition to practice their professions, community service, and a fine.  Both the prosecution and the defense appealed the sentence.  On 19 June 1995, the fines were vacated and the prison term was reduced to three years and two months of home confinement; the community service requirement remained.

04 August 2020

Acting Class (On-Line Edition)

by Kirk Woodward

[The coronavirus and COVID-19 have changed almost everything about our lives.  In addition to their effect on our health and livelihoods, it has invaded the arts as well.  Just about every aspect of the arts, from both the perspective of consumers and the artists, has been affected.

[Perhaps one of the least known facets of art, particularly the performing arts, that has been disrupted are classes for the artists.  Since this is an ostensibly theater blog, I’m thinking specifically of acting classes. 

[Since actors and other performers no longer have productions on which they can work, and acting, in particular, is hard to do on your own—however unsatisfying, a writer can work at his craft by him- or herself and a musician can play at home, socially isolated from others—actors need some way to keep the instrument tuned, the skills from atrophying, the “art in yourself,” as Konstantin Stanislavsky put it, from drying up.

[So it’s no wonder that actors have turned to the Internet to seek out ways to test themselves and get feedback on their skills—to exercise the disused muscles.  So along came online acting classes.  I think they started, or at least they proliferated, pretty quickly after theaters, studios, and conservatories shut down.

[My friend Kirk Woodward, who I’d say is mostly a playwright and director, is also an occasional actor.  Susan Knight Carlin, an acquaintance of his who’s an actress and acting teacher sent out a notice that she was starting an online class, and Kirk signed up.  In “Acting Class (On-Line Edition),” he gives a day-by-day account of his participation in and preparation for the class, conducted on Zoom.  I’ll let Kirk tell the rest; he does an excellent job of it.

[One last word: I’ve chosen to post Kirk’s report now, following the profile of his former acting teacher, Elizabeth Dillon, posted last Sunday, because he talks about working with her below and it seemed appropriate that this article come right after the one on Elizabeth.  (As it happens, Kirk also mentions my acting teacher, Carol Rosenfeld.  I’ll have some things to say about Carol and the work I did with her at the end of this post.)]

The computer application Zoom, originally designed primarily as a platform for virtual business meetings, continues to be used extensively by performers and performing groups during the time of social isolation required for fighting the COVID-19 virus. [See Rick On Theater posts “Theater Online – A Preliminary Report,” 19 May, and “The Diary of Anne Frank Online,” 29 May.]

For example, during the month of July I took an acting class on Zoom. It was organized and led by Susan Knight Carlin, a professional actor and teacher. I have mentioned Susan in this blog before, in connection with a production I directed (Spoon River in early 2020) [see “Presbyterian Avant Garde,” posted on ROT on 19 March 2020]. Susan, appropriately enough, announced the class by email, and eight of us eventually signed up for it.

This posting will be as much about the acting work as it will be about the medium (Zoom) used for the class, but I will draw a few conclusions on virtual acting classes at the end.

Susan told us that the class would consist of five sessions, the first one introductory, and would be based on the book Respect for Acting by Uta Hagen (1919-2004). This plan reassured me right away. I was familiar with the book, which was first published in 1973 by Macmillan Publishing Co. and is widely admired and used. (The book was reissued in 2008 by Wiley Publishing and is still in print; Wiley released an e-book version in 2009.)

Hagen was greatly respected as an actor. She won two Tony Awards for originating the roles of Georgie in The Country Girl (1950) by Clifford Odets (1906-1963) in 1951 and Martha in Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf (1962) by Edward Albee (1928-2016) in 1963, and a Special Lifetime Achievement Tony Award in 1999.

A casualty of the “Hollywood Blacklist” because of her close association with the actor Paul Robeson (1898-1976), she and her second husband Herbert Berghof (1909-1990) co-founded the HB Studio in New York City, where she taught a remarkable number of well-known performers, as well as my own transformational acting teacher, Elizabeth Dillon [see “‘Portrait of a Mentor’” by Alan Geller, reposted on ROT on 30 July].

I bought Respect for Acting when it was first published, read it, and have referred to it often since. The book contains ten activities often referred to collectively as “the object exercises,” the title of the chapter that describes them. They are designed so the actor can perform them either privately or with others watching. The word “object” points out that none of these are mime exercises; they call for using actual material items.

Although not all the names of the object exercises are self-explanatory, it still may be useful to list them, using Hagen’s names for them:

The Basic Object Exercise
Three Entrances
Immediacy
The Fourth Wall
Endowment
Talking to Yourself
Outdoors
Conditioning Forces
History
Character Action

The names of the exercises indicate that as a group they cover many of the things an actor does on stage. (I should note that Uta Hagen wrote another book, A Challenge for the Actor, published in 1991 by Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, also very fine, in which she provides a related but different group of ten exercises with the same purposes.)

Many acting teachers have organized classes based on these exercises, and Susan proposed to do the same. She suggested a five-session class. The first would be introductory; the second through fourth would use the first three of Hagen’s object exercises; and the last would be devoted to monologs

I said above that Susan’s plan for the class reassured me. Actually this is only partially true. For two years in the 1970’s I studied and applied the principles of the object exercises in technique classes at the HB Studio (not led by Elizabeth, whose classes were entirely scene study), and was an abject failure at them. Carol Rosenfeld, the instructor and a fine one, still teaching and well regarded in the profession, must have wondered what in the world I was doing there.

[The New York Times ran an article by Elisabeth Vincentelli called “Time for Your Close-Up” in the “Arts & Leisure” section on Sunday, 3 May.  It’s about online acting classes and one of the teachers who conducts such a class is Carol Rosenfeld of HB Studio.  The article is available on the Times website as “‘The World Goes Away’ and Other Lessons From Online Acting Class” at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/28/theater/acting-class-online-coronavirus.html?searchResultPosition=1.]

How did I manage to fail so badly? Some of it was due to simple lack of preparation; the object exercises aren’t improvisations. They require preparation and practice (like being in a play!), neither of which are my natural strong points.

Much of my procrastination was due to a feeling that I simply wasn’t very creative about the exercises. As well as I can remember, my ideas for what to do in the exercises (we had to come up with those ideas; Carol didn’t assign them) didn’t excite me, which meant they certainly wouldn’t have excited anybody else. Carol remained patient . . . .

So when I accepted Susan’s offer of a class, I also wrote her that object exercises were “the bane of my existence.” She refused to accept my statement, which I appreciate. I mailed her my check and the classes began on the last Tuesday night in June 2020, continuing through the following four Tuesday nights in July.

CLASS ONE – Our introductory first session began with Susan’s review of the first part of Respect for Acting, which she had asked us to read in advance, and quickly developed into a discussion of the mechanics of Zoom and the possible problems we would face.

I had wondered in particular what anyone would be able to see of an object exercise, considering the small size of a laptop camera. Susan pointed out, and Jennie Cherry, a class member, demonstrated, that with proper placement such a camera could show most of a good sized room, although of course it couldn’t do a variety of angles and distances without a second person moving it around.

In the course of this introductory session, I found insights into two things people often say about acting, both of which have always bothered me. The first goes something like this (I am not quoting anyone in particular): “We think we’re one person, but we’re really many different people. I’m one person when I’m with my spouse, another when I’m with my boss. I contain many different people.”

This kind of thinking seems to me simply not true. At its best it suggests that we can understand or perhaps put ourselves in the place of another person. At its worst, as a friend of mine has pointed out, it can be dangerous for an actor who is deeply neurotic (it can happen!) to think they have “no real self.” According to many accounts the actor Peter Sellers (1925-1980) was a classic example of this condition, and not a happy one.

The situation, at least for relatively healthy people, it seems to me, is, instead, that we respond in varying degrees to all sorts of conditions. An actor should be able to take in many kinds of circumstances, including – to name three obvious ones – the circumstances detailed by the script; those provided by the director; and those that arise from interaction with other actors in the scene or play.

In theory, at least, the better “receiver” should be the better “reactor” or responder, and many acting exercises, including Uta Hagen’s, are designed to make actors better “receivers” for that very reason.

This leads to a second insight concerning the well-known phrase “Acting is reacting,” which seems to me to be exactly half right. Acting is receiving and reacting. One can’t “react” in a vacuum. One needs to take in the stimuli first. Individuals differ in how and how much they do “receive.”
                                                                                         
A personal application: I am not a particularly good “receiver.” I have often said that I would make a poor witness in a court trial; I’m simply not a great observer. I’ve worked on this limitation over the years, with some improvement, I hope. I suspect the deficiency is a reason I never tried to act fulltime.

All the more reason to take another acting class! Here is Uta Hagen’s list of what “I have to know if I want to re-create . . . two minutes of experience:”

Who am I?
What time is it?
Where am I?
What surrounds me?
What are the given circumstances? (past, present, future, and the events)
What is my relationship (to events, characters, and things)
What do I want?
What’s in my way?
What do I do to get what I want?

And since I’ve made an issue of my preparation, here is a day-by-day account of my preparation for the first exercise (second class session), the “basic object exercise.”

The assignment of the first object exercise is to prepare a two minute slice of life in which you do something you do or might do in your regular life – not perform it, but simply do it. (I thought a requirement was that the exercise involve at least three objects, but I don’t see that Hagen mandates that, and Susan didn’t either.)

DAY ONE – found a monolog, Henry Drummond’s speech about the rocking horse he coveted as a child, from the play Inherit the Wind (1955) by Jerome Lawrence (1915-2004) and Robert E. Lee (1918-1994). Emailed Susan and told her what I’d selected, typed it out, and read it through once out loud.

Thought about what I might use for an object exercise. Tried to think what I do in my home office, where I usually work. Remembered the photo albums on one of the book shelves, thought that might fit the bill.

Experimented with the laptop to see if it could show the book shelves, my desk, and most of the room at once. Found that it could. Came up with a rough beginning outline of the exercise – take a photo album, find something and look at it, decide not to dwell on it, get another album, start sorting photos. Watched myself on the camera, which seemed to cover the space.

DAY TWO – Susan approved the monolog. Read it out loud again, trying to read it “neutrally” – to not force “line readings.” Decided that I’d use two photo albums, one that didn’t contain the pictures I thought it did (with pictures of my late wife Pat in various acting roles), and one family album. Tentative “want” or objective: to find a picture that a family member asked me for, of him in a play with Pat. Decided to let my subconscious work overnight.

DAY THREE – subconscious gave me orders. Situation became a letter from my aunt, asking for a picture of the family together. Made prop envelope and letter “from my aunt,” decided I’ll begin with bringing the mail into the office, read the letter, look in one album, find it interesting, put it back and get another album, start looking for the photo. I did the actions and timed them – took two minutes or so. Fine.

Read the monolog out loud again, as neutrally as possible. Realized it’s not “due” for a month. Wrote the nine “what I need to know” questions (see above) on the monolog, not consciously trying to answer them yet.

DAY FOUR – did the exercise again. It dawned on me that I really don’t have to “show” or “indicate” anything – just do it. Felt good about that. I like this exercise! Realized I need an ending – taking out a photo, putting the album back on the shelf. Planned to add that tomorrow.

Read the monolog out loud, and worked on learning the first section. Just two typed lines. How’s my memory these days? Worked more on answering those nine questions, using the information in the script and the fact that, my father and grandfather were lawyers, like Henry Drummond. 

DAY FIVE – object exercise again, adding the ending. Seemed fine. I love not having to “show” anything, but it’s still a temptation I have to consciously resist.

Worked on the first two sections of the monolog. As I divided it, there are six. Monologs aren’t “uninterrupted speech” – we just don’t hear the interruptions, which often come as thoughts or images. I’m trying to remember to make the images in the speech(es) real to myself.

DAY SIX – I was still finding it difficult to do the “object exercise” without trying to clue in my imaginary audience somehow as to what’s going on, like saying “Hmmm!” when I open the letter from my aunt.

Started memorizing the third section of the monolog. These are all short – not huge chunks of prose.

DAY SEVEN – time to try out the object exercise in the morning, so I set up the computer, started the camera recording, and did the exercise. Aside from my horror at seeing myself on camera (the words “old” and “fat” come to mind), to my amazement it was too short – 1:26 including turning the camera on and going to position, and I need two minutes. Changes: make sure not to rush; end by putting the photo album back, sitting at the desk, taking out paper, and beginning to write a letter to Aunt Emma.

Practicing the monolog, I tried to keep from being inaudible on words that begin or end phrases in the speech, and to make mental connections to help with the words I’m substituting other words for in my head. The originals are better. I realized today that the speech is pivotal for the play, because Drummond recognizes in it that for the sake of fighting for justice, he has abandoned the charm and lightness of his childhood.

CLASS TWO – after some preliminary discussion, we did the object exercises, one by one. Susan was supportive and enthusiastic; she asked two or three of us to repeat a section of the exercise using a “heightened circumstance.” For example, she asked me to become more absorbed in the first photo album I looked at, imagining that it contained, for example, pictures of Pat (which it actually did).

In requesting this, Susan put her finger on the weakest part of my exercise; redoing it strengthened it. It exasperated me not to have “nailed” the entire exercise the first time, but after all, that’s why we’re in class – to improve.

The session concluded with discussion of next week’s “three entrances” exercise, an “object exercise” in which we come into a room three times, each time coming in from a different experience which changes the way in which we enter.

I started immediately thinking about what kind of circumstances I could use for the new exercise. I decided I was returning to my home office after a day’s meeting with a possible publisher for several of my plays. One meeting would have been long and inconclusive, and I’d be exhausted; one would have been a failure, and I’d be furious; one would have been successful, and I’d be thrilled.

(WEEK TWO) DAY ONE – I found a “messenger bag” and put a folder and a script in it. I had decided overnight that I won’t be back from a publisher, but from someone who was interested in producing my play. I did the three entrances – tired, furious, and happy – pausing in the doorway each time before “entering,” and they all were great fun. I like this stuff! 
                                                          
Without trying too hard I was close to having the entire monolog basically memorized. It struck me now that Drummond is recalling his childhood incident for the first time in decades – he thought he’d forgotten it. That’s how it can bring back all the feelings it does. He’s lost something in the struggle, though, and he knows it.

DAY TWO – severe resistance to rehearsing the exercise at all, but I finally did it about 5 PM. To my surprise it was very different this time, and fun. It dawned on me that I might do it differently every time – I don’t have to repeat it. If you had already figured that out, well, I hadn’t, at least not that I’d noticed.

Monolog nearly memorized. If I let myself “remember” the events I’m talking about – let them come to mind as I’m trying to recall them – and visualize the images, it works, or at least it feels right.

DAY THREE – was I becoming too comfortable with the “three entrances?” The monolog was very close to memorized.

DAY FOUR – added a new bit or two to the exercise. I found I could be freer with it. Same for the monolog.

DAY FIVE – freer with the object exercise, somewhat less with the monolog, but I nearly had it memorized.

DAY SIX – changes continue in the “three entrances,” apparently organically. Monolog so-so.

DAY SEVEN – as before, I video-recorded the exercise to see if it fit in the camera, and to sneak a look at how I’m doing. Seemed all right, although I hated the way I look in profile! Monolog steady.

CLASS THREE – the class went well, and I was happy with my “three entrances” – I believe the first time I’ve ever felt good about any of the Uta Hagen exercises. Susan commented that she’d never seen me “mad” like that before. She emphasized how strong “previous circumstances” carry a scene forward, and the actor doesn’t have to worry about the audience “getting it” – the playwright will take care of that. 

At the end of the class, a brief review of the third exercise, hunting for a lost object, which Uta Hagen calls “Immediacy.” Here we go! 

DAY ONE – I decided that for the “Immediacy” exercise I’ll look for a missing check, because it’s something I can do in the office (and therefore in camera range), and because it actually happened. It would be funny if in the course of the exercise I actually found the missing check! I tried out the exercise and liked it.

I did the monolog closer to actual conditions – looking in the direction of the camera, “placing” the listener somewhere specific. (I have to work more on that.) I’ll do it sitting, since my character is exhausted after a brutally long day.

DAY TWO – trying to raise the stakes on trying to find the check. Only one mistake in the monolog.

DAY THREE – after doing the exercise, I wrote Susan to ask how long our segments should be. We could go on looking for the lost object forever (in actuality I never did find the check I was looking for). For the monolog I’m intensifying my character’s frustrations with the court system, which is leading to a more forceful delivery. 

DAY FOUR – Susan wrote the group in an email that we need to be sure we have high-pressure reasons for looking for the lost object in the Immediacy exercise, so I decided I needed to deposit the (lost) check so I can get the money into the bank to pay my city taxes. It seemed to work. Small imprecisions in the monolog, but it’s growing.

DAY FIVE – timed the Immediacy exercise – four minutes. Perfect. Found new significance in a line in the monolog.

DAY SIX – took the day off! Didn’t want to get stale . . . maybe . . . .

DAY SEVEN – did the Immediacy exercise with the computer camera on, to make sure it’s all visible to the class. Doing the monolog, I realized how much I’m thinking during it, on one level of my mind, about what the class, and in particular Susan, will think of it – how they’ll respond. A very bad element, which restricts what I’m doing.

CLASS FOUR – good results from the Immediacy exercise for the whole class, including me, and spectacularly for one member who actually did find her genuinely lost object during the class presentation.

“I wasn’t acting,” she said of that moment, and in a lot of ways that’s what Uta Hagen’s exercises try to accomplish – to bring actors to a point where they can behave on stage in ways that aren’t stagy. Ms. Hagen would endorse the famous advertising slogan “Just do it” as a model for how actors should approach a role. 

Looking ahead to the monologs in next week’s class, Susan advised us to think of the fact that our monologs will be on camera rather than on stage – they don’t have to “reach the rear balcony,” because there isn’t one on Zoom. It’ll be interesting to see how that works.

DAY ONE – no more exercises, only a monolog now. Nearly word perfect. I tried to let the remembering start much earlier – when I first mention “Golden Dancer,” the rocking horse I had as a child. Recalling is much richer than when just telling.

DAY TWO – monolog a little freer.

DAY THREE – okay, but I held back a little on the climax. Saving it for class?

DAY FOUR – a bit more adventurous. I felt ready to go on and perform it and see how it went. I thought I might even ask someone at home to listen to it – a big deal for me, since I prefer to do my floundering around in private.

DAY FIVE – a little more force to the ending of the monolog.

DAY SIX. I hadn’t found time for my son Craig to listen to the monolog, but today we found time. He liked it and seemed to feel I was communicating what I needed to.

DAY SEVEN – one more runthrough of the monolog. Go for it!

CLASS FIVE – at the beginning Susan mentioned that she usually begins classes and rehearsals with relaxation exercises, and she led a brief set of them, aimed particularly at unclenching the jaw and the vocal apparatus. All the monologs went well.

Jennie Cherry did a piece from the play Wit (by Margaret Edson, first performed in 1995) so well that I felt I didn't need to see the whole play. That’s quite a result. I can’t say I felt the same about mine, but I was happy with it.
                                                                                           
So what conclusions can we draw from doing an acting class on Zoom? Most obviously, we didn’t test working in pairs. In theory there’s no reason a scene with two actors shouldn’t succeed on Zoom, but it wouldn’t be the same as an in-person experience.

One issue would be the sound delay between computers that’s inevitable in Zoom events. Another would be a severe limitation on physical movement, which Zoom doesn’t handle well. Even small gestures on Zoom may create a feeling in the viewer akin to seasickness, and a scene with “blocking” – planned walks and actions – is likely out of the question. A pair of actors in a scene on Zoom, each actor working at a separate computer from a different location, would have to be “talking heads.”

Susan pointed out another aspect of the experience: acting on Zoom is literally “in your face” – a viewer can detect the slightest emotional shift, because the camera’s focus is so close. Typical acting class rooms are small, so actors seldom practice “projection” of voice in them; “projection” on Zoom is unthinkable.

The other side of that coin is that intimacy is part of the experience of acting, and Zoom encourages authenticity. I believe the participants of this class sensed that aspect of the medium, which I would say helped produce a high quality of work. How that result would transfer to the stage is another question, of course, but then we won’t be working on stage for a while.  

[In “Acting Class,” Kirk recounts that he took an acting technique class at HB Studio from Carol Rosenfeld before he connected with Elizabeth Dillon.  In his estimation, his work with Carol wasn’t satisfying, unlike his classes with Elizabeth.

[Acting technique classes are intended to teach the student actor the basics of acting by using exercises as well as scenes from plays, films, TV shows, and even novels and short stories.  The skills the actor learns in technique classes are what I think of as the basic building blocks of performing a scene before an audience.  Each teacher teaches the acting style of a particular system; Carol’s technique classes are focused on the acting skills stressed by Uta Hagen, who’d been her teacher.

[While the result of a technique class isn’t to solve a scene—the actor is learning or honing skills—scene study classes are where those skills are applied to acting problems—that is, scenes.  One, but more likely two actors prepare and present a scene, usually assigned by the teacher (though some teachers allow and even encourage the students to choose their own material), and are then critiqued by the teacher (and sometimes their classmates).  The scenes are reworked several times based on the feedback until the teacher feels the actors have solved the acting problem.

[Kirk also explains that Carol’s technique class made use of Uta Hagen’s Object Exercises as laid out in her book Respect for Acting.  I’m very familiar with the OE’s, mainly because I also took acting technique with Carol—as well as scene study—and stayed with her for several years. 

[I left HB in the fall of 1975 and enrolled in the newly established Master of Fine Arts theater program at Rutgers University’s School of Fine and Performing Arts, now the Mason Gross School of the Arts.  Carol was the head of the acting section in the MFA program.  I was at Rutgers for two years, 1975-77.

[While I was at Rutgers, I was appointed to a Teaching Assistantship, teaching undergraduate acting classes.  I adapted Carol’s technique curriculum, which, as I said, is based on Uta’s object exercises, and made it the foundation of my first-semester acting classes.  In the second semester, I moved onto scene study.

[While I was reading “Acting Class,” I thought of many things I wanted to say about the object exercises and my experiences with them in Carol’s classes, as well as in my own teaching.  I realize now that those remarks would be very extensive, making this a very long afterword.  I’m going to cut my thoughts down to one specific idea.

[Kirk allowed that his experiences with the OE’s hasn’t been good.  It sounded as if he’d changed his mind somewhat after successfully doing a few.  He said he hadn’t “exactly about the OE’s, but about my ability to do them.”  I told him I could tell him some very specific benefits I got from using them, practical lessons I learned.  That was part of why I used them as the basis for my own technique course.  I’ll relate one incident that illustrates what I mean.

[In my first year at Rutgers, I was cast in a university production of Anton Chekhov’s The Wood Demon.  It’s a large cast show, and the first scene is a huge meal served outdoors at one long table arranged near the front edge of the proscenium stage.  The actors were arrayed all around the table, but mostly on the upstage side.  Since this was 19th-century Russia in an upper-class family, the table was set formally; there were a lot of props, in other words, in a somewhat crowded setting.

[There were 11 people around the table, all of us eating and passing bowls, plates, and pitchers back and forth, handling utensils, napkins, and glasses.  As I said, a very proppy scene.  Now, when I did plays as a college student and an amateur in army productions, if anything went wrong with a prop I was supposed to handle—say it wasn’t in the right place on the set or it had tipped over, anything so that it wasn’t the way it was “supposed” to be, as we’d rehearsed it—I’d get nervous and flustered. 

[‘What if I screw up,’ I’d be thinking.  I’d lose focus and concentration for seconds.  I was in danger of dropping a line, maybe, or letting the audience see that I was out of the moment.  Well, you can be sure that in the organized chaos of this luncheon scene, that sort of thing was bound to occur—and it did from time to time during the run.  There was also a fair amount of improvised table conversation under the dialogue, just to add another potential distraction.

[Carol always came to see us in our productions and said a few words to us afterwards—not a critique like in class, as she might do during rehearsal or after the production was over.  The night she came to see Wood Demon, she said two things to me that I’ve never forgotten.  The second thing was that she was pleased to see that I was no longer showing my work on stage. 

[When I asked her why that was, she told me that my technique had now become integrated into my working process and was no longer a separate step on which I had to concentrate.  I couldn’t have been more proud of myself than if someone had just told me I’d become a father!

[The second thing she complimented me on was how engaged in the world of the play I was.  It dawned on me that I was no longer afraid of the props, so I could work in rehearsal on being in the scene with the other actors/characters., to be “receptive,” as Kirk put it.  I mentioned this to Carol—who’d been working with me by that time for about two years—and she pointed out that the work had been paying off.

[It wasn’t until much later, when I started doing Off-Off-Broadway shows with and for people I didn’t already know, that I saw that this confidence, if I can get away with that word, was a direct consequence of the Basic Object Exercise, the first one that Kirk describes above, and the work that led to in Carol’s classes and others I eventually took—not to mention rehearsals for actual productions. 

[The BOE is all about manipulating objects—there’s no more fundamental skill for an actor than handling and maneuvering objects—props.  It used to frighten me, and now it didn’t.  The BOE, the simplest of all acting exercises, showed me that it’s no different to handle objects on stage than it is in my living room, and if something’s out of place or askew—well, so what?  Just get it from where it sits, just like at home.  I do it all the time.  The only difference is, now someone’s watching me do it.  I still do it the same way.

[Earth shattering?  No.  But it had never entered my head—until someone made me see it.  And it made all the difference.  QED.]

30 July 2020

"Portrait of a Mentor"

by Alan Geller

[Theater is ephemeral, and many theater workers leave little behind, except perhaps in the memories of those who associated with them.  On the web it’s sometimes easier to find information even about obscure figures, but I could find almost nothing about my acting teacher, Elizabeth Dillon, who died a few decades ago.  Then, to my delight, I found the article below, which gives a vivid impression of that quirky teacher who for me was an absolute lifesaver in the area of acting. I have used what I learned practically every day since I had her class, and I will always be grateful to her.  Besides, she was fun. Meet Elizabeth!  —Kirk Woodward

[Alan Geller’s profile of esteemed acting teacher Elizabeth Dillon was originally published on 10 February 2016 on LinkedIn, the business and employment-oriented online service.]

You are a character actor trapped in the body of an ingénue. You won’t be ready to work in this business for thirty years.

With those words, my acting teacher, Elizabeth Dillon, whom I adored, dropped the curtain on my dream. It was an ordinary Tuesday night in the windowless basement room that we called rehearsal space in HB Studio on Bank Street in Manhattan’s West Village. It was March 1980, I’d been acting for seven years, and I had just turned twenty-two.

Then she turned to the whole class and said, “If there is anything else in the world that you are interested in, please do it. To be an actor, you must be obsessed. You mustn’t be able to think of anything else. It is too hard to do if you aren’t completely focused. Totally, completely focused.” - Alice Melott, Everything in its own time

This is a portrait of my mentor that I've wanted to write for some time. I only hope that I do the late great Elizabeth Dillon justice in this caricature of an unforgettable teacher and artist.

To get a sense of who Elizabeth Dillon was you'd need to start with someone that was a poster child for the cause of chain-smoking Marlboro cigarettes lit from a cheap plastic Bic lighter. Combine that with a woman that strongly resembled the particular stand-in photo of Annie Lennox wearing sunglasses above. While born in Long Island, New York, Elizabeth spoke with a clipped British accent and carried herself with the regal demeanor of television and film star Diana Rigg in the role of a judge, or hosting an episode of Mystery, a British television show. (See video above). Elizabeth had quite a bit more edge though - she could be extremely formidable at times.

Elizabeth ruled the basement studio (the school's best classroom in my opinion) of New York City's HB Studio's main building in Greenwich Village like royalty. She taught beginner, intermediate and advanced acting scene study and technique classes five times per week and was a contemporary of Herbert Berghof's (The HB of HB Studios). I saw Herbert in a dated play set well over a century ago called Easter, by Augustus Strindberg and it was simply the greatest onstage performance that I'd ever witnessed.

As Elizabeth would say, “When you play a character, it demands no more than what's required in real life - but no less either.” Herbert brought such a remarkable, full, physical and psychological life (including a scene-stealing cough that his character, a landlord had that you'd swear was real) onstage that he made the other actors that he shared the stage with look like stiff, wooden marionettes that could talk. It was like watching a creature from another, more intellectually advanced planet communicating with a lower level of humanity. 

Inspired, I made a decision on the spot to become a professional actor and to study acting at HB Studio.

Elizabeth came recommended by my friend and a former student of hers because unlike Berghof and his wife Uta Hagen who taught working actors and accepted students through a grueling audition process, she accepted beginners like me and taught “the craft” of acting. 

The students, some of whom looked like severe outcasts from music videos, others who were full-time students at the school and others that were corporate types that wanted to try their hand at acting sat in the back “audience section” of the cool, dark basement studio facing a curtain three quarters of the way across the room that had numerous pieces of furniture and props behind it that were used for our scene work. 

Elizabeth sat in the middle of the studio off to the far right behind a wooden teacher's desk that allowed her to address the seated students as well as the scene work up front from an equal vantage point. Prior to her arrival, the desk was “arranged” by an assistant like a Broadway stage set with a cheap gold ashtray, a pack of Marlboro cigarettes, a back-up book of matches in case her Bic lighter didn't work, a yellow legal pad and an ice-cold can of Coca-Cola. When Elizabeth arrived, she'd typically place some books and plays on the desk that she'd refer to intently while smoking. 

As you can already tell, Elizabeth wasn't everyone's cup of tea. Most acting teachers at HB Studios asked you to pair up with another student and they'd have you go off during the week and rehearse an acting scene that you'd agree on (sometimes without the teacher's involvement) and expect you to come in, perform in front of the class and patiently wait for the teacher's comments and criticism.  

Not so with Elizabeth. She provided her students with her home phone number and when you needed a scene assignment, you were expected to call her Sunday evenings between 6 PM and 8 PM for both scene and scene partner assignments (unless you were doing a monologue). During those calls she'd call you ”Dahling,” talk up your partner: ”Oh, she's wonderful, Dahling,” and give you some tidbits about the play, the specific scene and the characters that you were assigned.  

Here's how things worked in the class: Once Elizabeth arrived and settled in, she'd announce the names of the students that she wanted to perform in front of the class along with the name of the play that they were doing a scene from. The chosen students got up and set the stage area and while doing so Elizabeth would light a cigarette with her cheap Bic lighter, open up her copy of the scene that was about to be presented and we'd sit in silence as she intently studied the scene (as if in a trance) while puffing away, scribbling notes onto the legal pad and nodding her head as if to silently say: “Got it. Um Hmm. Yes; or shaking it from side to side to say No.” After about five minutes of this she'd straighten up, look directly at the class and go into an intro monologue that very much resembled what you see in the Diana Rigg Mystery video above. Then she'd say: “Alan and Susan; take all the time you need. . .  And whenever YOU'RE ready.”

If there was one quote that I'd attribute to Elizabeth Dillon, that was it:

“Take All The Time You Need. . .  And Whenever YOU’RE Ready.”

As the actors performed their scenes there'd be more furious head nodding and shaking while Elizabeth appeared to internalize the action while furiously scribbling down notes on her yellow legal pad. To see this was to observe active listening at its finest.

After you completed your scene you could either stand in the stage area in the middle of your set and converse with her or sit down in one of the two chairs set up across her desk and face her interrogation head on. All of this was done right in front of the entire class which could see and hear everything. 

If a particular scene were poor Elizabeth would ask: “Did you rehearse Dahlings?” If the actors said yes, she'd ask “How often?” “Once,” was the typical reply. “It shows babies. It shows.”

“Conflict fuels the scene,” she'd say. “It's your friend.”

She'd tell us to break each scene down to “beats” or bite-sized chunks based on a character's motivation. 

I learned more about discipline from this particular acting teacher than from practically anyone else that I had come across up until that time. Much of what I learned from Elizabeth about focus, taking pride in one's work, gaining a rock solid understanding of your subject matter, cutting through B.S. has carried over into my current profession of the recruitment and placement of corporate professionals.

 I spent years studying on and off with Elizabeth, slowly progressing to her intermediate and eventually advanced “Invitation Only” Friday evening class designed for working actors. One year my classmates put on an Academy Awards type show for the students and I won a “Dilly Award” named in Elizabeth's honor for a realistic monologue that I did. Another year she selected me to be her assistant in exchange for a free class and it became my job to neatly arrange her desk with the Marlboro cigarettes, gold ashtray and Coca-Cola which were constants in her life.   

Eventually I had observed Elizabeth's entire catalog of scenes and knew what she was going to say before she said it.

I recall one day when she arrived late, when I took her seat behind her desk and did an Elizabeth Dillon impression for the class that had everyone in stitches. She stepped in while I was in the middle of my impersonation and laughed along with everyone else. Around that time I knew that I needed to move on both to doing professional work as well as to another teacher (which is a story for another post).

Years later my university's speech and debate club invited me to represent them as a judge at a High School debate competition for non-debate categories such as poetry reading and “Oral Interpretation of Drama and Prose.” In the final round I was one of three university-age judges in the room (think of Simon Cowell's role on X Factor) and I decided to channel Elizabeth. How? I looked at the contestants before they started and told them to:

“Take all the time you need. . .  And whenever YOU'RE ready.”

[Geller is a sales and leasing consultant at Princeton Audi Volkswagen,  His LinkedIn profile of his acting teacher was followed by a slew of comments from other former students of Elizabeth Dillon.  I’ve cherry-picked some of the responses to post as an afterword to Geller’s memoir. 

[Before I post them, however, let me pass on Kirk’s final remark about having been an Elizabeth Dillon student:

I always wanted to take Elizabeth’s class again, to see if I’d gotten any better at acting, but I never did.  I wrote her a few times, though, and always got a letter back.  Her last one to me was signed, “Elizabeth the Mad.”  She knew I’d understand.

[And now, those other comments.  ~Rick

Neal King, LCSW, CHT
Strength-Based Motivational Psychotherapist; Developer of Thought Management Programs; Clinical Hypnotherapist; Author

I also recall Elizabeth Dillon in the early 90’s. I was in that basement class. I even got to be one of her pet note-takers on the first day of class as well as drive her home many nights after class. As she had me write the student names down and she chatted with each for a few minutes she would whisper several descriptive words that I would jot next to their names.  This was her way to recall a bit about each person and assign scenes.  Some of the whispers included, “bovine”, “tall”, etc.  We loved her.  A classmate and I formed a theater group with other classmates and Elizabeth came to all our shows.  If anyone remembers me in their class - please say hello!

Joseph Dobrian        
Owner, Dobrian, Frances, Bowie, & Long

I also studied with her in the early 90s. She was drinking regular Sprite then. She was very good with beginners, in that she would train out of you the mistakes that all baby actors make (“indicating,” for example). What I didn’t like about her was, first, she insisted that there was only one way to play any scene: her way. If you played it just the way she would have played it, fine; if you tried it any other way, woe betide you. This was especially a problem because in a few cases, she would fail to grasp what was really going on in a scene, and would instruct you to play it wrong -- which you had to do, even though you knew better. Second, she had her favorites. She would deify some students and ignore others; if you weren’t one of her favorites, you would maybe perform at the end of the session, but more usually not at all -- even if you had put an X on your card to show that you hadn’t been called on the week before. “If you have the X on your card, you get to go next week -- guaranteed.” I once got fed up with her and told her, “OK, now we all know what your damn guarantees are worth,” and she didn’t mess with me after that. But in 1993, I produced and starred in my own play, Off-Broadway. A good play, if I say so myself, and it did OK for a first play by an unknown. But when I told Elizabeth about the upcoming show, all she said was, “Oh, nobody’ll come to it.” When I heard she was dead, I remembered that it wan’t nice to say anything bad about the dead, so I just said good.

Celia Bressack
Dues Mgr at NYCity Bar

“It wasn’t a gift...it was a loan!!!” Yes, she was an original...and had moved on to Diet Sprite by the time I studied with her in the early 90s - wed, and then the friday class. It was my class that discovered her passing, when she...who NEVER MISSED A CLASS - NO MATTER THE WEATHER...did not turn up for class. She was found by a cop and a former key student/friend, surrounded in her bed by well worn editions of the plays we were doing scenes from for class Friday night. I have many ladies rooms memories of her right before class. She’d be there, reapplying her lipstick and powdering her face. Always lips and powder! I believe she found her calling as a teacher because she may have suffered from stage fright - but class was definitely her “show” and time to shine! Thank you for remembering her so beautifully - weren’t we lucky!

Dupé Adeoye
Change Management & Performance Improvement Leader: Culture; Diversity, Leadership, Entrepreneurship Skills Development

How many times did I peruse this? “Once?”....... “Take all the time you need... And whenever YOU’RE ready.” “I learned from Elizabeth about focus, taking pride in one’s work, gaining a rock solid understanding of your subject matter, cutting through B.S. has carried over into my current profession of the recruitment and placement of corporate professionals.” “... An Elizabeth Dillon impression for the class that had everyone in stitches. She stepped in while I was in the middle of my impersonation and laughed along with everyone else.” ... It takes a special kind of person with self belief to laugh along! .. A glimpse into the past ...lessons for the future too, with admiration and respect. “When they made her (Elizabeth Dillon), they broke the mold.”....The principles that she instilled lives on.... Thank you for sharing. I will add a quote that you’ll recognise too “.... This isn’t a race. This IS about quality.” All the time needed.... a soul searching timeout too. Alan, Thank you. You’ve taken me full circle. ... Time for the next steps.

[As readers can readily see, I didn’t edit or “correct” any of the comments above (other than selecting them for posting on ROT).  I pretty much took any remarks from former students of Elizabeth that added something to Geller’s recollections; others were mostly congratulatory or appreciative expressions.]