Theatre Design & Technology - May 1966 - 16

HOW DO WE ACCOMMODATE SCENIC AS WELL AS
NON-SCENIC PLAYS?
Put up scenery when you
want it and don't put it up when you dan't want it.
The foregaing can bring us to two general conclus ions.
First, that all af the elements proper to a theatre
may best be cantained with a type of playhouse used
successfully in the past, specifically in late
eighteenth century England. Reverting to this style
may well be the best solution in certain circumstances.
It would certainly be a charming and
stimulating ane, nat to be ignored by those interested
in the production of plays from the history of the
drama.
This style would serve well for any play
from the eighteenth through early twentieth centuries,
and would find itself not unfriendly to contemporary
drama.
Second, shauld we sincerely believe that
retrogress ion answers noth ing, no matter haw cha rming the effort might be, we are faced with the inevitable conclusion that the ideal theatre in modern
form has yet to be designed. It must have all the
qualities of a proper theatre, but it must be a new
statement in a long line of such statements, not a
rejection. One cannot reject theatre and still have
theatre left.
Logical extensions of theatre architecture inta new
ground were attempted (most recently) in the 'Twenties by architects like Norman Bel Geddes.
The
Kharkov designs, projects involving dozens of the
world's leading architects, were advanced for their
time, some of them quite striking indeed.
The
Soviets did not build any of them, partly because
they rea 11'1 wanted a Rus s ian anyway, and partly because they were bewildered by the complexity of
some of the proposals.
These were, essentially,
dead ends.
Is there any attempt at leadership into the architectural future? The ANTA theatre makes no claim
to lead anyone, being itself something of a copy af
another theatre designed, apparantly, by committee.
Johnson's spectacular New York State Theatre is a
frank retrogression. Izenour is merely trying to cover
all bets. Perhaps the dilemma of the past decade is
best expressed by the Ford Foundation's Ideal
Theatre; Eight Concepts.
An enormously exciting
project, the result was tepid at best.
It was immediately apparant to even the most casual observer
that these were not new theatres at all, but merely
pet schemes for staging, with the theatres muscled
around to suit.
With the exception of the Dance
Theatre (designed by Barrie Greenbie and Elizabeth
Harris), the concepts make no reference to relationships between performers and patrons that is not
commonly in use.
None of the concepts, in fact,
propose anything new, and a few of them are at least
forty years old. Combining the art of the film with
that of the theatre for special purposes is a technique
almost half a century old; adding three projectors
only makes it three times as big, not three times as
good, and certainly not new.
Technical gimmicks
do not a theatre make.
Compared to the Eight Concepts, the theatres of
James Hull Miller seem curiously child-like and
fragile. They are almost oriental in their sense of
structure and organi zation of space. However one

may react to his designs, they are based upon the
most important considerations in any theatre planning-audience and actor. While not new in concept,
his designs present to the less affluent client an
alternative to the slavi sh copy of what is fashionable
in New York.
Where is our new theatre architecture to come from?
Heaven only knows.
It is not, however, going to
come from any of the sources now being tapped. Instead, we seem to be slipping into an old rut- that
of picking up a style merely because everyone else
seems to be doing it, and not because we really believe in any of the reasons. In this fashion the thrust
stage and the pushbutton theatre may soon become
the standards- one for the poor and one for the richand our children in their turn will wonder just what
it was that their fathers were about. I wonder if we
dare tell them.
Drury Lane in 1808. Drawing by Gerda Becker With. after an
aquatint by Rowlandson and Pugin. Photo: THE LIVING STAGE.
A History of the World Theater. by Macgowan & Melnitz G) 1955.
By permission of Prentice.Holl, Inc.

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - May 1966