Theatre Design & Technology - Oct 1967 - 15

we also hope that ultimately the knowledge and the contacts generated at meetings like this will help us to realize
our ambitions, to further our pet projects, and to make
money. There is nothing really wrong with making money.
Some of the greatest names in the theatre are there by virtue of the finances involved. In spite of million dollar studies,
reports, admonitions, editorials, scare talks, in spite of subsidies, grants, and donations, theatres are still built to make
money. But money for the many, not the few. Often enough,
the methodology of making money is indirect and obscure
like the prestige that a course in speech and drama brings
to a college. This is money for the institution or for the city
or for the owner or the playing company. In turn, it means
money for the actor, the director, the manager, musicians,
the professional, and the union. Who then is building theatres? I know of three principal groups: one, institutions such
as colleges, junior colleges, universities, high schools, etc.;
two, the "beer circuit" such as a dinner theatre, the bard,
and the shopping center; three, municipalities and regional
government bodies.
"Why?" In the case of the institutions, they're building
theatres, often experimental, because there is a demand by
their students for this aspect of culture, and the theatre
helps build the image of the institution. Last year more than
564 colleges produced shows in their own theatres and the
educational theatre boom is just getting into its stride. Institutions today have access to money to construct buildings,
to acquire faculty, and to hire all sorts of talents. In the second case, the semi-pseudo-professional dinner-theatre which is
mushrooming all over the country provides on a small scale
what many communities aren't providing and can't provide:
something to do at night, an attraction for conventions, entertainment for tourists, and other people who come to town.
Most of them seem to be taking in enough money to keep
the lights on. Perhaps the profit's in the food; I don't know.
This type of theatre makes no excuses about why it exists.
It is not ashamed of being commercial. Convention promoters
often include such attendance in their sales pitch. Lots of
people may leave at the end of the first act, but who
cares? The money's been paid and a little Alka-Seltzer will
soon compensate for the dinner if not for the show. Finally,
in the case of municipalities-they're building theatres because of the demand among local amateur and professional
groups for a showplace and because a theatre is a cultural
commodity. It helps the community attract tourists, conventions, and new industry. This building type usually accommodates the local symphony as well as trouping musicals
and other shows, but it does both poorly. And again, the
underlying reason is money; one thing is certain, theatre is
money. It may not mean money to the people who conceived it, but it's sired by money and nurtured by money.
Now where do we fit it? The most unique thing about
USITT is the vast array of disciplines represented by our
membership. We encompass the full continuum from creator
and critic to practitioner and peddler. About the only facet
that may not be represented is the realtor and I'm not too
sure about him. With so many interests involved, the AlA
in our Theatre and Auditorium Committee has had to expand
the word theatre to include the word auditorium. In this
enlarged category, I want to point out a field that many of
us are perhaps neglecting, the civic auditorium. Last year's
attendance at civic centers was over 260 million people.
Construction improvements planned for this year top 100
million dollars. This means sales of equipment, permanent
jobs, bookings for actors, and a real bandwagon for consultants. Incidentally, those of us who aren't Thespians will be
interested in knowing that the priority list for the remodeling
which is now going on takes this form: number one, seeing;

OCTOBER, 1967

number two, sound systems; number three, rigging; number
four, lighting. When we think about who is building theatres
and why, let's not forget the wide open market that's crying
for help in programming, operation, and talent. And, believe
me, they know not where they are, nor which way to turn.
I'm convinced that in this room there are many astute representatives of all the disciplines needed to help these people. So if you have a product or talent to sell, the sooner
you check civic, live performing arts centers, the better.
DeGAETANI: We can now open the floor for questions and answers before beginning the tour of the House.
THOMPSON: I have a question for Mr. Young and Mr. Krawitz. If you had
to do it all over again, what would you do differently'
KRAWITZ: In planning the building, very little would be different except
a little at the front of the House. Now that we've used the building, I
think that the entrance is a little bit too narrow and the doors along
the front on the plaza are a little bit too close to the ticket-takers. That
would be one area for corrections, but it' 5 not too serious. In the auditorium. a paint job may correct some of the problems. There's nothing
in the room itself that we would like to change, but on the stage we
are taking some corrective steps. Some of the wood is coming up. It
was installed badly, but it's our own fault since we specified it. In the
fire treatment and in the way it was made, it didn't work QUt. We're
making some changes in that respect. In terms of equipment, it could
have been installed with a little bit more skill, but again the building is
very big. More space in certain areas might be better. The company
changed a little bit in the five years from the time we fixed the plan;
we have to keep that in mind. These plans were fixed in November,
1962. and the company grew and developed a little different attitude
toward various things, but nothing we couldn't cope with. There's very
little we would change in this building after one season of use, except
a little in the decor; this is paint and one of the easiest things to
change.
YOUNG: I agree with Mr. Krawitz, but I'd add that in this building and
the theatre generally I would give even greater care in the planning for
the audience and public. I've observed a great deal of care and expertise applied to the function facilities for the performing company. I think
too often it' 5 assumed that the architect and the planners are going to
take care of the minute details of audience circulation. Some things in
that area should be given greater attention: imaginative arrangements for
checking the coats and hats, for example. In our Vivian Beaumont Theatre this is much appreciated by the audience. There we have the coin
lockers, and they're immensely successful. This is a problem in the
Metropolitan Opera House and in Philharmonic Hall; it's less a problem
in New York State Theatre. I'd like to see much greater attention given
to the quick exiting of the audience from the theatres. This is the great
virtue of the Continental seating plan. One has only to look at the speed
with which the New York State Theatre orchestra level empties to realize
how advantageous it is, provided there are adequate spaces on the sides
of the theatre for the people to go into. Fortunately, we do have them
in the State Theatre; I've seen other Continental seating plans, such as
Jesse Jones. where this creates a terrible bottleneck of people going out
of the aisles into the sides. These kinds of planning details are not easy
to resolve because every time you add a crossover you reduce seating
capacity or you increase cubage of the room. These are problems. I
would suggest one other very general organizational and financial possibility for any situation where an overall group is attempting to create
new theatres in cooperation with user groups. Personally, I would like
to see much greater attention given to the possibility of money grants
by the overall group to the using groups with total responsibility for the
reconciliation of financial and functional needs on the using groups.
KRAWITZ: On one thing I do not agree. After seeing Continental seating, we're dead set against it. We have no quarrel with the State Theatre, but we wouldn't put it in the Met; we think we made the absolutely
correct decision for us. If anybody offered us the money to do it all
over again, we would not put it in.
QUESTION: Why not'
KRAWITZ: Because we think that it demeans the public in a strange
way. That's a funny way to answer you. It's very difficult to go across
thirty seats to get to a center seat. We hope our room's as intimate to
you as we intend it to be, but it's an enormous room. It's a long distance to walk across 28. 30 seats to get to a center seat, and something happens to the public. I don't know how else to put it. In the
Metropolitan House we have the opposite. When you go into the auditorium. the chandeliers will be down and lit. And there's a very magnificent effect at the beginning of a performance. When those chandeliers
go up--I'm not a psychologist. I can't tell you why-but everybody in
that audience is prepared for the show. I think Continental seating de-

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Oct 1967