Theatre Design & Technology - May 1968 - 26

Towards the Solution of Contemporary Problems
in the Design of Theatres
Paul Bortnovski,
Ciulei.
Adaptation and
Jane Popp.

Stan

Bortnovski, and Liviu

translation by Gary W. Gaiser and Mary

This article appeared in Architectura RPR (Architecture in the Roumanian People's Republic) Vol. X, No.5, 1962, pp. 41-45. It is repeated here in abridged form, with permission of the authors. Editor.

The history of theatre architecture reveals an evolution of
the theatre structure which mirrors social manners through
the design variants of the auditorium and the stage as well
as their relation to each other. Discussions of theatre architecture over the last few years demonstrate the search
for a new relationship of contemporary ideas of spectacle
with social goals.
The Soviet director Nikolai Akimov expresses himself as follows: "In Moscow and in Leningrad, as director and scenographer, I have mounted some 210 productions; this experience has revealed to me that the traditional stage is incomplete in its design. In modern plays the action changes often, but the scene of actions cannot move if the scenery
doesn't-especially if the setting is three-dimensional. Moreover, the spectator, influenced by the fluidity of cinematography, is accustomed to a flow of scenery and action. Consequently one must find new basic structures in which the
decor, offering important dynamic properties in its surface
and design, can be changed rapidly." 1 Soviet Regisseur
Okhlopkov (before his death in 1963) stated that "Artistic
principles of our theatre require that, in order to reveal the
intention of the dramatist and to vary the forms of theatric
expression, the house and stage space should be flexibly
conceived so that they interrelate from any fixed vantage
point. 2 Gordon Craig expressed himself as follows: "I think
all our stages to be somewhat old-fashioned. Open stage,
closed stage; why not both? And some twenty more variations. It's
too difficult to decide 'either-or' and it seems
better to me to say both." 3 Elia Kazan holds that "Any
stage should be conceived as elastically as possible in order
to best represent our new scripts. Our present theatres,
which are too rigid, would be best demolished." 4 The
Soviet architects V. Bykov and I. Maltzin state: "Every year
we get new theatres; however our experience with most of
these buildings and their function is outdated in more than
one respect. More often we hear that the theatre and especially all the complex presentation machinery in the house
and on the stage are not satisfactory because of the limitations in mounting a production and impediments to the interpretation of our designs. Actually, in the field of theatre
design and construction there exists a certain stagnation; we
lack insight into new ideas; and we are dominated and held
back by old traditions. New ideas are generally reduced to
the level of improving the technical facilities of the stage:
the lighting, automatic control, mechanization, etc. The floor
plans of the stage and the house in the theatre differ very
little in their organization and interrelationship from the

classical theatre of the 17th to the 19th centuries with its
traditional box-like stage enclosure, wing-and-drop scenery
and their separation from the house by footlights.',5
Looking for the character of a new theatre means laying
aside the specific liabilities of the conventional theatre: Such
primary built-in defects (considered virtues in the falsely
realized theatre) as the isolation of the lighted setting from
the realistic light on the spectators, the separating barrier of
the proscenium arch on the stage, and the contrast between
the lighted illusion of the play's action and the problems of
society. Basing a contemporary theatre on the conventional
concepts of the middle-class theatre of a half century ago
means habitual disregard for the elements of a new theatre,
essentially an art in which the audience is an active participant in the play's artistic development.
Not only should the theatre present new ideas; theatre architecture should suggest them as well. In the design of
theatres, the architect should provide for all the required
conditions without limiting the most visionary creative solution which reflects an evolving society. A unified approach
to the problem areas of the lighted spectacle with those of
the participating spectator implies a reduction of the proscenium barrier: the presentation of the spectacle on an open
stage. However, the tendency toward the excessive use of
only open staging, without taking into account other possibil ities, is an extremist position as much as the exclusive
use of the proscenium stage.
Our present culture in Roumania requires that both the new
and the highly prized traditional elements which it inherits
so influence theatre architecture as to create conditions for
using the most contemporary methods simultaneous with the
reinterpreted older ones. Of course, the necessity to combine
classical scenery (like Italianate perspective combinations)
with open scenery should not be imposed by an architect
nor improvised by a director; the two should result in a
basic, organic combination expressing the very nature of
the theatre. The present study seeks to contribute to the
solution of these complex problems.
In order to investigate problems and to apply the principle
adopted above, let us examine the evolution of the Italian
proscenium stage. Developed from the box-like baroque stage
whose background was originally intended to be a painted
perspective, the Italianate stage was provided with new
equipment in order to enhance the illusion (Fig. 1). To
meet the continued requirements of this three-dimensional

THEATRE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - May 1968