Theatre Design & Technology - Dec 1970 - 22

structed in the usual manner
for each production. If one is
to have an architectural stage,
it must be extremely simple,
and the "changes" must take
place in the minds of the
audience. Any other arrangement,
becomes unwieldy,
monotonous, and eventually
unuseable. . . . Eventually
Copeau removed his architectural unit.

Most theatre artists-by and large directors
with a highly developed sense of design;
who have used the architectural stage have
done so for both artistic and economic
reasons, with the former always taking precedence over the latter. William Poel, Reinhardt, Copeau, Jessner, Piscator, Brecht,
and Guthrie all found that it could accommodate some scenic change while retaining its
spatial integrity in relation to the actor-a
matter of scale-and serving as a basic acting "space" for more than one production.
As for Copeau, and the VC, the reader
might refer to Michael St. Denis' book,
Theatre, The Rediscovery of Style.
Again, in his final chapter, Mullin is
guilty of generalizations and/or omissions
in his comments on "The New Stagecrah"
and the work it brought forth in this country
in the 1920s and early 1930s. He also
equates the symbolic and expressionistic
movements in the Scandinavian and German
theatre with the "new Romanticism."

Man once more was pitted
against vast forces, if not of
nature, then of mechanical
civilization, or of himself as a
corporate being. The movement depended upon simple
expressions
within
large
frameworks, a grand simplicity entirely Romantic in inspiration. Such Romanticismexemplified by the influential
designs of Craig and Appiacould be applied if large
enough stages were available.

This passage serves to illustrate what happens when an author is obligated to deal
with large events in brief. H is comments
only serve to compound someone else's
error. Other critics have described the work
of Appia and Craig as "Romantic," but one
needs only to read their published writings
to understand the premise and thrust of
their approach to the production (design)
problem.
The fundamental issue here is admittedly
a complex tangle: it is that never-ending
search for the perfect collaboration between
architect and client. The task of unwinding

this knotty skein of development over the
past 50 years deserves a book of its own.
Professor Mullin does face this problem
squarely in his conclusion. He prefaces this
discussion with an excellent analysis of the
Malmo Municipal Theatre in Malmo, Sweden.
Designed by Sigurd Lewerentz, assisted by
Lallerstedt and Hellden, the plant was an
early example of the multi-purpose and multiform structure that has been emulated widely
in the United States in recent years.
The rest of the book has much to recommend it. Mull in carefully traces the various
lines of architectural development that spun
off from some of the early key structuresPalladio's Teatro Olimpico, Aleotti's Teatro
Farnese, Rome's Teatro di Tor di Nona rebuilt in 1671 by Carlo Fontana, and others
built in the 17th Century. He also provides
excellent coverage of the period of architectural innovation and refinement in the 18th
century, which saw the Grand Theatres of
Victor Louis at Bordeaux and Reims and
Claude-Nicolas Ledoux's theatre at Besanyon. The numerous illustrations clarify and
reinforce Mullin's commendable descriptions
of the constant development in seating and
sight lines, structural practice, and technical
development backstage which distinguish
the period between 1680 and 1850.
There is one final criticism that cannot be
omitted. Professor Mullin has done a large
amount of research and scholarship in preparing material for his book, but he has decided to eschew the scholarly approach.
Consequently, he. has eliminated footnotes
and references to sources. As the book's
layout owes much to the format utilized by
Allardyce Nicoll in The Development of the
Theatre-with its excellent footnotes and
systematic bibliography-the reader may find
himself frustrated in attempting to go beyond
Mullin's abbreviated descriptions of certain
theatres. There is, however, a bibliography
of principal sources and all of the illustrations are identified as to their source. It
should also be pointed out here that the
typographical work and the reproduction of
the many drawings and engravings by the
publisher leaves a great deal to be desired.
The reduction in size of many of the engravings has adversely affected the quality
of their reproduction. Then too, in spite of
Mullin's obvious scholarship, there are some
errors. He incorrectly identifies Benjamin
Wyatt's Theatre Royal in Drury Lane as
". . . Holland's Drury Lane" and lists its
opening date as 1 809 instead of the correct
1812.
All in all, the student, the architect, the
theatre professional, and the general reader
with an interest in theatre and in architecture will find this a useful book. It may not
completely satisfy the theatrical scholar, but
it cannot fail to intrigue him.

I USITT I THEATER DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY

Thomas S. Watson
University of Delaware

DECEMBER,1970

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Dec 1970