Theatre Design & Technology - Summer 1978 - 28

A Space
for
Footnotes
1. Administrative Director of the Prospect Theatre Company from
1961 to 1973. The Prospect Theatre Company became the principal
tenant of the Old Vic Theatre earlier this summer.
2. This research on the Old Vic was first presented by the author In
an article "Scene Individable or Poem Unlimited," in The Architectural Review, January, 1977, which was a special Issue devoted to
the National Theatre, reprinted as a book entitled The National
Theatre, The Architectural Review Guide edited by Colin Amery,
Architectural Press, 1977.
3. This theatre opened in 1932 and was originally called the
Shakespeare Memorial Theatre. The company which presented the
annual festival at Stratford-on-Avon was not called the Royal Shakespeare Company until 1961 the year after it had opened its London
base at the Aldwych Theatre. The Royal Shakespeare did not receive
Its first annual subsidy from public funds until 1962/63.
4. The best account of the theatre profession's reaction to the
Stratford Memorial Theatre prior to 1951 is to be found In The Other
Theatre by Norman Marshall (London: John Lehmann, 1947).
5. Eden Court Theatre, Inverness: Architect Law & Dunbar-Nasmlth; Theatre Consultant, John Wyckham; Stage and Auditorium
Design Consultant, lain Mackintosh.
6. Design Study for the Cottesloe Theatre, 1973 by lain Mackintosh of Theatre Projects Consultants. Design Study developed by the
Architects, Denys Lasdun & Partners In association with the National
Theatre Company.
7. See p. 74/75 of "Theatre Space" (the papers published prior to
the Conference): "France and its Theatre Locations in 1977," by
Christian Dupavilion.
8. That this practice was not confined to either Ireland or the
eighteenth century is suggested by an 1804 playbill for the Theatre
Royal Nottingham. This announced the "MUCH ADMIRED PONEY
RACES, AS EXHIBITED BEFORE their Majesties the Prince and Princess of Wales, and ALL THE ROYAL FAMILY at the Frogmore Fete,
near Windsor and afterward performed at Mr HANDY's and all the
theatres in London." These races were "the best of four heats, five
times round to a heat," and at the foot of the bill it was announced that
"the whole of the Stage and Part of the PIT will be laid into a Race
Ground, forming a space the most commodious ever seen, both for
the Accommodation of the spectators, horses, riders and co. as well
as the due Observance of the Rules of Racing, conforming to the
Regulations of the Jockey Club."
9. See "Box House and Illusion Stage-Problem Topic in Modern
Theatre Construction. 0 bservations and Contemplations Concerning
its Genesis" by Harold Zielske in the pre-conference-publlshed papers. Zielske illustrated his conference contribution with engravings
of the courtyards of Italian Palaces laid out for tournaments and other
spectacles of the seventeenth century. He contended that the genesis
of the box theatre was the roofing over of courtyards where the action
was more central, rather than confined to the scenic stage at the end
of the courtyard.
10. The Tate Gallery version, XXI, was commissioned by Sir Archibald Grant and is a replica of a near identical version commissioned
by John Rich and now at the Yale Center for British Art. Lawrence
Gowing in the catalog for Hogarth exhibition held at the Tate in 1972
pointed out the difference between this and earlier versions in 011.
11. Cumberland "Memoirs" quoted by A. M. Nagler in A Source
Book of Theatrical History (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1952),
p.408.
12. That Bayreuth marks the beginning of the best contemporary
theatre design is the contention of George Izenour and was so presented in his book Theater Design, in his published paper, and in his
contribution to the opening day of the conference.O
26

Theatre Design & Technology

OEDIPUS

by Arnold Aronsonl=========

The New York premier of Ted Hughes' adaptation of Seneca's Oedipus was presented by The Performance Group
last December In a seven-tiered, circular, wooden amphitheatre designed by Jim Clayburgh. One of the remarkable
aspects of the structure was its location in the midst of the
twenty-foot high main space of a converted garage in New
York's Soho district that serves as TPG's home.
Upon entering the Performance Garage the audience was
confronted by what seemed a towering shell reaching to the
ceiling. Two ramps led from the lobby area into the playing
space-a dirt circle sixteen feet in diameter-and the waiting
audience could see into the steeply tiered amphitheatre. During previews, audiences were reluctant to sit on the lobby
side of the structure because there was no visible means of
support on that side. Although perfectly safe, a 2x12 brace,
jutting into the lobby, was added for purely psychological
reasons.
Director Richard Schechner asked the spectators to leave
their coats in the lobby, in order to conserve valuable space,
and then admitted them into the arena. The two ramps from
the lobby ascended three feet to the sixteen-foot diameter pit
(containing twenty-two cubic yards-twenty-seven tons-of
dirt) where the performers were already situated, digging.
The audience moved around the edge of the pit to seats along
the bottom tier or to the seven steep, narrow stairways. Those
who sat aiong the bottom row rested their feet on the dirt.
From most of the seating area it was difficult to see through
the ramp openings into the surrounding space of the Garage.
The architecture of the room-the ceiling beams and the
stairwell on the south wall of the building, for instance-was
allowed to intrude and became integrated into the performance space. This was intentional on Clayburgh's part, and
emphasized the feeling of a space-within-a-space. The steepness, the narrow stairs, and the cramped legroom added a
sense of claustrophobia and, perhaps, vertigo. It did not
seem possible that the structure could seat 150 people, although it did.
The structure conjured up many images-a medical operUSITT/Summer, 1978

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Summer 1978