Theatre Design & Technology - Summer 1978 - 45

~~~~~~~~~~~T~ony~c_ourt_~_e_Book
French Theatrical Production In the Nineteenth Century trans. by
Allan S. Jackson and M. Glen Wilson, edited by Marvin A. Carlson.
Binghamton, N.Y.: State University of New York, 1976, ISBN 70-8313,
xiv, 239 pp., iIIus., $16.50.
This work, Volume Ten of the Books of the Theatre Series sponsored by the American Theatre Association, is a translation of
L'Envers du theatre by Jean-Pierre Moynet (1819-1876), a Parisian
designer and scenic technician. He published this book in 1873; its
popularity stimulated three more editions. L 'Envers du Theatre represented one of the first attempts to document scenic techniques and
in 1893 stimulated another volume, La Machinerie theatra/e, trucs et
decors, by Georges Moynet, Eugene Godin, and Ernest Vallenot.
Together these two volumes give valuable insights into continental
staging of the last century.
In twenty brief chapters, M. Moynet addresses himself to almost all
aspects of the technical theatre operation- in which he had spent
twenty-five years, beginning with an error-filled account of the history
of staging, against which Professor Jackson warns the reader in the
Preface. Most readers will find far more of value in the sections on
theatre construction, lighting, rehearsal techniques, "tricks," properties, weather effects, and even the administration practices of the
time. Perhaps the most interesting chapter to the general reader is
Chapter XVII, "Performance of a Spectacle Play Viewed from Backstage," which describes a typical feerie, a Parisian spectacular somewhat similar to the English pantomime. Throughout, Moynet assLimes
no prior knowledge of staging techniques by the reader and attempts
with varying degrees of success to explain and describe the lavish
staging techniques of his time.
The text as translated reveals Moynet's immense practicality in
theatrical matters. He spends a good deal of time, for example,
describing the need for theatrical discipline in order to insure the
effects he presents. The modern reader may be amused by his
suggestion that electricity should be replaced as a light source, citing
the instruments' high cost, the expense of keeping batteries charged,
the necessity for special employees, and the lack of space. Moynet
was thoroughly a man of the theatre, but he was not a visionary,
although he presages Craig and Appia a bit by decrying the use of
footlights because of the resultant unnatural illumination.
Moynet contributed richly to the literature of the theatre with this
volume, but he does not always achieve his stated goals. Some of his
explanations simply lack clarity, such as his description of a typical
Parisian stage floor with its plans, trappes, rues, trappillons, and
costieres. Since this arrangement is basic to many of the startling
effects and transformations described later, the modern reader may
require a closer correlation between illustrations and text. Other less
substantial matters are glossed over quickly; a trick cauldron used in
Pi/utes du diable is mentioned in the text and illustrated by the
translators, but the modern reader is baffled at what the effect might
have been, let alone how it actually worked.
To augment Moynet's effort, the translators have added over a
hundred illustrations, and these illustrations make the book worthy of
the attention of every theatre scholar. The reader may, however,
examine the illustrations somewhat wistfully and wish the editortranslators, scholars of enviable and deserved reputations, had used
their considerable expertise more in explication and interpretation.
The reader may recall Bamber Gascoigne's successful textual interpretations of similar effects in World Theatre: An Illustrated History,
such as his treatment of Pepper's Ghost, drawn coincidently from
Georges Moynet's Trues et decors. Similarly, the introductions to the
various sections in The Renaissance Stage: Documents of Serlio,
SabbaNini, and FurNenbach do much to increase the value of the
documents by supplying background and insight into them.
While the translation seems accurate and literal throughout, feerie
is variously translated throughout the work. While most would agree
that "pantomime" in the English tradition would be a most satisfactory translation, if the translators could not so agree, some explanatory note to the reader might reduce confusion.

Reviews

Although Benjamin Blom reprinted Moynet's second edition in
French in 1972, this translation will expedite the understanding of the
bizarre staging of theatre spectaculars of this period. To those who
take the wider view, it may suggest that the popular stage of the late
nineteenth century was desperately moving toward a cinematic style,
attempting to top itself with successive astonishing productions. The
theorist-historian may well find himself musing on the infinite variety
of theatre; the feerie was then as now a theatre almost devoid of
thought, aimed purely at the astonishment and delight of its audiences. Such rigamarole remains very much in evidence today and
continues to attract audiences; Twiggy appeared in a London pantomime of Cinderella a few years ago to packed houses. Even the
British National Theatre amazed fairly sophisticated audiences with
the disappearance of a witch in Macbeth using a variation of the star
trap. American musical comedy has long employed staging techniques of immense complexity to dazzle its patrons; one recalls the
swimming pool in Wish You Were Here long after the rest of the
production has faded from memory. Doug Henning, of course, has
carried the entire business to some sort of ultimate in The Magic
Show in which the story line, such as it is, serves only as an excuse for
his stunning illusions.
The modern theatre designer or technician, faced with A Midsummer Night's Dream or The Tempest, or even Dr. Faustus, may
find something of practical value in this work. If modern materials
and techniques have made many of Moynet's practices anachronistic, many of the theories remain valid and useful for a certain kind of
theatre. We can thank Professors Jackson, Wilson, and Carlson for
their efforts.

Stephen M. Archer

University of Missouri· Columbia

Understanding Pia yscrlp ts: Theory and Method by Roger Gross.
Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green U. P., 1974, ISBN 0-87972126X, xii, 405 pp., $11.95 cloth, $4.50 paper.
In Understanding P/ayscripts: Theory and Method, Roger Gross
has created a monumental work in probably the most neglected area
of theatre training and practice, script analysis and interpretation.
Gross's bottom line principle is that a script is at best a frail abstraction, a representation of a play, and further, an abstraction that is
constantly changing, both in reading and production. Nothing earthshaking here, it would seem, and yet Gross' is the only critical approach I know which recognizes this essential mutability and works
with it, rather than trying to "freeze" a production, whether read or
staged, applying critical principles, and then letting the production go
its way. To Gross, open-endedness is everything.
Gross lays firm groundwork by stressing a number of issues central to the art of interpretation. He points to Understanding scripts, i.e.
creating an ideal mental "production" by evaluating and keeping
clear and separate the functions of each minute part of a script. This
process of analysis, synthesis and re-synthesis is anti-impressionistic, and views both interpretation and the script as a total process/
product whose organic wholeness or coherence must be a reconciliation or correspondence of the reader's conceptualization with that
implicitly intended by the maker.
Gross stresses the unique organizational pattern of each script,
not "unity" or "formal cause" or "style" or the like, since each of these
viewpoints tends immediately to provoke a too-easy classification. He
stresses the unique interpretative demands of each work. His emphasis is theatrical rather than rhetorical or literary, that is, directorial
in the broadest sense.
Interpretation is a process of revealing the system of the script,
how it cues responses and gives shape to the experience of the play.
Gross's analysis of this revelatory method stresses a number of
important needs, in particular a study of the epistemology of interpretation. He sorts signs into three classes: signals, representations,
and symbols, and proceeds to show how a dramatic audience/script

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