Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 1994 - 27

l\Iicaela, Don Jose, and Escamilla-also were designed with
the same emphasis on simplicit~·, realin', and function
(Figures 19,20, and 21). Skomicki added a character ro the
opera-a i1ent hooded female figure dressed all in black
(Figure 22). This character generalh' opened or closed each
of the act b\· pra\'ing at one of the three central crosses. At
the final moment of the opera, as Don Jose knelt O\'er the
dead Carmen, the black figure returned and re\'ealed her
identin·-.\Iicaela-ro the audience.
The production reYealed, again, that the principle of
Action Design contain much that is of \'alue for our contemporan' theatre. The ni\·ersit\· of Kan as Theatre operates
with the restrictions of mone\', space, and time that are so
familiar ro us all. HO\\'e\'er, these restrictions were not percei\'ed as obstacles in this instance because this production
started with a different mind-set. Skomicki and ,\ lalina concentrated on the human motivation and d~'namics that
underlay the action of the opera and focused the produCtion
on elements that could be rendered strongly and credibh·.
The energy of the produCtion was thus not diverted into
attempting grand or speCtacular gestures that neither money
nor time would permit. A.s .\Ialina remarked, in an admittedly small example of this fact, when talking about the
number of rifles needed for the soldiers: "They must be real.
We must not do annhing false or fake. If we can't afford
the real thing then it is better ro have none at all." The
seeming paradox of requiring real rifles in the middle of
such an abstract em'ironment mav strike us as strange. \Y/e,
after all, believe in the idea of a "unified produCtion"; so
what could be "\\Tong" abour fake rifle in an abstraCt el1\'ironment? Or, in another \\'a\', what makes real clothing in
an abstract el1\'ironment so "right")
The "righrne .. or "\\Tongness" of an\' element of a
production is, at best, difficult ro judge. It is, after all, a
matter of perception. But the basic perceptions that are the
foundation of Action Design allow us ro see, if \\'e let them,
how the judgement can be made in this instance. At the
absolute center of the theory of Action Design is a concen-

Figure 13

Figure 1-1

Figure /6

Figure /7

nation of emphasis on the work a f the acror. Bur ,-\ction
Design in practice shows us someth ing ne\\' in this idea. In
Action Design, emphasis on the acror is not achie\'ed b\· the
simple repetition of forms, b\· the replication of like ideas,
b\· uniformit\·; for an unrelie\'ed restatement of the same
idea is not inreresting or theatrical. JUSt because the \\'ork of
the acror ma\' be based in pS\'chological realit\· does not
mean that all other elements of the production must be
based in ph\'sical realin' ro the ame degree. There is no
"rule" that makes this so nen though our American theatre
persists in belie\'ing the rule exists. It is our stubborn addiction ro realism that makes us think that wa\". And it is our
assumption that such a rule exists that is responsible for the
retarded dnelopment of our American theatre.
This is one of the strongest ideas that Action Design has
brought to our theatre: Production stvle does not ha\'e to be
unified; it can be built up synthetically out of contrasting
elemenrs. The idea, paradoxical h', is not new. It is as old as
drama itself. Action Design simply calls ro our attention the
fact that the root of drama is con flict-not harmony.
Therefore, when the visual equivalents of conflict-contrast
and tension-are used to build up the \'isual environment
the resulting experience is far more powerful and is truh·
theatrical. Action Design rediscovers and reuses this theatrical trurh.
Bur \\'hat, ultimatelv, do we mean when we use the word
"theatrical" in contexts like this, and wh~' do the principles
of Action Design \'ield "theatrical" results? W/e all agree, I
think, that the things we do are best when they are "theatrical"; and we all agree, I think, that by "thearrical" \\'e don'r
mean surface glitter, flashv rechniques, or empry effecrs (like
rhe make machines which have become such an indispensable element in our current producrion srde). \X'har do we
really mean b\· "rheatrical"?
l\la\·be rhe answer lies in an obsen'arion rhar Herbert
Blau made when he noted thar ar rhe roar of all rhe problems we have in making theatre is, meraphorically, rhe problem of staging dearh scenes on srage. The problem, as he

Figure 15

Figure /8

T D is.

I ') ') 4

P R I '.: (,

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 1994