Theatre Design & Technology - May 1966 - 12

Real Theatres Please
Donald C. Mullin, College of St. Benedict

Prof. Mullin's recent (December '65) orticle in T D & T described
some of the ways in which he sees theatre form foiling to
follow its intended function. He has written the present article
to suggest positive approaches to the jlls described earlier.

ABSTRACT: Theoretical discussion of the practical
value of theatre buildings seen from user's viewpoint. I. R. CODE: (THEORY)

- EDITOR

Contemporary architectural practice considers structures in terms of organized space. Within the limitationsofsiteandbudget,the building is first conceived
to be an inter-relation of work and movement areas
arranged in the most practical, pleasing and inexpensive manner. An architect faced with the planning
of a theatre is confronted by these generalizations,
common to most construction, and by specifics related
to large open areas with certain accommodation requirements.
The client, with his consultants, may
have only a general idea of what he wishes or he
may, as is becoming more common, have a detai led
list of specifications.
We can be assured that the needs of the theatre form
will be evaluated with reasonable care, and that the
building will conform to those needs, for not all
architects consider confining an audience within a
geometric shape that happens to please them. This
was long the grave sin of architecture-os-archeology,
and is sometimes the fau It of architecture-osgeometry. .. Organ ized space" is a genera I enough
term so that we cannot but agree with its necessity.
We cannot help but wonder, however, if this suitable
generalization is being supported by appropriate
specifics.

which is nothing new. We have copies of bad Broadway houses in every city in America. We have long
been accused of being the willing victims of our own
advertising, of being content with the prospectus and
ignoring the product. A multi-color statement that
tells us what the theatre is supposed to do will
frequently be accepted in place of evidence of what
it actually does. In this way mistakes are compounded, and the infamous sync-winch marches on.
Since complaining isn't enough, exactly what are the
guides for constructicn of a goad theatre?
They
certainly include most, or even all, of those commonly followed by client and architect alike. A certain
number of cubic feet must be allowed for each seated
patron; a fly loft should ideally be so high; work
areas, orchestra pits, lobbies, rest rooms, dressing
rooms,- all have their recommended specifications.
All of these are necessary and familiar. Additional
requirements may include modifications from the usual
in order to satisfy the client's demand for novelty
or for an emphasis upon a different type of staging
technique. The variables are many and the possibilities limitless. Do the above considerations, even
if they are met, produce fine theatres? Usually not,
for they s tap too short.

Clients are genuinely concerned with the creation of We have all heard the word "Theatre" coupled with
a serviceable and attractive theatre, and in spite of the word "magic", and unhesitatingly agree that this
overpublicized disagreements with architects, the elusive quality should be a part of the theatrical exresult of collaboration between a knowledgable client per ience, We are, unfortunately, equa Ily unhes itat ing
and an experienced architect is usually satisfactory about the condemnation of most of the means whereby
to all parties concerned.
Clients poorly prepared the magic may be produced. This was not always the
and architects unfamiliar with theatrical needs may case. The theatre, like the boxing ring or the circus,
combine to erect a parody of a theatre, but it is not once had its "feel" and flavor. The theatrical exour purpose to bait a concert of fool s. Given the perience started when one walked in the door, into
ideal conditions, including the addition of a first-rate what felt like a theatre and like nothing else. There
theatre consultant, one may justifiably inquire why were no soft drink stands, no coffee shops, and no
contemporary theatres are, for the most part, every art galleries. Duse's picture has long since come
bit as dreary as those built earlier in the century and down and an abstract-impressionist gone up, and the
reviled by these same people. Public relations ma- mag ic ha s dri bbled away. Un ivers iti e s, wi th the ir
terial would have us believe the contrary, but reports inherent di s tru st of anyth ing that ha s popular appea I,
fi Iter through the fire curtain that give the lie to the have been leaders in the effort to take the theatrical
brochures. No amount of hoo-rah can cover up the out of theatre, in order to bring the Theatre closer to
Wright debacle in Dallas; all of Guthrie's prose can- the Drama, whatever that is.
not disguise the peculiarities of the design bearing
his name; and all the King's pushbuttons cannot No combination of client, consultant and architect
make the Loeb Drama Center work as well as any can produce a theatre by itself, for "client" inevitably
old vaudeville house that cost a third as much. Un- restricts itself to those with the money or those
sophisticated folk are copying structures like these, empowered to disburse the money. Performing artists

IUSITT

THEATRE DESIGN AND TECHNOUX;Y

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - May 1966