Theatre Design & Technology - Winter 1977 - 27

but consciously chosen, introduction and illustration
in my effort to find something about the motives. You
certainly will not have missed my criticisms on modern
theatres. Many people are of the same opinion: actors
as well as spectators. That is why I would not say that
we have to take old theatres as an example, especially
those of the 19th century, as very often happens, but
it would be wise to analyse why we cannot miss the
old theatre, and what is their charm.
Restoration in itself ought not to be our aim: the
tendency to restore might grow to absurd proportions and
would also produce unpleasantness in term of the phenomenon, "modern theatre."
If modern architects (and certainly the clients tool
would not simply imitate the classic theatres but would
analyse the power of some of them, then our new theatres
would undoubtedly make a better contribution and perhaps even lead to the creation of modern dramatic literature. For there is indeed an interaction. I am certain
that the theatre world itself is a drag on it. It is not only
the architects! It is true that in stage technology everything is possible, but mostly there is no money.
Further we could persist in trying to introduce new
concepts, but we do not ask about the resistance we must
overcome. Actors are often very conservative, as well as
the directors - the dancers and musicians live only in
their own restricted world and criticize subjectively.
A few times I have tried to start a discussion, but
they often think in the old patterns; in Epidauros they
would have felt lost. Most ballet dancers want a barrier
which lies, invisibly between their image and the audience: and if they were asked to dance on a fore stage,
they would have to be trained again. In other words, they
usually think in two-dimensional transmission. Of course
there are wonderful exceptions: think of the ballet
"Mutations," think of Bejart.
We also have to consider that modern dramatic literature certainly does not have a renewing effect on building
theatres: most authors, too, start from the old, known
concepts.
There ought to be an interaction between the stage
repertory, dramatic Iiterature and experiments on the
one side, and available theatre space on the other side.
If we do not dare to experiment in building theatres,
then it will be a restraint upon the development of the
afore-mentioned points. One can reason the other way
around, but I prefer my reasoning.
And what of directors? They criticize and sometimes
show that it has to be different, that they have to find
compromises, that they have to play their versions in
almost unsuitable theatres. This makes their direction
somewhat dramatic and daring. And afterwards the critics
and the audience react to the daring plan, with a certain
kind of pride, being surprised that it was just possible in
that particular theatre! This could have been the start
of a process of the awakening of consciousness that does
not exist at th is moment, a becoming conscious of the
necessity of trying to forget some of the old patterns. But
do I have positive or negative ideas about the incl ination

USITT

towards restoration? For a discussion, it is pleasant for
me to take a position_ However, it is evident that I Can not
choose.
In my opinion, few modern theatres are right; they are
influenced basically by the need for sitting comfortably,
they are too big, the spectator is essentially removed from
the stage and the floor plans show impossible labyrinths
in which we sometimes can not even find the auditoria.
I also think that the space-effect is often only moderate.
I believe that almost all the modern theatres are less
effective than the good old remaining examples based on
the same plans. I hardly understand why "moveable
theatre space," that is with changeable action-levels and
with an interchange with the audience playing in and with
the audience - is rarely achieved and why people look
askance at it. I think that in our community, and certainly
too among the so called cultural elite, a strong conservatism exists that makes any development almost immediately impossible and that makes people return to the
time-honoured recipe. That is why a discussion between
the architect and those who use the theatre is always
squeezed into controlled channels, which makes it impossible to realize a revolutionary idea.
In my opinion the English and American method that is, that slowly growing theatre companies finally
build their own theatre - can have a renewing influence.
This is not possible in most of the countries because of
the fact that there are only touring companies, and so
there will always be the excuse that one can not build
theatres that are too advanced.
I regret deeply that the great new thinkers and designers have little influence on theatre-design. I think there is
a lack of good information - the usual practical things
have rarely been transferred to the prospective principals
and architects. Again, I would like to mention the good
example of the Association of British Theatre Technicians. It is a pity that such instruction does not automatically reach those who are wandering around with ideas!
I am also sure that in many cases our legislation is a
drag on such development. Imagine a theatre where the
stage can not be shut off with a fire-eurtain; even if
everything were noncombustible, it still would not be
accepted! So a moveable theatre space can only be realized if our legislation will allow exceptions. But changing
laws takes time and patience. However, we certainly
have to make a start with it.
My conclusion is that a thorough study and analysis
of the older theatres would help us with the realization
of new ones. Restoration can only be acceptable after
thorough consideration, but the following examples may
prove detrimental to the development of modern theatre.
We have to come to terms with the "picture-theatre."
We have to be sceptical about sentiment in the case
of the "horseshoe type" theatres. We have to be critical
when we are thinking and talking about them and we have
to examine them for the space-effect (which is to be more
interesting than the endless discussion about the fly tower
and the number of lines).
Page 37

Concluded on

THEATRE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY

WINTER,1977

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Winter 1977