Theatre Design & Technology - Summer 1992 - 16

up rhe plor in irs own mind? And so on.
Perhaps rhe mosr srriking symprom of
rhe rhearre's failure ro keep abreasr of rhe
rimes is rhe way we mistake efficienc~'-
expertness-for true creation. Americans
are "gadget-minded." We have rhe
"know-how," as we say. And it is precisely
because we have rhe know-how, because
we are so keenly inrerested in experrness
and efficiency, rhar we are apr ro confuse
rhese qualiries wirh true creation. There
is no doubr rhar our American Thearre is
the mosr experr theatre in rhe worldthe snappiesr, the slickest. So experr, in
faer, rhar a disringuished European visiror spoke of it not long ago as a "clinical
rhearre." \'(Ie write our plays, we acr our
roles, we design and build our producrions as if they were so many triumphs of
mechanical skill-like Big Inch, or rhe
George Washingron Bridge, or rhe Grand
Coulee Dam.

he Broadway of today is
like an exhibit of engines.
Bur rhe rheatre isn'r an
engine. Ir's an organism.
Ir's alive. It lives and
brearhes. And ir's wild: wild, strange,
uncontrollable! Ir won'r allow itself ro be
reduced ro mechanical rerms. In the face
of our efficiency wriring, efficiency acting, efficiency sraging, and serring and
lighring; rhe rhearre jusr simply isn'r
rhere. somerhing else is rhere-somerhing enrerraining, doubrless, and
charming, and amusing, and inreresring,
and all rhar. Bur where is rhe aurhentic
rhearre rhrill? And where is rhe "awe")
And where is rhe "glory") Did you ever
hear anyone use the word "glory" before
in connection with rhe theatre Bur you
should hear ir. You should experience
glory in rhe rheatre. Ir is your right as a
member of an audience.
One rhing rhat is wrong, so far as you
and I are concerned, is rhar we rhink of
the various branches of rhe theatre as separare enriries. We rhink of a playas a
manuscripr and not as thearre. Yes, we
do! We rhink of a srage serring as a ser
and not as theatre. We think of lighting
in rerms of a remarkable electric console
and not in terms of rhearre. \'(Ie cannot
seem to grasp the conception thar all
rhese depanmenrs (perhaps I should have
said comparrmenrs) of rhe theatre are
organic pans of an organic whole, not a
ser of commissions efficiently carried our;
bur a nervous, remperamenral, vibraring,
living whole. I have jusr used rhe word
"nervous." I like ro us rhe word "nervous"
in connecrion with rhe rhearre. I don't
mean nervous in a neuroric sense. I am
speaking of an energy of the nerves-rhe
14

1992 SUMMER

TD&T

sheer nervous viraliry rhat runs like a
fever through i\lichclangelo's frescoes in
rhe sisrine Chapel; rhar makes Hamler
sav:
Here, rhou incesruous, murderous,
damned Dane,
Drink off rhis potion. The "nerveux,"' Henr\' Adams calls it.
Much of rhe diHic'ulry comes, it seems
ro me, from our being so job-conscious
in America. Each separare pan of rhe rheatre is jusr a separare job ro be done. Take
stage designing, for insrance. \'(Ihen I
began work in rhe rhearre, I assumed, as a
marrer of course rhar a srage designer was
supposed to take enrire charge of the
visual side of the thearre. Even now, I
would nor dream of commirring anyone
else ro design rhe cosrumes or arrange the
lighring for any play I happen to be
working on. Bur I am rold that nowadays
stage designers don'r care who designs the
cosrumes or arranges rhe lighting of rheir
shows. I musr confess thar I don't undersrand rhis ar all. Ir seems ro me ro be a
pan of our present-day tendency ro disintegrare, ro dissolve: Scenery by Blank,
Shoes by Dash, lighring by Black,
Cosrumes by Whosis, Coiffures by
Charles of rhe Ritz, l\lakeup by Max
Facror, Fingernails by '\Iadame so-andSo, Ashtrays bv Orientalia, Enrrances by
Je Ne sais Quoi, Exits by \'(las Geschiehr,
Smiles by \'(Ihatever, Frowns by
\'(Iherever, and so on, and so on. I wonder where ir will end?
But ro rell the truth, I am not greatly
inreresred in rhe thearre thar is endable.
1 or am I grearly interesred in critical
appraisals of one kind of theatre or
anorher kind of theatre. \'(Ie tend to
accept our present theatrical forms as
inevirable. But they aren't inevirable at
all. On rhe conrrary. The clever, sapless,
juiceless, greedy rhearre we are accustomed to will disappear in time, unremembered for the most pan, and another
theatre wirh a larger and healthier idea
will take its place.
I think it is clear that unless we are
willing ro conrinue in the same, old, sterile rourine-sruck fast in yesterday like
poor Jim Jay in the nursery rhyme: "Ho
diddle di do, poor Jim Jay, Got stuck fast
in .\'esrerdav"-we
shall have to break
.
down our mental adhesions and mo\'e
bold'" into a new theatrical experience.
\X'e shall have to evoh'e a new wav of
looking at rhe theatre. \,'e shall have to
learn, not how things arc being done in
the theatre, but how they lIIig!;t be done.
Ot only how they might be done, but
how they might best be done. \'(Ie shall

have ro srop acquiring informarion and
begin, instead, ro acquire an arrirude. I'm
going ro say rhat again: not information,
bur an arrirude l lot a catalog, but a new
point of view. \'(Ie shall have ro get a rruer
menral image of rhe rhearre and whar ir is
for.
ell, you may ask,
whar is the rheatre
for) I can only
speak of rhe rhearre
as I see ir. To me,
the thearre is a source of energy-a wellspring of energy. To use the modern scienrific terms we all love ro use, we go ro
rhe thearre ro ger "re-charged", exactly as
a srorage barrery is re-charged, by rhe
electric currenr of emorion rhat srreams
from rhe stage. The illusrrarion is an apt
one. \'(Ihy, orherwise, should aerors be so
exhausred at rhe end of a performance?
Surely nor from a mere recitarion of rhe
playwrighr's words. All our efforr as
workers in the rheatre musr be to learn ro
rhrow rhe energy, the sense of life, out
across rhe footlighrs-more excitement,
more beaury, more splendor, more and
more energy, more and more life, more
aliveness!
Someone once wrore a review of a
play in which he spoke of rhe producrion
as "a humming mounrain of fire l " I've
remembered rhar phrase for years. Bur ir
takes lift to creare life in rhe rhearre. Thar
is our difflculry \Ve don'r seem to be able
to experience anything. W/e only learn
abollt ir. \'(Ie close ourselves ro experience. \'(Ie shur ourselves away from ir. \'(Ie
insulare ourselves against ir. We don'r
look! We don'r lisren! Why can'r we learn
to use our eyes and our ears) Why can'r
we at least learn to be aware of what is
going on around us?
I feel an impulse ro speak furrher
about this marrer. Ir is quire possible for
us ro lead a complerely fulfilled life in
this counrry, at rhis momenr; if we only
have a job, and a home with a barhroom,
and a radio, and a car, and can go to rhe
movies every sarurday nighr, and playa
game of Pinochle every so ofren with the
boys. Oh yes, I forgor rhe comics; we
must have the comics. Thousands of
Americans, tens of rhousands of
Americans, are living happily and contentedh' with no inner life ar all. \'(Ihy
bother') It will do no harm for us r~
remember, at rhis poinr, thar Shakespeare
didn't have a car, or a radio, and neither
did Sophocles, and neither did Moliere.
I will tell you of an experience I had
in the rhearre ar Epidaurus in Greece,
some years ago. You can read about
Epiclaurus in Henry l'Ailler's remarkable

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Summer 1992