(NOTE:  Audrey Stanley mailed the following assignment to institute members
during the summer.  The September minutes follow the assignment.)

NEH 1995-96 INSTITUTE SHAKESPEARE EXAMINED THROUGH PERFORMANCE

PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR INTERNET E-MAIL, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE, AND FAX NUMBER ON YOUR
SUBMISSIONS.

Greetings to all from Audrey Stanley.
ADD:    Cowell College, UCSC, Santa Cruz, CA 95064.
TEL:    (408) 458-3622. FAX: (408) 459-4880.

Here is the preparation work for our first session in September. You will come
to Washington having learned several passages from Macbeth, a play we will be
working on for more than one session. The line numbers in the assignments that
follow are from the New Folger paperback editions.

Use the following exercises to:

Prepare and learn both roles in Macbeth II.ii.
Prepare and learn either Macbeth's soliloquy II.i.44-end or Lady Macbeth's
two soliloquies I.v.15-33, 45-66.

N.B. I am not proposing to load you up with this amount of preparation again. I
just wanted us to get a head-start for our first session, particularly as we
shall be seeing a production. However simplistic some of the work may feel to
you, it can lead to some interesting discoveries about the scenes and the
characters, and it begins to open out the actor's physicalization of the
language.

PART I

1. After consulting the enclosed Folio script for spelling and punctuation,
make a simple scansion of the lines, discussing in note form any problematic
lines.

2.  Make brief notes on the primary l6th/17th century meanings of the words,
consulting the OED, etc., checking even those words that do not seem to have
changed their meaning.

3.  Paraphrase the speeches into modern English, to cover the lull meaning.

Make a brief summary of your discoveries and questions. CIRCULATE the summary
to ALL of us in the group by AUGUST 15. Send a copy of Part 1, 1-3 to me by
AUGUST 15.

PART II

1. Keep a brief journal of the following work and your discoveries in note
form, and bring this to Washington.

2. Begin the physicalization of the words in this way:

a)  Lie down on your back and relax, and check on the rhythm of your breathing.

b)  Sing out a breath on a low-pitched note as AHHHHHHH, then breathe normally.
Now alternate these two about 6 times.

c)  Take each word in your first speech separately and explore the separate
sounds in the word as if tasting or relishing them. Then put the sounds
together to form the complete word. Then move on to the second word, taking a
moment to relax and breathe between the words. Then the third word, etc. (This
is slow work, but persevere. You might limit yourself to 6-10 lines at a
session--or whatever feels comfortable.)

d)  Immediately write down in note form in your journal any discoveries you
make about the thought, the character, his/her motives/feelings, the language,
etc.

3.      Speak the 6-10 lines out loud, concentrating on the meaning.

4.      Xerox a copy of the whole scene, and mark those words you wish to
stress in each line. (Keep stresses to as few words as possible--say one or two
to a line, and beware of too many personal pronouns.)

5.      Mark the assonances and alliterations with different colors. Any
onomatopoeia? Write down any discoveries.

6.      Circle the antitheses.

7.      Differentiate or mark in some way figures of speech and imagery, and
add your own comments on these.

CIRCULATE to all of us a summary of your more interesting discoveries by AUGUST
30 or earlier, and bring your annotated Xerox copy to Washington. Send a copy
of Part II, 4-7 to me by AUGUST 30.

PART III

Learn your roles (soliloquy and dialogue) for our first session at the Folger.
Try learning the lines in this way:

1.      Walk with the first thought, turn and walk in a new direction with the
change from the first thought, making variously shaped triangles or squares
with your walking. Very often the caesura will show where the thought changes,
and you can use this exercise to discover the caesuras or lack of them within
the line. Immediately note down any discoveries this brings to the
understanding of the scene or the characters.

2.      In a larger space, take each speech and walk out the major thought
structures in bolder fashion, using different geometric shapes. Find out
particularly where there is a complete change of thought, and check this with
the Folio punctuation. Note down any discoveries.

3.      Mark a Xerox copy with the Folio punctuation in red. Speak the speech
lying on your back, breathing on the Folio punctuation as follows:
a)  take a short breath on a comma,
b)  take a longer breath on the colon or semi-colon,
c)  and finally a large breath on a period.
Walk about the room speaking the speeches with this breathing.

Note down any discoveries or changes in your journals, and bring them to
our first session on SEPTEMBER 29.

PART IV

FINALLY--find paintings or illustrations or reproductions or just faces (from a
painting/newspaper/magazine/ etc.) OR MAKE A COLLAGE that represents the visual
appearances of your characters, bath external and internal. BRING THESE TO
WASHINGTON together with a favorite OBJECT each of them might have. If anyone
is feeling really creative, find a modern outfit or outfits that one of your
characters might wear and bring it to our first session.

PART V

I.      Look at 1 Henry IV II.iv.338-524 and III.ii.126-166.

2.      Bring portable texts of Macbeth and 1 Henry IV with you to the
session on SEPTEMBER 29.

SURVIVE!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes and Reflections

29-30 September 1995

by Kurt Daw

Friday, September 29

The already opened doors and beautifully prepared light breakfast were visible
symbols of the welcoming nature of the Folger when I arrived my typically
overly-anxious-few-minutes-early for the 8:45 gathering in the theater lobby
for our first session.  I had an opportunity to say "hello" to a few old
friends and previous acquaintances, but concentrated on trying to put new faces
with biographies which had been so thoughtfully previously supplied.  That
Audrey's advanced work had obviously already influenced us was brought home to
me when one of the group members said to me, "You're the easy one to remember
with all that rhyme and alliteration, you know, Kurt Daw from Kennesaw..."  I
laughed, and for me, the ice was broken.

The process continued in a much more formal way when we gathered in the circle
of chairs on the stage of the beloved Fortune replica.  After a brief
discussion about the speaking order Lena Cowen Orlin took the floor to
introduce the Folger staff and remind us of the somewhat idiosyncratic rules of
the Library.  We were all duly instilled with a fear of ink-pens, open windows,
and coke machines.

Audrey Stanley and Alan Dessen then took turns introducing themselves and the
program for the year.  Alan, who claims that he only has two pedagogical
stories, amused us with both of them and thereby quietly reminded us that this
is a pedagogically-based institute.  Audrey hinted of things to come by
casually invoking phrases like "boot camp" and "rolling about of the floor."

Soon we got the opportunity to introduce ourselves, along with a discovery from
our previous work.  I found myself sitting next to Sheila Cavanagh, who lives
and works less than a half-an-hour away from me, but whom I'd never met.  This
set me to musing about why I am so grateful to be in the group.  On a
day-to-day basis I find little time to do all those things that I once thought
would be my academic life.  Casual conversations in graceful faculty clubs
don't exist on my campus anymore, or much of anywhere from what I gather.  This
seminar, however, already allowed me to meet other scholars (like Paul, whose
articles I have faithfully read without thinking that I would sometime discuss
them with him in person) and to interact with them about substance instead of
academic policy.  How nice to be in a room with fifteen teachers for something
other than a committee meeting.

My recollection is that most of us were fairly general about our "discoveries,"
playing it safe in the first round, except for Eric who I recall as committing
himself to the Folio capitalization.  Nonetheless we were a talkative group,
and the dynamics began to take shape.

Having shot my mouth off and volunteered to do minutes, I find my memory
breaking down at this point, so I am taking the printed schedule as gospel and
assuming we did take our first break at this point.  (We probably ought to go
ahead and set the schedule for reporters for the year, by the way, as this is
easier to do when you know in advance that you will be reporting. You can plan
ahead for note-taking, recording, etc.)

On return from break the chairs were being cleared away from the stage and it
was time to begin the real stuff.  Luckily that began with something I could
handle--pulling on my toes and massaging my feet.  We worked our way up the
body kneading (with an audible "k") our tight muscles.  Audrey referenced this
as Litz Pisk work.  I recall the discussion that the book (The Actor and His
Body) is out of print, so I was happy to see it is listed in the latest
Routledge catalogue in a Theatre Arts Books reprint.

Soon we were lying on our backs on the floor, and then curling up our spines on
counts of twenty.  Shortly thereafter we were practicing stage falls from
sitting, kneeling, and finally standing positions.

At the end we were stage falling from our full height to the floor where we
were rolling around and kicking our legs in the air.  I doubt that the childish
release was the point, but I liked it anyway.

The next step, as far as my hazy memory can recover, was descending down into
the dressing rooms which according to Lena we are to forget even exist to sit
in front of the mirrors with bone props (well, really cut down coffee stirrers)
holding our mouths open while we attempted to articulate a couple of pages of
sound groups.  Audrey reminded us that our students often fear and dislike
Shakespeare because they are unaware of the tongue and lip energy needed to
create that gorgeous language aloud.  These simple exercises got us moving our
articulators.  (Julia Matthews has amusing anecdotes to tell of being a first
year conservatory student carrying a cork around on a string to accomplish this
same task.)  This work is described in greater detail in Voice and the Actor by
the great RSC voice coach Cecily Berry, which Audrey referred us to for further
information.

Upon ascending back to areas which we are allowed to know about, we completed
the work with a further set of exercises designed to help us energize the
words.  Swinging our arms from positions over our heads until our knuckles
nearly (or occasionally really) hit the floor, we would "whoosh" out a line or
a few words.  Full, powerful voices were beginning to be heard.  My mild
mannered partner, Cezarija, was suddenly transformed into a vocal superwoman.
The volume and clarity of her new voice was surprising and beautiful.

Soon after (Oh, why is this all so hazy?) we dismissed for lunch.  One group
went out into the Shakespeare herb garden, but I stayed with the group in the
exhibition hall.  Our lunch conversation ran the gamut, but did cover at least
a bit of substantive territory when we discussed some of the previously
submitted writings we had sent to one another.  It was my own observation that
I think we came to vastly different scansion decisions, in part because I think
we have various formalized and improvised systems for scanning lines and
different understandings of the purpose of doing scansion at all.  (My own
reference for this is a lovely little book called Shakespeare Aloud, which is
small and cheap enough for me to require for my students as a supplement to
their Riverside.  My voice teacher friends, however, tend to favor Shakespeare
Sounded Soundly.) Ellen emerged in this conversation as having metrical
expertise, which I look forward to discussing further with her.  Our discussion
was involved enough that we realized we had engrossed Alan for fifteen extra
minutes, so we hurriedly cleaned up and regathered.

This session was led by Alan, and was the most cogent and insightful discussion
of primary texts I have heard.  Alan carefully traced the situation of not
having any manuscripts in Shakespeare's hand, the no longer "bad" but just
"short" quartos, the longer quartos which as best as I can tell are still
"good," and the folio.  I found particularly provocative Alan's rhetorical
question, "Which would you rather have--a manuscript in Shakespeare's hand or
an official promptbook from the first performance?"  Both his teaching style
and his sly sense of humor were revealed in his stated preference for a video
tape of the third performance.

Alan's handout had numerous examples of editorial challenges ranging from
puzzling misprints to edition-specific stage directions.  Somehow our
discussion of Folio purism got us incongruously to "pood pastures" where we all
sensed we had better stop. The very civilized custom of afternoon tea followed,
and then we wandered off with Lena for reader registration and for a tour of
the library.  Along with learning the ins-and-outs of the system for getting in
and out, we got to see almost the complete facility itself.  Readers who want
to tour the vaults (which are too small for the whole group) are encouraged to
identify themselves to Lena, who will arrange for us (notice how I got my claim
in immediately) to go in smaller units.  Many folks also lingered over the
pieces in the art collection.  Perhaps we can talk the Institute staff into
having a curator take us on an art tour at some point.

When we arrived back at the Elizabethan Theater Audrey was on stage with a
wicked grin on her face.  She had new exercises in mind. In these, we paired
off with a partner to run lines for the scene.  Pressure was kept low, which I
appreciated, by being told initially that this was just someone to work lines
with, not necessarily our final partner.  We ran through the speeches, and then
got to our feet.  We all turned out to be capable of walking and talking
simultaneously, including Tom who was quite good at it despite having earlier
denied the possibility.

We did some very interesting work where the speaker advanced on a retreating
partner, which made the idea of actively pursuing contact with a partner
clearer to me.

The most interesting, if exhausting, work of the afternoon was a very powerful
exercise where one pair of actors restrained another speaking (shouting?) pair
who were attempting to get past them.  Ed proved to be even stronger than he
looks, as I tried unsuccessfully to run over him. When we reversed our
situation, I could barely control him, a hint of the enthralling physicality
that he would bring to the performance the next day.

At the time what seemed obvious to me was the benefit of such energetic
commitment to the text.  Julia commented to me that she very much appreciates
the way Audrey keeps the intellectual, physical and emotional strands all
running at once.  This is where I really got that clearest.

Later I also realized that this is the point at which textual meaning really
began to be worked out collaboratively.  The search for textual meaning in a
pair was fascinating, but so was the contribution of a second pair, whose
physical interactions and reactions began to shape what we were becoming.

The end point was a brief bit of rehearsal wherever we could grab space about
the room.  My partner and I started improvising some "stuff" in a corner, where
Audrey insisted some interesting things were happening and urged us to keep to
the space.  I liked it that Audrey was clear we were not "staging" our scenes,
but exploring them.  I felt freed from a directorial perspective and really
enjoyed the time.  My partner, Clare, was a courageous rehearser, and a
generous collaborator.  I took it as a sign of the Folger's excellent selection
process, and Audrey's superb guidance, that we could all begin working so well
and quickly with virtual strangers.  Exciting ideas were clearly being tested
all over the room. I loved the rehearsal process, but badly in need of a
shower, I was grateful for dinner break and time to slip away and think about
it all.  I missed the dinner conversation, which later report has it, was
lively.

When we regathered after dinner we were in the Board Room.  Rebecca had
thoughtfully brought goodies and several pitchers of ice water appeared. Alan
had a great pre-prepared tape of six Macbeth banquet scenes in a row. These ran
from the sublime to the ridiculous in my opinion, but all were valuable for
thinking about the scene.  We discussed the pedagogical implications of showing
so many scenes in a later session, but at the time I thought the focus was on
our own experience in viewing, not necessarily modeling a classroom exercise.
From this perspective it was an interesting and valuable evening with the
individual expertise of our membership beginning to shine.  Bill, who seems to
have a videographic equivalent of a photographic memory for Shakespeare scenes
on celluloid, particularly stood out.  Audrey "pinched" my candy corn, a few
kernels of popcorn were flying in the corner, but basically we were well
behaved.

We broke up early by Folger seminar standards, with a couple of questions in
hand. We were to write no more than a page on one of the questions.  (A couple
of us later found a way to write a page covering both of the questions, but
such transgressions are to be expected from a group of bright academic
overachievers...)  A few folks threatened to get in some evening rehearsal, but
I think everyone eventually just got some rest and wrote.


Saturday, September 30

Our second day dawned with another coffee/tea/breakfast.  I hesitate to guess
how early the staff has to arrive to get brewed coffee ready for us, but their
graciousness is much appreciated regardless of how it was accomplished.  I
recognized that papers were being quietly collected all around me, and only
wished it was so easy in my own classroom.  There were a few interesting
exchanges going on in my area where people were showing photographs that they
had collected for their collage. Some of these were quite stunning.

When we moved to the theater we repeated a bit of Litz Pisking, and then
started into Linklater work.  We massaged each other's spines and rolled our
way up and down them.

Lying on the floor with our eyes closed we began to explore the skeleton, and
our breath.  We dropped in breath, made tiny "Fs, huhs, huh-humms," and finally
words. (This work is from Freeing the Natural Voice.)

Half an hour later or so, we were on our feet and speaking to fill the space.
Many nice resonant voices were emerging from well relaxed bodies. It is hard to
image that keeping a pace like that of this weekend could be relaxing, but I
certainly found that all my stored muscle tension was melting away.  I don't
think I have actually thought about being nice to my body since I began school
this year, so this was most welcome work for me.

Speaking the monologue across the expanse of the room in a whispered voice
reinforced the deep desire to communicate.  Pairing off we then dragged a
partner who was restraining us toward a wall.  I worked with Bob, who managed
to challenge a whole different set of muscles in me than Ed had the day before.
 Now I hurt all over, including a few places (like mysterious Folger spaces)
that I didn't remember I had.

Getting ourselves to a wall we leaned at an incline, supported only by the back
of our heads.  We again spoke our monologues to the general space.  I had a
good deal of trouble holding on to my concentration in all that hub-bub, which
I gather is part of the idea.  I found myself chanting my Macbeth lines in
unison with people across the theater from me, and doing my best to block out
Lady Macbeths nearby.

In what I thought was the best pedagogical technique of the weekend we started
walking about the room simultaneously reciting our soliloquies.  On Audrey's
signal all would freeze except one individual who had been tapped. That person
would move about the space, phrase-by-phrase, making direct eye contact with
specific individuals.  It was a fascinating way to sneak toward performance
without making a big deal out of it.  I was grateful. So many things were
accomplished in the exercise, from getting used to eye contact to speaking
forcefully in public.  One possible answer to our coverage quandary is to look
for exercises like this one where numerous objectives are accomplished all at
once.

This session was followed with the requisite gracious break, but I sensed a
difference in our conversations now.  We had become much better acquainted and
discussions were less careful, and more fun.

The stacks of photocopies were beginning to appear and most folks, I noticed,
were grabbing a moment or two to read through them quickly to get their gist.

When we regathered in the theater it was for a session led by Alan.  We took up
the issue of the previous night's videos and the questions we had been
addressing.  I felt at a bit of a disadvantage because I had just skimmed the
surface of the essays and didn't yet know enough to see the full range of
opinions that emerged when I read them carefully later.  The discussion,
however, was interesting.  Many excellent suggestions came forth about the use
of video in the classroom.  I was particularly pleased with the pedagogical
parts of this discussion.  The time spent on visible vs. invisible ghosts and
stage preferences was fun, but ultimately I thought it was more about taste
(including my own vocally expressed preferences) than some of the other issues
taken up in this session.

I sensed the potential for a good deal of future discussion on the pedagogy of
video in the classroom.  Many members of the group seemed to have a great deal
of experience using it, and in a wide variety of classroom situations.  We know
enough to know something about the good and the bad sides of it.  We also
seemed to have favorite video selections and techniques.  I look forward to
getting into this further.

In retrospect I wish that we had found a way to spend more time on sharing our
writings from the night before, and from our preparatory assignments. Perhaps
we can find a way in a future session to set aside some time to exchange a bit
on these things.  I am intrigued by many of the threads in these exchanges and
essays.  I also observe than we often express ourselves in very different ways
in performance and in writing.  I find this dichotomy interesting and worthy of
some attention later.

We split up for lunch, my group landing at Le Bon Caf=E9.  There were severa= l
readers and staff members from the library there, as well.  Wasn't it Cardinal
Newman that observed real education takes place in the dining hall?  I had a
feeling I knew what he meant.  Unfortunately, I had to cut short my own
participation to get back for a spot of rehearsal before we reconvened.

We were downstairs in the Board Room again for the afternoon session.  Alan
spoke to us about the legalities of video usage, and addressed a few ideas
about pedagogy that we had not had time for in the morning.  I found his
discussion of using both good and bad examples helpful.  I also liked the
simplicity of the pause button technique, which was used to good effect.

The great afternoon discovery for me was the "Nicholas Nickleby" excerpts.
Finding a way to discuss the differences in comedy and tragedy in a way that
is not excruciatingly boring has always troubled me.  This seemed a very
tangible demonstration of theory.  I loved the piece.  I was even intrigued by
the segmentation of the viewing into two parts--the early section which uses
technique to twist the lines, and the latter section where the play is
rewritten wholesale.

We took another break, and then gathered up in the theater.  As an acting
teacher I know the tension of a class that senses an impending performance
requirement.  It was wonderful, then, when Audrey gave us a preliminary
exercise of running lines with our partners (very reassuring just before we go
on) while sitting back-to-back.  It was, as billed, a sensual pleasure, a kind
of back rub through vibration.

Time finally came and Audrey started our work with the disclaimer that these
were scenes in process and by giving us a viewing assignment.  I don't doubt
the usefulness of the literal assignment, but I know that it helped me to focus
on something outside my own nervousness as well.

The performance order was established in a way that seemed to be based on where
we had been rehearsing.  I remember much less than I wish I did about the
performances but I have a few fleeting impressions.  I remember thinking about
the cleverness of Bob's dagger solution.  (And his good sense at thinking ahead
to bring a dagger.)  I remember the fascinating contrast of Ellen's sickly
sardonic Lady Macbeth with Julia's drunker, more frightened one immediately
after.  I liked that two takes on the role could have so much in common while
still being very individual.  I remember how well I thought Paul used the
space.  I remember thinking that Bill-Eric had us adjusted to the conventions
of the all-male rendition very quickly, and wondering if this is how it worked
in Renaissance times.  (i.e. Less of a Kabuki-like emulation of the "perfect"
woman, and more simply a matter of getting used to the convention.)  I remember
the strength of Ed's performance and the great clarity of Caroline's.  I recall
being struck dumb (very unusual for me) by Tom and Cezarija's revelation that
they had never before performed before an audience.  Their grace under pressure
was remarkable.

I remember almost nothing of my own performance, but a great many details about
my partner's.  I especially recall that looming hand hanging over my shoulder
where it had never been in any of our rehearsals.  How well she knew that would
have an effect on me, and to save it for performance as a little surprise.  I
learned a great deal about this scene just from trying to work it out, and more
from Clare's very intelligent exploration of it. In a brief session afterward
we all commented on how many viable options came forward in these scenes.  I
don't think that I can really attempt to summarize all the things that we saw,
and all the fascinating avenues that were explored.  I was reminded again,
however, of the power of performance explorations from doing this work.
Knowing the scene first-hand created in me a sense of ownership.  I look
forward to next month, when I hope to try the scene using some of Shakespeare's
words.

After our debriefing we adjourned to a nice wine and cheese reception, where we
congratulated each other on our performances. I think that we came together
remarkably fast as a group, and certainly showed that we have a lot to learn
from each other.

Later that final evening the theater-going group was heading off to the Arena,
just as another small bunch of us wandered off to get a nice quiet dinner.  I
felt exhausted from the intensity of the work, and exhilarated with the
accomplishment of it.  I look forward to more!

In keeping with my previous experience I have compiled two short additional
pieces with these minutes.  I want to again say that we may come to very
different solutions as a group than the "Potterites" did, and these pieces may
prove perfectly useless.  They are included here as a way for us to think a bit
about previous solutions to record-keeping, which we may keep or reject as we
choose.

The first of these is a very short bibliography of books and articles that were
referenced in the course of our work, including some comments I made earlier in
these minutes. A great deal of our work this weekend had to do with video, and
I would like to reference those materials, but I didn't have the resources to
hunt down all the information on those. The second is a listing of materials
that might make up the "archive."  For information sake, the "Potterites"
archivist, Stephen Buhler did compile a complete set of documents, but his main
activity was to create an outline that listed the documents we had gathered.
From this we were all able to compile a "personal" copy of the archive.  I have
tried to create such a document for us, just so we can have a starting place
should we choose to continue.

Works Cited
(September)

Berry, Cicely.   The Actor and the Text.  Revised Edition.  New York:
Applause Books, 1992.

Berry, Cecily.   Voice and the Actor.  Ist American Edition.  New York:
Macmillan, 1974.

Brubaker, E.S.   Shakespeare Aloud: A Guide to his Verse on Stage.
Lancaster, PA.: Brubaker, 1976.

Dessen, Alan C.   Elizabethan Stage Conventions and Modern Interpreters.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Linklater, Kristin.   Freeing Shakespeare's Voice.  New York, New York:
Theater Communications Group, 1992.

Linklater, Kristin.   Freeing the Natural Voice.  New York: Drama Book
Specialists, 1975.

Pisk, Litz.   The Actor and His Body.  New York: Theatre Arts Books, 1987.

Spain, Delbert.   Shakespeare Sounded Soundly: The Verse Structure & the
Language.  Santa Barbara: Garland-Clarke Editions/Capra Press, 1988.

Wills, Garry.   Witches and Jesuits: Shakespeare's Macbeth.  New York: New
York PublicLibrary/Oxford University Press, 1995.


Archive's List
(September)

Preliminary Materials:

Participants list with brief biographies
Participants list with addresses
Audrey's five part assignment
Alan's brief assignment
Copy of assigned scenes in Folio facsimile

Assignment:

Scene and soliloquy paraphrase
Scene and soliloquy scansion
Journals
Notes on stresses, alliteration, assonance, and antitheses
Nearly 100 pages of notes from each other

Weekend materials:

September Schedule
Updated Course Program
Friday Night Video list and assignment, titled "Staging Macbeth 3.4"
Friday night assignments (16 pages)
Excerpts from "Voice and the Actor"
"Who Would Have Thought It"
"Short Assignment on Hamlet"
Excerpt from Henry IV, Part I Folio facsimile


Thoughts and Issues:

Do we want to create a syllabus exchange?  Is it useful for us to bring syllabi
from classes we currently teach that touch on this subject matter?

How do we deal with coverage in our classes.  How much is enough?

Is there a mechanism whereby we can spend some time discussing the essays and
assignments of the group?

Tours of the vaults and art collection?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments on the September Minutes

29-30 September 1995

by Clare-Marie Wall

Dear Folger Institute Companions,

After our September weekend together, it is the memories and the anticipations
of conversations with all of you, separately and in groups, that I am
treasuring.  My bruises from our "easy falls" onto the Folger Theater stage
Friday morning are nearly indistinguishable now, but the sense of common
purpose and delight in the work stays strong.

These notes are short addenda to Kurt's superb narrative of the first weekend.
I too confess to having hazy impressions of the first Friday circle, since I
was trying to put names to faces, and, I again confess, adding labels of
"theater person" or "scholar" to try to make sense of the group.  Before long,
as expected, those labels were subsumed into all of your individuality, and the
idea of "camps," all too familiar on the level of university governance,
disappeared.  We were reminded that one can seduce a class, perhaps as a
reminder that we are ALL actors when we stand or sit in a position of authority
before students, and that we should always ask the innocent question. And the
warm-ups reminded me that whether on-stage or in class, we should be fit,
focused and open to everything.

After the lunch break (during which the picnicking group were beset by bees),
Alan the Textual Archeologist reminded us that to textual editors, "authority"
is taken to mean "authoricity," that "The norm is silence" when it comes to
stage directions, and that the drive to disambiguate can block valid theatrical
options.  But then I'm sure you all have your own extensive notes on these and
other text-sessions. Let me just memorialize several phrases.  To Paul, the
issue is "to ambiguate or disambiguate." Alan's pedagogical goal is "to
inoculate students with my own confusion, so I won't be alone."  And so the
conversation quickly turned to pedagogy.

The suggestion was made to use the Leonato/Benedick confusion on "I will stop
your mouth" as a workshop exercise for undergraduates. Similar enactments of
different editorial cruxes would also work well. I have tended to ask students
to write about such issues; how much better for them to perform the choices,
and then discuss together what the various effects are.  Other suggestions
followed.  Edward suggested that asking when Gertrude dies provokes interesting
discussion.  Several suggested doing student performances first, then
discussions, then video versions.  Three or four should be the limit on
versions, Kurt felt.

When we turned again to acting work, I found useful the embodiment of the
scene's dynamics, when I and my partner walked toward the other on our lines,
but retreated when the other was speaking.  Feeling attacked by the other's
words clarified the interplay of the whole scene, and additionally made me
listen to both my own objectives, and his. Later, working in our corner in the
Folger audience space, Kurt and I benefited from our real period doorways, the
ramp, and, for me, the semi-darkness.  In fact, I would recommend to anyone
that rehearsing in the dark is a great way to take away some of the stage
fright! Also, using an unconventional space rather than a stage is freeing.
Instead of worrying about what the audience will "get,"  one can find out what
the characters want.   I also was reminded of an old friend moved from acting
into directing when he realized that it was rehearsals he loved:  he found
performances boring.  The chance to keep trying things, to not worry when a
choice flops or gets stale, to keep fresh by surprising one's partner (tee
hee), is a privilege.  In fact, I'd have to say that compared to the
difficulties and tensions of professional work, the joy of doing that Macbeth
scene was intense.

A very few additions about the Saturday session with Alan, all having to do the
pedagogy. (Please add to these, anyone who remembers more.) We all loved
Julia's suggestion to show scenes with the sound off, especially with our
visually expert students.  Also, when watching videos in class, Caroline
suggested having different students watch different characters (singly, or in
groups), or various aspects, such as lighting, costumes, movement.  They could
write quickly on what they see, or share in groups, before coming back together
as a class. We were reminded of Patrick Spottiswode's Globe workshop on the
finding of Desdemona's handkerchief (perhaps Paul and Alan could explain
further).  And the dreaded coverage question reasserted itself:  4-6 plays, or
12?  Do we need to do each exercise four times, or is once enough?  Are we
teaching information or method?  What happens to the GRE-takers in the house?

Questions for the group.  What is the NCTE "Rehearsing the Audience"? Cowen's
study guide?  And what do people think/feel about REALISM, in acting
training/performance, in on-stage performance, in audience expectations?  Why
did Audrey want the audience to experience being voyeurs (of our scene)?

Lastly, I agree with Kurt that the FREEING of body and spirit and mind that the
weekend provided was wonderful.  Sunday morning I went to the special service
at the Washington National Cathedral (an old haunt of mine, since I'm a D.C.
native), and miraculously was reaching a high E when I am usually a tenor, at
best.

And let us not forget our assignment for October.  We are to bring five
important questions each for Lady Macbeth and Lady Macduff, and for the costume
designer of Macbeth.  Further, bring our collages, and an object for each
character.  Both Macbeth and Hamlet will be our scripts, and more soliloquy
work will ensue with Audrey.

Au revoir,
Clare-Marie

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes and Reflections

20-21 October 1995

by Caroline McManus

Friday, October 20

Not having volunteered to serve as scribe until our opening "business" session
was underway, I can't vouch for the completeness of my recollections.  I think
that Bill and Julia volunteered to serve as note-taker and commentator for the
November session.  Lena usefully demystified the DC taxi system (think Zone 1)
and provided us with a somber update on the fate of the NEH.  We discussed the
advisability of including visitors in our sessions and concluded as a group
that our performances should be kept for the group alone and that multiple
auditors would radically affect the intimate dynamic that has been established,
but that exceptions would be made for certain sessions and visitors.  One such
visitor was Barbara Ashbrook, an NEH program officer who joined us for the
afternoon session and Friday evening performance.

Audrey's exercises followed: we lengthened our spines, spread our backs,
practiced breathing, sang lines, and (what I thought was the hit--literally--of
the morning) kicked, threw, and jabbed as we spoke the final word of each line
from our Macbeth soliloquies.  We continued to work with the soliloquies,
pairing up to locate the caesuras in the lines and then forming two circles,
one for the Macbeths and one for the Lady Macbeths, in which we worked on
passing the speech's energy from one to another, passing lines and then single
words around the circle.  In preparation for our afternoon session with "Lady
Macduff," we read through Macbeth 4.2.

After the usual sumptuous coffee break, Kathleen herded us back in for our text
session with Alan.  I, for one, was delighted that he broke his ABH policy
(anything but Hamlet), because I teach Hamlet regularly and gleaned some
helpful ideas for assignments based on the multiple texts available. Handouts
juxtaposing three versions of the "To be or not to be" soliloquy and three
versions of the end of Act II sparked wide-ranging discussion.

Our discussion of the quarto texts generated several ideas for assignments:
Should Hamlet be given his final soliloquy?  Who does have the last speech in
King Lear, Edgar or Albany, and what difference does it make?  Discuss the
benefits/challenges of performing the different playtexts of Hamlet. Make a
case for the performance of the Gertrude/Horatio scene in Act 4; the inclusion
of Ophelia's lute; the Ghost's nightgown in the closet scene; both Laertes and
Hamlet leaping into the grave.  Should Gertrude or Horatio be given the line
"Let her come in"?  Ed Rocklin shared his "What if the Ghost came back?"
assignment:  Imagine that the Ghost of Hamlet's father reappears as the body of
Hamlet is carried off.  He enters, stands downstage center facing upstage and
looks at the scene.  What would such a figure invite us to see by placing us in
a sense behind the eyes of the Ghost?  What would his presence compel us to
remember, impel us to imagine, propel us to discover?  (One could also adapt
this, asking students when and why they might bring Macbeth's witches back on
stage.)

Having partaken of box lunches in the garden (the wasps were a little slower
this time), we reconvened on stage for a session with Helen Carey ("Lady
Macbeth") and Caitlin O'Connell ("Lady Macduff").  I tried to transcribe the
subject of the questions and the main points they elicited as closely as
possible.

1)  How do you prepare the audience for Lady Macbeth's madness? Helen Carey:
She'd crack, not bend.  Has tried to locate stress points (seeing effect of
murder, distancing of Macbeth); uses sense of smell as spiral into breakdown;
banquet scene reveals her incipient madness as well as Macbeth's.

2)  What is Lady Macduff's relationship with Ross? with Macduff?
        Caitlin O'Connell:  Receives news that Macduff is gone immediately
before scene begins; working through rage, hurt, sense of being betrayed.
Relationship to son shifts, as he is now man of house.

3)  Do you rely on an impressionistic or text-based justification for your
interpretation?
        HC:  Actor strives to share overall understanding; ex. of St.
Crispian's Day speech being comprehended by marines on eve of march into
Kuwait during Gulf War.

4)  What was the effect of adding the costume late in developing the role?
How did this         help or hinder?
        CO'C:  Ease of movement necessary for Lady Macduff's fighting;
raked stage.  Shorten hem and sleeves.
        HC:  Heels needed to be lowered to accommodate longer stride;
lacing instead of stitching sleeves enabled movement and fortuitously
echoed men's costumes; coronation scene costume altered from white
top/black skirt to all black (white background).

5)  How does the Lansburgh space help or hinder performance of Macbeth, a
comparatively intimate play?  How do you adjust to other theatre spaces?
HC:  Folger stage accommodates small movements; Lansburgh's excellent
acoustics, space to allow greater movement.
CO'C: Tricky contrast between huge set and intimacy of mother-son dialogue
in 4.2.  Importance of lighting in creating separate spaces on stage.

6)  Were any lines cut in this production?
HC:  A switched scene; LM's "This is the very painting of your fear" speech
in 3.4 a rhythmic cut.

7)  How did you prepare the role?  How did you balance psychological
realism and        rhetorical, declamatory style?
HC:  Prepared by reading extensively, watching films for juxtaposition of
scenic energies.  Stage chemistry changes in each performance.  LM does not
plan to be fiendlike.  Believes she and Macbeth will bring better world;
events then trip them up, don't unfold as expected.    Intimate marriage:
Macbeth turns to sources he knows will support his plan, particularly his
lady.
CO'C:  Prefers not to watch other performances.  Relies on chemistry with
director and co-actors.  Draws on personal resources: feelings of betrayal,
urge to protect child.  If an actor doesn't feel the emotion, the audience
won't.

8)  Please comment on the physicalization of the interpretation.
CO'C:  Extensive rehearsal with fight choreographer.  Goal to tell story
through action rather than supply gratuitous violence.  Lady Macduff
directs her energy toward saving remaining child.  Actor must be aware of
all movements, because the audience will attach significance to anything
done on stage.
HC:  Explored full possession in rehearsal; physicalized with fire, with
earth.  Physicality especially important in Shakespeare in order to
communicate meaning to modern audiences.

9)  How close has Lady Macbeth come to killing Duncan?
HC:  Tough to stage "what-ifs."  Tries to register change in LM after she
faces dead Duncan.  What is not staged can be more horrific than what is.

10)  How do you retain a sense of the blank verse, or do you employ more
naturalized    speech rhythms?
HC:  String a clothesline of the simple declarative sentence, then hang the
verbiage on it.  Communicate the energy of the speech rather than specific
words.

11)  Please describe the nature of Lady Macbeth's madness in the
sleepwalking scene.
HC:  Utterly disjointed.  Trying to get rid of smell of blood; pieces of
her former marriage, her friendship with Lady Macduff, secrecy, power.  As
if her life were painted on a mirror and then shattered, and she's picking
up shards, one by one.  She can't function without his support of/need for
her.

12)  What do the Macbeths see in each other?  What does the audience admire
about       each?
HC:  M a warrior, ambitious, sexually appealing in his power.  It's a
dangerous relationship, each goading on the other.

13)  Where are the difficulties or traps within the roles?
CO'C:  Coming on for only one scene.  Difficult to create a sense of
genuine relationship without ever having been seen with Macduff on stage.
Must pay attention to previous scene's energy.
HC:  Making character real is a challenge.  Link the Macbeths' project to
the Susan Smith tragedy--initial reaction might be of horror, incredulity,
distance, but once chain of events is traced outcome becomes more
plausible.  Human tragedy result of series of small choices.

14)  How does dynamic with actors and directors work?
HC:  Joe Dowling encourages actors to experiment.  Leaves blocking
open--movement will follow intention.  Focus on what one character is
trying to get from another.  Poses possibility, such as "What would happen
if you were really possessed?"  Then he edits, deciding what to keep, or
clarify, or eliminate.
CO'C:  Actors working collaboratively, teaching one another.  Healthy
friction--trying out one another's suggestions, but challenging any
direction that doesn't work.

15)  Who does Macbeth/Lady Macbeth trust?
HC:  LM only trusts Macbeth. Link with Lady Macduff [?]
CO'C:  Parallel between LM and Lady Macduff.  Both coming to grips with
loss of husbands, but LM snaps, whereas Lady Macduff is more of a survivor.
Tries to discover how she'll get by in her scene.

16)  Is this production an actors' exercise or director's concept?  What
contribution   does the production make to the stage history of the play?
CO'C:  Director's role is like that of newspaper editor overseeing work of
reporters, urging a particular angle on a story.
HC:  Best performances are seamless; if concept too obvious, play becomes
performance art rather than theatre.

17)  How does the production engage the idea of Scotland?
HC:  An intimate community; bloody history of succession.  Link to Rob Roy,
Brave Heart.

18)  What was your experience of Shakespeare when in school?
CO'C:  Saw performance and was hooked.  Students must see as well as read.
HC:  Memorable teacher of Julius Caesar; required performance work.
Contagious enthusiasm.

Our discussion of the Shakespeare Theatre's production of Macbeth continued at
3:30, when we met with Stephen Welch (Director, Education Programs) and Mary
Ann Powell (Costume Shop Manager).  I was struck anew by the degree to which
not only Shakespeare's scripts but also each production involves rehearsal,
negotiation of power politics (certainly nothing new to the directors in our
group), and the exploration of various design concepts (set, costume) within
practical constraints.  Hearing about the metamorphoses of the original
concepts made the production even more intriguing.  The discussion reaffirmed
the value of such assignments as having students compare and contrast two
productions, the first highly stylized, "designed" (for ex., the Shakespeare
Theatre's Macbeth) and the second bare stage (for ex., ACTER's Macbeth).

Display and discussion of collages followed.  The exercise revealed the
creativity of the group (as our students sometimes say, "We didn't know we had
it in us") and prompted some self-revelation.  Paul cogently observed that this
three-dimensional exploration involved internalizing the character rather than
remaining objective and distanced.  This obviously will be a useful assignment
for our students, especially those who excel in visual learning rather than in
more traditional verbal skills.

Friday evening saw us at the Lansburgh, many of us doing a credible imitation
of drowned rats.  The Folger staff (ever efficient) had thoughtfully arranged
for a thunderstorm  to achieve the proper ambience ("It was a rough night").
Our Friday evening assignment: "Choose what you find to be a distinctive choice
by actor, director, or designers, and discuss."


Saturday, October 21

Saturday morning brought crisper weather and renewed rounds of body work
(spine-curling and uncurling and flesh melting off our bones) and sound work
(proclaiming Heh!  with emphasis, envisioning our bodies as three-story
structures complete with elevators, becoming train tracks, all creative means
of exploring our range of sound).  We walked around, proclaiming our
soliloquies to anyone we could get to listen to us.

We then discussed the Shakespeare Theatre's Macbeth, including such topics as
the effect of interpolated scenes on the rhythm of the play and the alteration
or deletion of lines. A useful performance-related assignment generated by the
discussion would be to have students identify the scene they feel would be the
most difficult to stage and explain why, and then brainstorm about possible
solutions (the Malcolm/Macduff scene, for example).

On Saturday afternoon, Alan showed the prayer scene from four different video
versions of Hamlet (played by Olivier, Gibson, Kline, Jacobi).  He asked us to
consider the following questions:  what structural analogues or echoes does the
scene suggest (ex.  Pyrrhus killing Priam, Hamlet not killing Claudius)? is the
prayer scene the audience's first exposure to Claudius' conscience? is the
casting of Claudius effective? what cuts would we make in 3.3? how close does
Hamlet get to Claudius?  what time period is indicated by the setting? what
music is evident?

Before our afternoon scene work, we shared the objects associated with Macbeth
and Lady Macbeth that we had brought with us.  (Recent tightening of security
at US airports is perhaps less a consequence of terrorist activity than an
unprecedented increase in the number of English professors toting daggers in
their baggage and wearing small red buttons announcing "I have done the deed.")

Audrey gave us (intentionally maddening?) instructions to play against our
earlier interpretations of the Macbeth dialogue by first performing the
opposite interpretation, then switching roles, and finally returning to our
original interpretation. Our discoveries: enhanced understanding of partner's
issues, the number of transitions within a particular speech, the sheer joy of
"playing."  Audrey then gave us our next assignment (developing a one-page
diagram of Henry V, marking the entrances and exits of various characters,
setting, lighting, song, dance, etc.) and encouraged us to begin thinking about
the next scene we'd like to work on.

Our final session focused on the pedagogical projects.  Given time limitations,
we agreed to follow the Potterite model of having 2 or 3 people working on
issues of mutual interest. Some of the topics that were mentioned were language
exercises, the dynamics of interpretation, teaching in diverse classrooms,
gender roles and role reversal, performance issues as related to Measure, the
intersection of theatre with other arts, methodologies that ameliorate the
"coverage" problem, and the difference between film and stage productions.  We
agreed to put together a calendar so that the group will know when each
participant will be using his or her week in residence.  We also agreed that it
would be useful to pool our resources re. syllabi, assignments, performance
exercises, and lists of videotapes.

Works Cited (October 1995)

Bertram, Paul, and Bernice W. Kliman.  The Three-Text Hamlet: Parallel
Texts of the First and Second Quartos and First Folio.  NY: AMS
Press, 1991.

Dawson, Anthony.  Hamlet.  Shakespeare in Performance Series.  Manchester
Univ. Press.

McLeod, Randal, ed.  Crisis in Editing: Texts of the English Renaissance.
Papers given at the 24th Annual Conference on
Editorial Problems.  University of                       Toronto, 4-5
November, 1988.  New York: AMS Press, 1994.

Roach, Joseph R.  The Player's Passion: Studies in the Science of Acting.
1985; rpt.            Univ. of Michigan Press, 1993.

Robinson, Randal.  Unlocking Shakespeare's Language: Help for the Teacher
and Student.  NCTE, 1989.


Archives List (October 1995)

Assignments:
        Collages
        Objects
        Questions re. "Lady Macbeth," "Lady Macduff," and design

Weekend Materials:
        October schedule
        Handouts juxtaposing three versions of the "To be or not to be"
        soliloquy and three versions of the end of Act II
        Friday night assignment (distinctive choice made by actor,
	director, or designer)
        Description of the group project
        Excerpts from Hamlet (Q1, Q2, folio) (Alan Dessen)
        Short assignment on Hamlet (Alan Dessen)
        Questions for actors/designers
        Shakespeare: monologue preparation (Audrey Stanley)
        Participant responses to Shakespeare Theatre's Macbeth


October Session Visitors:

Barbara Ashbrook, Education Division, NEH
Helen Carey, "Lady Macbeth" in the Shakespeare Theatre's Macbeth
Caitlin O'Connell, "Lady Macduff" in the Shakespeare Theatre's Macbeth
Mary Ann Powell, Costume Shop Manager, the Shakespeare Theatre
Stephen Welch, Director, Education Programs, the Shakespeare Theatre (as of
this writing Peter Avery is serving as the Acting
Director of Education Programs)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes and Reflections

17-18 November 1995

by Julia Matthews

Friday, November 17

Guests: Michael Kahn, Artistic Director of the Shakespeare Theatre at the
Lansburgh
                Lois Potter, Professor of English, University of Delaware

Productions:    Twelfth Night, performed by the Shenandoah Shakespeare
Express, at the University of Maryland at College Park.

                [Video]   Macbeth, performed by the Royal Shakespeare
Company, directed by              Trevor Nunn, starring Ian McKellen and
Judi Dench.

How nice to walk into the Folger lobby to the smell of fresh coffee and the
greetings of friends.  In preparation for Thanksgiving I felt thankful for you
all (and thankful for the coffee and those nice pastries, courtesy of the
gracious Institute staff).

At 9:00 we gathered on-stage for a short discussion of logistical issues. We
were glad to meet Lois Potter, who joined us for the weekend in preparation for
her December sessions.

Audrey urged us on to a discussion of our Henry V graphs and charts.  We had
been assigned to graph Henry or another play in such a way that each
character's entrances, exits, and stage time were clearly delineated.  She
graciously allowed our complaints ("too many characters!") and encouraged our
thoughts.  We noted that the chart helped us understand the characters' stage
time and their presence in the stage space.  Shakespeare's juxtaposition of
groups of characters and the resulting irony became clear. This made some eager
to begin doubling and tripling the roles (especially after Audrey told us of a
production with 11 actors;  Paul noted that scholars have made/found charts of
Elizabethan doubling practices). Edward suggested making a prose chart of the
French scenes (not the scenes with French characters, but the action divided
into scenes in the French manner, at the entrance of each new character) before
making a graphic representation;  both charts help to clarify the rhythm of the
play and the sporadic appearances of certain characters (the Weird Sisters, the
Prince in R&J).  We discussed the importance of exits and entrances for
practical directorial concerns.  The "through-lines" of individual characters
also became clear.   Audrey suggested that students might be asked to follow up
their charts by writing about their discoveries; the exercise is useful in
helping both theatre and literature students perceive structure, and she has
found it very helpful in teaching the Greek plays also.

We then moved on to a discussion of our cast lists, beginning with a sampling
of everyone's Henrys and Pistols.  (This made us so eager to hear the rest of
the casts that Rebecca kindly went off and made copies of all the lists for our
subsequent delight.)  The act of casting is one that students can do quickly,
and invites them to invest in the play and to recognize their own
interpretations.  They may be asked to name the qualities that attracted them
to their actors (helpful if the doddering professor doesn't know the current
teen idols).  The question of characters' ages can also start conversations
about interpretation.

A survey of some of the other plays represented in people's exercises revealed
an Othello, a Twelfth Night, a Shrew, a Dream, and a couple of Macbeths.
Comments about charting these other plays included a reflection on disparate
scene lengths, the clarity of the various plot lines, the absence or presence
of dominant characters, and the rapidity and rhythm of the action.  This
started an interesting conversation about the scene as a unit.  Kurt commented
that he had been obliged to use French scenes rather than the numbered scenes
in order to make his chart.  Edward noted that Jonson uses French scenes also,
and Alan reminded us that no act or scene divisions appear in Shakespeare
before 1610-11.   However, as Bob pointed out, some scene changes are more
locative than others, and the Chorus provides clear indications of the act
divisions of H5.  Alan noted that the stage direction "clear" appears in only
three plays of Shakespeare's period.

Michael Kahn arrived ready to address our questions about Henry V;  his
graciousness became even more notable when he admitted that it was "hell week"
in rehearsal.  Audrey invited him to begin by telling us his approach to
directing. (I hope that the following shorthand will still be intelligible to
you.)

MK:  might be ready for a change in approach.  At start of career interested in
expressing self; interesting to return now to two plays staged at beginning of
career (H5, M for M).  Began then with "concept." Now more inclined to start
with play, read many times, let ideas stay in back of head.  Close textual
examination of script.  (Question of editing: usually some,  for reasons of
personnel, economy, or sometimes dramaturgy.) Close readings lead to an
understanding of Shakespeare's intentions, which then leads to the question,
"how can I best present that?"  While acknowledging the resources available,
ask "How can I tell that story?" The choice of set is a big commitment, a "hard
moment," difficult to decide on because it limits the play.  MK attracted to
Shakespeare's ambiguity and flexibility; set "over-defines."  Less interested
in implications of historical periods.  Interested in characters line by line
in a scene. Priority: to get actors to the point where they have to say that
word.  MK attributes the "clarity" of his productions to this emphasis on the
specific words and sentences.  Not so interested in concept.

MK had a "slightly scandalous success in '68" with H5.  [C.f. reviews
thoughtfully provided by Paul.]   That production began with a strong anti-war
concept, and  a cynical interpretation based on the Bishops' machinations.  The
production was Brechtian in some aspects, such as the use of titles.  Returning
to H5 now MK admitted he "can't give up some of the old production," such as
the French scenes performed in French (though abbreviated, with translators
alongside) in order to create the sense of the Enemy, the Other (established by
use of cathurni also).

Having just done H4, MK says he understands the Eastcheap characters much
better now, that they are the anti-war voices of the play.  For the Chorus the
production uses a group of people and emphasizes the self-consciousness of
acting, the awareness of pageantry within the epic scope of the play. H5 is
"not as good as H4, Hamlet, Lear" -- "it's a little harder," not least because
of the "damn films looming over you."  His impulse to direct H5 came from the
Shakespeare Theatre's cycle of history plays, and his interest in exploring H5
with the same actor who played H4.  However, the first actor took a job in NYC
so MK is now doing H5 with a new actor (Harry Hamlin).

On this uneasy note we began to ask our questions:

1) Interest in the lesser characters?
        MK:   very interested in them, having just done H4, especially
Bardolph.  Has added Falstaff's rejection scene to H5 , so it prefaces
Bardolph and the Boy.  Thinks originally the same actor would have doubled
as Falstaff and Gower; this would justify Fluellen's mention of Falstaff
later in the play.

2) Is God on the side of Henry and the English in your production?
        MK:  God doesn't take sides; production juxtaposes the characters'
beliefs with scenes of the reality of war.
3) Ideal cast size for H5?
        MK:  40, but doing it with 29.  Doubling includes: Bishop--K of
France, Fluellen--Bishop, Alice--Quickly, Nym--Le Fer, Bardolph--Bates.
4) Is Queen Isabel dispensable?
        MK: leaves her in; a slight but feminine presence amidst all the
men of Act V.
5) What about Henry's two orders to kill the prisoners?
        MK:  first order cut in this production, though  he wouldn't have
minded Henry's appearing less sympathetic because of it.
6)  What cuts did you make?  Is Shakespeare still Shakespeare?
        MK:  "Sure."  H5 problematic dramaturgically;  this production cuts
Jamy, Macmorris, among others; maybe more cuts in this production than
usual, though for different reasons.  Might reorder events if helpful.
7)  How should audience understand discrepancies between Chorus's version
of  events and the events as they are enacted?
        MK: doesn't incline to this interpretation; doesn't see Chorus as
"official version" of history.
8)  How does production change with the change in leading actor?
        MK:  actor is not transformed by director, therefore director must
try to utilize whatever the actor brings to the role.  In this case, Hamlin
is more heroic than MK had envisioned.
9)  What are your persistent questions about H5?
        MK:  questions in resolving production with a new Henry and new
conception of the part.  Question of how the army lives on the stage.
Henry as a strange character who makes speeches but has no conversations;
question of a character devoid of personal relationships.
10)  How to arrive at ground plan?
        MK:  in this case working with regular designers, so this design is
based on many conversations, and the ground plan grew out of the previous
productions of R2 and H4;  the plan is "fairly Elizabethan."
11)  Collaboration with designers?
        MK:  Collaboration is a major part of process.  Design not hard in
this case, since many elements of costume and set pulled from previous
production.  Directors and designers must ask "what does the play mean" and
"what is the best visual means to express it?"  Sometimes this is nearly
impossible (Lear).  Doesn't believe in "localized" space anymore;  feels
actors' access to the space, to entrances, exits and to the rhythm of the
play are more important.
12)  How to achieve the actors talking to each other in rehearsal?
        MK:  spend a lot of time at the table, talk to each other a lot,
then try to stay there.  "There is no subtext in Shakespeare."  Actors'
paraphrases gradually reveal the need to speak Shakespeare's words rather
than their inadequate glosses.  Lots of time spent on versification.  If
actor means what she says, emphasis is usually right.  Then ask listener,
"What did she say to you?"; often listener has heard something else, so
work on hearing meaning as well as speaking it.  People don't listen
carefully.  Try to find meaning, not a generalized subtext.  American
actors are at a disadvantage since they are taught to play subtext rather
than text: a challenge for acting Shakespeare.
13)  Effect of audience?
        MK:  since the Lansburgh audience has recently seen H4, some of the
summaries in H5 can be cut.  Henry V doesn't act much like Hal; this
audience will observe the difference.
14)  What did you mean about kabuki and roller skates?
        MK:  actually no kabuki, but "a little Mahabarata."  "We got a
little tired of fights."  [Tune in next month!]
15)  How does the political ambience of Washington affect the productions?
        MK:  wonderful, a perk to making theatre here.  The audience
catches the references, understands the politics.  Re political notion of
"a just war": Don't think Shakespeare knows whether it's a just war;  he
certainly throws big questions at a big national epic.
16)  What to make of the Katherine and Alice scene?
        MK:  this follows the Harfleur scene and creates the deflation from
heroics to domesticity.  Katherine has already been offered as the prize to
stop the war;  she already knows that she's the treaty.
17)  Does the Pistol subplot serve as a foil for or a parody of Henry and
the main plot?
        MK:  Neither.  Pistol and the Eastcheap characters serve as a
reality check.  They are truthful to their own relationships and
experiences and are funny because of that.  Helpful to have done Mother
Courage to understand their humor.   To serve as a foil for Henry's heroics
they'd have to be evil.  They serve Shakespeare's design of public and
private battles, domestic and political fights.
18)  Have you made new discoveries in rehearsal?
        MK:  the concept is there to be challenged or changed;  it must be
tested, so there are always new discoveries.  Revelations about Pistol, Nym
for MK in this rehearsal process.
19)  What is the play about?
        MK:  the complex nature of leadership and war.

Why has Shakespeare devoted so much time to the traitors?  Again there's the
dramaturgical problem of Henry narrating himself, instead of letting the
audience see the action.  The group discussed the relationship of H5 to H4.  Is
Henry cutting off his father's legacy of old claims, scores to be settled?  Old
theory has it that somehow H5 achieves Hal's transformation into the hero king.
  Perhaps the traitors, the meanness show the price tag for becoming the hero
king?  Perhaps they state the claims of justice and mercy?  perhaps the
traitors are merely a political occasion for Henry to make another speech.
Lois suggested that the same actor might play Falstaff and Scroop.  MK admitted
"the play is harder than I thought." With that he went back to rehearsal, and
we repaired to our coffee and treats.

Suitably fortified, we returned to the theatre for our exercises with Audrey.
We began by massaging our feet and moved up the body.  We practiced curling and
uncurling our spines to the count of 30.  Then we moved on to exploring our rib
expansion.  We imagined our ribs as an umbrella tied with invisible strings to
our elbows, so that when the elbows raised the ribs opened.  We explored the
ribs in front opening, and the ribs in back, and then practiced collapsing the
front fibs only, leaving the back ribs afloat.  Moving onto the floor we
imagined our body as a six-sided box and investigated the expansions and
deflations in the box as we breathed.  Rising again we "vacuumed the lungs" by
blowing all our air out, blocking the nose to new air, and then letting the air
finally whoosh into the lungs.  This made some of us quite dizzy, but not as
dizzy as the next exercise, in which we forced our breath out on a "FFFF" sound
and imagined that we were painting a picture with the jet of air.  We painted
ships and waves and clouds and suns;  just when we were getting good at it, we
were commissioned to make movies (some quite lurid) about Jack and Jill, still
by painting the action with our "FFFF"s.  Then we made movies of our
soliloquies with our "FFFF"s;  by the time we replaced the blowing with
Shakespeare's words our voices were powered with lots of strong breaths, and
loud, well-supported sounds rang to the rafters.  The relationship between the
image, the action, and the breath seemed to be much more physical and unified.
We gathered to discuss our impressions, and people shared their new insights
into the "airy" imagery, the need to speak the words (rather than recite them),
and the involvement of the ribs and the breath with the emotions.  Audrey
cautioned that some young students may not be ready for the deep emotional
connections that some of the breath work can uncover, and reminded us that we
are making a synopsis of a process that requires much more class time and
in-depth study.  The process, as we discovered, helps the actor to incorporate
the text--not always easy for we "mind-people"!

After a convivial lunch in the board room, we convened to begin work on our new
scenes.  I'm not sure how accurate the following list is:
        Ellen and Dan: M for M
        Tom and Bill:  As You or Tempest
        Kurt and Paul:  J.C.
        Miranda and Sheila:  Othello
        Clare, Bob, Caroline, Edward:  Taming
        Ed and Julia:  M for M
        Eric and Cezarija:  W Tale
We sat with our partners and began the rigorous "word work" on a section of
our script.  This exercise required us to explore the text one word at a
time, trying to let the neutral words be neutral ("and," "the," "by") and
to let the charged words drop into their emotional wells ("death," "bed,"
"body," "shame").  Our partners facilitated this "drop-in" exercise:  I
would speak a word, and then Ed asked me a question probing the word's
associations; I would breathe and speak the word again, and then he would
ask me another question, and so on.  Slow going, but very intense.  I
became profoundly aware of the suspense leading up to each new word, and of
the complex network of emotional resonances Shakespeare sets up within the
dense layers of words, and I was reminded of Michael Kahn's complaint that
too often actors play generalized, subtextual "feelings" rather than the
textual complexities of the individual words.  Linklater's precision forces
us to experience each word as a separate, specific force.  This slow word
work also reminded us of the explorations of sound that Audrey had asked us
to do in preparing our Macbeth scenes.

At 3:30 Lena collected us and divided us into three groups for a tour of
the Folger vaults.  There are three collections in the vaults: one for the
art work; one for English printed materials prior to 1660; and one for all
other rare books.  We oohed and ahhed over a First Folio; over Queen
Elizabeth's bible (too massive, as Eric pointed out, for reading in bed);
over scrapbooks detailing Kean's successes; and daggers handled by the
great Hamlet actors.  So many treasures!  I felt quite envious of the staff
member who was accidentally locked in the vault, although Lena and Kathleen
seemed to shiver at the thought, and Lena proceeded to tell us a ghost
story about the late Henry Folger appearing after hours to a security
guard.

Dazzled, we convened again at 4:30 to work with Alan who "put on his
historical hat" to discuss stage conventions or, in his useful phrase,
"theatrical vocabulary," that semiotic system shared and accepted by
players and playgoers within a certain theatrical moment.  Once again
modeling "video pedagogy," he introduced us to his theme with two video
versions of the scene in Oedipus when the Messenger from Corinth reveals
that Oedipus was not Polybos's son, and Jocasta guesses the truth.  First
we watched the BBC version, directed by Don Taylor, which uses naturalistic
staging conventions within the vocabulary of contemporary students; then we
turned to the video of Tyrone Guthrie's Stratford production, which uses
the unfamiliar vocabulary of mask and stylized gesture and production.
Alan suggested that these two examples can pose provocative questions such
as "what happens when actors are prevented from using facial expression?"
By generating answers to these questions, students begin to think about
historicity,  the differences between "us" and "them," which may then
prepare them to think about the differences between the modern audience and
Shakespeare's audience.  Alan noted that editors as well as theatre
practitioners work to translate the original theatrical idiom into more
palatable, contemporary terms, and provided us with a handout of examples
of Elizabethan and Jacobean treatments of night, darkness, and ghosts.
These small textual examples prompt discussions of crucial differences
between psychological realism and more stylized, presentational
"vocabularies."  The challenge of portraying darkness on a stage lit by
daylight creates necessary conventions of properties and movement;  the
theatrical demand of "vanishing" may have had its own conventions.  In
support of example C, we watched the ghost sequence (5.3) from Jane
Howell's BBC video of Richard III, in which the ghosts appear as if in
Richard's nightmare.  Alan suggested discussing what has been traded or
lost in this "translation."  Editorially, some editors mark individual
exits for the ghosts; others follow the 18th c. tradition of the ghosts
disappearing en masse.  In Q and F the ghosts' entrances are marked, but
not their exits.  Is a group exit ridiculous? appropriate?  (examples E and
F suggest a group exit could be conventional for the period)  interesting?
(creating, with Richmond,  a group of 12 figures on stage--a jury? the
apostles?)  Howell's choice moves away from these possibilities by
suggesting that the supernatural has psychological roots.

Similar problems exist with night and darkness, as illustrated in Dream,
3.2.401-30.  Most editors add stage directions to explain why Lysander and
Demetrius do not find each other on stage.  Peter Hall's video uses mist
and cutting to avoid implausibility, but what would actors have done within
the older stage conventions, in daylight?  Would the meaning be different?
All this, Alan concluded, was a buildup to an exercise for us to stage the
brief, dark murder scene of Macbeth 3.3.  (Another good example would be
the penultimate scene of Othello.)

With that we adjourned for a break, returning to the board room later for a
viewing of the video of Trevor Nunn's Macbeth, starring Ian McKellen and
Judi Dench.  There were many magical moments, but one that sticks out was
the faint cry of "Cupcake! Cupcake!" coming from Audrey's direction after a
particularly gruesome scene.  Thanks to Caroline's bi-coastal catering we
were able to toast Alan's birthday in style, and he used his new breath
technique to splendid advantage in blowing out the birthday candles.  A
little stunned from the intensity of McKellen and Dench, we staggered back
to the hotel to think and write about a single distinctive choice of the
production, and how it revealed the play as a whole (or didn't).


Saturday, November 18

Saturday morning found us gathered once again in the board room to continue our
video pedagogy sessions with Alan.  For this session, he addressed endings and
closure in comedy and romance.  The comedies may be difficult to teach, since
one can sacrifice comic pleasures to too much thematic scrutiny, and vice
versa, but isolating the final moments may help students articulate what they
have understood from the comedy.  Alan began by showing the final three minutes
of Branagh's Much Ado  ("the feel-good approach").  Although students often
enjoy the ending,  once separated from the rest of the production it becomes
ripe for analysis, and demonstrates choices and omissions akin to other choices
in the film.  (Another useful discussion about humor and seriousness in comedy
might stem from a comparison of Branagh's cut version of Benedick's challenge
to Claudio with the uncut BBC version.)  We then moved on to the final moments
of Twelfth Night, which juxtaposes the traditional romantic expectations of
marriage and reunion with more discordant elements.  As we watched the BBC
video, the laughs dwindled to the end.  Some interesting discussion arose over
Fabian's reading of the letter.  A second example, taped off the air, featured
Alec Guinness as Malvolio and undercut his display of anger with comic business
and music on his exit (prompting the question, should

Malvolio's line precede his exit or accompany it?).  The third example, from
Branagh's Renaissance Theatre Company production, prompted discussion of the
Viola-Sebastian reunion, which some felt was unfulfilling or incomplete.
Audrey suggested that stage space, denied by the camera, is needed to fuel the
separation and the reunion.  Kurt described the production as a willful attempt
to drain any vestiges of comedy from the last moments of the play, and indeed
the design and acting were subdued and wintry, with the final image capturing
Feste peering in the closed iron gate as the snow fell.  Eric described the
play as satiric, with holiday folly shut out, but Ellen wished for some sense
of forgiveness or resolution.  Malvolio, who exited before howling his last
line offstage, was compared to Olivier's Shylock, to Poor Tom, and to a '90's
victim. Sheila affirmed the sense that Branagh's extreme choices would be great
for starting conversations in the classroom.  Alan closed the session by
showing the workshopped revelation of the statue in The Winter's Tale from
Barton's Playing Shakespeare series, which left us quietly amazed.

Over coffee we skimmed the one-page critiques of Nunn's Macbeth, hot off the
press.  4.1 was a popular topic (the witches' sabbath), and lively discussion
arose about the apparitions.  Bill felt strongly that they should be
supernatural, not hallucinatory, although Clare appreciated the association of
the visions with the candles and light imagery used throughout the play.  Would
Shakespeare's theatre have brought supernumeraries up through the trap door?
Does a first-time audience understand what the kings are anyway?  Some felt
that the loss of the representation of the kings was tied to the production's
choice to minimize the political aspects of the play and focus on emotion and
acting.  Alan invited comments on the "ruthless cutting," especially regarding
the last act.  Some regretted that Macbeth's final duel, murder, and beheading
all happened offstage (off-camera?), and found the ending abrupt and
unsatisfying without witnessing Macbeth's demise; but others thought the choice
suited the small space and Nunn's emphasis on spirituality and emotion rather
than politics.  We discussed the ecclesiastic choices made in music, costume
and the characterization of Duncan; Sheila felt this boxed in the play and
closed the audience off from some of its complexities.  Tom reminded us of the
importance of hair; others had noticed Malcolm's boyish hair as the antithesis
to Macbeth's slicked down look.  We discussed the crucial England scene;
Edward felt Rees succeeded in making the list of the kingly virtues effective.
Ed called our attention to "Macduff on Thorazine;" others shared his concerns,
and some tried to imagine justifications (limitations of camera?  choosing to
emphasize Malcolm?).  Audrey suggested that Nunn might have chosen to oppose
the histrionic Macbeths with the sober Macduff, but Bill thought Macbeth's
dwindling capacity for human emotion should be contrasted with Macduff's
emotional rise.  Quickly we named a few other notable aspects: the association
of Scottish accents with wicked characters; the self-conscious camera work in
the Porter scene; the bold choices of Dench (i.e. the incantation) and McKellen
(clicking daggers); the nun attending the Lady's sleepwalking scene,
reiterating the spiritual stakes of the play; the violation of childhood
juxtaposed with the boys' choir voices; the drooling of the Third Witch as well
as Macbeth.  Fortunately this video is readily available.

Lois Potter introduced the plan for December: to build up to the evening
performance of H5 on Friday, and to think about enabling inexperienced students
to think critically about theatre performance.  On Saturday we'll prepare for a
"mystery play reading."  All are encouraged to bring portable PCs and printers
or "at least dark pens."  In addition all are to read the articles provided by
Lois and to read Bob's article in ELH (Vol. 61, 1994, pp.27-52) on H5.

Returning after lunch, we split into four groups to attack the problem of
staging Macbeth 3.3, with its problems of darkness, the mystery Third Murderer,
and the escape of Fleance.  These problems turned out to be stubborn, if not
impossible, and each production had interesting features, one with the Third
Murderer purposely saving Fleance, one with Fleance carrying Banquo's light,
one with a swashbuckling toss of torch from Seton (3 Murd.) to a stupid
Murderer . . . and one that I can't recall (sorry).

Moving on, Audrey asked a group of seven to stage the murder of Duncan.
Interestingly, it was Malcolm and Donalbain who awoke to say their prayers in
the group's rendering.  The rest staged a version of 3.3 and 4 from a script
that Audrey saw at the Shanghai and Beijing Festival, which spliced the two
scenes together by a series of freezes, with Macbeth "witnessing" both events,
and Banquo's body lying on-stage until it was time for him to get up and come
to the banquet table.

At 3:45 we met again to discuss future plans.  Audrey promised to share the
exercises she uses with her students to teach scansion.  We tried to sort
ourselves into groups to plan our February sessions.  I think all did some
preliminary talking, and promised to talk more.

        Bob, Eric, Tom:  "language"  (spoken v. written), "a clearinghouse
for useful                   techniques"
        Ellen, Dan, Ed, Edward:  Measure for Measure pedagogy, using
conflicting readings
        Paul, Clare, Kurt, Cezarija, Sheila, Bill, Julia:
interdisciplinary uses/approaches to                 Shakespeare
        Caroline, Miranda:  heterogeneity, multicultural concerns (re
Othello and M of V)

We tried to think about our goals for May.  It still seems nebulous, but the
idea seems to be to develop classroom options or  "scenarios" for teaching
specific plays.  Perhaps this will be a practical teaching model (workbook?)
with assignments, archives, resources, rather than a formal article about
teaching.  Paul asked about the existing bibliography on teaching Shakespeare,
and Edward agreed to bring in some current lists.

At 5:00 we found ourselves bouncing off to College Park for the Shenandoah
Shakespeare Express's performance of Twelfth Night at the U of Maryland.
Although Alan tried to start a discussion as we rode back to Washington, we
seemed to be in a mode of "unwinding," and perhaps the charms and flaws of the
youthful SSE were readily apparent without analysis.  Later at the Chinese
restaurant, Bob shared his critique of obscenity as addressed by American law:
I encourage you to seek him out if this is an issue that concerns you, as it
does me.

WORKS CITED

Trevor Nunn's production of Macbeth, available from Films for the
Humanities & Sciences, PO Box 2053, Princeton, NJ, 08543-2053
(800-257-5126).
Kenneth Branagh's production of Twelfth Night is also available there, as
are all 11 parts of John Barton's series, Playing Shakespeare.  (The scene
from The Winter's Tale is from "Passion and Coolness.")
Lois Potter, Twelfth Night:  Text and Performance
Homer Swander, "No Exit for a Dead Body: What to do with a Scripted
Corpse?" Journal of
Dramatic Theory and Criticism (Spring, 1991) [I don't have the inclusive
page numbers].  The body in question is young Siward's.


ASSIGNMENTS

Cast and age lists for Henry V and some other plays.
Questions for Michael Kahn about directing and about Henry V.
Charts plotting the characters' stage time in Henry V and some other plays .

WEEKEND MATERIALS

November schedule
Two reviews of Kahn's 1969 Henry V.
Linklater, pp.36-43, "The Content: Language"
Dessen handout:         1) examples of darkness and ghosts;
                        2) entrances & exits in Dream 3.2;
                        3) staging exercise, Macbeth 3.3;
                        4) from letter to Michael Thomas about ACTER policy
			on cutting written responses to Nunn's Macbeth.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes and Reflections

8-9 December 1995

by Edward L. Rocklin

Friday, December 8

Lois Potter, Guest Orchestrator

Focus: Henry V

For the fourth time, we convened in the lobby of the Folger Theatre, and, while
munching pastries and bagels, sipping coffee and tea, we reconnected with our
partners in drama. Called into a circle at 9:00, we listened to announcements
which, combined with the printed schedule, served to remind us how intense our
two days' work would be--as did the minutes which recorded the intense third
session. Alan also reminded us of the need to organize the time in February
when we will be doing our own presentations and also seeing productions of A
Midsummer Night's Dream and All's Well That Ends Well. He suggested that the
largest group, a team of seven, be given Saturday, while the other three groups
(a team of two, a team of three, and a team of four) negotiate the division of
Friday.

The preliminaries completed, Lois Potter initiated the first of her neatly
interlocking designed activities--a sequence of pedagogic permutations which,
she promised, would have us working with nearly everyone else in the institute
in some configuration before the two days ended. (In fact the complexity of her
designs means that I may well be somewhat inexact in the sequencing and details
of what follows--my apologies for such slips.)

Professor Potter began with exercises on observation, engaging and sharpening
our ability to perceive what we see. First, she asked us to focus on an actor
performing Henry's soliloquy "Upon the king" (4.1) without the sound. Because
the mute took a moment to take effect, we discovered that this performance was
in German, and soon realized that in some ways this offered a metaphor to
remind us of how often students at first find both Shakespeare's words and
theatrical performance "foreign" languages (I always have a few students who
say "Isn't Shakespeare in that old English?"). We watched the clip and wrote
about what we saw. Lois added that this production was in some sense
"Brechtian," and this undoubtedly cued some of our observations. And then we
watched again with the sound, and proceeded to note down more observations.

Second, we looked at the "O God of battles" segment that leads into the St.
Crispian day speech--and encountered a striking scene with Henry speaking this
speech while interacting with a woman resting in an ermine-covered bed. This
woman shared a cigarette with Henry after he had placed the crown on her head,
and their interplay offered an intriguing recontextualization of the speech.
Third, we looked at the Crispian day speech itself, delivered to this woman in
the bed.

In pairs, we discussed what we had seen (for 6 minutes). Then we formed fours
in order to continue the discussion as well as make it more complex (12
minutes). Given the cue that this was a Brechtian staging, was the audience
supposed to see the exposure of power in a king who practiced his public
oratory in a private situation that subverted his claims to be united with his
men? And did this scene show that Henry was still privately living Hal's
life--that there had been no reformation? In particular, of course, the lines
about "gentlemen still abed in England" might became at least ironic if not
sardonic in such a performance.

Finally each foursome reported to the whole group and these reports led
naturally into whole group discussion.

(1) Miranda (Eric, Paul, Edward): Some of us thought this was Macheath meets
Mother Courage, responding to the general irony of the staging. And we noted
how oddly the speech works when addressed to a single auditor.

(2) Julia (Kurt, Bob, Caroline): Kurt would never have guessed it was
Shakespeare in this film noir style. People commented on either the arrogance
or passivity of Henry's delivery. (Is the hands-in-pockets pose inflected for
gender?) Who is the woman? strumpet of fortune? camp follower? does she dream
Henry and his future? can we imagine the woman as the Dauphin? Is Henry
rehearsing the speech?

(3) Cezarija (Sheila, Ed, Bill): The striking intersection of sexual and
martial worlds in a camp bed--does this Henry enact the sexuality so absent
from the play until its very last scene?

(4) Ellen (Dan, Clare, Tom): Can we see the tent as Eastcheap? This seemed to
be an alienated, cold, manipulative Henry--making people wonder if he was too
cold to be a successful leader? And in his playing with the crown is he echoing
the scene in Henry IV where he takes the crown before his father is dead? Is
this "easy lies the head that wears a crown"?

Lois asked "What did you think when you heard the German version of the
speech?" Clare found it flat, Paul heard interesting phrasing, Ellen found the
German beautiful. Lois also asked "Were you decoding the picture? the sound?
the camera shots?" And we moved into a long discussion of what we saw and even
more how we saw what we saw. Lois agreed that a foreign language impels us to
mimic the student condition, as well as to make the visual dimension the
dominant focus of our attention.

At our 10:30 break in the Theatre Lobby, we were joined by Jim Lusardi who,
with June Schlueter, edits Shakespeare Bulletin, and after distributing copies
of the Summer 1995 issue invited us to be reviewers. We reconvened at 10:45
a.m. in the Theatre for Lois's next session on writing about performance. We
moved into four groups of four, with each group looking at some coherent
portion of the readings Lois had asked us to complete for this morning. Each
group had a card with its assignment laid out (I do not seem to have card #3,
so what I offer is a paraphrase).

(1) Theater History: Sprague and Foulkes (on Calvert)
        Tom, Ed, Ellen, Clare.
        What are the difficulties of reconstructing early (pre-movie)
performances?
        What can one learn from productions belonging to a different
time/place/culture?
        Give specific examples of information that you found useful.
Discuss the visual         images if you wish.

In their report, this group focused on what we can learn from reports of
such productions. We can learn about: (1) Choices of plays to be performed.
(2) In the case of Henry V, how this play is recontextualized by being
performed during various wars. (3) Its ongoing dramatic viability. (4) Cuts
made, both enduring and unique. (4) Shifts in theatrical focus, such as the
emphasis on antiquarian correctness in setting and costume in the 19th
century. (5) The casting of women in roles such as the Chorus. (6) The
interplay of production history and historical reconceptions of either
Henry's or Shakespeare's time. (7) The use of promptbooks as sources of
information (at times only partially reliable) on casting, cuts, props,
doubling, costumes, and blocking.


(2) The Theater Reviews of Henry V
        Bob, Caroline, Edward, Bill.
        Identify (a) the different strategies used by reviewers and (b) the
different   assumptions implicit in these reviews. Find a key word or
phrase for each of these.     Do different kinds of production bring out
different kinds of review?

This group focused mainly on identifying review-strategies, which included:
(1) The basic journalistic review, which covers most or all the elements
that appear on the modern program-director, other designers, cast as well
as the nature of the theater space--and may enumerate striking conceptions
and outstanding performances. (2) Reviews which focus on the relation of
text to production, and may, for example, find the performance not matching
the complexity of the text; or, perhaps conversely, reviewers who focus on
the coherence or incoherence of the production. (3) Reviews which focus on
the production in the context of a star actor's or famous director's career
or body of work. (4) The use of production history as a template against
which to judge all productions.

(3) Focus on Actors: Calvert, Olivier, Branagh
        Eric, Sheila, Julia, Paul
        How much does an actor's insider-view tell about the play for/in
the theater?

This group formulated its answer as some questions that actors' accounts often
enable us to explore: (1) Does the actor try for a "correct" or an "open-ended"
interpretation? (2) Does the actor offer (revealing) anecdotes? (3) Does the
actor offer insights into the rehearsal process? or how the production's key
choices were made? (4) How recent is the actor's memory of the production? (5)
What format does the account emerge from or appear in? actor's own account?
memoir? question-and-answer interview? (6) Does the account focus
(egocentrically) on the actor's performance (perhaps in terms of whole career)
or on the play or production as a whole? does it stay within the theater or
focus on larger cultural issues? Audrey suggested that we were indirectly
exploring another issue, namely what can people trained in literature bring to
the investigation of performances, productions, and theater?

(4) Essays by Tatspaugh, Fitter, Lane (and Branagh)
        Cezarija, Dan, Kurt, Miranda.
        How would you account for the differences between Tatspaugh and
Fitter on the   Branagh Henry V? Draw on Branagh's own account if you wish.
Which episodes in   the play and film would you want to see yourself in
order to arrive at your own         conclusion? If  you have a copy of
Bob's essay, do include it here.

One question the group raised was "Why was Fitter so outraged at Branagh's
production?" and this led to discussion of how convincing we found Fitter's
conviction that Shakespeare was incontrovertibly if covertly subversive in
his design. The strategy of Fitter's essay was to privilege Adrian Noble's
production and show how Branagh betrayed that subversive production in
order to achieve a more pro-Henry and presumably more popular film.
Tatspaugh's essay was seen as useful for examining how the roles of the
Chorus and Mountjoy were transformed by resegmenting, cuts, and accretions.
Branagh's account was deemed both useful and disingenuous in downplaying
Branagh's own ambitions. Bob Lane's essay was admired for its clear logic
and precise use of evidence from both text and performances. Scenes the
group members thought it crucial to view or view again included the hanging
of Bardolph, how Henry responded to the murder of the boys, the playing of
the Chorus (several people thought Fitter was either mis-remembering or
misconstruing the Chorus's speech on the battlefield) and the crucial
eve-of-Agincourt encounter of Henry with Bates, Court, William.

Energized, we adjourned to the Board Room where the Folger had again
provided lunches which we ate while continuing conversations.

Staying in the Board Room, we began Lois's next session, focused on
"reading" visual materials and on the plusses, problems, and puzzles of
using these visual aides. Lois moved us through a series of nineteen
slides, offering examples of both clear and ambiguous visual texts. One
question she asked us to examine was "Do these visual materials resemble
the productions and raise the same issues as those provoked by our
reading?" She also noted how visual materials immediately and persistently
raise issues about intentionality and the different degrees of
intentionality in different classes of material. Can everything be decoded
clearly? what about elements we can't decode? and so on.

Some questions we raised: Are students more confident in talking about
pictures than words? What about ourselves? Paul talked about how startled
students are to learn of the comic book version that has the authentic
text. And we discussed the activity of having students story-board a scene
as a way of initiating discussion of how to move from text to image.

Lois suggested that we have students look at sample title pages. And she
pointed out how visual images obviously date much more emphatically that
verbal text. Paul reminded us of the computer theater-game which enables
students to stage scenes from Hamlet (MAC only, from Larry Friedlander,
Stanford). There is also Shakespeare Karaoke, and Paul discussed having
students draw pictures of phrases, and mentioned a student who now does
this on her own. Sheila also mentioned her colleague Harry Rusche and a WEB
site.

At 2:30, after our break and still in the Board Room, we moved into a video
session led by Alan, Bill, and Bob. Alan offered a brief prologue,
repeating that his central concern is to offer a wide spectrum of ways to
use video in class, even as with his classes his object is to offer tools
for exploration, not answers. He also suggested that we can use the opening
Chorus as a tool to discuss how stage productions and movies are different
mediums, in such dimensions as presence/absence and control of point of
view; and, in his reading, how the speech functioned on the original Globe
stage to define a problem and offer a solution for the challenge of
representation. This issue could be exemplified both within the Olivier
movie, which puts a playhouse inside the film and by comparing this move
with Branagh's, which stages its film-origins by having the Chorus open on
a sound stage. Alan also reminded us that what we do pedagogically is
shaped by our agendas. We watched the opening Chorus speech in Olivier's
film (1944) and Branagh's (1989)--noting how in the films the opening lines
suggest a reversal, namely a stage for a kingdom. One question Alan
suggested we can ask is "What doesn't work in these words when uttered in
these films in these settings?"

Bill started from a key point, namely that many of our students tacitly
know TV and film forms and conventions, but have no conscious grasp of what
it is they know: "They are saturated and responsive but not reflective."

In his precise and detailed session , Bill proceeded to do two things at
once. On the one hand, he demonstrated the advantages of a video laserdisk
version of a movie in breaking down a film frame by frame, in this case to
show us how Olivier and Branagh orchestrate the Agincourt battle--which is
of course the battle that Shakespeare's play pointedly does not give us.
And on the other hand, he offered us an exemplary analysis. Bill also
introduced us to interesting film conventions, such as the "good" army
moving left to right while the "bad" army moves right to left when showing
whole armies (as opposed to identifiable characters) in action. Branagh's
Agincourt, he noted, is praised for its realism and dark portrayal of war,
but in fact is not realistic at all but expressionistically staged, shot,
and scored: "Only the mud is real (and historical): as Canterbury says,
'List but his discourse of war, and you shall hear / A fearful battle
rendered you in music" (1.2.46-47). And that is what Branagh has
done--offered us a battle staged as visual music." Bill showed how Branagh,
with only a few extras, created his battle and then filmed it in medium and
close up shots, since a long shot would reveal how few actors he had; and
also how he orchestrated action and sound and music in subtle but complex
ways--in some cases translating the words into filmic action.

We looked at the sequence in which the Chorus approaches us yet seems not
to near us through the archers' stakes (done with a telephoto lens to
flatten perspective). The Chorus's words seemed askew here, since he seems
to be apologizing for a medium's inadequacies in one of its most
"realistic" moments, but in fact, Bill noted, the Chorus is correct, since
Branagh filmed this scene not with the hundreds of men and 120 horses
Olivier had but with 25 men and 10 horses.

Bill also broke down how the sound of the arrow volley--which Branagh took
over from Olivier--is assimilated to the soundtrack music; noting also the
repeated use of the same footage as another measure of economy. And he
showed us how the scene gets more expressionistic, more "beautiful" and
moves into slow motion to aestheticize the battle--while the motion is
slowed, the swords ring in real time. During the report of the casualties,
we saw how the sound of thunder, presumably representing God's voice, was
used to certify "O God, thy arm was here."

And we examined the famous 3-minute-47-second-long shot of Henry walking
with the Boy in his arms to the swelling chorus of "Non nobis": Bill traced
how the camera tracked the scene, attending to the not-obvious ways it
moved up and down, negotiating between the necessities of the landscape and
the pressures of Branagh's designs.

Finally, Bill offered us his interpretation of the shot in which Branagh
cast down his eyes to indicate shame--an interpretation Bill thinks is not
what we read or should read from this moment.

Bob started by saying that he had planned to call his segment of this
session "Realism versus Stylistic or Stylized presentation," but that
Bill's analysis had left him uncertain this was a useful title. He
suggested we could continue to look at key issues in film/video by
comparing Olivier's film with one by Derek Jarman's which presents a
striking filmed version of war combined with Benjamin Britten's "War
Requiem". In the excerpt that followed we saw a complex layering of scene
and flashback which was at once stylized and yet also realistic in some
details. We began to compare the Jarman soundtrack with the Branagh:  in
the Jarman, the music by Benjamin Britten is a pre-existing score, hence
might to some extent constrain the film-maker to shape the visual dimension
to the sound. And Britten's work itself is a collage, as the film is, since
it combines the Latin requiem mass with the poetry of Wilfred Owen.
Furthermore for at least some members of an audience the "War Requiem" has
its own musical and cultural history.

In the course of Bill's presentation, and particularly in regard to the way
Branagh orchestrated sound/music and action, several people spoke of how
the sound was clearly designed to manipulate our responses and Audrey spoke
of the "Emotional blackmail of the music." Caroline asked "When is the
music (soundtrack) not musical blackmail?" Although it seemed as if several
people wanted to begin to articulate a distinction between modulation and
manipulation of response, this issue was left unpursued. Bill's
presentation also raised the issue of how seeing segments in slow motion or
frame-by-frame analysis and three or more times in succession was beginning
to change our response. Several of us raised issues about the different
ratios of response different spectator's might have. Obviously there are
issues of expression versus reception that we might also have pursued--and
that would also connect back to the issue of intention raised by Lois
earlier.

Eric reminded us of a useful distinction: realism is a style, naturalism is
a philosophy. And we continued to discuss the question "How do we represent
violence on the stage? and in film?"

This session led into another break in the Board Room, and we returned to
the Theatre for our 4:00 p.m. session with Lois exploring theory and
practice in another way. This time, divided into four groups of four
people, we were each given a copy of Henry V 4.8.58-73, along with a
different scenario and parallel commentary on that scenario, and invited to
perform this version of the segment. The excerpts were from Robert
Hapgood's Shakespeare the Theatre-Poet, and specifically from the chapter
in which he offers a model for performing imaginary rehearsals. After 20
minutes of rehearsal time, each of the four groups offered its performance,
with some strikingly different actions. These performances also raised
issues about the relation of the players' intentions to spectators'
perceptions.

1 Miranda as Henry, Julia as Williams,
        Tom as Exeter, Bill as Fluellen
2 Bob as Henry, Ellen as Williams, Cezarija as Exeter,
        Eric as Fluellen
3 Kurt as Henry, Sheila as Williams, Clare as Exeter,
        Edward as Fluellen
4 Paul as Henry, Ed as Williams, Caroline as Exeter,
        Dan as Fluellen

We shared our perceptions and plunged into further discussion of the
complex possibilities of dissonance and harmony in this moment and of the
relation of the different performances to the larger design--how the design
shapes perception of the moment, how the performance of the moment shapes
the emerging design. This led us back to discussing the options for playing
the Chorus and the audience's understanding of what is happening to the
"band of brothers," hence of how the play ends. Ellen connected this moment
with the end of Measure for Measure, seeing in them both Shakespeare's
practice of depicting a ruler who tries or tests others and then suddenly
finds himself on trial.

We also discussed some of the strategies evident in the packet of
thirty-three reviews we had read: some critics look for touchstone speeches
or actions, as Trewin does. We talked of how such points might also be
useful for professional reviewers who must remember and immediately write
about the vanishing performance. (In an aside, Lois quoted a wonderful line
from Boswell who, struggling to keep his journal current, said "I have
sometimes thought a man should not live more than he can write." This is a
sentiment I suspect each of the people keeping minutes for the seminar can
understand.)

Lois examined a model for reviewing performances derived from the work of
Patrice Pavis:

Shakespeare: Performance Questionnaire
        Adapted by Lois Potter
        from Patrice Pavis

1. What were the stage space and audience space like?

2. What was immediately striking about the "look" of the production?

3. Was there a set? What was it like? If it was changed
        during performance, how was this done?

4. What kinds of sound were you aware of (include silences,
        non-vocal noises)?

5. Did you notice anything about the lighting?

6. Did any costumes stand out as especially significant?
        Could you tell what period they were meant to be?

7. How would you describe the pace of the production?
        If there was an intermission, describe any differences between the
parts (e.g., did the pace move more quickly after the intermission?).

8. What moments gave you particular pleasure or unease?

9. In what ways, if any, did the director's interpretation
        differ from what you had expected? Which elements of the production
did s/he most emphatically employ to convey that interpretation?

10. Did the audience reaction ever surprise you? How so?

11. How would you describe the use of space, including blocking


Let me end my annotations with a remarkable  piece I found while browsing
the Washington Post-Mortem  of last week.

The Witch
a Tragi-comedy
by Thomas Middleton,
As performed on 9 December 1995 at the Folger Shakespeare Library
by an all-star cast,
directed by Lois Potter.

A review by Edith Plinge.

Revivals of this play by a lesser-known contemporary of Shakespeare are
sufficiently rare to warrant gratitude from this critic. The world created
by this production was one of brilliantly self-conscious theatricality,
especially in terms of casting and doubling. Almost too loudly appreciated
by the at-times hooting onlookers, the capable performers concealed their
lack of rehearsal time admirably.

The simple setting in the Board Room at the Folger was a circle formed by
the performers' chairs, which vividly evoked a conjuring ring. The cast's
chanting of the third Song created an eerie sense of ritualized diablerie,
while the refreshments waiting on side tables inevitably recalled the
gruesome concoctions described in the play (although the food provided by
the suavely efficient Folger staff proved harmless, even delectable).

The present reviewer subscribes to the view of Professor Lois Potter that
the theatrical critic's first responsibility is to record, not just to pick
out one's favorite bits. As Professor Kurt Daw has equally acutely
remarked, however, in a different context, what awful theater-goers we
eggheads make. While I shall attempt to avoid the pitfalls my learned
colleagues have so aptly deplored, I must devote the bulk of this review to
appraising the actors and their efforts.

Suffice it to say that performances were generally outstanding. At the risk
of absurdity, I would sum it all up by noting that each performer
consistently rose above the rest. Although it is beyond my power (and
yours, dear reader) to go though each actor's achievements seriatim, I
below give hints, indications, judiciously chosen highlights. The rest is
silence.

Audrey Stanley as Stadlin maintained her personae as the watchful, genial
maker of stage magic; Lois Potter as a guest spirit, Hoppo, helped in this
role as well; and Alan Dessen proved a beneficent Governor.

A sprightly Hecate was ably sung and acted by Julia Matthews, bewitching
her hearers; while if Isabella (Ellen Summers) got a kiss from her husband
Antonio (Bill Taylor) for her singing, it was more than she deserved (or
got on her wedding night, apparently). A patient, earnest Sebastian/Celio
was rendered by Bob Lane, whose character "loves not" the witches he
nevertheless consults, supported by friend Fernando (Edward Rocklin)--a
"faithful, pitying friend."

The aptly named Amoretta (Lena "if You Can Play Sincerity You Can Play
Anything" Orlin), the fallen sister-in-law Francisca (Caroline McManus) and
the lascivious Duchess (Clare-Marie Wall) all demonstrated Middleton's
vision of the frailty of women, while gasping Gaspero (Dan Colvin),
Almachildes, a fantastical gentleman, in a fitting performance by Ed Isser,
and the oddly endearing witch-child Firestone (Kurt "The Great Cat for One
Night, Mother!" Daw) all gave the counterblast to men. Only characters like
the servant Hermio (Tom), the Duke (Eric), and Florida (Cezarija Abartis),
the courtesan with a heart of gold, gave evidence of a mitigated rage
against the follies of humankind. Certainly the slimiest case walking was
that of Paul Nelsen's Azerbanes, before whose advent wise mothers lock up
their daughters.

Here was a night to remember. Three ounces of the red-haired wench, indeed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes and Reflections
19-20 January 1996

by Bob Lane

Friday, January 19

Note:  The use of "[ ]" indicates my comments (where I couldn't help myself).

Guests:   Michael Friedman and Cary Mazer

Due to weather we were short-handed when we convened (Paul and Cezarija
missing).  Lena announced that the second half of the stipend would be delayed,
noting that we were over budget on travel.  There followed some comments re the
tax impact of stipends and expenses.  Alan then introduced our guests: Michael
Friedman of the University of Scranton has written on Shakespearean comedy,
combining textual study, cultural study, performance history, and close
reading.  He is currently doing a lot in his creative work, research, and
teaching that intersects with our work.  [To contact Michael: Dept. of English,
U. of Scranton, Scranton, PA 18510; Home-717-969-6179.  Office-717-941-4229,
FAX-717-941-6361; e-mail FriedmanM1@jaguar.uofs.edu] Cary Mazer, in the Theatre
Department at the University of Pennsylvania [To contact Cary: 8132 Cadwalader
Ave., Elkins Park, PA 19117; Home-215-635-1365, Office-215-898-7382,
FAX-215-573-2063; e-mail cmazer@sas.upenn.edu], is a performance historian of
the 19th and early 20th centuries.  He directs students and uses performance in
the classroom.  He has worked with and is currently working on the issue of
character in Shakespeare's plays.  His specific question for the performance of
Shrew that we were to see that night: Assuming the production will solve issues
of love, identity, desire, marriage, and romance, what decision does the
production make about one key issue of character, and how did you know that was
the decision, i.e. what were the theatrical signals that communicated this or
the shared assumption between the production and the audience that communicated
this? Alan further instructed us to see the play "cold," i.e. not to share
information about reviews.

After we introduced ourselves to Michael, he began his presentation, noting it
was not the classroom he had imagined, and that his only instructions from Alan
were to "just do your thing," prompting the question for him of what exactly
that was. He decided to put us through a version of a Shakespeare in
Performance course he taught several years ago, based in turn on a class he
took with Michael Gibbons when he was an undergraduate, a course that was a
defining experience for him. In his teaching he tries to duplicate that
experience, to bring the thrill of it to his own students. His plan for his two
2-hour sessions is in three segments each: today-30 minutes of introduction, 30
minutes of warm-ups (dividing us into 3 groups of 3 each), and 1 hour of
rehearsal in groups; tomorrow-45 min.-1 hour of rehearsals as refresher, 30-40
min. of performing scenes and talking about them (the core of the experience),
and 30 minutes of his description of how he works from his teaching to his
scholarship.

He passed out the syllabus (now several years old) he used for the January term
(3 weeks, 5 days a week, 2 hours per day) when a visiting Assistant Professor
at St. John's.  The course, for underclassmen, focused on a single play in
performance for the entire term. The space you work in is crucial--it must be
suitable for the activities described here, especially spacious enough to allow
the different student groups to work separately without undue distraction. He
chose All'sWell because it was then the focus of his scholarship.  Of the two
versions of the play included in the class, the Signet is easy to act with and
the Arden has a better textual apparatus.  Having a variety of texts in the
room helps make the textual cruxes clear for the students.  Because of the
level of students, he could not assume any background on their part. His first
assumption was that students would get more out of the scenes if they prepared,
so that 2/3 of their grade was the reading journal, which recorded their work
on two tasks: responses to the daily reading and close reading of the scene for
that day.  Michael also included Alan's article re theatrical conventions from
the Cambridge Companion, which took a couple of weeks to bear fruit. He avoided
readings re performance history until the end because he wanted the students to
develop their own scenes, not copy others'.  He used the Shakespeare in
Performance series for performance material.

Each session of the class was divided up into the sections described above. The
students were resistant to the warm-ups which Michael considered the most
important part of the class because it got them ready to go.  They were
initially very self-conscious and inhibited, did not want to stand out.  We
must rid them of the fear of looking silly or they'll never make bold enough
choices.  Key to success is the tone the instructor sets; it is useful for the
professor to embarrass him/herself (e.g. somersaults).  He devised a late song
as a penalty for tardiness ("Please forgive me," sung to a Patsy Cline tune).
Michael demonstrated this to hearty applause. Stage Two was working on the
staging for that day's scene, a process that varied with the number of persons
required for the scene.  During this period Michael remained detached,
observing from a distance, or helping the students understand the passages, but
avoided "try this." He had to learn from them and they would not be creative
without him staying out.  They must have the freedom to do their own staging.
Stage Three was performance of the scene: Did they pick up cues in the text or
not?  What choices did they make when there were no clues?  How were their
choices based on interpretive assumptions and what were those assumptions?
Michael suggested alternatives for their reflection and related these
suggestions to the performance of other scenes.  Gradually the students begin
to see connections.

Our questions: How large a class? 15-20 students.  Flak from the theater
department? They were so separate they didn't care; more likely turf problems
when it's close to the English Dept. Observers?  Some in each group were always
watching and commenting-some students did not want to act (participation in the
class was 1/3 of the grade).  Michael might now require the observers to write
something.  He might also consider videotaping early scenes.  How does this
experience translate to a semester-long course? [my notes don't have an answer]
Can you get them to rehearse outside class?  Depends on the kind of school and
student.  The ideal is to teach the class before rehearsal starts on production
of the play, which gives you a very obvious goal to work toward at the end of
the term (more possible with a semester course than a month-long one).  Or
divide the play up and make each group responsible for an act.  Or have the
teacher drop in on rehearsal.

Next we did exercises with Michael (mostly taken from Viola Spolin's work on
improvisations for the classroom).  For the whole group: Get in big
circle-stretching (and shrink)-shake out limbs: Vocal exercise-5 note
scales-watch my arm, low or high; mirror exercise in pairs-facial expressions
and body movements; Walking (peaceful stroll, proud.  dejected, in a hurry,
tiptoeing quietly, nervous pacing, big flop);  Backrub in circle-imitate
touching action around the circle.  For groups of eight in a circle:  Fruits,
own names, then characters from the play;  Saying single line as a group-match
pitch, tempo, emotion; Group jumping-exhale down, inhale up-lift those beside
you-must work together.

Then Staging the Scene: break up into small groups, instructions: 1) Choose
roles; 2) Do your table work-spend time making sure you understand the meaning
of the dialogue and character objectives first before you put the scene on its
feet-avoid making cuts or changes-deal with what is there; 3) Develop a rough
idea of staging-identify crucial choices you need to make and discuss the
options-get a sense of the blocking; 4) Type of stage is up to us, not trying
to reproduce Shakespeare's staging.

Our next session was with Cary, who began with a bit of autobiographical,
institutional context: his dept. is swarming with New Historicists who have
discovered the theater as the public art form in the community, investing the
act of performance with sociopolitical significance which is specific to time,
place, and conditions.  Others of his colleagues are looking at reception: the
re-invention of Shakespeare, the canon, biography, editing, packaging,
publishing of the script in later specific times.  This incursion of
non-performance oriented scholars into areas at least tangential to performance
is in a sense his topic.  Theater history combines concerns with history and
reinvention with focus on the phenomenon of performance.  The Shakespeare in
Performance fashion, which began in the '60s, sees the performance as realizing
the script, the script as encoding performance.  The script is a score which
readers decode, though any single performance is inadequate to all the
potential the script contains.

A more adequate view of performance sees the script as only one of an arsenal
from which one builds theatrical work, an occasion, but performance is a work
of art from raw materials which include the physical, aesthetic, actors,
cultural significance of performance, and the script.  Even so, theater people
may say they are "realizing" the script: The intentional fallacy reigns.  Even
when they do say this, however, they are creating a work of art.  In fact,
those who say that's what they are doing are more interesting to study.  If
performance is realization, performance history provides data to draw on, it
augments our knowledge of what is there to be realized, data about what choices
can be made.  Marvin Rosenberg's career reflects the crystallization of this
understanding of performance history. Since his first book on Othello, his work
has been directed toward cumulating realizations in order to flesh out what's
encoded in the script.

The problem with an uncritical cataloguing of data on performance is that
theater artists, especially of earlier periods, don't have the same aesthetics
we do.  We must know the conventions in order to decode.  For example, things
broke in the period 1642-1660: female actors appeared on stage, the stage was
treated less as a platform and more as a locale depicted by pictorial scenery.
But how to handle the problem of history? The New Historicists/cultural
materialists look at consciousness/subjectivity in the 16th-17th centuries and
their work (e.g. that of Catherine Belsey) poses the question of whether there
was a radically different notion of subjectivity and the enactment of human
behavior?  The question means that it is not safe to merely decode.  When an
actor says s/he understands character, what is s/he doing?  Typically actors
assume the playwright's notion of character and psychology are the same as
theirs, but differences on this score may confuse the process of bringing our
understanding of contemporary acting to Shakespeare's plays. For ex., Barton,
Linklater, et al., stress that the actor's relationships to language are
different in different periods.  This may complicate our teaching as well.

Examples of how the different assumptions about character come into play: In
our materials the excerpts from Mary Cowden Clarke show how,  in the process of
inventing fictions she deploys her own culture's assumptions about character.
The second set of documents shows in the effort to describe what it is an actor
does (with doubtful success) how the writers enlist the vocabulary of their era
to describe the relationship between the actor and the character.  Helena
Faucit Martin's piece is in the middle of the two sets, combining fictional and
personal narrative  Turning to the specifics of the documents, in Ellen Terry's
"The Pathetic Women" there is a striking emphasis on physical characteristics:
e.g. is Rosalind in LLL black, to which question Cary responded are you black?
The physical nature of the character entails what's imaginable and implies a
whole taxonomy of genre and substance (universal/particular,
monstrous/conventional, etc.). How will two different actors, with different
physical and psychic makeup, play the same role?  Alan noticed the use of
nature, that holding a mirror up to nature is in fact culturally specific, esp.
as Cary noted as it relates to the worth of the actor.  Coquelin's argument is
that the actor is not limited, that there are two consciousnesses in acting
which render the actor as both sculptor and clay.  The idea of two selves is in
turn appropriated by both Diderot (a Victorian because he published so late)
and the anti-Diderot camp as well, used in service of emotionalist arguments,
that the actor should marshal his/her real emotions.  Coquelin uses his own
life as a third term, suggesting a hint of the Stanislavskian affective memory,
though for Coquelin it is part of your material, not an experience to be
re-lived.  Diderot's position on the other hand: cold heart, warm head.  Alan
revealed he started out with romantic assumptions, a la Olivier's image, that
all actors could play the part, but actors persist in talking about who is
"right" or "wrong" for a particular role, referring to physical and social
(e.g. class) limitations. Cary pointed out that embedded in Alan's comment is
the issue of what makes character credible and what tools does the actor have
to accomplish that;  if the actor's self is important, what is the relationship
between the actor and the role that makes it so?

Kurt noted that most actors talk as if there were a one-to-one relation between
the actor and the role, but the audience's reception is a different issue.  Ed
noticed the difference in film, where the actor stamps the role more easily
(e.g. James Stewart) than in theater.  Julia emphasized the importance of
reception because character is convention, so we need to know the audience's
expectations.  Ellen gave the example of the audience that wanted to see the
divine Sarah (Bernhardt), but wanted to see something different in Duse. Sheila
underscored the disjunction between the actors' writing, working to discover
the role, and the audience and theatrical realities breaking up that process.
Audrey pointed out that actors are very different, in how many levels of
perception they bring to the lines. Some actors who may be very small
physically are capable of great transformation to fill any role; the great ones
can play any role.  Also, it's important to remember that in Shakespeare's
plays there are categories of roles.  Clare observed how different performances
can shift our own consciousness of the character and lead to different
interpretations both literary and theatrical.  Cary recited the audience adage
that a character-is not the kind of person who-what does the audience mean when
they say this?  What do we mean when we say "I can't believe that character did
x" as opposed to "that actor did not convince me about the character"? Ed Isser
referred to the example of audience discomfort, the sense of a moment not
working, when an actor fails to cry when the script makes clear s/he should.

Cary mentioned Joseph Roach's The Player's Passion, a history of acting via a
history of acting theory via a history of science.  It reveals how what is
"natural" depends on a cultural paradigm, and works from the premise that the
predecessor arts are more accessible.  For instance, Roach's "Garrick, the
Ghost, and the Machine" uses physiology to inform the study of acting, focusing
on Hamlet's seeing the Ghost and Garrick's use of a pneumatic wig that enabled
his hair to stand on end.  Roach's argument is that mechanics tells us about
the 18th century idea of what constituted an emotion, how fluid motion led to
gesture.  Cary also referred to the chapter in Tom Jones in which Tom takes
Partridge to see Hamlet.  Partridge is the image of the naive theatergoer; by
Act 4 of the play he is terrified by the Ghost. The ability of the actor to
generate this reaction leads the audience to invest his/her stimulus with
naturalness, i.e. natural = convincing.  In contrast, Partridge liked the actor
playing Claudius because he spoke loudly and clearly on stage, everyone could
tell he was an actor.

Alan emphasized the importance of anomalies, that which doesn't fit with the
rhetoric of the times, that time or ours (an example of the latter being the
"points" basic to 19th century theater which seem so unnatural to us).  Cary
referred to Shaw's allusion to "points," in which two conflicting schemes show
themselves in his comments on Duse and Bernhardt. "Points" embodies the idea
that the passion is demonstrated in bursts, radical and intense expressions or
changes, that certain lines are operatic high notes in terms of physical
expression and emotion.  The concept entails comparativity and quantifiability.
 Shaw's organicism, Duse's blush, is the next stage in the point system:
connecting the dots with lines to create a sense of flow [is this akin to the
modern acting concept of a character's "spine" or "throughline"].  Typically
Shaw's comparison is taken as craft (Bernhardt) vs. affect (Duse), but there
are paradoxes: I) Duse's action is very precisely, vigilantly crafted and 2)
the more organic or holistic or natural Duse is in performance, the more she is
different from her "ordinary self"; the more complete is Duse's presence, the
less she is like Duse.  Audrey commented that the instantaneous ability to go
to depths of emotional intensity is the mark of great acting, and finding where
that is in the body bypasses thought.

Cary noted in the Helena Faucit material the repeated motif of images of faces
seen just before death, revealing an emotional connectedness to death which
made him feel jinxed since everyone associated with the essay dies. Audrey
suggested that for her this was a way of keeping the emotional juices alive.
For her, Cary offered, the deaths around you serve to create you as an actor,
leading him to ask of the Clarke material: what is it that forms these
characters? The narrative about Katarina, for ex., is accompanied by an
elaborate discourse on educational theory: Can it account for how being tied up
awakens sexual energy?  What are the assumptions about character Clarke is
offering?  The Stanislavskian paradigm of character, which only gets fully
articulated because of the century of speculation that precedes it, is that a
character is not only a life, but a continuity of life and a life that includes
roads not taken.  Are we in that paradigm and what is its precise shape?  What
are its implications for us when we work with actors on scenes with different
vocabularies for understanding character?  There is a discontinuity between us
and the 16-17th centuries, or even the 18-19th centuries, which means that the
data about earlier performance and our understanding of character must be used
with caution.

Our next session involved the performance of various scenes from Shrew: the
tying of hands scene (which included enthralling [!] performances by our guests
and a promising debut by our not-so-fearless leader Alan)