(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);  the wooing scene;
the road scene;  and the final scene;  each done more than one way to show the
variety of choices available in performance.  Our discussion revolved around
Kate's character, touching on questions like the extent to which the scenes
afford Kate opportunities as opposed to merely suppressing her (it was noted
that the scenes included the two in which Kate hits people); the extent to
which she chooses or embraces the actions the dialogue suggests rather than
merely accommodating herself to them; also what is Petruchio's reaction at the
end-shame?- exultation?

Alan's session followed up on some of these questions by focusing on closure at
the end of the play, using three videos to flesh out options for staging the
last scene.  Where does each leave us? The 1594 A Shrew presents one of the
trickiest textual problems in all of Shakespeare because it contains the
conclusion of the Sly framework (which the Folio does not).  The standard moves
in performance are either to eliminate Sly altogether or insert some of the
material from A Shrew.  Rarely is the Folio presented as is.  One recent
production eliminated the last 10 lines, making it all a dream.  Alan laid out
the five interpretive options on Kate's penultimate speech: 1) Shakespeare blew
it-it's too long, especially for the conclusion of a comedy; write it off to
inexperience;  2) Parody-the ideas are ridiculous, so the play should generate
laughter at the speech;  3) A site of contestation-there is no irony, Kate and
her female audience embrace it; the anti-revisionist interpretation.  According
to the Beane essay in The Woman's Part Kate is a shrew, a figure out of step
with the patriarchal order, tamed, reclaimed for society having learned her
lesson, however unpalatable that is to modern audiences;  4) Those on stage
understand the speech as 3), but Kate winks to us that she's just giving the
men what they want to hear;  5) same as 4) except Petruchio also understands
what Kate is doing; the couple has had a breakthrough the others have not had,
and we, too, are encouraged to look beyond the patriarchal world.  Much of the
meaning of the scene is conveyed through the hand/foot configuration, by the
climactic kiss (the 3d in the play), and by the exit of Kate and Petruchio. All
options should be generated by the entire play up to this point.

All three videos play the speech straight, without winks to the audience: 1)
BBC (early '80s;  dir. Jonathan Miller, John Cleese as Petruchio.  Sarah
Biddell as Kate).  This one is closest to the Folio version, though it ends
with a hymn (Psalm 129, which Dan observed was appropriate to Miller's vision)
which is Miller's invention and omits the penultimate lines about the wager.
Michael observed that Kate plays her speech as revenge against Bianca, while
her gestures made it seem like a performance, certainly not a lobomotized Kate.
 Clare said that the long speech gives Kate power. Miranda noted that the fact
that the couple was seated equalized them and that their embrace was warm. Alan
felt that a major choice was not having Kate and Petruchio depart, which leaves
a sense of community that is totally different from the Folio where the
breakthrough is with the departing couple.  Another major choice is the degree
of Petruchio's anxiety/confidence over what Kate will do.  Cary felt the song
does reprehensibly what the whole production does in forcing a harmony that is
not in the script.  2) Zeffirelli (1966).  He heavily cut the scene to insure
that Elizabeth Taylor gets equal time, part of the star system.  He omits
reference to the wager, and Kate's exit and re-entry.  Kate's physicality is
emphasized (Kurt: esp. over the other women, forcing them in).  Ellen: She
doesn't give the speech as an act of obedience.  Ed: This version eliminates
the two commands and has Kate initiate the speech. Audrey: Kate wins by
departing first.  Sheila: To show this in class you must explain the off-stage
relationship between Burton and Taylor. Michael: the public nature of these
events is emphasized;  it is much more about male one-up-manship in front of
the whole community.  Audrey: in the first video Kate's dignity is the source
of her power, while here it is her physicality.  Alan: The late action of the
play follows the falconry speech which Zeffirelli omits.  Audrey: He builds
suspense through silence.  Ed: He simplifies the audience response.  Paul:
There is tension over whether Kate could break back into her old self.  3)
Stratford (1981; dir. Dews [?]).  This tape of a theatrical performance
includes the Sly material, leaves in reference to the wager, brings in Q
material, without any connection between Sly and Petruchio, other than the fact
that Sly has learned to tame a shrew and will proceed to tame his wife.  Ellen:
 It is mere male wish-fulfillment to bracket the play with the Sly material.
Cary:  Adding the Sly plot is useful because it gives us one audience response
that we reject and it unifies us against it [how to decide if it repulses the
audience or licenses it to feel the same way?] Alan:  the Q material is without
irony.  People add the Sly material at the end for the sake of closure (F
starts with Sly but ends without it).  In S. St. 18 (1988) Marjorie Burns
defends the F version with the incomplete Sly story. Without it the point may
be anti-climax.  Clare, in response to Alan's question about Kate and her
father, stated he wants anyone she can be happy with.  Cezarija: does Kate's
theatricality suggest insincerity, killing them all with kindness?  Michael:
The moment with Kate removing her hat read as "don't ask me," then decided if I
can trust you, I'll go along. Her speech also gave her more power because of
the different stage levels. Eric suggested a resemblance between Kate's
appearance and early Elizabeth I.  Ellen:  Her speech was a female performance
for the male gaze, a performance that could go on forever.  Cary:  The hat
moment was a sign that they were trying for mutuality.  Alan:  The Arden
Shakespeare sees Kate's speech as geared to Petruchio's question: in going
beyond her charge, Kate articulates her new sense of bond with him.  [Chaucer's
Clerk's Tale redux?]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, January 20

We began with a session with Audrey, warming up with Tai Chi exercises [I'm
told Audrey will distribute at a later date a description of each of the
exercises.]  Next were the sound exercises: taking the four sounds-oi, ga, pa,
s-s-s-and having them driven by a variety of emotional states, first lying on
the floor.  The aim is to find the sound in the body and let the body move with
it: What kind of creature is this sound?  Then, conversation with a partner,
question and answer with conflict, then react to yet others, then to fire in
the world, and then to soothing rain.  Next was scene work: first reading the
paraphrases to one another, then getting on our feet and trying to up the
stakes using our own words, then pushing and pulling one another.  Some
comments: Paraphrase points up how important getting some lines correctly is;
pushing and pulling helps locate the tension between the characters and
stimulates the intensity of the individuals;  it's safer with Shakespeare's
words, the paraphrase taps into scary feelings;  the exercise helps discover
the latent aggression in the scene;  also helps discover where the character is
pulling as well as pushing or where the character thinks s/he is pushing but is
actually being pulled.

Alan's session:  We first discussed the logistics of the February
presentations.  We need to communicate with the Folger or with Alan re the
schedule.  The large group that will have Saturday and the others that are
sharing Friday need to allocate the time by negotiating with one another. Also,
note that there is a Thursday night session in March.

With respect to the production of Shrew we had seen the previous evening Alan
raised the issue of postmodern productions, e.g. those of Jo Anne Akalaitis in
this country and Phyllida Lloyd in England.  Alan sees these as emphasizing the
fragmentary-different scenes with distinctively different looks-as vs. a linear
progression.  Could such an approach define a production, esp. in terms of
design choices?  Miranda:  There is a difference between the post-modern and
the gimmicky.  The former reveals new things about the play, while last night's
production was clutter, though fun.  Ed:  The postmodern reconstructs the text,
sees more in it. Kurt felt the costumes in the production provided a tightly
argued logic-contemporary Italian-and were not merely eclectic.  Julia saw some
eclecticism, even though all Italian.  Ellen:  The production's presentation of
a slick, photogenic world is precisely what theatergoers clap for, but it's not
clear how the couple fit into that world.  Alan: The production picked up on
the emphasis on clothing in the play, an emphasis found in other plays and in
Jonson, but was the show genuinely exploring it or just conspicuous display?
Clare:  The production missed the human development which is in contrast to the
glitz.  Ellen:  There was a suggestion, not developed, of Petruchio moving away
from the world in his not wearing leather.  Kurt:  But he didn't wear leather
at the beginning either;  did he develop?  Michael:  Kate's inner value was
lost at the end by putting her back into fashionable dress.  Julia noted the
pastoral motif of the camping scenes, but felt the absence of leather in the
final tableau was not enough to distinguish the couple.  Ellen compared The
Duchess of Malfi-"I'm going into a wilderness"-like marriage-no map.  Alan
noted that inexperienced playgoers get much from costumes.  He was confused by
Kate's costume in the last scene;  referring to the scene with the tailor and
pointing out the lack of connection between the mountaintop dress and the last
scene he asked, when did Kate got those final clothes?  Dan: in the final
speech Kate didn't know who she was speaking to;  there was no sense of
direction there.  Clare found the emotional rush followed by conviviality
jarring.  Eric noted the reversal of gender roles:  men in corsets, women as
dominatrices;  is this upside down world real or a matter of style?  Kate and
Petruchio were normal while the rest of the material world went nuts.  Ed R.
pointed out wasted possibilities like the laptop computer, Baptista as a
businesswoman; because not much was done with them (e.g. dynamics between Kate
and Baptista), they turned out to be gimmicky. He wanted the different moments
to be linked or developed.  Could have used the business as a way of orienting
the different characters.  Audrey noted the loss of having Baptista as a woman
because of the lack of vocal command.  She reported her informal audience
survey, which included one respondent who was a friend of the costume designer
who was asked to come and start clapping.  Clare noted that several people
clapped because others did:  It was fun.  Paul offered that clap is a social
disease, but rehabilitated himself by suggesting that Baptista as a woman
offers potential for a new take on patriarchy (e.g. moments like Amanda with
the gentleman caller).  Kate in the last speech was in an identity crisis. It
made many different statements.  The fragmentation of it could have been
powerful precisely because of her uncertainty, it could have been an effective
comment on modern life and marriage.  Alan:  Where applause is earned the
moments are wonderful, but often moments are directed for applause, a
tradition, Michael suggested, in the theater.  Cary:  Tableaux and actor
moments historically produce applause (e.g. Maeterlinck's The Blind-there the
discovery moments can generate applause otherwise rather unconnected to the
play).  Kurt: if the costuming were so central, the logic of the show should
feed into it, but despite the applause there was a negative value put on it.
Alan agreed that there was not much thought put into it, e.g. Gremio does not
fit in leather.  Ellen:  The fashion motif is a substitute for the Induction
and Epilogue.  It brackets the production by asking the audience to take it as
we will.  Audrey:  The energy went into the design and props, but the actress
playing Kate in this production hated it (Miranda observed that she was
wonderful in other productions.) which produced the sense of release in her
last speech.  The audience hushed when she went into an emotional level never
reached before (The production never asked her to).  Comparing this with the
Henry V we saw, it's clear Michael Kahn comes to directing from an aesthetic
sense which is rarer.  Ed Isser: This play was a disaster; Kahn's was more
problematic.  Audrey:  A useful way of comparing productions is to ask what is
the world of this play? Bill:  Our efforts to adduce interpretations from
costume designs when the play is there to say something about characters shows
that the production is dying at the heart.  Post-modern productions work better
with postmodern scripts.  Cary: the economics of theater produce a very short
rehearsal period that works against integrating the script with character
development and design elements.  The fact that the actor who played Petruchio
had played the role before further diverted attention from character.

Alan asked what the effect of our working with the various scenes was.  Ed
Isser saw more interesting choices here.  Alan:  What's the effect of cutting
Hortensio's lines in 4.5? Bill:  It puts everything on Kate without any defined
focus of character.  Audrey: the production showed a lack of direction.  That
Gremio was good (in the comic mode, but with integrity) suggests more could
have been done with the others.  Sheila called it sound-bite directing, frozen
in that moment with no nuance.  Bill:  play the costume.  Audrey:  does it make
the play more accessible to an audience that finds the language difficult?
Kurt found tension between the farce mode frequently employed, while the end of
the play suggested it was all more serious.  Ellen:  in the wooing scene she
approached him until he told her it was a done deal.  Cary:  where does her
impatience come from in the wedding?  It needs to be set up in the prior scene.
 Paul:  why is Kate frequently moping?  The production didn't explore that.
Julia expected a designer wedding, but it was very conventional;  missed an
opportunity for satire and motif development.  Alan:  In A Shrew Kate makes
explicit that she's going to take this chance to get married, a potentially
magic moment. There are trade-offs in having this in:  the gain, a lot of fun,
the loss, character.  Michael noted the resort to extra-textual humor instead
of exploiting the potential for humor in the text.  The play ought to send you
out with a conflicted guilty pleasure over which is a better relationship,
theirs or ours.  Audrey:  we must decide priorities; just finding good in what
you see is not good enough if you care about theater and its possibilities.
Sheila:  The reaction of the 6 year old was valuable; everyone else in the
audience should be challenged.  Audrey:  It was a young audience's production.
Ed Isser:  My child is moved by Olivier. Kurt:  The decision to use center
stage for visuals pushed the action downstage, even onto stairs (Audrey: that's
the strong space), which gave the production an in-your-face tone, with great
potential.  Clare:  But the audience was blank.  Miranda:  The image on the
wall was from Redbook magazine's search for the sexiest husband in America-that
was he.

After lunch, a session with Cary in the boardroom.  To recap:  His focus is
situating the documents of performance history in the particular aesthetic,
cultural and historical assumptions of that time, which is both a caution and a
qualifier about using those documents. The corollary re acting/character:  the
way character and acting are conceived, what they mean, and how they are
described (vocabulary) are connected.  How we think of acting, the
post-Stanislavskian paradigm, is not quite articulated, esp. re acting
Shakespeare, even though extensively elaborated.  Taking as an example the
cruxes in Act 5 of Measure for Measure: how long before she kneels?  does she
accept the proposal or not?  There is not much 19th century performance
history, not that that history failed to answer those questions, but what is it
about our assumptions about character that makes us want to see that choice as
arising out of character/personality, that is a step in a character's
development or through-line, that makes us say they made the wrong choice or
she or the choice wasn't believable?  We think of a character's path, journey,
as is reflected in the verse work text books (Barton, Berry, et al.).  The
related issue is how I, as an actor, inhabit character?  Ellen:  how do we
handle miraculous transformations?  Julia: Lyly is out of Ovid where such
transformations were standard; Shakespeare's audience was used to much more
radical transformations than he offers.  Ed Rocklin:  Is there a paradigm shift
in this regard between 1580s and 1610s? Cary:  Bertram Joseph's earlier
argument [Acting Shakespeare] was that Elizabethan acting was all rhetorical
with no inner life.  Marvin Rosenberg said this was true, but not of
Shakespeare's characters.  We as readers can both accept the rhetorical
tradition and assimilate character to our psychological notions.  The standard
through-line is what do I want or fear? Transformations can be explained in
terms of dropping defenses against what s/he fears in her/himself.  Ellen:
This is true of Angelo. Paul:  The text gives us a chart of the character's
choices, but in a moment of choice there are alternatives, e.g. could Bertram
respond in some other way than doing what he does or saying what he says?  That
potential allows for what looks like a different choice late in the play.  The
best productions lead us to think it might be different;  Hamlet might have
killed Claudius at prayer tonight.  Kurt: pick the other choice so you'll know
what the range of choices is.  Young actors' characters are often too
monolithic so change is unbelievable.  For example, they ignore Kate's
attraction to Petruchio, but, of course, this is a psychological explanation of
character.  Sheila:  A text-based perspective doesn't need coherence the way an
audience needs it.  Cary:  In mainstream theater there are limits about what we
can believe about a character; even where there is change, we must believe it
could happen.  Clare:  What's the relation between actors' choices and
characters' choice?  Isn't the emphasis on choices itself a modern idea?
Ellen:  In MM the audience tracing the implications of choices is crucial.
Cary referred to the common approach that everything you need to know about
character in Shakespeare is in the dialogue, that the oral quality and semantic
meaning carry the emotion of the actor.  Long speeches don't reflect decisions
already made, but working through and arriving at them; it is their emotional
journey that is important, the decisions happen on, in, through, during the
line.  The question then is what do we do as actors to make credible
characters? Kurt: Elizabethan actors just said the words is what that argument
means.  The counter-argument is that there was a sense of interiority.  We
could test this by just saying the words.  Cary:  One prominent approach is to
just find all the oral, metrical qualities of language, not worry about
character, action, feeling.  The argument is against interior, emotional
quality.  This is the perspective of Barton, Berry, and the Players of
Shakespeare series-not anti-emotion, but it is found in the lines and they
(Elizabethan actors) did the same thing we are doing.  Caroline: what about the
realism of Burbage's Hamlet?  Ellen:  Every age thinks it's more natural.
Paul: Performances that talk literature are different, but there is a
continuity in good acting seeming natural, against strutting, fretting, and
mouthing.  Alan:  How much is technique and how much is natural?  Ed Isser:
Stanislavski goes on endlessly about technique;  much of the work is on
externals that must be married to inner work.  But the emotional grounding is
worthless without a mastery of technique, which is essential.  Cary:  The verse
can be seen as the vehicle for the important matter which is the character's
inner reality, which is what makes the character credible to audience.  Kurt:
The issue is whether emotionality is required; technical mastery is required.
Audrey:  You must tell the story, but that could lead an audience nowhere.
What is it the audience experiences from the story?  And where does technique
come from;  what is the geography of emotion within an actor?  Dan:  You must
explain the actions in modern terms though they are given in early modern
terms.  You must come up with new ways of explaining the language without
changing the language.  Cary:  That is done in part by decisions the characters
appear to make.  How to embody this character, make this believable?  We invent
an inner life, journey, set of understandings, etc., or we cut.  To do the play
is to solve character; to say the lines organically.  Ed Rocklin:  In the 1610
Oxford performance of Othello the most moving moment was Desdemona's death.
Marlowe is considered inferior possibly because he wasn't trying to do the same
thing.  Perhaps Shakespeare was part of a paradigm shift, which means that the
early plays cannot be read the same way.  Audrey:  What about Brechtian
alienation?  Marlowe's characters are sympathetic in one scene and different in
the next.  Julia:  That is another way of looking at the play, without a
through-line, recalling Aristotle's point that there can be plot without
character, but not vice-versa, a strange idea for us.  Audrey:  Could we
examine Shakespeare in this new way, with last night's performance only a
partial step toward this?  Cary:  is it even possible for us to conceive of a
different mode of performance?  We work within a shared sense of character,
motivation, psychology-the emotionalist mode of performance.  There are modes
of acting (e.g. the Method) that insufficiently channel character through the
dialogue.  How to address the question of why the Duke in MM does what he does?
 Structuralist approach?  Emotionalist, etc., or by reference to his childhood?
 Earlier view was based on a set of biological deterrninants that did not
translate into a credible understanding of character.  Our emotionalist view
fails at times to work in the channel of Shakespeare's language.  Technique can
work to channel emotional energy through the play's language, but if that's
true, what do we mean when we say we are responding to Shakespeare's signals?
Can we operate within bur paradigm on a reconstructed Globe?  And, if we are
all reading with spectacles, how does that affect our understanding of
historical material (an issue W.W. Worthen raises).  Ed R.:  There is an
analogy to Hayden White here, in that every discipline talks as if other
disciplines have some truth.  Worthen's point is that it is not just
Shakespeare's text and character, but the understanding and conventions of
acting that are interrogable as well.  The risk is deconstructive paralysis;
actors are particularly susceptible to standing on some firm ground.  Ellen:
Inquiry is less attack-oriented than interrogation.  Bob:  The paradigm itself
is not monolithic.  Cary:  Can we begin to see limitations to our paradigm?
Shakespeare's scripts come out of a different paradigm which I endorse
assimilating. The answer is self-awareness.  Ed Isser:  My need is to make the
audience never accept the end.  Ellen:  Part of the point of reading old plays
is to make us think different things about our issues.  Difference can enlarge
our minds and that should be shared with the audience.  For example, it bothers
me we can't believe in conversion.  Cary:  Can we use the signals of the script
to fully dramatize Bertram's character as a 20th century conversion? Michael:
Bertram got what he wanted all along, i.e. to be like dad;  he gets an heir-it
has nothing to do with her.  Ellen:  Audiences have trouble seeing him as a
husband to her.  Miranda:  That resolution is troubling because it makes the
play all about Bertram, male desire, male need, while it is also about Helena,
about pure, unabashed female desire.  Overemphasis on his in a production could
efface hers.  Michael:  Are we as prepared to be as upset about her desire as
his?  Clare:  Who is "we"?  What is the paradigm, or single audience mind?
There is a range of responses.  Alan: Worthen takes on one claim of performance
criticism-the claim to have located the "truth" of the play in performance.
The energy of deconstruction matches the truth claims being attacked;
modulation of the truth claim will avoid paralysis.  Cary:  We should celebrate
the way we're talking about character, in part because it will make us
self-conscious in our teaching.  Because we are making texts with our
assumptions we should be cautious about the truth claims.  Alan:  Occasionally
we need to look at the spectacles.  Ed Isser:  The choice tree for actors means
(Cary) that every performance will only bear a distant relationship to the "ur
meaning" of the text.  Julia:  The director is a relatively recent arrival;
because s/he thinks about structure,  the actors are freed to focus on
character. Cary:  We must look at performance history as an effort to
understand the aesthetic assumptions it embodies.  He recommended Shakespeare:
Theory and Performance, ed. James Bulman (Routledge, 1996), esp. the Worthen
and Knowles' essays which look at actor training.  Cary's essay deals with
performance scholarship and its links to 1970s performance.

After the presentation of scene 2.5 from All's Well we had discussion. Michael:
 I try to impress on my class how important the audience's job is; the actors'
is over; experience has taught me that the class is most invigorating when I
turn it over to the class.  Re response to scenes: What did you learn?  About
relationships.  How?  Trial and error and comments from the observer.  What do
we know about this from the text?  e.g. the ages of the parties.  How to play
that, what theatrical vocabulary is available for that?  Another facet: what's
public and what's private, and how to decide that?  Mark Rose in Scenic Design
in Shakespeare views scenes as diptyches and triptyches in terms of the
sections of the scene;  that there are two different actions that comment on
one another.  Here both are attempts to separate Bertram and Parolles;  in both
halves two people are fighting over Bertram.  Re the kiss:  No edition includes
it.  We saw three different interpretations of that moment:  1) a spark in
Bertram which Parolles sees and so breaks it up;  something in Bertram attracts
him to Helena and only Parolles prevents it;  2) Bertram is colder, which is
why there is no kiss.  No suggestion of Parolles' intervening in the
Bertram-Helena relationship, because there is no need for it;  3) [sorry folks
I missed it.]  Handout describes a number of versions of the to kiss or
not-to-kiss moment.  In a 1973 Oregon Shakespeare Festival production (a
production in which Parolles and Bertram have a homosexual relationship) Helena
blew a kiss and Parolles intercepted it.  There are two facets: knowing the
range of options and what to do with that knowledge.  Michael: How to go from
the classroom to scholarship? His article on the play grew out of his
performing Shakespeare.  Another is on Parolles' presence;  it has a big impact
on the relationships between Bertram and Helena, and Parolles and Bertram.
Three options:  1) Bertram loves Helena but it is buried and Parolles' presence
keeps it buried;  2) Bertram's love is apparent and Parolles prevents its
expression;  3) Bertram doesn't love Helena at all.  His scholarship tries to
identify the really important choices, and takes two approaches: Look at what
productions have done in the past, and find labs where you can experiment with
scenes expressing various understandings.  [The following is a checklist of
other problems in this scene the staging must address, from Michael's notes:
Begin with the entrance?  How to make sense of the sir/tailor sequence?  How
deal with asides?  "I think [not] so."  What does Parolles do during the
Helena/Bertram interview?  Who speaks, "Where are my other men?  Monsieur,
farewell"?  How does Bertram change after Helena leaves the stage?  What kind
of exit do Bertram and Parolles make?]

Paul pointed out that in the scene Helena is now in upper-class dress which may
lead to a new perception by Bertram;  there may also be an earlier moment where
her dress was an issue.

We dealt with the textual cruxes by looking at what our editions said and
taking the easier reading, the one we felt could be played most easily.

What are the consequences for the final scene of the choices in this scene? A
cold Bertram here may not be recoverable.  Should we make easier choices?  If
Bertram has an attraction, how does the arc of the play change?  Historically,
productions have heaped Bertram's problems on Parolles and he can therefore be
recuperated by separating him from Parolles.  The problem is his most
despicable conduct comes in Parolles' absence, though his behavior there can be
accounted for because the stakes are higher for him.  Earlier he has no such
excuse, but he is being forced into this marriage to a social inferior.  The
action repeatedly pulls Bertram down and lifts Helena up;  the Countess and
King endorse her, mitigating the problem of social difference.

What difference does the embodiment of Maudlin as ugly make to the end of the
play?  Michael:  He's marrying her for mercenary motives.  Marriage in
Shakespeare is often sealed between men, not with women, but often not
communicated in performance, which typically dwells on love.

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

23-24 February 1996

by Dan Colvin
Friday, February 23

Although it has become customary to reconvene at 8:45 a.m. to begin our monthly
Institute meetings, it has by no means become routine. This month was no
exception, for we were once again anxious to catch up on our lives since last
meeting. But we soon realized that the 9:00 a.m. starting time was one to be
more honored in its observance than in its breach--we gathered at 8:15 for an
8:30 a.m. session. As we talked, it became evident that all of us were
excited--and a bit anxious--about this session, the one in which we
participants were to be responsible for almost all aspects. Audrey's familiar
call for us to move into the theatre came at 9:00. We entered, picked up a
variety of materials (including the minutes of January 19-20 which Bob and Eric
had completed so ably), and we were off.

As soon as we had formed our circle on the stage, Alan provided opening
announcements and took care of logistical matters. Cezarija volunteered to take
notes for the March and the April sessions, noting that she was on sabbatical
and "had more free time." After the rest of us had expresses our gratitude and
envy, Bill said he would be the respondent in March, and Sheila agreed to take
that role in April. Alan noted the handouts he had provided and commented on
logistical matters:

1.  We need a way of socializing with the five ACTER members, one which will
allow for the comfort of smokers and non-smokers. A compromise seemed to be a
nonsmoking beginning for our social time, followed by a time for those who
smoke or can tolerate smoke.

2.  We need to send a notation of our scenes along with copies of our scenes to
Rebecca at the Folger. These will be made available for the ACTER members, who
will be working with us on our scenes next month.

3.  Alan graciously offered to provide us with recommendations or supporting
documentation for personnel matters, noting, of course, that he will be able to
speak about only that which he knows personally. (We assume he will not share
with others some of the more humiliating or embarrassing moments from the
Institute.)

4.  The performance of A Midsummer Night's Dream at the Kennedy Center would be
at 7:30 that night; those taking the Metro would meet in the hotel lobby at
6:45.

5.  On the Institute bulletin board was a review of Bob Lane's recent--and
critically acclaimed--performance in The Scarlet Letter. Having seen Bob act
before us, we were not at all surprised that the writer commented on his
passion and intensity.

6.  The writing prompt for tonight's play would be the familiar one: "Choose
one dramatic choice in the play and discuss its significance."

Audrey reminded the participants that they should bring to the next meeting two
items: a poster representing the interior/exterior of their character and a
prop for their character. These will be available for the ACTER personnel.
Caroline then announced that Miranda had been asked to write program notes for
future Shakespeare Theatre productions, an appointment well-deserved, to be
sure.

Miranda and Caroline began what was to be an intense, informative, and exciting
two-day session, one which would be characterized by great displays of
imagination, team-teaching, and collaboration. After providing handouts which
showed the rich diversity of material available, Miranda announced that the two
would be discussing how to present Othello and The Merchant of Venice in urban
settings where there is significant diversity. Miranda spoke first about the
challenge of teaching Othello on a black campus. She said that she approaches
the drama not as being a racist play but rather as being a play about racism.
She noted the tradition of racist criticism (for example, Coleridge) which
continues even through modern editions (for example, Ridley's Arden). Her
pedagogical context enables her to ask important questions about the play, she
said: "Who owns Shakespeare?" "How relevant is Shakespeare or Othello today?"
"How do we deal with homoerotic literature or homoerotic elements in
literature?"

Caroline continued by telling an anecdote of a Latino student who, when asked
why she was taking Caroline's course, said that all educated people should know
Shakespeare; but after she got to the point in the course when she had to do an
oral interpretation of a passage, she said that she needed to drop the course
because she couldn't "speak" Shakespeare. The anecdote, Caroline said, said
much about her situation at Cal State LA: it is a very diverse campus, and the
students see Shakespeare as a talisman to help them achieve their middle-class
dream. Thus, she noted, she needed to provide more "traditional" approaches and
material; while recent theory needed to be marginalized, she still had to be
sure that Shakespeare did not become an object of idolatry. She emphasized that
it is important to elicit and to affirm student goals and to discuss cultural
issues (for example, assimilation or the problematics of cultural dominance).
The performance orientation of the course allows her to consider with the
students the matter of the "performability of culture." Caroline shared two of
her teaching strategies: all students are involved in oral interpretation of
the plays, and all students are required to create a "screenplay" in which they
"rewrite" a portion of a play. The screenplay helps students learn how "open" a
text really is. In the screenplay, students must make all the relevant
decisions: props, costumes, casting, camera angles, cutting, etc.; any time
period was acceptable as long as students could justify their choice; and
students must submit a one-page explanation/justification for the concept of
the screenplay.

Miranda moved into the video portion of their presentation by introducing the
two video versions of Othello we were about to see: the Olivier production and
the Suzman production. She noted that she had chosen to present clips of 4.1
(the "fit") for three reasons: 1) the performative opportunities for Othello,
2) the flexibility afforded Iago, and 3) the potential for racial stereotypes.
After we viewed the two scenes, Miranda led us in discussion. Quickly it was
noted and affirmed that performing the play in blackface is now anathema.
Audrey suggested that the Olivier version is a "stagy" production, while Paul
commented that we are seeing a "great actor from another time showing his
technique." Alan reminded us that the focus on the epileptic fit can be a
problem in terms of audience response. After Miranda remarked on Suzman's
ability to emphasize Iago's racism, Clare suggested using the Olivier version
with the Leavis essay (F. R. Leavis, "Diabolic Intellect and the Noble Hero,"
in The Common Pursuit [1952]) to show how Olivier based his antiheroic version
of the character on scholarship. Enlarging our sense of diversity, Sheila noted
that her students resist seeing the play as being about race, possibly because
they choose Emory instead of the black colleges available around Atlanta.
Miranda reminded the participants of the difference between non-traditional
casting (which attempts to make a comment on the role) and color-blind casting
(which makes no such comment)--See Miranda Johnson-Haddad, "The Shakespeare
Theatre at the Folger, 1990-91" Shakespeare Quarterly 42,4 (1991) 472-84; note
especially her footnote comments: "I am here using the term 'nontraditional
casting' as distinct from 'colorblind' or 'genderblind' casting, the
distinction being that nontraditional casting involves casting an actor of a
race or sex not usually associated with a given role in order to make a point
about that role and/or to shed new light upon the play. In colorblind or
genderblind casting, the actor playing a given role may be of a race or sex not
usually associated with that role, but the director is not attempting to make a
point about the role or the play. In other words, we are meant to notice and
reflect upon a nontraditional casting choice, while we are meant to 'ignore' a
colorblind or genderblind casting choice. (Given the central themes of Othello,
it seems to me that any casting choice that involves race will in most cases be
perceived as nontraditional rather than colorblind.)

Miranda and Caroline then broke the participants into four groups for their
exercise: two on The Merchant of Venice and two on Othello; each group was to
cast the play and to consider what concerns were involved in casting. After the
groups reported on their conclusions and their responses to the assignment,
Miranda and Caroline suggested that such assignments help students consider how
they think about race (and about the "other"). The group raised other issues:
can there be a colorblind casting of Othello? how do we construct our identity?
how is the matter of race and/or diversity related to the language of the text?

Caroline asked the group for feedback regarding their concern over diversity
(in all its manifestations) and the teaching of Shakespeare.

After our morning break, Cezarija and Bill were the next to take center stage
for their consideration of using videos for teaching Shakespeare.

Cezarija introduced the session by telling us that she was interested in the
scene she would be showing us (Twelfth Night 4.2 - the "dark box") for two
different reasons: she had trouble visualizing it, but she also wondered why
Shakespeare would use this particular kind of humiliation. Using Leggatt's
suggestion (Shakespeare's Comedy of Love. London: Methuen, 1976) that Malvolio
is a metaphor for people trapped in love, Cezarija said that she would opt for
a balance of pathos and humor in the scene. Having laid the foundation, she
then showed the three versions of the scene: 1) the 1969 production directed by
John Sichel, 2) the 1979 production directed by John Gorrie (the BBC
production), and 3) the 1988 production directed by Kenneth Branagh. Discussion
on the three noted the following: #1--was lighthearted, with the dungeon being
far from dark; #2--didn't explore what happened to Feste (Paul commented, from
his production, about the importance of reactions in a scene; he suggested that
the scene is not about imprisonment but about Malvolio regaining love.);
jokes, saying that to a great extent the attitudes changed at the beginning of
our century. Cezarija noted that in comedy there is always some pain. Cezarija
closed by asking the participants for other questions beyond those listed on
the sheet she distributed.

Bill then moved to the second half of the presentation: a consideration of
cinemagraphic techniques (vocabulary), for which he provided a handout
describing various effects. For his demonstration, Bill chose to use King Lear
in part because various versions of the pay are easily available on video; in
particular he chose 3.4. After summarizing the Olivier version (mainly because
time constraints would not allow him to show the clip), noting the kinds of low
shots, billboarding, aggrandizing close-ups, "classical cutting," and
overcoming sound characteristics of that version, Bill introduced the BBC
version. In this production, only two camera placements were afforded (A and
B), at times producing a humorous effect (for example, playing the game "How
many actors can we fit in this frame?"). Rather, he noted, cinemagraphic
techniques should support acting and directorial choices. The Brook version, on
the other hand, uses external techniques to show what is going on internally.
In this production, framing is quite important, and the sound never obliterates
the verse of the play. Bill also noted that material had been placed on the
lens in order to distort reality (the focus of the camera)

For our lunch time enjoyment (and fearing that we had nothing to occupy our
time), the Folger staff invited us to hear Alan Young speak on "The Folger
Hamlets," part of his larger project, "Hamlet and the Visual Arts - 1706-1900."
Professor Young, providing a beautiful and intriguing graphic display,
discussed how his private database had been transformed into a public tool for
documenting presentations and representations of Hamlet and Hamlet throughout
the last few centuries. Noting that the database provides a means for him both
to store and to trace visual material documenting the popular reception and
interpretation of plays, he explained, with examples, the nature of the
particular fields he has established and the means of indexing the material.
Users of the database can search, for example, using either the Riverside
citation or the Hinman TLN or can search by actors, directors, or characters.

After our lunch break we returned to the theatre for our session with the
Measure for Measure group (Ellen, Edward, Ed, and Dan). Ellen opened the
session by telling the participants that this session would entail performing
various scenarios from Measure for Measure, scenarios which would later be
juxtaposed with other exercises. Various acting groups were formed and assigned
interpretations: for 1.1, Kurt was to play the Duke; Sheila, Escalus; and Bob,
Angelo; for 2:3, Tom was to be the Provost; Miranda, the Duke; and Julia,
Juliet; for 2.4, Bill was to be Angelo and Clare was to play Isabella; for 3.2
Eric took the part of the Duke and Cezarija played Lucio; for 4.3, Paul was the
Duke and Caroline played Isabella. At their request, Alan and Audrey were also
assigned parts; they were also given 2.4, with Alan probing the complexities
and Audrey confronting the conflicting aspects of Isabella. After the groups
had rehearsed their scenes, they performed the various interpretations before
the entire assembly, much to the delight and the enlightenment of all. Then,
all participated in a discussion of their experience. In reference to the
presentations of 1.1, it was noted that sometimes the most interesting
interpretation of a scene or of an acting moment is not necessarily the best
choice for the play as a whole. In conjunction with that insight was the
awareness, not new but still significant, that the way in which 1.1 is set up
allows the audience to see the play as a testing of power. Many noted in regard
to 2.3 that there was an interesting Juliet (Julia's "southern charm" had
transformed Juliet into a debutante) made possible here; it was also noted that
this scene sets up 3.1. The actors involved in 2.4 noted that there was a real
problem in doing only part of a scene (which is strong) when that part provides
an Isabella who is not strong at that moment. That insight reminded us that in
choosing short scenes or parts of scenes, it is important to allow a kind of
"metonymic action" to take place, with even the small portion actually
reflecting the whole scene. Those acting in 3.2 noted that they found it hard
to play the opposites--it was much easier and more natural to play it as if
Lucio was a liar than as if the Duke actually was as profligate as Lucio said
he was. The opposite was true of those acting in 4.3--they found no resistance
in either assigned interpretation. Edward provided the transition to the final
section by leading a discussion of the kneelings and pardons in Act 5, an
exercise based on Maguire's discussion of mandatory and optional action.
Participants noted for Edward where there were possible kneelings in Act 5, and
noted the causes for such kneelings (e.g., the entry of the Duke, requests of
the Duke, pleadings for pardons); for each Edward listed the location and cause
on a chart. Then the group listed the pardons (though there was some question
of exactly what constituted a pardon). Once the chart was completed, Edward
gave the group a verbal prompt--which could be a writing prompt for a
class--"One thing that is becoming clear to me about this scene is ..." Clare
observed that if the Duke isn't pardoned, the play ends with the Duke in
charge--a reading she wouldn't like. Paul saws that the kneelings and pardons
could be read as a restoration of order, but that post-modern readings seem to
obviate that possibility. Audrey suggested that there could be a link to the
pardons in The Tempest, a suggestion that because the Duke learns there is a
new day of law coming. The final section of the group's presentation was a
group reading of Act 5, with parts assigned to all participants. (The original
intention had been to have the various pairings from earlier perform the
"forgiveness" scene from Act 5, but time did not allow that.) While all noted
the excellent reading of stage directions by Alan, many commented on the
difficulty of doing a "cold" reading from the folio as well as the fact that
just reading the words isn't enough. The experience again raised the matter of
how Isabella could ask for pardon at the end, and brought agreement that the
point at which Isabella speaks for Angelo could be on of the most moving in all
of Shakespeare.

The Friday evening play for this session was A Midsummer Night's Dream
presented by the Royal Shakespeare Company at the Kennedy Center. As we were to
discover later, the production was to be one of the most interesting we had yet
seen during the Institute, and one which would divide us along unfamiliar
lines.


Saturday, February 24

Saturday morning returned us to a more humane schedule, with coffee and
pastries at 8:45 a.m. and the sessions beginning at 9:00. After we had
assembled, Alan announced that for the March session the ACTER group would not
be able to meet with us after 3:30 in the afternoon. Therefore, on Friday we
will work with Audrey on some Macbeth matters and on Saturday we will discuss
how we will be putting all of our material in order in May and how we intend to
print everything. A World Wide Web site is one possibility for making our work
accessible.

Kurt was next to present his project, one for which we had been asked to
memorize a sonnet the night before (after we had written our response to A
Midsummer Night's Dream). He introduced his segment by noting what we had been
thinking about for most of our time together: the problems of performance
exercises. They are, he reminded us, quite time consuming, and they tend to
ignore contextual issues. Kurt had developed this exercise out of his scansion
work with his students. Developing Barton's exercise (Robert Barton, Style for
Actors [Mountain View, CA: Mayfield, 1993]) of "Queen for a Day," Kurt combined
cultural contexts (an awareness of the significance of monarchy and its
prerogatives), scansion (using sonnets, which were more regular than most of
the dramatic verse), and performance by having students imagine they were
appearing before the monarch (Queen Elizabeth or King James, as the case may
be) to offer the gifts of a sonnet. In order to accomplish this, Kurt created a
"protocol" for an audience with the monarch and then had a colleague from the
English Department, Dr. Braddon, come to class dressed as Queen Elizabeth, the
room having been rearranged to "defamiliarize" the context. Then Dr. Braddon
(accompanied by her students) entered and held court. Kurt noted that the
exercise emphasized how "gendered" the court was and how ethnocentric modern
American students' notion of egalitarianism is. With that introduction, Kurt
then moved us into the exercise, opening the curtain to the inner stage to
"discover" (oh, how he resembled Prospero!) Queen Elizabeth and her lady in
waiting, Lady Clara. The group stood immediately and did obeisance until Her
Majesty allowed us to be seated. Eric was the first to present himself to the
Queen, providing a perfect rendition of his sonnet; Clare and Bill followed in
suit, with the Queen commenting on what wonderful subjects she had. Ed was the
final person to make a presentation, reciting a passage from Measure for
Measure. The session closed with a madrigal--The Triumph of Oriana (1601).

Julia moved us into the next segment, a consideration of the relationship
between Renaissance music and performance. To begin, Julia handed each of us a
score from John Bennet's "All Creatures Now," each with a single part marked.
Julia asked us to listen to the tape of the piece and to answer each of the
following questions: 1) Who is your character? 2) What are your emotions? 3)
What is the relationship among the characters? and 4) Who is the leading
character? After we had done our assignment, enjoying the piece greatly as we
listened, we discussed the parts, and considered the issue of polyphony--the
significance of music using many voices/lines and exploiting the interplay and
collaboration of the various singers (how like our Institute!). Julia suggested
that polyphony can be seen as a paradigm for thinking about Renaissance drama.
Using Love's Labor's Lost 5.2.195-235 as an example, Julia assigned four voices
to the parts of the King, Berowne, Rosiline, and the Princess, asking, "Pretend
you don't know the play. What do you know about the characters and about the
dynamics?" After the reading, we discussed the sense of mirroring and the
playfulness of the scene. Julia noted the importance of the masque form here:
characters are masked, pretending to be other, but the artifice is obvious and
delightful. The entire group then chose Julia and Paul to read lines 211-229.
We noted that the steady beat of the play is similar to that of polyphony,
where each individual has only his or her own part, thereby necessitating a
sound structure as well as a sense of give and take (and a good ability to
listen). Julia here reminded us that many of the boy actors were trained in
choirs and took that training to the theatre when they acted. Next Julia
provided us with Tallis' "Loquebantur variis linguis," a pre-Reformation piece,
and asked us to consider what religious ramifications we noted in the music;
many noted the sense of individuality and polyphony--an anticipation of the
Reformation. In Love's Labor's Lost 4.3 Julia noted the similarity of the
scene's structure and that of a madrigal, suggesting that finally the play is
about unanimity. Julia finally argued, as opposed to Cary Mazer's point, that
we might think about character in terms of a musical line--character residing
in relationship rather than in psychology. She ended her session with a
beautiful piece: Gibbons' "What is our life?" (1612).

Following Julia's wonderful presentation, the group discussed the implications
of the material from both Julia and Kurt. It was noted that we would benefit
from looking at Kristen Linklater, Freeing Shakespeare's Voice, (New York:
Theatre Communication Group, 1991). Audrey reminded us that iambic is the meter
of the heartbeat, and is not noted on television very often. Alan observed how
well the musical paradigm fit Lyly; he also suggested that the hierarchical
mode revealed in Kurt's exercise gives insight into the end of Measure for
Measure. Paul said that role-playing often leads students to ask questions
about context, for understand roles demands such knowledge. Once again we
commented on the problem of time--that we never have enough of it in our
classes (or in the Institute). Kurt noted how sonnets change when a particular
auditor is produced in a play. There was general agreement in the group that it
is important to understand the masque form--the intimacy between audience and
actor--and that Kurt's exercise is most helpful for getting the students to
understand the power structure in Shakespeare's day.  Kurt emphasized that he
intends his exercise to replace other (and many) items (e.g., a lecture on
scansion, a consideration of politics, and a focus on the nature of
Shakespeare's company), thereby partially obviating the matters of coverage and
time. Audrey reminded us that you can break a class into groups, each focusing
on one aspect of an interdisciplinary approach (e.g., music, dance, food).

After our morning break we gathered to perform our ritual dismemberment of the
play we had seen the night before--A Midsummer Night's Dream. Ed, who had
wisely noted of the production that "It wasn't Richard II!" emphasized that
acting is to do, not to say, and noted that 3.2 was solved by actors acting.
Several commented on the use of doors: Miranda--they didn't make sense, but
they were used well; Caroline--perhaps they were an entrance into the
imagination; Edward--the rising doors didn't make sense, but they worked;
Clare--good tribute to Brook's Dream. Eric thought there was a significant gap
between the directing and the design. Caroline expressed disappointment with
Egeus, especially at the end. Bill and Alan agreed on the value of holding back
on the performance of the Pyramus and Thisbe play, for it gives meaning to
Hippolyta's line ("Beshrew my heart, but I pity the man." [5.1.290]) Edward
observed that the three endings were tied together, not just repeated. The
group then discussed the trajectory of Oberon's laughter concerning Titania's
votaress's death; many felt that the laugh, though difficult to bear, provided
an opportunity for Oberon to grow during the play. For Audrey, the magic of the
play never came through in the production--it was "pretty" and choreographed,
but not really effective. Sheila agreed, saying that she saw a good deal of
talent on stage, but "got no spirit from it." Bob thought that the play aimed
at the theme of "men changing," and he felt that even with its flaws the change
was evident. Ellen disliked the proportions on stage, sensing that the actors
were dwarfed and therefore became less significant. Paul noted that the actors
didn't respond to their environment, but Kurt expressed joy about how the play
was wonderfully "presentational." Eric, however, remained troubled at how
"safe" the play was, and Ellen felt that Puck's statement ("If we shadows have
offended") was ludicrous, for there was no way they could have offended. At
that point, Alan asked if we could explain the split in our group, for the
lines were not drawn between English and Theatre people, but no one could come
up with a sufficient explanation. Sheila noted that text and image were at odds
in the production. Miranda agreed by suggesting that nightmares were lurking
beneath the surface of the play, but in the production they only lurked. Edward
observed that the play ends with people not revealing their dreams (i.e., they
don't see the relationship to their own lives). Clare returned to the matter of
the split in our reactions and our discussion by saying that it was not so much
that we were talking about a play or a production but rather how the production
affected us. The conversations turned, thus, to the "hermeneutics of
suspicion," and to the matter that to be enchanted is to be enchained, with
Kurt encouraging the group to think about Wendy Steiner's The Scandal of
Pleasure (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1996). Bill ended the time by observing,
with general agreement, that this was the best discussion we had had thus far.

After lunch, the "Syllabi Group" took over the presentations. Sheila began by
talking about her material from the Emory British Studies Program. She noted
that since she had to work up a syllabus for our Institute project, she decided
to work on the course she will actually be teaching. She distributed the
syllabus for the course and explained the nature of the course and the
constraints of the structure. Since the class will be meeting in England, the
students will pretty much be limited to whatever books they can carry;
consequently, the use of the Riverside Shakespeare is not possible. Moreover,
since she will not know ahead of time what video material will be available,
she will need to remain fairly flexible. The class will be meeting for eleven
times, with each class meeting being two hours. The group will be seeing three
Stratford plays (As You Like It, Macbeth, and Troilus and Cressida), with three
classes on each; they will also watch an entire video on each of those plays.
Her intention is for the students to be as interactive as possible with the
text; she will work to move between the text and theoretical/critical issues.
Sheila noted (with many of us voicing our envy) that her students generally
were quite motivated, and thus she expected them to come to the sessions quite
well prepared. Her As You Like It work will have students focusing on a
particular character; in their consideration of Macbeth they will balance
theoretical and dramatic issues; and with Troilus and Cressida she will attempt
to teach students to read Shakespeare in a new way, especially by using Valerie
Traub's essay. The course is designed to make the students raise the important
issues themselves; to that end, they will consider, finally, the role and
status of Shakespeare in our culture. Along with a final writing project,
Sheila will probably have the students add a "How I wrote this paper" appendix,
allowing them to consider there marginal matters that may be of some import to
them.

Paul continued the presentation by providing some background on Marlboro
College. The only requirement there, he said, is that the students be able to
write well. Interdisciplinary courses are quite popular at Marlboro now, so he
constructed a seminar using interdisciplinary approaches to Twelfth Night. Paul
led the group through his syllabus, noting some of the possibilities in each
area. He also emphasized the a real problem with an interdisciplinary approach
such as his--and with this syllabus--is that there is often not sufficient time
to give anything more than a cursory investigation of topics. Moreover, this
course is intended to foster basic skills (e.g., research, writing, critical
thinking), and thus is to become "all things to all people."

Clare concluded the examination of syllabi by presenting material from her
classes. She works from a collaborative approach, having the students produce a
dramaturg's book (she provided a wonderful example of one from the Colorado
Shakespeare Festival) as their major project. In this case, students would be
working with Hamlet and A Midsummer Night's Dream. At the beginning of the
project, the class is divided into five groups: director, critical historians,
production historians, designers, and "teachers." Students have time in class
to work on their projects, as well as needing to go to the library to consult
reserve material. After Clare's presentation, others talked briefly about their
courses. Audrey had had her classes research each play and then bind the
material together to give to the director. Eric has each member come to a
collaborative meeting with one image (to be evaluated at the end). In a kind of
brainstorming, people noted that there are video records of plays available at
Lincoln Center, Stratford-upon-Avon, and Stratford, Ontario.

Following the afternoon break, Eric, Bob, and Tom began their consideration of
Shakespeare's language. Treating us as his class, Eric explained that he would
be dealing with a common fear --the fear of Shakespeare's language. Before the
actual instruction began, Eric gave us a "warm-up" exercise (we were all
longing for one, since we were not able to experience Audrey's tortures during
the February session): we were to walk about the theatre while Eric called out
numbers, "one" telling us to walk as slowly as possible and "five" having us
walk as quickly as possible; when we met someone, we were to look at that
person and do a deep-knee-bend. After regaining our breath, we moved into the
meter exercises. Eric had us then move across the stage, emphasizing the right
foot, and reciting "I am" five times, reversing direction for the next set, all
the time keeping track of our pulse by feeling the carotid artery. He next had
us do an exercise which stresses the use of punctuation as well as helping
students drive to the end of a line: he had prepared cards with unfamiliar
Shakespearean text on them; the first reader was given the card and had to read
the selection, followed by the second and then the third reader (how quickly
that third reader learned to understand and speak the lines).

Bob next provided us with examples of how he deals with language in his
classes. He recommended for our use Randal Robinson, Unlocking Shakespeare 's
Language (Urbana, NCTE-ERIC, 1988). One of his major goals, he told us, is to
show the students that they do indeed have the capacity to understand
Shakespeare's language. (For his more advanced students, he noted, this
exercise gave them a means to talk about Shakespeare's language and about
language in general.) Using the opening Prologue from Henry V, Bob talked about
how to go beyond teaching students about traditional matters of language
structure to talking about why and how rhetorical structures are important.
Discussing his checklist "Shakespeare's Language--Opportunities and Problems,"
Bob pointed out how he deals with matters such as sentences, diction, verse,
words, punctuation, pacing, sound, styles, and body language.

Tom concluded the group's consideration of Shakespeare's language. Before he
began his presentation, however, he passed around a copy of the new book
Shakespeare on the Screen, while people hurriedly copied down bibliographical
information. Then he focused our attention on Titania's "forgeries of jealousy"
speech from A Midsummer Night's Dream 2.1 as a good passage to use in a
classroom situation. Tom distributed copies of the speech and had us note (as
students) what words we knew, thought we knew, thought we did not know, and
were sure we did not know. As a classroom exercise, he would have the students
then get into groups to prepare lists of words the group had marked, eventually
producing a class "master list" which would indicate familiar and unfamiliar
words. Tom then distributed his own master list (created during an enforced
stay with the OED) in which he noted difficult words, its line number, its
definition in the passage, its common modern meaning, and an indication of why
it might be confusing to students today. Finally, after helping us through the
passage, he showed four video versions of the speech--the 1935 Max Reinhardt
version, Peter Hall's 1968 version, the 1982 Joseph Papp production (from
Shakespeare in the Park), and the 1981 BBC production. Unfortunately, by this
time our time was over and we retired to our hotel to prepare for the evening
performance, a Shakespeare Theatre production of All's Well That Ends Well. As
it turned out, the production lent itself to much discussion, and Kelly
Magillis's performance could only be called remarkable.

And so we were off, to prepare for another session of "Shakespeare Examined
Through Performance," this time in March.

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

23-24 February 1996

by Tom Gandy

                        "Here we are all by day; by night we are hurled
                        By dreams, each into a several world."
                                                          - Robert Herrick

Friday Morning (Early Friday Morning)

So here we were all again at the Folger this February, 1996, with a session
that each of us, it seems, faced with at least some degree of trepidation. We
bore sole responsibility for the February meeting, with Audrey and Alan
relaxing and, one would hope, enjoying the weekend.

The meeting began with a stimulating presentation by Caroline and Miranda about
teaching Othello and Merchant of Venice in urban settings.  This discussion was
of considerable interest to me for a rather odd reason.  I teach in a rural
area of the country, and though the community has a large minority
population--mostly African-American but increasingly Hispanic--few of these
students make it through public schools and two years of lower-division work
before they get to ETSU-Texarkana, which is an upper-level institution.  The
issues of race nevertheless weigh rather heavily when I teach Othello.  My
mostly white classes are sensitive to the issue of race in that play, and when
we see productions where the cast of a play is racially mixed, especially those
which are cast without concern for color, they inevitably have questions.

Miranda presented us with one possible way to approach Othello:  Tackle the
problem head-on and teach it as a play about racism.  Discussions, she says,
can become lively when the play is looked at from this perspective. Who "owns"
Shakespeare, anyway? Where does the potential for racism reside?

Two video clips of 4.1, one from Olivier's 1965 Othello and one from a 1987
South African production, help Miranda bring this issue into sharper
perspective.  A repugnantly racist Iago in the South African version taunts
Othello as he suffers a seizure. "Dost thou mock me" can take on a very
different sort of meaning, can't it?

Caroline has many Hispanic students who feel that Shakespeare is culturally
important to people striving to become active participants in our society.
These students may feel that they cannot "speak" Shakespeare because of their
accent.   I have the same problem in east Texas, with native born Texans, so
Caroline's presentation was both relevant and somewhat amusing to me:
Everything she said was directly applicable to my students, but I had to
mentally substitute "good ol' boys" ("good ol' persons?) for "Hispanic."
First- or second-generation college students have a lot in common with first-
or second-generation immigrants, it would seem. Caroline spoke of the ways
Shakespeare has sometimes been "used" by society, either in reality or in the
popular imagination, as an upper-crust phenomenon.

As one teaching approach to Merchant of Venice, Caroline  requires students to
write a five or six-page screenplay for one scene.  Students can set the scene
in any time period, but they must write a brief explanation of why they made
the choices they made in their screenplay.  Their screenplay can focus on
either gender or racism as an issue.

Miranda and Caroline also gave us an exercise in which students, in groups of
four, do an intentionally provocative casting of Merchant or Othello.
Afterwards, students work on understanding stereotypes (gender, race, or
otherwise) based on their casting exercise.

As with Miranda's presentation, the question in many ways comes down to "Who
owns Shakespeare."  I can't wait to teach Othello this April!

Friday Morning (Less early)

Cezarija and Bill concentrated on using video in the classroom.

Cezarija showed versions of Twelfth Night 4.2, in which the imprisoned Malvolio
is visited by Feste disguised as Sir Topas.  Cezarija's interest in the scene
stemmed from the particularly cruel form of the humiliation inflicted on
Malvolio.  The different video scenes showed that, through staging, the
audience's reaction to the practical joke can be manipulated to vary the
relative amounts of humor and pathos elicited.  Cezarija uses the scene in her
classes to raise many questions concerning the play.

Bill distributed an outline for an ambitious work-in-progress on Shakespeare in
film..  He used video of a scene from Lear to illustrate camera techniques in
filming.  The BBC version (dir. Jonathan Miller), and the Peter Brook version
produce strikingly different effects.  The almost ludicrous limitations of a
two-camera approach imposed on the BBC version as opposed to the Brook version,
in which the camera technique is carefully managed in order to reflect
directorial decisions about the play.  I would like to encourage Bill (in his
spare time) to hasten this project to its completion.  The outline looks
terrific, and we who have heard Bill speak on the subject are familiar with the
depth of his enthusiasm for and knowledge of the subject.

Lunch in the Boardroom

Alan Young talked about his project involving the visual representations of
Hamlet in the Folger collection.  This is a major part of a larger work Young
is doing on visual representations of Hamlet from 1709-1900.  These still
representations--paintings, watercolors, photos, etc.-- can provide modern
audiences with a remarkable view of Shakespeare in performance. Verbal
descriptions of staging can only go so far in letting us know what an early
production was like.  Projects such as this will provide generations of
students with a window into the plays previously inaccessible to them, or
practically speaking, to any but the most devoted and most persistent, such as
Young.  His presentation reminded me how greatly we are indebted to researchers
such as Alan Young (or our own "Alan," for that matter), and to institutions
such as the Folger, which has made its collection accessible to him, and
through him, to all of us.

Early Friday Afternoon

Measure for Measure has a lot to say about power.  The play's last scene
stresses the formal, official aspects of pubicly asking for pardon and publicly
receiving it.  The scene is virtually athletic when looked at in terms of its
many possible kneelings and risings.  Almost everyone in the scene does one or
the other.

Ellen, Dan, Edward, and Ed worked with us on this difficult play. During the
month prior to this session I had often thought of this group, how daunting
this task was for them, and how difficult their presentation was going to be.

On Friday afternoon, I came to the realization that in true Folger Institute
fashion, we were going to do most of the work, and they were going to sit back
like a quartet of over-educated Pucks and watch us mere mortals present scenes
or parts of scenes from Measure.  Dan's minutes concentrate on the various
interpretations we gave our scenes.  After our scene work Edward dealt
specifically with the many kneelings and pardons, both textually explicit and
conceptually possible, in the last scene. Again, the group was called upon to
suggest various locations for kneelings and pardons in the scene.  The session
was a profitable experience for us all, or at least for me, and I must
grudgingly thank the Measure group for making us do most of the work.

Friday Evening

We saw the RSC's A Midsummer Night's Dreamat the Kennedy Center.  Some of
us liked the production a lot, some of us liked it okay, and some of us
liked it less.  (Personally, I loved the way the production used the
lighting to fill the stage.  I came to the realization that I had perhaps
been seeing too much outdoor festival Shakespeare, which is usually lit
with enough sheer bright white candlepower to shag a fly ball under.)

Dan's notes on Saturday's discussion of this production are recommended
reading.



Early Saturday Morning

What better way to begin a Saturday morning than a visit from the Queen!

Kurt, in grand theatrical fashion, began his presentation with a rather dry
description of "Queen for a Day" exercises which teachers can use to
acquaint students with the nature of Elizabethan society. He explained how
he gets a colleague to portray Queen Elizabeth for his students. Then Julia
cranked up the boombox, the curtain parted, and voila, Queen Elizabeth!

You just had to be there, I guess.  And who am I to judge, anyway?  I must
have seen ten or twelve productions of Macbeth, and I am still surprised
every single damn time when Banquo's ghost materializes at the banquet.
But, as the saying goes, when that delightfully real looking and regal
Queen Elizabeth appeared, the mule spoke for me.

Julia followed Kurt with a beautiful presentation on vocal music which I
personally found somewhat disheartening because everything she said seemed
so relevant and so important to Shakespeare, and I know virtually nothing
about it.  Thanks to Julia I now know a great deal more than I did.  (The
beauty of being ignorant is that everything you learn represents a
tremendous leap forward.)  I've listened with enjoyment to a lot of
renaissance music, and thanks to Julia I will spend some time thinking
about it as well.


Later Saturday Morning

Dan's minutes refer to our discussion of the previous evening's production
of A Midsummer Night's Dream as a "ritual dismemberment,"  a perfect phrase
for most of our discussions, but actually slightly less apt for this one.
His notes are excellent, and I defer to them.


Early Saturday Afternoon

The "Syllabi Group" of Sheila, Paul, and Clare shared Shakespeare courses
past, present, and future with us.

Sheila's participation in Emory University's British Studies Program will
allow her to take a fortunate group of students to England this summer.
Sheila stressed her belief that students should discover Shakespeare
through first-hand experiences, rather than merely as "received wisdom"
(nice phrase, that). Sheila stresses group work in her courses.  She also
likes to show films or videos in their entirety, rather than in scenes or
briefer segments.

Paul's interdisciplinary approach to teaching Shakespeare offers many
pedagogical possibilities.  By encouraging students to look at Shakespeare
from a variety of different perspectives, his 6-credit course gives
participants the opportunity to look at various social issues as they are
treated in Shakespeare's works.  A wide range of topics emerges from this
approach:   Story-telling as a social function, the dynamics of language,
music (Is music a Language?), geography (Just where the hell is Illyria,
anyway?), religion and its relation to culture, psychology, alcoholism,
gender, the acting profession and the role of the theater in society.  As I
listened to Paul's presentation I was reminded of how these topics
invariably surface during a semester-long Shakespeare course.  Paul opened
up for me the possibility of approaching Shakespeare's works through these
issues, instead of treating the issues, as I have usually done, as
important sidelights to the plays.

Clare's course emphasizes a dramaturgical approach in which the class,
working in small groups functioning in roles--performance historian,
teacher, director, critic--addresses a variety of issues related to
Shakespearean performance.  Students thus look at particular aspects of a
production--costumes, directing, performance history, lighting, sets,
audience education--from different perspectives and in considerable detail.
The resulting class project is, in effect, a dramaturg's book, one of the
best uses I have seen of classroom publishing.


Later Saturday Afternoon

The "Language Group" of Eric, Bob, and Tom concluded the February sessions
by investigating different aspects relating to Shakespeare's language.

Eric opened the final February session with a vigorous warm-up exercise on
iambic rhythm in which the group variously crept, walked, and virtually ran
through the Folger Theater as Eric called out numbers from one to five
representing the various speeds at which we were to move.  When we met
another group member we made eye contact and squatted at a speed
corresponding to the speed at which we were walking.  This is all more
difficult and more fun than it seems when described. (I suspect Eric
enjoyed even more than we did.  He certainly found it easier.)

>From this opener, Eric moved us into an exercise involving feeling our
pulse and walking to the basic iambic rhythm under which we spend our
lives.  From this, we went to a neat little exercise reminiscent of the
children's game of "Gossip," in which a brief saying is sent around a
group, undergoing corruption as it progresses.  In Eric's exercise the
process is reversed.  The first participant reads a selection from
Shakespeare from which all punctuation has been removed, allowing the
following reader to begin the disambiguational process by listening to the
rhythm of the passage.  This reader then reads the passage to a third
person, this time verbally supplying the punctuation until, in the mind and
mouth of the third reader, the passage emerges completely disambiguated.

Bob presented us with a list of language issues confronting Shakespeare
students, using the opening chorus from Henry V to illustrate how he raises
these issues with his students.  Echoing Caroline's comments from the
opening session of the preceding morning, Bob said that he was concerned
with convincing students that they have the capacity for overcoming the
language difficulties posed by Shakespeare's works. Something Bob said in
passing was for me one of the most valuable observations of these sessions:
He stressed that in reading Shakespeare he taught students to go up in
pitch when they came to a comma, thus preventing the feeling of closure or
finality that can deaden a reading.  This is such a very simple thing, and
yet it is one that I had never heard of, thought of, or been taught about.
I tried it out in my survey course the first thing Monday morning as I read
something by Wordsworth, something already dead enough without my adding to
its numbness by bad comma pitch.  I can now personally testify that Bob's
tip works.  Thanks, Bob!

I concluded the presentations by sharing a book that I--and, by
coincidence, Cezarija--have come to value greatly as a resource for using
film and video.  If you need the bibliographical information, the book is
Shakespeare on Screen by Kenneth Rothwell and Annabelle Melzer
(Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc., 23 Leonard Street, New York, NY  10013).
The ISBN number is 1-55570-049-7.

Dan's minutes have a good account of my presentation, but I would like to
call your attention to one thing in my stapled hand-out.  Eric Binnie
supplied me with a compilation of a hundred or so words that can be
particularly confusing to beginning readers of Shakespeare.  I made
everyone a copy because I found it so useful, and then in the haste of
finishing up a long day I forgot to call your attention to it.


Saturday Night

We saw All's Well That End's Well at the Landsburgh.  Here (with genuine
apologies to Kelly McGillis) is my Top Ten List of things to say about this
production:

10.  Now that was a production of All's Well.
9.  Kelly McGillis was something, wasn't she?
8.  Everyone in the audience secretly loved it when they blindfolded
Parolles and bound him helpless and spreadeagled between the poles.  I
could practically smell the leather from where I sat.  Oh, for whips and
chains!
7.  How much did you say those tickets were?
6.  Kelly McGillis was something, wasn't she?
5.  Gee, I wonder why I've never taught this play?
4.  I could practically smell the leather from where I sat.
3.  How old is Kelly McGillis, anyway?
2.  Who were those masqued men?
1.  What could Shakespeare have been thinking?

And then, it was back to our several worlds.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes, Reflections and Commentary

21-23 March 1996

by Cezarija Abartis and Bill Taylor

Your notetakers for March, who compiled and edited these minutes, Cezarija
Abartis and Bill Taylor, changed the procedure slightly and integrated
commentary within the minutes.  In effect, we have abandoned objectivity. We
have two (2, II, deux) good reasons.  1) We cannot be objective.  b) Kurt
proposed the two types of minutes; he is now a doctor; argal, we don't have to
listen to him.

Thursday evening, March 21

Guests: the ACTER company--Gareth Armstrong, Sarah Berger, Sam Dale, Joanna
Foster, Phillip Joseph

We convened at 7:30 in the Folger Theatre.  We missed Sheila, who would not
be able to join us until the next morning.  There are three essays by
Michael Warren to read for April.  Five of the sixteen of us have already
seen the ACTER Macbeth.  In our reviews of the play, be kind we were
begged, since the actors had seven more performances.  Or perhaps after our
comments, the actors would change their performance completely, Audrey said
reassuringly.  We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Tom for his
masterpiece in three fits.  We applauded him and then we applauded Dr. Daw,
who learned yesterday that he was official.   (Tom shook his head.  "And we
thought he was one of us all along.")

Joanna Foster, Sarah Berger, Phillip Joseph, Gareth Armstrong, and Sam Dale
were with us and we went around the circle on-stage twice, each saying our
first names sweetly and clearly.  The five guests would let us observe the
process of rehearsal (and we would the next day present our rehearsal for
their scrutiny) of a scene about rehearsal.  The scene they would rehearse
before us was 1.2 of MND so that we could see what questions they ask of
each other and of the roles.  Casting decisions were first; they made US
cast it:  Bill noticed that Phillip, who was terrified of doing Bottom,
dropped out of the discussion and began sneaking a look at the scene,
moving his lips as he read Bottom's lines;  Gareth was Peter Quince, Sam
was Flute, Joanna was Snout, Sarah was Starveling, and Audrey was Snug.
Actors (like Institutinarians) would like to postpone the work indefinitely
by taking a break for coffee and cigarettes, although smoking is not always
allowed in rehearsal rooms.  Phillip sadly observed, "It's a draconian
world."

The question of doubling in roles came up.  Gareth thought
post-rationalization and serendipity were operative principles, but there
was one more:  the Risibility Factor.
Romeo and Juliet can't move after they die.

At 8:13, after the delaying strategies ran out, the reading of 1.2 started;
at 8:18, their rich, mellifluous reading ended.  They asked:  Where are we?
Who are we?  Should we rough-stage it or go to the next scene?  Sarah said
if they found the truth of who those characters are, the humor would come
from that. What about funny voices--and do they all come from the same
village?  They're artisans committed to the solution of aesthetic problems.
Sam said,  "They really do their best with all the wit and sincerity they
can muster."


Sarah's comment came in response to a discussion of what approach they
should take to the humor.  Some of the actors, whose characters had few
lines in 1.2, did not have a good feeling for the "throughline" of their
characters, and that was the main reason they went ahead to 3.1.

They read the rehearsal scene about the problems of acting and art (3.1)
for the throughline of character (8:24 - 8:27).  Quince starts the first
scene (has a calendar,  has written the play, is more meticulous) and
Bottom, already moving into the driver's seat, starts the second scene.
What about their names? Quince is fruit, makes a bland jam.  Snug is
appropriate for the joiner and perhaps has associations with sleepiness.
Bottom is a weaver, a fool, and later an ass.

During the discussion of names, it was Alan who mentioned that Quince is a
carpenter. Nobody picked up on that, but in his case, his occupation as a
"maker" is probably more important than his name.

The mechanicals have come after work probably, to rehearse for a
competition that might select them to perform at a wedding.  They're
rehearsing secretly, so no one steals their ideas.

They stood up to do a reading of 1.2 on their feet.  They tried Irish
dialect for everyone,  but only very briefly.  Bottom moved to look over
Quince's shoulder; Starveling moved to her mentor, Bottom; Starveling asked
Bottom to scare her with his horrible lines.  Snug softly told Quince she
is slow of study and repeated the line "That would hang us, every mother's
son," half a step behind everyone.  What about the joke on the French
crowns?  Are they embarrassed, or do they laugh, or do they not get it?
There's no way to convey that joke to a modern audience and it's dangerous
for an actor to laugh at a joke on-stage when an audience doesn't.  Joanna
thought that Quince may be the only one to get the joke, and each character
deals with that.  There was much discussion of the archaism in the last
line "Hold, or cut bowstrings."  Keep mum; keep your word or you'll be
caught with your pants down.  Paul read the note in the Arden edition:
"The precise meaning is unclear."

Sarah said that for those actors other than Bottom and Quince, the actor
has to have a clear sense of who the characters are.  Starveling seems
young and gullible or he's dragged in to play Thisby's mother, perhaps a
gangly, awkward teenager--but this encroaches on Snug's territory and on
Flute's territory.  Flute plays the pretty Thisby; he's an adolescent with
a breaking voice and a bum-fluff beard.  Sam read the line with a promise
at the end:  "I've got a beard--coming."  Joanna thought Snout was a bully
boy, so Audrey thought Snug should be near Snout.  Should Flute arrive
late? or Snug?

Much of the above discussion arose in relation to the question of whether
Flute has done a good job or a terrible job of casting.  Is Flute good
casting as Thisby, or dreadful casting?  Then similar questions arose
regarding all the others.

Regarding the paragraph following: Bill had just finished writing a note to
himself that most of the things they were discussing at this point would
have been, in most productions, already decided by the director before the
first rehearsal, and then imposed upon the actors.  No sooner had Bill
written that, when they raised the question and dealt with it very
directly, and that is what led to the discussion of various kinds of
directors.

Ed enjoyed and found interesting the way the actors negotiated for the
spotlight (by discussing which character should arrive late) in a subtle,
non-aggressive way.  Sarah said, everyone needs to know who they are. Gareth
said, we all want the other four to be wonderful because we're responsible.
They hand the directorial baton to each other, give each other ideas; they know
when to leave each other alone; they want to get the best out of each other;
they are working with peers they respect and so they listen to each other.
Gareth said a director can be an ogre, a guru, a prat, and that designers can
be as tyrannical as directors.  Audrey said that British directors are more
tyrannical than American directors. Phillip said that directors should
themselves have acted.  Joanna said a director should realize a note may not be
appropriate at a certain time but may be fine for the actor to hear later.
Sarah said a good director listens to an actor and brings out more than they
thought possible. Caroline, delighted, said this sounded like faculty talking
about administrators.

Sam recalled an experience with a good director who asked him to write out
longhand the incontrovertible facts about the character as well as what
others said about him four times in the course of rehearsal.  He found out
more and more each time.

Eric asked how the five got picked.  A board of associate directors in
Britain chooses the principal actor; one associate director and the actor
choose the second actor; they choose the third, and so on.  They rehearse
for 6 weeks and perform for 8 weeks on the road, so they must be
compatible, flexible, versatile, energetic.  When they think about bringing
actors into this troupe, they consider seriously their ability to cope with
classes.  Gareth, generally speaking, prefers to teach by himself; Sam said
he likes a few shared classes, likes to rock 'n' roll with his colleagues;
Gareth still prefers to teach alone.

Phillip asked, "If you had to teach this scene, how would you show students
this is funny?"  Sam started with Shakespeare's warmth and love for these
characters.  Ellen said this was the comic analogue for all the scenes in
this play about love; they're all fools but the lovers don't know they're
playing a part.  Caroline said that Snug would be the student who would ask
if that would be on the test, and Bottom would be the student who waved his
hand begging to be called on, saying, "I know, I know."  Alan said that
when Starveling said to Bottom "play it to me and scare me" that Bottom
took off.  The character playing Moonshine, most timid, is the one who puts
down the courtiers.  Audrey said this is topsy-turvydom--these mechanicals
put on a classical play.  Alan brought up the punctuation of 1.2.96 in the
quarto (the authoritative version of this play):  "We will meet, and there
we may rehearse most obscenely, and courageously."  The comma after
"obscenely" is deleted in  modern editions.  Sarah thought the comma makes
space for a laugh.  "I will roar, that I will do any man's heart good to
hear me" (1.2.64). Sarah suggested that the comma makes space for a roar.

At 9:47, Audrey and Alan said we must adjourn because some of the actors
had to drive a distance.  We were grateful, grateful, grateful for this
added session.

As Bill recalls, just before Alan and Audrey's suggestion, Phillip had
suddenly sensed that the group's energy was flagging.  He said, "Are you
getting bored?" which was certainly not the case.  Bill, for one, however,
was getting very tired, and Phillip, the consummate reader of audiences,
realized it before Bill did.


Friday, March 22, 1996

We had our morning coffee and pastries and mingled with our guests.  With
trepidation, we broke up to rehearse our prepared scenes before our guests.
These were the assignments: Sam--Julius Caesar; Phillip--Measure for
Measure; Joanna--Taming of the Shrew; Sarah--Twelfth Night;
Gareth--Pericles.  Of course, the trepidation was unnecessary.  Gareth
coached Eric and Cezarija in 5.1 of Pericles and they found him wonderful;
Gareth had to leave for the dentist because he broke a tooth and did not
want to drool during the Friday night performance, so Audrey came in to
coach Eric and Cezarija and she was most wonderful; Gareth returned and he
was yet again wonderful, and after that, out of all whooping.  We trust you
all had whooping experiences.


Sarah worked with two different couples doing scenes from Twelfth Night:
Tom and Bill as Toby and Andrew in 1.3, and Miranda and Sheila as Viola and
Orsino in 2.4.  She was remarkably helpful to each pair, though in rather
different ways.  With Tom and Bill, she worked, not on physical business,
as Bill, at least, had expected, but on analysis of character, character
relationships, and situation.  Looking at these two men very seriously
resulted in their becoming much funnier,  and yet much more
affecting--especially Andrew.

With Sheila and Miranda, Sarah placed greatest emphasis upon the verse, and
letting the verse and the imagery direct the action and the relationship.
This was extremely effective.  Throughout the rehearsal of both scenes,
Sarah was able to make all four Folgerites feel extraordinarily at ease and
free to experiment.  As a result, Bill was able to be sillier than he would
otherwise have dared as Andrew, and Miranda felt free to deliver an
extremely moving and effective rendition of "Patience on a monument."

We convened about 11:40 in the theatre and Alan passed out a three-page
handout, "Draft Entries from A Dictionary of English Renaissance Stage
Vocabulary," with its many citations of "as at," "as to," "as from," "as
in," etc.  Alan confessed that in 1991 he realized that vocabulary,
language (like Eric, Bob, and Tom in their project) is what he's been
exploring in his scholarship over the years, that this major insight was a
long time a-borning.  What was the shared vocabulary between the stage and
the audience, and how much of that is accessible to us at a remove of 400
years?

Alan passed out a tiny (2 1/2" x 4 1/2") handout that raised big issues.
Sidney's "The Defense of Poesy" (1595) shows him to be a shrewd observer in
his witty skewering of the rationale that lies behind a typical romance of
the 1570s, which he interprets accurately, if scornfully.  The costumes,
props, and dialogue make it possible to recognize the locale without a
physical set. A positive interpretation of the necessity for such scene
establishment is presented in the Prologue of Henry V, in which the Chorus
exhorts and pleads with the playgoer to use imagination.

Alan studied 20,000 stage directions, teased out of 600 plays.  When an
actor walks on-stage, where is the actor coming from and what is the actor
entering to, and how does the audience construe that space of the chameleon
stage, which does not have a set? How does the significance of the locale
relate to the transaction of the scene?  These questions were inspired, in
part, by Alan's noticing the three stage directions for vanishing in The
Tempest.  In the surviving plays, 90% of the stage directions come from the
authors, but they are not necessarily what the actors did.  Playwrights,
particularly professional playwrights, would not, however, write stage
directions that actors could not play.  Antonio and Gonzalo look at the
same space differently; Tamara describes the woods as beautiful; Gloucester
thinks of the place as steep.  A costume (an overcoat) and a prop (a torch)
might signal the outdoors.  Paul explained that in Antony and Cleopatra,
Egypt could be signified by Egyptian dress and the actor's carrying two,
sometimes three, cats under each arm.

Audrey said that the use of objects makes the play longer, less
free-flowing.  Clare said that the stage directions are,  first of all,
directions for actors,  and secondarily for the audience.  Audrey said the
scene direction gives a description to the people who make the choices, the
actors.  Paul said that in many scenes, the setting is not crucial.  Sarah
said that when it is crucial, it's reiterated throughout the scene.  Alan
said the stage is neutral until the entering actors define the space. On a
bare stage,  the introduction of an image in rich language is especially
noticeable.  Lady Macbeth's carrying a light does not work as powerfully on
a modern lighted stage.  There are no distinctions between the numbers of
props used in tragedies and comedies.  In the stage directions we are
allowed to eavesdrop on a conversation between the performers, writer, and
audience, but we can hear only tantalizing fragments.  In some cases we
know we don't know; but in what cases are we wrong about what we think we
know?  Sarah said the stage has come full circle; it cannot compete with
movies in realism, and so can be minimalist.  Audrey said both Greek and
Renaissance theater were in the open air and undelineated space, and maybe
theater deteriorated when it moved indoors.

We convened at 2:00 and Phillip kindly was volunteered to deal with
scansion.  But to begin, we went around the circle on-stage saying our
first names; the second time we were to do it more loudly.  And then the
game began.  Phillip clasped his hands and pointed at Sam and said, "Sam,
one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten."  Before Phillip
got to "ten," Sam had to point and aim and name somebody else. No "er" was
allowed. Then the pace was made more challenging--shortened to five. People
rose and stood behind their chairs as they were out. The game stopped when
four were left sitting.  (Alan seemed to be on the way to winning; he was
far and away the best at it.)  Phillip apologized for the "silly game," but
we all loved being boisterous. It's a way of bringing up the energy and
volume of a class.

Phillip passed out copies of Sonnet 2, "When forty winters shall besiege
thy brow." We went around the circle, each person reading one line, loud,
so the person across the room could hear it, and not dropping the voice at
the end of the line.  Then we read two lines at a time, and then to the
period.  We were not discussing the sonnet but rather hearing the lines.
We were to take a big breath and not pause at the end commas.  Then we were
allowed to make our choices and pause at commas if we wished.  We read line
by line, overscanning it, making the iambic beat vulgarly regular.  From
overscanning, we heard that "livery" (3) was three syllables.  Then we read
it for sense and fluidity.  Is "warm" (14) a verb or an adjective?  An
ambiguity?

Going around the circle we read Sonnet 1, "From fairest creatures we desire
increase," one line at a time, keeping the energy up at the end of the
line.  We took turns reading to the period.  We read a line at a time
overscanning it.  Phillip said that with great jazz singing, the rhythm is
absorbed but doesn't disappear.

They spent quite a bit of time discussing various dialects, British RP,
American, Welsh, etc., which gave weight to their advice to use the accent
that is natural to you.  Sam and Phillip talked about the muscularity, wit,
and color that reside in your accent.  Relish the language.
We each had to tell our birthdays to the iambic beat: "November fourth, the
day that I was born."  "On August tenth my birthday falls each year." "My
birthday's on the twenty-sixth of June."

For the second meter exercise we counted off in pairs and were to compose
two lines of iambic pentameter in which one person described that morning's
breakfast and the second person completed the conversation.  I was so
enchanted with the poetry around me, I copied only two fragments:  "I had a
cup of coffee and a roll . . ."  "My jacket simply will not keep me warm."

We had a coffee break and convened at 3:10.  Still working with Sonnets 1
and 2, Audrey had us en masse choose a line and when we came to the end of
the line, we were to throw it with the arm.  For a variation, we were to
kick at the end of the line, then punch with a fist or hit with an elbow;
then we were to jump at the end of the line.  All these exercises put
emphasis on the end of the line--and upon feeling the language physically.

For recognizing iambic rhythm, Audrey has students beat ta-tum with the
fingers or slap the thigh.

Audrey wrote on the board lines from plays that do not scan as regularly as
lines from sonnets:

Fool, of I thyself I speak well. / Fool, do / not flatter.
That sucked / the hon/ ey  of/ his mu/ sic vows.
Let's be sac/ rific/ ers, but / not butch/ ers, Caius.
In this exercise she learned from George Amis, we were to assign stress to
each syllable, where 1 is the strongest and 4 is the weakest.  There is
some variation on the assigning of stress, but it does help the actors find
the stressed words and they see there are only one or two words to
emphasize in each line.

Tom uses an analogy with marching bands and concert bands when teaching
rhythm.  He tells his students, "You can feel the drum, but you shouldn't
hear it all the time."
Paul has students tap the foot then move on to syncopation.  Julia has
students hum (rather than recite) the lines, individually or as a group.
Eric tells students that, generally speaking, the 4th and 10th beat receive
the greatest emphasis.  Bill has students write limericks of their own, but
some can't hear the beat; Audrey suggested tapping the rhythm on the back.

Alan told us that we had two choices of subject matter for our papers on
the Macbeth performance that evening: 1)  What are the advantages or
disadvantages of a minimalist Macbeth?  2) What is a distinctive choice in
the production?

Audrey played a hard-won cassette of Cicely Berry speaking her exercises
for relaxation that Audrey acquired in St. Paul's from an eccentric
publishing house in an alley and up a winding staircase.  What Cezarija
most remembers is "Slowly, do not hurry." Audrey had Ellen, Julia, and Eric
read 1.1 of Macbeth.  She tells her students, "You are detectives,
listening to the evidence.  What are the facts of this?"  From the audience
we noted foul weather; intent to reunite; an upcoming battle; Paddock
(still a Scots term for "toad") calls; it's day.  Maybe reread the scene
after all the facts have been noted.  Students can add sounds:  stamping on
floor for thunder, finger-tapping for rain, tearing a sheet for lightning,
cat meowing, frog paddock-mg.  Edward has a variation on this exercise in
which students put up their hands every time someone recognizes a fact.

For the second exercise,  group members read 1.2,  and the other members
were researchers, each with one book (a concordance to Macbeth, Partridge's
Shakespeare's Bawdy, C. T. Onions' A Shakespeare Glossary; the Old
Variorum, the Folio version, and a number of modern editions); Ellen was to
watch out for figures of speech.  The researchers would shout "stop" when
there was a note on the word or line spoken.  And there should be a scribe
to write down all the words and references that need researching.

Audrey's third exercise required us to work out for 2.3 the entrances and
exits on an Elizabethan stage.  We split into two groups and decided to
make use of the trapdoor and side doors and central door.  This was
problem-solving in action.

Saturday, March 23

There were pastries and coffee in the morning.  Cezarija is getting
spoiled.  She is coming to expect such treats when she enters her own
English Department.  Alas, there are only memos.
One announcement:  Ellen Summers has been made chair of her department.
Applause was clapped and condolences were moaned.

Sam worked with Macbeth's soliloquy "If it were done when tis done"
(1.7.l-28).  We talked about the purpose of a soliloquy. A soliloquy is an
inner truth addressed to an audience; it's "active," a debate with an
audience, not an address to a missing fourth wall; an actor may even
address lines to specific members of the audience to avoid a generalized
address; the audience is engaged internally even though silent; actors can
tell from the quality of the silence how engaged the audience is.  This
soliloquy, one of the best, is a tremendous journey; Macbeth talks himself
out of the murder in the course of the soliloquy; but Lady Macbeth  enters
and there's a re-persuasion.

This soliloquy has an immediate start, with a straightforward declaration.
Sam asked what sort of state is Macbeth in at the end?  Paul said it's not
a decision but a desire to do it.  Dan said he's moved from a visceral to a
moral level.  Sam said that this recapitulates Lady Macbeth's earlier
analysis of his character--that  he doesn't have the requisite
ruthlessness.  Has Macbeth concluded his speech or does she interrupt him?
Alan said the Folio has a period.  She completes the line.  Sam prefers
that it's an interruption.  Ellen agreed:  these two have so few
conversations together, and when they do meet, he breaks in on her, and she
breaks in on him.

We counted off in pairs for performing the soliloquy.  "A" reads the speech
to "B," who listens.  Every time "A" reaches a period, "B" says, "Do it,"
perhaps with varying intonation.  "A" must be affected, provoked,
challenged.  Then the roles are reversed.

After the exercise, Edward noted that the insistence is powerful; the
sentences keep getting longer; the vehemence is a sign of his energy to do
it.  Bill noted the escalation of imagery as the speech proceeds.  Clare
said it's as if Macbeth is speaking to Lady Macbeth on his shoulder, and
then she actually enters.

Phillip, who was "reticent about introducing silly games," taught us Zip,
Zap, Pow, which won us over completely.  Once again, put your hands
together, as if in prayer and point at the person beside you (for example,
on your left) and say "Zip." That person can point left, saying "Zip," or
reverse direction, saying "Zap," or point across the circle, saying "Pow."
If you hesitate or do not suit the word to the action and direction, you
are out of the game.  It's a concentration exercise that raises the energy
level of the group and makes much hilarity.

We read Macbeth's soliloquy 2.1.42-73 ("Is this a dagger which I see before
me"), one line each around the circle. Because students' voices fall at the
end, we were to stress the end.  Phillip heard a kind of "panicky drive" as
he listened to us.  Then we each read two lines around the circle.  Phillip
told us two more variations.  Just say the first word of the line and think
the rest of the line.  Or say the last word of each line of a sonnet, where
much of the meaning and emphasis resides.

We read one sentence at a time.  Phillip said, "Try to hold on to the energy of
the end of the line but read to the period. Keep the stage hot. Take out the
commas and read to the end of the sentence."  Each of us whispered one sentence
at a time.  People across the room should be able to hear us.  "Just pass on
information. Stop acting.  You don't have an accent when you whisper."  This
requires good articulation.  Then Bill whispered the whole speech to us as we
listened and did not read the speech.

We paired off and one person read the soliloquy while the other provided an
elusive dagger which the speaker attempted to follow. Then roles were
reversed.  This was a simple way of getting at some of the meaning of the
soliloquy.  It taught focus and concentration.  In the last reading of the
soliloquy, each person read a sentence, this time angrily. This gave us
permission to open our mouths and shout.

Joanna worked with 1.5.30-58 "The raven himself is hoarse." One-half the
class, ten of us, read Lady Macbeth's lines going round the semicircle, one
line apiece.  A messenger (played by Ed) comes in from a great distance,
and all the Lady Macbeths face him.  What has just happened?  What is her
state?  First she received the letter from Macbeth; then she speaks a
soliloquy in which she analyzes her husband; and then the third
element--the messenger from outside.  The rest of the class--about
eleven--formed a semicircle facing the Lady Macbeths and were spirits,
whose job was to whisper every time she invoked them and said, "Come, you
spirits."  It was an extratextual and extraterrestrial sound.  The spirits
are there; it's a matter of awaking them; the invisible and inaudible give
weight to the word.

Each Lady Macbeth read two lines and paraphrased the meaning, explaining
the images; i.e., we did an explication of the soliloquy.  "The raven
himself is hoarse": a symbolic bird or the messenger or a real bird that
evokes the concrete world they live in?  The messenger races ahead of
Macbeth who races ahead of Duncan.  Lena said that this is about urgency,
about the raven croaking so much.  Joanna said it could be that the raven
is so frightened it's unable to speak--it's that dark, that fatal. "Unsex
me here": make me like a man or make me neuter; take away my womanhood or
genitals and ability to make life, for now I will kill.  She asks to be
emptied and then filled up again from the crown to toe.  "Make thick my
blood": thin blood is weak, runs freely, is wholesome; thick blood is
strong; she wants to act without feelings, the deadening of the vehicle.
"Stop up the access and passage to remorse": where do we feel remorse?  we
think of it as in the heart.  "And take my milk for gall": gall is bile;
bitterness and energy is driving the speech; she needs image after image to
keep going; gall is the antithesis to breast milk. "That my keen knife see
not the wound it makes": the knife is the means of the murder, but even it
should be blindfolded as she has blindfolded herself and does not want to
see the murder.

Phillip, Sam, and Joanna (and later, Sarah) all began by breaking the
speech or sonnet into fragments: words, phrases, lines, sentences, and
speaking them in a variety of ways, but Joanna soon moved from that into an
extremely detailed analysis of the very dense imagery of the speech.  The
other three, on balance, were more concerned with the sound--or with
getting their students to hear the sound--she with the evocative imagery.

Gareth would lead us through 5.1; he chooses to do scenes he's not acting
in because he may get too many wonderful ideas. The scene is preceded by a
rhyming couplet and followed by a scene in blank verse.  This scene is
about 80 lines, with the first 70 in prose and the last 10  in blank verse.
A man and a woman enter; they are two new characters,  not named, who are
types.  Miranda played the Doctor and Bill the Gentlewoman. There is a
balance of authority:  she has information he needs. She doesn't tell him
when and what Lady Macbeth has said because she has no witness; the doctor
has watched two nights and has seen nothing; her reticence gives a sense of
the paranoia in the kingdom.  Lady Macbeth unlocks (rather than "opens")
her closet and writes on the paper.  What is on this paper?  Ellen wondered
if it's a letter to her husband, but he'll never read it because it's
sealed.  Gareth said they've stopped talking to each other since the
banquet.  Clare wondered if it's a confession or crazy scribbling; or a
warning to Lady Macduff; or a letter to posterity or to her child; a
suicide note; or nothing.  Then Gareth asked us to close our eyes and
listen to the dialogue; we would be focused as if on a radio play in which
every detail is noticed.  New questions:  Why is the Gentlewoman up?  was
she assigned to watch Lady Macbeth? by Macbeth?  Do they have separate
bedrooms? or is this a recent situation since Macbeth has left for the
field?  At lines 31 ff., Lady Macbeth's speech is a sum of previous lines.
We could ask the class how her lines echo lines from earlier scenes; which
ones?  The Doctor says, "Go to, go to! You have known what you should not"
(42); is this addressed to himself or to the Gentlewoman or to Lady
Macbeth?  Gareth asked Bill and Miranda to read those few lines reflecting
those three options, as if this reveals the paranoia of these two, who
don't trust each other.  There are three repetitions of "well," five of "to
bed," four of "come" in Her speech, which make it urgent, bathetic, sexual.
To whom does the Doctor address his last lines? to himself? the
Gentlewoman? the audience? And then we had a coffee break.

About 11:45, we began our discussion of the minimalist ACTER Macbeth we saw
the night before.

DIRECTOR AND CONCEPT  Alan asked Ed to summarize his analysis.  Ed believes
this is a philosophical question, since the troupe has no director, but for
him the director is at the apex of the triangle--which is not to minimize
the text and actors, for they flow into the top of the triangle.  Julia
said that the director can assist making the choices out of all the
possibilities.  Alan said even ACTER sometimes wants a director or umpire.
Sam said, Shakespeare does direct himself; trust the text; what he has
learned from these tours is that it's all there; the play's the thing.  Ed
asked, if there is no director, is there a take on the material?  Sam said,
there will be a style because the composition of the troupe of five varies
from year to year.  Sarah said one example of this was their deciding to
use stylized fights.  Phillip said, it annoys me, concept theater because
brilliant productions develop step by step.  Gareth said that concept
theater cuts the lines that don't fit the concept.  Dan said there are a
variety of concepts within the text, rather than a univocal concept.  Ed
said that the job of a director is to articulate the concept right out
front, in a Brechtian way, and to provide an environment that is creative.
Sheila asked why is the director to be trusted over the text. Kurt said,
what if it were five unintelligent actors, or what if it were twenty actors
without a director?  Joanna preferred to the analogy of the triangle the
analogy of a circle with a director at the center attached by strings to
each actor, one in which finally the director disappears from the play.
Julia said that a decision to do a particular play to a particular audience
is already a concept, since plays go in and out of fashion, depending on
the social context; it's false to oppose text and concept.

DOUBLING  Cezarija said that the actors' doubling in roles would confuse
viewers unfamiliar with the play.  Sam said that in his experience,
unsophisticated audiences who hadn't read the play liked the minimalist
production.  Phillip said, "You don't need a brain to listen to
Shakespeare; you need a heart." Gareth said, concentration, not
intelligence, was required. Miranda said students need preparation so they
would be in a position to enjoy the production, and that was the job of the
instructor.  Sarah said they want students to see their productions as
relevant, vital, vibrant; this is as theatrical as it gets; but their job
is made difficult if there's no preparation and no follow-up; we must teach
the next generation or live theater will die.

PROPS, COSTUMES, AND STYLIZED FIGHTS  Alan said there have been 25
productions since the fall of 1983, and that he has seen 22; others have
used more props.  Sam said the men's costumes did not indicate a particular
time, just war, and the salutes and bows also were not localized.  The
women's costumes were inspired by Vietnamese dress, with the front panels
giving the effect of tabards for the male roles.  The green oblong scarf
starts as a costume but works as a prop when it's stretched before Hecate's
face.  Bob asked if they missed the props.  Phillip said it's a practical
decision because it's hard to travel with a lot of props.  Sarah said, it
starts with something like Lady Macbeth's letter--where do you put this if
there are no pockets?  Sarah said that she doesn't miss the props because
she believes in their existence so intensely that she found she was setting
the imaginary daggers down on a chair after her exit.  The absence of props
and of realistic fights makes the play move faster.  Joanna said the final
stage fight should be the climax, but it frequently seems an anticlimax
after 30 people and lots of props.

Alan said the company plays the uncut text.  Only the names "Malcolm" and
"Macduff" were introduced for clarity.  Audrey liked the Malcolm scene
played seriously, so that the audience is not tipped off that Malcolm is
testing Macduff; it's patronizing to Macduff to let the audience know but
not Macduff; Malcolm is an intelligent and ruthless young man, trained by
Duncan that "There's no art / To find the mind's construction in the face."
Sam likes to have the actors sit on-stage when they're not playing a part;
Sarah doesn't want to watch Macbeth's actions because Lady Macbeth does not
see him after the banquet scene.
Whew.  Lunch.

We convened about 2:20.  Sarah said she often works with a class of 65
six-to-ten-year olds or thirteen- and fourteen-year olds.  She has
everybody do and say something immediately.  1) Stand up.  Everybody jump
up and down. 2) Say "ha," as you jump. 3) Say it loudly as you jump.


We worked on the ghost's speech from Hamlet, 1.5.64-84.  We each read one
word around the circle of the speech that begins "Sleeping within my
orchard."  Every word has a value.  The last word of the line is as
important as the first.

Then we each read a phrase to the comma, which gives some sense of the
meaning.  The clause that encloses "quicksilver" is long, imitating its
coursing through the body, where the length imitates the sense.  To make
distinctions among items in a series, Sarah had three Folgerites say
"orange," "apple," "banana," and then she told them that apple was better
than orange and banana better than apple.  She wanted to hear that
gradation in the speaking of the word.  They repeated the words so we could
hear the distinctions. Then three people said one word each of "Unhouseled,
disappointed, unaneled" and "of life, of crown, of queen." The entire
chorus said, "0 horrible! 0 horrible! Most horrible!"  Then we each read a
phrase to the comma, starting with a whisper at one end of the circle,
getting louder as we went around the circle, finally shouting at the other
end of the circle.  This is to gain a level of dramatic build.

In our semicircle we were the choral ghost, with one person cast as a
central ghost speaking the first line and two lines from the middle.  Sarah
asked where the ghost should come from. Above?  Below?  We decided it rose
from below.  Audrey was cast as Hamlet kneeling in the middle of the
semicircle.  What is the time?  Night, before dawn.  What kind of sounds
are there? the sea, the wind whistling; to make it urgent Sarah suggested a
heartbeat and pulse sound--da-dum.  Two or three people made each of these
sounds, while the rest of us individually or in chorus read the Ghost's
speech. The chorus was to build in intensity, to try to terrify Audrey.  We
did it once.  Sarah said if we didn't terrify Audrey, she would turn away.
We were to relish words like "cursed hebona" and "loathsome vile."  This
exercise can also be done with the Chorus speech from Henry V.

Then we broke up to rehearse our prepared scenes before our actors.  Eric
and Cezarija performed Pericles 5.1 before Sam, who was most wonderful.  In
the morning discussion of the performance, Sam had said that he sometimes
picks one person from the audience to address his soliloquy or speech to,
that it makes you act better.  In rehearsal he suggested Cezarija address
an aside to him.  She had been saying it to a general audience, but
speaking the words to him made them more real.  Alan said we'd had
rehearsal experience with some of the best teachers we could possibly have.
Yes!

The two Twelfth Night pairs worked with Gareth.  He spent a good deal of
time with Bill and Tom building the physical comedy of the scene, in
support of the character relationships they had worked on with Sarah.  With
Sheila and Miranda, he worked on developing nuance in interpretation.

We convened in the theater at 4:30.  For April we will have three sessions
with Michael Warren, who is Audrey's colleague at Santa Cruz (one on King
Lear and variant texts; one on some other play/s with multiple texts; one
on dramaturgy linking academe and theater).  We are to bring copies of
Titus (perhaps LLL now), Lear, and As You Like It.  Audrey will speak on
the role of the director, using Lear or As You Like It.  We will have our
Saturday morning play reaction. Saturday night we will do a play reading.
Audrey will show 20 minutes of John Barton's "Playing Shakespeare" series.
We are to think of resources not yet explored to share with each other.  We
decided in our evaluation of the Institute not to split into theater and
literature teachers but to meet as a whole.  Eric asked, "What do
Shakespeare teachers want in English?"  Bob said, "A way into expanding
their approach toward including performance."  Alan said that in English
departments, teachers are not teaching the text, but theory or the text in
its relation to culture.

For May and The Project, suggestions were a website for the future, but
it's a lot of work; videotaping a session but the value seems doubtful.
There was no disagreement, however, about a banquet Saturday night with
entertainment, music, and a performance of "The Couch of Casting: A Drama
in Three Fits."

Julia suggested a "recipe book" of pedagogical exercises as a record and an
aid culled from the minutes.  This could be formatted along the lines of
Viola Spolin's Theater Games for Rehearsal: A Director's Handbook
(Evanston, IL: Northwestern UP, 1985) or Spolin's Improvisation for the
Theater: A Handbook of Teaching and Directing Techniques (Evanston, IL:
Northwestern UP, 1963).  The chapters might include Warm-up, Breathing,
Voice, Scansion, Use of Video, Text Work, Alternate Interpretations, Scene
Work.  Ed offered the titles of other resources:  Patsy Rodenburg's The
Right to Speak (NY: Routledge, 1992); for scansion he mentioned again
Cicely Berry's Voice and The Actor (NY: Macmillan, 1974), Berry's Your
Voice and How to Use It Successfully (London: Harrup, 1975), and Kristin
Linklater's Freeing the Natural Voice (NY: Drama Book Specialists, 1976).
The Measure for Measure team suggested work linked to one play to give
unity to the project.  But our gang was too ornery. HERE WE GET MURKY &
MAYBE INACCURATE. For May, we are to bring 25 paper copies of exercises to
distribute to everyone.  For April we are to bring a disk and a paper copy
for Tom, who gallantly, generously, and fittingly volunteered to assemble
The Project.  Anyone reading these minutes to find out what we are supposed
to do for April and May is in trouble advised to see the directives from
Alan, Julia, and Tom which have since come forth.

For May we are to bring a couple or three lines from Shakespeare that
describe our character.  What doth Tom have in mind?

Saturday evening, after a buffet of salads and desserts (and champagne to
celebrate Kurt's elevated status), Joanna read the poetry of Anna Akhmatova
and Grace Nichols, and Gareth presented scenes and commentary on early and
later villains, Richard III and Macbeth. Your minute-takers had too much
fun to take minutes.

Finally, dear friends, piece this out with memory and imagination.   If we
have attributed egregious statements to you, let us know and forgive us.
If we have omitted your comments, please repeat them in April.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes

26-27 April 1996

by Cezarija Abartis
Friday, April 26

Visiting Contributor: Michael Warren, Professor, University of California,
Santa Cruz.

We convened in the Board Room rather than the Theatre because the stage was
full of props and scenery for the evening performance of As You Like it.
Audrey introduced her greatly-esteemed colleague, Michael Warren, who had
recently won the major teaching award on campus, the Alumni Award, and who
has been and continues to be textual consultant for the Shakespeare
Festival at Santa Cruz. Michael began by saying that, as Textual
Consultant, he takes no blame for anything that happens and that so much of
what he does has been influenced by Alan and Audrey. He used Alan's handout
because he was pressed for a first class in January. He remarked that
joining our convivial and well-bonded group was like coming to a party at
midnight when everybody's drunk and the new partygoer was stone-cold sober.
Soon he would be giddy with the rest of us.

Michael uses variant texts in teaching Shakespeare because discussion of
variants allows him to have ideas in class. The problem of finding things
to say about things is diminished with comparative texts; he shows students
variants of Thomas Wyatt's "They flee from me that sometime did me seek,"
and freedom comes from the act of contrasts as students feel it's possible
to respond to different versions. They see the text as a product of
editorial process, constantly changing--even now. Michael had asked us to
read three articles: E. A. J. Honigmann's "Shakespeare's Revised Plays:
King Lear and Othello," which examines the strategy of revision within the
totality of meaning in the play; Gary Taylor's "Revising Shakespeare,"
which is funny and shows "a wonderful disrespect that was necessary at the
time"; Janette Dillon's "Is There a Performance in this Text?" which shows
the fetishization going on about early texts, especially about performance
having a kind of definitiveness about it. Like Ernest Honigmann, Michael
strongly claims that the pattern of differences between the variants shows
they are distinct drafts which should not be conflated into one ideal text.
He is interested in different interpretations, stages, and versions. The
elements that resist such tolerance for variant texts are 1) the impulse
toward something that is containable; people want to buy one finished text;
2) the (decayed? descended? evolved?) Marxist argument that so many hands
went into the formation of the text that the author ceases to exist.
Michael said that someone's extra words always enter into writing and
confessed that John M. Ellis provided 106 words that Michael incorporated
into his "Quarto and Folio King Lear and the Interpretation of Albany and
Edgar."

We counted off by four to rehearse, for about 20 minutes, one of four
scenes from the Quarto and Folio versions of King Lear in order to perform
the Folio version first because it is the more familiar.

-2.4.176-200
Goneril and Regan take center stage. In the Quarto, Goneril enters for the
dominance game and attacks Regan: "Who struck my servant"; in the Folio the
line is spoken by Lear with one verb change: "Who stockt my servant?"

-3.6.97-114
Kent's and Edgar's last speeches are cut from the Folio version. Both Lear
and the Fool leave the stage, the Fool for the last time. In the Quarto the
Fool can help off Lear; in the Folio, Edgar can help; or Kent and
Gloucester can help off Lear. Alan said the Folio is tight, the Quarto
expansive; the pacing is different. Michael said the Folio emphasizes
continuing haste, while the Quarto allows a meditative moment for Edgar.
Audrey said that the pain of Lear's being taken off is mitigated by Edgar's
speech in the Quarto. Bill said if (in the Folio) Gloucester is herding
them offstage, there is no choice for the others.

-3.7.94-108
One of the key questions is when do the servants take Gloucester offstage.
In the Quarto, perhaps Gloucester is removed with "Lets follow the old
Earle." In Peter Brook's Lear, for a chilling moment, the interval lights
came on and Gloucester groped his way offstage. The servants do not speak
the last four speeches in the Folio. The opening of 4.1 in the next scene
has an added 3 1/2 lines. Julia suggested that those added lines foreshadow
the imagery of the Dover scene.

-5.3.300-28
In the Quarto, Lear speaks "Breake hart"; in the Folio, Kent speaks that
line. Clare said that in the Quarto Lear has to faint and then un-faint to
speak a line. Michael said that the fainting can be collapsing. Michael
said he's a great defender of the Quarto, which takes out the sentimental
interpretation; Kenneth Muir's Arden edition cites A.C. Bradley "that Kent
may be speaking of his own heart." If Lear speaks the line, it may be an
unsentimental willed suicide; Lear has had enough. Ellen said that in the
Quarto Lear shows a willingness, an eagerness to die; in the Folio Lear
prolongs his own life for his daughter's sake. Michael said perhaps the
Folio's "looke on her" is Lear's anger or Lear's acknowledgment of
Cordelia's death; the range of possible interpretations is immense, and we
all make meaning--that's our job. Michael likes the silent Edgar of the
Quarto, which gives the final speech to Albany, for Edgar has gone through
so much.

After break, Audrey led a session on pedagogical resources. We counted off
in pairs to read through Love's Labour's Lost 3.1.131-74, one person
reading the part of a pompous Armado and an eager Berowne, and the second
person reading the part of Costard, and then we switched parts. Audrey
shows John Barton's "Playing Shakespeare" in her Voice class, which meets
for two 2 and 1/2-hour and two 2-hour sessions a week. She shows half of a
tape in each of the 2 and 1/2-hour sessions, finishing the whole
eleven-part series in the course of ten weeks. Whatever the limitations of
the series might be, there are also wonderful scenes from the actors and
great good sense. Hearing the rhythm (not the accent) of the language seeps
into students during the course of the quarter. Audrey's students learn
three soliloquies by the end of the quarter, which they can use for
audition pieces, and they are videotaped at the beginning, middle, and end
of the quarter. When the students comment on each other's performances,
they pick two things that function well and two that need to be worked on
(we were asked to make similar brief notes on each other's performances of
scenes from Macbeth). Audrey showed us the minute-long scene from "Language
and Character" with Roger Rees as Costard and we were charmed and amused.

The second assignment had us stand up and declaim twice 3.5.36-55 of Henry
V. Then Audrey showed us this speech as John Barton performs it with his
round vowels and admixture of British and American accents on "Language and
Character."

The third assignment was "a real killer and you need to try this to see
this": the Archbishop's speech from Henry V, 1.2.33-95. We could read this
a little more quietly. Many productions would edit this speech. Julia
recalled a Shenandoah Express production in which the Archbishop, for a
humorous effect, moved into the audience, addressing individual members as
if he were quizzing them on their knowledge of history. Audrey showed us
the scene with Tony Church performing it with comic effect on "Set Speeches
and Soliloquies."

For the fourth assignment, we counted off in pairs to read Twelfth Night,
2.4.15-41. Audrey asked what we would want from a director. Caroline asked
if this was addressed to the audience; how much sadness or humor is in this
passage; do they touch? how close are they? Ed said that the character
pursues an objective but covers that. Eric asked where are the musicians?
do they hear and react? Paul said this is the opening of the possibility of
a romantic relationship between the two people. Edward asked if Orsino is
paying attention; is this comic? We watched the scene between Judi Dench
and Richard Pasco in "Rehearsing the Text."

Julia asked for strategies for teaching verse reading to inexperienced
students. Audrey said to suggest to the student, "How about if you stressed
that word?" Caroline said the instructor could model a speech in three
different ways (angrily, quietly, etc.), letting the students direct the
instructor. The question of pauses came up. The ACTER troupe urged us to
keep the verse going, not to pause. Ian McKellen and Judi Dench in Macbeth
allowed themselves more pauses. Audrey said this may have to do with
ranking in the pecking order but also with experience in acting and freedom
in exploration; the ACTER troupe had the urgency of performing the whole
play with only five actors. Audrey likes to use the Folio and Quarto
punctuation to see the shape of the speech, to try this for a time and then
do a variation. American actors, bred in realistic theater, make the lines
too slow as they pause too often. Ed said that the advice is to punch the
end word, but also flow to the next word. Audrey said that the American
natural mode is one of falling inflection that soothes and reassures;
that's why she had us do exercises with kicking and throwing as we said the
last word in a line. The ACTER troupe gave language the highest priority,
acting with the body neutral. Bertram Joseph wrote that Elizabethan
ministers used rhetoric and body awareness in their sermons as they
preached.

Audrey gave us a two-page handout with what she modestly called
"simplistic" notes on comedy that use the elements of wit, humor, satire,
sarcasm, irony, farce, burlesque, and slapstick.

STAGE POSITIONS After lunch, the five Theatre Department people--Ed, Eric,
Julia, Kurt, and Paul--went up on the As You Like It stage. Audrey asked us
to look for what is the strongest position on stage. That was dead center,
down front. The rest of this was not so definite. They made entrances from
the sides, diagonally, and center upstage; they made exits the same way.
Four gathered downstage left with Kurt at a diagonal; Kurt turned his back
to us and Paul looked at us. Four sat around the bench downstage left and
Kurt turned away from them, turned his head to them, turned his body to
them. All five stood in a row upstage; one walked front center. Four lay
down on the ground on one side; Ed turned, saw Julia, then saw them. These
position reveal different situations. Audrey said this is puppet theater
with limited range, but it's moving. Ed has his students find paintings and
imitate the positions in the paintings of Botticelli and Da Vinci, for
example. Audrey had the five use various levels as they stood, sat, and lay
down; she said one could use the center aisle to break down the separation
of audience and performance. When Audrey directs a play she asks where are
the key moments and reserves the most important positions of the stage for
those moments, so that a scene's theatricality is not nullified by the next
spectacular moment but that weight is portioned out according to structure.
American actors are used to one kind of playhouse and may need to be
encouraged to look at upper levels to take in the whole audience.

DIRECTING Audrey doesn't teach a class in directing because she agrees with
John Houseman in his Foreword to Robert L. Benedetti's The Director at
Work, that no one is qualified to direct who hasn't been an actor. Audrey's
directing career started at the age of eight when she starred in and
directed her friends in "The Tale of the Wicked Witch." John Houseman cites
Peter Hall in a conversation with Peter Brook in which they agree that
directors are moving away from the concept of autocratic interpreter to one
of an athletic director and coach of a football team. The Royal Shakespeare
Company has eight weeks of rehearsal, whereas Audrey has three weeks;
ideally she would start with actors and then sort out sets and costumes,
but the process doesn't usually work that way. She wistfully told us that
the Oedipus at Colonus that she saw was seven years evolving; the Trevor
Nunn Macbeth was three years in being stripped away to its essence.

We stood up and flung our arms about until Audrey said "freeze" (pp. 68-69
of Peter Brook's There Are No Secrets).

We did a counting game (pp. 66-7 of Brook), each of us counting off and
trying to get to 26 without two people saying the same number
simultaneously. Every time two people spoke up, we started back at number
one. This teaches concentration. After perhaps five or ten minutes, Alan
ended with number twenty-six and we applauded uproariously. Ed said that,
in his experience, amazingly, after two hours of rehearsal, the actors
complete this in one try, as their sense of concentration has improved.

MORE ON DIRECTING Audrey said that the director must have from the start a
formless hunch about the play; the play is calling to the director, who
must be listening to hear what has been waiting to appear; then the
director gives it visibility, pace, clarity, articulation, musicality,
rhythm. Cezarija is reminded of a lecture that the poet William Stafford
presented at St. Cloud State University in which he spoke about his writing
process. He woke every morning at four A.M. (he had four children and he
had to go to work) to write and in his composing, he behaved like an old
hound dog sniffing into the wind and following the scent. Now, when
Cezarija talks to her students about inspiration in the creative process,
she talks about the Muse and also the humble hound dog. Audrey talked about
the core of As You Like It, Hymen, the god of marriage, and while three of
the four couples might be divorced eventually, the play is a celebration of
marriage. She had wanted a fifth couple from the audience (newlyweds or a
couple renewing their vows) to come on-stage to break down the barrier
between performer and audience, so the whole theater would be embraced in
the celebration of marriage; this has not yet been realized in a
production. When Audrey analyzes a play she asks what is the most important
essence of a play, what is its climax and often works backward from that.
But Audrey works lovingly with actors: one Hermione was having difficulty
with the statue scene. Audrey told her, "You don't have to come alive,"
which set up tension in the scene. Michael wondered if Peter Brook seems in
his writing not to have a concept of the play before he begins rehearsal.
Audrey spoke about the paradox by which the director absorbs the play, and
then the play comes out of the director, just as the actor does the word
work, and then the words and scene come out of the actor.

Audrey said that actors can dislike a director and can still do great work;
some directors are in it for power and relish making an actor cry. Ed said
that a good director creates a scaffolding that is to be completed by
everyone else. Dan asked how much of the scaffolding is revealed to the
actors. Audrey said they discuss the world of the play; what is the meaning
of the play; where are the gods; where is justice. Other directors ask
actors to paraphrase their lines or discuss the meaning of the scene. The
question arose, What happens when actors resist? In that situation, Audrey
says, "Let's try it your way; let's try it another way. What are the gains
and losses?" Paul agreed that actors have to take a proprietary interest in
making it work, so the director should ask the right question, rather than
arguing concept with the actor. Kurt's concern was urgency: "Maybe I'm the
kind of director that we're abusing right now but I frequently find himself
in the situation that while there are lots of interesting choices, we're
going to have to start down one path pretty fast." Julia said this is a
matter of trust; just as students fear a final so do actors fear a failure;
a director could tell student actors, "I'm not going to let you look stupid
out there." Alan said the word "trust" keeps coming up, a word that came up
with Deborah Warner's production of Titus Andronicus at the Swan (see Alan
C. Dessen. "Trusting the Script: Deborah Warner at the Swan." Titus
Andronicus. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1989. 51-69). Eric said that
exercises at the beginning could create an ensemble, a community to belong
to rather than not belong to, which would shape the world of the play.
Audrey suggested playing music at rehearsal, dancing, and clowning. Edward
said this is the craft of directing, but good directing is not a
codification of rules. Audrey described and/or passed around copies of
useful books:

Benedaetti, Robert L. The Director at Work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1985.

Brook, Peter. The Empty Space. NY: Penguin, 1968.

Brook, Peter. There Are No Secrets. 1993.

Dean, Alexander, and Lawrence Carra. Fundamentals of Play Directing. 4th
ed. NY: Hold, Rinehart and Winston, 1980.

Goodman, Randolph. From Script to Stage: Eight Modern Plays. NY: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1971.

Hodges, Francis. Play Directing--Analysis, Communication, and Style.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1982.

Donald A. Schon. Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design
for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
1987.

Donald A. Schon, ed. The Reflective Turn: Case Studies in and on
Educational Practice. NY: Teachers College Press, 1991.

Eric added a title: Hornby, Richard. Script into Performance: A
Structuralist View of Play Production. Austin: U of Texas P, 1977.

Edward recommended: Johnstone, Keith. Impro. Portsmouth: Heinemann, 1988.

Alan passed around one of Michael's books: Warren, Michael. The Parallel
King Lear 1608-1623. Berkeley: U of California P, 1989.

Kurt reminded us how to get access to Lois Potter's electronic workbooks.
If you subscribe to SHAKSPER, don't put anything on the subject line and
type:
get perform1 seminar
get perform2 seminar
get perform3 seminar
get perform4 seminar
get perform5 seminar
get perform6 seminar
get perform7 seminar
get perform8 seminar

ON BEING A TEXTUAL CONSULTANT / DRAMATURG We had a coffee break and came
back at about 4 for a session with Michael on textual consultation. Michael
prefers being textual consultant to being dramaturg. The position provides
a place "to ask questions, but not the obligation to be a nuisance." He is
present at every one of the seven or so rehearsals and sits to the side,
feeling that the more unobtrusive he is, the more helpful he can be. The
textual consultant is not the director, and the interpersonal dynamics
requires tact and subtlety to avoid being perceived as a potential threat;
one can perhaps make extraordinarily tentative suggestions in the guise of
questions ("Could this line mean...?"). This role in the company is not
even secondary but tertiary at best. English teachers are used to primary
roles, especially in straightening out theatre people, but Michael has come
to enjoy his role in the production as "a kind of fetish or good luck
charm." Before the rehearsal, he sent articles to the director about what
text to use, about interpretations or history, and during the rehearsal, he
sent odd screeds and letters as reminders about phrasing, these "in writing
that can be torn up and thrown away." Such a role is "a study in being
silent," a "position of helpful neutrality."

It did have rewards for Michael: it provided the understanding of options
about bodies in motion that were not present in the literature class; it
raised questions--about the opening of Measure for Measure, Paul Whitworth,
a great asker of questions, asked what the social relations between the
characters are and what does Escalus know; it made one more precise as one
noticed the modes of address and gave attention to rank; while literary
critics may have a vision of particular figures, theater practitioners have
to embody the figures, and this embodiment starts in the act of casting, in
seeing, for example, how old these figures are; "the experience of watching
the rehearsal process makes one dissatisfied with what one has said about
it"--it restores the anti-reductive position in one's life, renders one
less reductive; when Michael was textual consultant for a production of a
conflated King Lear, he noticed that the Director would start with cuts,
but in the course of rehearsal, some of the cuts were restored (Michael
expects to preside someday over a production that will have the textual
variants as supertitles electrified above the stage).

Paul said that directors usually trim the text before rehearsal, but the
better practice may be to cut lines well into the rehearsal. Michael also
wrote program notes of 1000 to 1,500 words for the production--the largest
readership but the hardest writing he's done because the essay was written
before the rehearsal began. Kurt said that a dramaturg was helpful at the
start but trickier toward the end when the play is evolving. Michael said
the title of dramaturg has too much authority; the dramaturg is a scholarly
resource to be plundered, rather than watered and nurtured as valuable. Dan
has been the dramaturg for the Theatre Department's productions; and he and
the director discussed the play scene by scene and line by line before
casting began. Eric said that what is important to the director is to be
surrounded by people that he or she trusts. Paul invites colleagues from
other departments to provide information on different times and places; he
brings in different translations of plays if they are available. In the
course of doing textual consultation, Michael learned that he knew a lot
less than he thought he did. Alan, now a theatrical producer himself with
the ACTER troupe, agreed that he'd reduced his expectations from working
with interpretations down to words, finally coming to rest at stage
directions.

Clare recommended a book about the relationship between playwright and
director: Jones, David. Making Plays: The Writer-Director Relationship in
the Theater Today. Winchester: Faber & Faber, 1995.

Someone (who?) recommended a book in which the last chapter is about the
production of Tom Stoppard's play: Gaskell, Philip. From Writer to Reader.
Detroit: Omnigraphics, 1987.

We had a dinner break and went to see the Interact production of As You
Like It at the Folger Theatre.


Saturday, April 27

In the morning, after coffee and pastries in the Board Room, Michael
assigned us to four groups to rehearse for about 20 minutes.

-Romeo and Juliet, 2.6 Quarto 1 (1597) and Quarto 2 (1599) versions Quarto
2 is the version that's usually played. Juliet doesn't necessarily go to
Romeo first but perhaps first to the Friar, who holds them apart, not
allowing them to touch until the end; Juliet maybe is not running but
walking shyly, tentatively to the Friar. In Quarto 1 Juliet addresses Romeo
immediately, and there is action and lots of potential for comedy; Q1 is
not an imperfectly remembered construction of Q2, for it has a different
mood, a kind of exuberance rather than the apprehension of Q2.

-Othello, 4.3 Quarto 1 (1622)
Quarto 1 does not have Desdemona's willow song nor Emilia's last 20-line
speech on women's rights and behavior. Miranda said that Q1 is bleaker than
the Folio because Emilia doesn't get it; Desdemona is more isolated. Alan
said Desdemona is never alone on-stage, and here she is with a woman, not a
man. The building of Emilia's character starts here. Paul said that perhaps
the actor didn't have the voice to sing the willow song. Eric said that
would have been even more painful. Michael said that music today slows down
the scene. The Folio version with the willow song was not performed this
morning, although Michael suggested doing the Folio version as a satyr play
after A Chaste Maid that evening: Othello and A Chaste Maid, a
double-header.

-Coriolanus, 1.1.1-98 Folio (1623)
Michael said that the group playing the company of mutinous citizens would
probably have the most fun. Paul, who was playing Menenius, saw William's
prop from the night before and wanted to placate the hungry citizens and
improve their mood: "I was so tempted. The lamb was backstage. Here's chops
for all!" But the group valiantly resisted this impulse and performed the
Folio as printed.

After Menenius enters, the Second Citizen takes the role of the forceful
speaker; all editions assume this is a mistake and change him to the First
Citizen. Bob said that the First Citizen, a member of the proletariat, may
have knowledge of Menenius' status and realize that when Menenius shows up,
the possibility of success is over. Clare said that the Second Citizen
could be of the middle class, a gentleman able to talk to a patrician. Paul
said that perhaps Menenius elects the Second Citizen as spokesman. Michael
said perhaps the First Citizen is a natural rabble-rouser and the Second is
a civil servant. Edward said that who is carrying arms might be an issue.
Bob said there is diversity within the group of citizens. Michael said a
monolithic group is less interesting; the fundamentals of human conflict
are much more evident than the possibility of human harmony. Alan said
perhaps the First Citizen exits to come back as one of the two tribunes. Ed
said one of the crowd might be more likely to double the part. Edward said
perhaps the First Citizen passes the baton to the Second Citizen. Paul said
perhaps Menenius invites the Second Citizen to be the speaker. Tom said
perhaps the crowd protects the First Citizen because they know he's a
firebrand. Michael said that editorial interference is not always
necessary, and if you can do without it, so much the better; the editor
becomes just another collaborator.

Michael showed us videotapes of three versions of the opening of A
Midsummer Night's Dream: Peter Hall's 1968 version is a cheerful one done
outside a house in Stratford; the BBC version shows an unhappy Hippolyta
with no variation in pace; the Santa Cruz presentation allowed us to see
performers reacting to the audience. Michael showed us two versions of
Titus Andronicus (3.1.150-206)--BBC and Santa Cruz--but a lengthier
discussion was cut off by the need for our morning snacks.

About 11:20 in the Board Room, we began our discussion of the previous
night's performance of As You Like It..

SHAKESPEARE AS PLACEMAT and THE AUDIENCE'S SUBJECTIVITY Alan asked how do
we use imperfectly realized productions of plays we take our students to
see; how do we deal with students' reactions? Tom said he asks students to
list five things they liked and five things they disliked; eventually they
would see more Shakespeare and be able to discriminate. Caroline would like
to show students a video, but there is no uniformly good video of this
play. Kurt said that we often teach that film is better than live theater
and should not; students mistakenly assume that there is a right tradition
that is pretty and painless. Caroline said that they could discuss the
darker elements that are absent from this production. Alan asked how do you
avoid telling the students, "You liked this but you're dumb for liking
this?" Paul would avoid asking them what they liked and instead ask
students what they remembered, what they saw, and what, alternatively,
might have been done. Audrey might start with a positive approach, saying a
given production is clearly told, a storybook one could take children to
but that there is an approach fitter for older audiences. Sheila said that
students accuse us of picking things apart. Bob said we need to say that
their emotional reactions are not pertinent to class discussion or to
theater. Edward said that we could ask students to write down emotions
first in journal form, then afterward ask if their feelings have changed
because of the discussion. Bill would ask them what they think; taking
apart an inadequate performance empowers students. Eric would say, "Well,
you saw this and how would you cast your ideal performance?" Audrey would
encourage further exploration with "Let's continue looking at the text and
see what more we can discover, what more we can see." Edward said the
instructor can bring in reviews and suggested Ken Davis' Rehearsing the
Audience. Julia suggested inviting the students to refer to the details of
staging. Ed suggested asking how the production achieves certain effects.
Sheila suggested assigning individual students to track particular
characters. Students might imagine a dark AYLI and then a happy AYLI. Dan
would ask students before the performance to write down what is the central
scene and what is one scene they don't understand; after the performance
they can write a paragraph in response to their own questions. Caroline
would ask, "What did you see? Whose financial and political interests does
this serve?" Alan asked, What kind of audience does this assume? Paul said
audience members saw the same thing but felt differently about it; there's
also a danger in over-preparing students so they have a specific set of
expectations; how we feel is biased by a number of factors which can both
cloud and inform the issue. Miranda said that preparation was good and Alan
said that indoctrination was bad.

AMATEUR THEATER Bob asked if community theater or student theater were
worth the time, energy and work. Ellen said that students get impassioned
as they perform it and some audience members enjoy it and become passionate
devotees. Kurt said, "My students do better with amateurs than with
professionals. They see this is possible." Paul said the lesson could be
that just because it's professional doesn't mean it's excellent. Miranda
said, "I worry that they'll hate a good production rather than love a bad
production." Sheila said that her mother took the four children to see a
production of Twelfth Night at the University of Puget Sound because that
was what was affordable. Bob asked what responsibility we have, what
opportunities are there to bring Shakespeare to the high schools. Edward
said there are festivals and competitions in high schools.

Alan raised questions specific to AYLI: How are you going to distinguish
between the court and the forest; how do you play literary shepherds; how
do you play the famous speeches; how do you play the scene with William
(and often he doubles in the part of Charles); how is the banquet staged;
how are the scenes re-sequenced? Caroline said that the program notes
suggest this is about the fantasies of love; and what is today's equivalent
for the conventions of the pastoral--Bride Magazine? Julia asked where,
what, and when is the forest of Arden; how do we know; what is the season.
Edward asks students to write a dialogue if there are conflicted emotions
(When they are studying Julius Caesar, what would you do to convince your
friend to commit a crime? What would it be like to woo someone if you were
disguised? What are the advantages and disadvantages?). Alan finally shared
with us that his favorite comma is in AYLI, in Hymen's next-to-last line
(5.4.143): "That reason, wonder may diminish." Which is it, reason or
wonder? In that ambiguity lies the whole play. Michael offered Rosalind's
line, "O Jupiter, how weary are my spirits" (2.4.1); "weary" is "merry" in
the Folio--to ambiguate matters deliciously. And then we broke for lunch.

At 2:00 we had our business session on The Project and May. The activities
we may pursue: warm-ups; rehearsal, performance, and discussion of scenes;
Audrey's help with each scene on-stage to open up another dimension; Audrey
may direct two scenes in front of all of us, so that we can see the process
of directing. For the Project, the minutes could include a sentence or two
on the visiting contributors; Miranda volunteered to provide brief
descriptions of the productions we saw. We came up with the chapter
headings for the pedagogical resource/ recipe book: writing prompts,
performance exercises, warm-up games, improvisation, textual exercises,
video & film performance analysis, live performance analysis, slides and
visual material (collages, objects), Shakespeare's language (scansion,
diction), voice & body exercises.

TAKING STOCK At 4:15 we convened in the Board Room. Miranda said that next
year's SAA will meet in Washington, and we are all invited to a reunion at
what will be her remodeled house.

Caroline raised the question of time spent on teaching plays: to spend more
time on one play will mean cutting out one or two plays. Next year, in a
ten-week quarter, instead of teaching six plays, she will teach
four--Macbeth, Hamlet, The Merchant of Venice, and one other that the
students will vote on (A Midsummer Night's Dream, The Tempest, Henry IV,
Part One, or Romeo and Juliet). Clare teaches seven plays in fifteen weeks;
she used to do eleven plays, and it succeeded--with videos, not performance
work; but even seven is too many if you include performance work; students
can take another course to read more Shakespeare; she'll do what she's
strong at and coordinate the course with the theatre department. Bob will
propose a class in performing Shakespeare. Miranda will propose an advanced
Shakespeare class with more performance work. Bill teaches about five plays
and has a video night during which he shows the play; if students can't
come to that night they can watch the video, which is placed on reserve; he
would like to teach one play in the four-week summer session.

THEATRE AND ENGLISH Clare participated in a project with four faculty from
Theatre and seven from English, in which they acted in key scenes that were
videotaped; the discussions about the performances were also taped, with
questions from the audience; this videotaped project (three 40-minute
tapes) is made available to high schools, so that students can see
colleagues disagreeing in a courteous and excited way about Shakespeare.
Bob interviews local directors on video. Ed said that Theatre departments
get pressure from English not to teach Shakespeare. Kurt said that Theatre
departments usually lose against English departments. Dan serves as
dramaturg for Theatre productions. Paul has team-taught with people in
other fields and invites guests to his classes to remind students there is
more than one expert. Alan enjoys the new energy and rhythm that a guest
brings to a class.

WHAT SHOULD WE DO IF OUR STUDENTS OBJECT? Ed has already used Audrey's
techniques for analyzing speeches as preparation for acting, once
piecemeal, and another time all at once, and he testified to the success of
the exercises; he also said he's not tenured and cannot afford a sulky
class. Dan found that his upper-division majors sulk at having to do
warm-ups and physical work and want lectures on Shakespeare. Kurt said that
Theatre students resist content and want the official meaning of this
script. Edward said he would tell students they are learning a content as
well as learning how to learn; if students resist, ask them to write in a
journal, "Pretend you're me; what is it you think I'm doing"; a clear and
full course outline tells students what to expect. Alan said if you change
your product, you have to be aware of previous expectations. Audrey said
change the time of the course if you will try something new. Caroline said
tell the students, "This is cutting-edge stuff I'm letting you in on; and
there's also performance theory, if a theoretical approach is needed."
Audrey said she sits with six students in a circle and asks, What is it you
want in this class?

VARIOUS ASSIGNMENTS Audrey has students put characters from Shakespeare on
trial. Ellen requires students to memorize a poem; she says "I will help
you memorize it for writing it on the final (not performing it)" by means
of paraphrase and meter; "and now they'll never forget it." Tom used Paul's
syllabus with its various issues for the research paper; this summer he's
driving his students to see six plays, and maybe a seventh. Cezarija
requires students to write a one-page journal (ungraded but required) on
each act, which she collects every day at the beginning of class and
returns at the next class period; that way she knows students are reading
the play and are ready to discuss it and ask questions; she writes only
positive comments on the journal responses, so students are less afraid of
responding to Shakespeare emotionally. Bob asks his students to imagine
what a scene looks like, to describe what the bodies are doing, what the
facial expressions and gestures are and what the non-human elements
on-stage look like. Edward said that Miriam Gilbert makes her students the
dramaturg who must justify and make a coherent argument about cuts in the
text. Alan asks students to write short papers arguing pro and con about
the rearrangement of scenes in Act 2 or 4.2 of As You Like It, for example;
or should Sir Walter Blunt's body be on-stage or be taken off in Henry IV,
Part One. Audrey asks what is the key scene in the play and what is the
structure the student sees.

ON HEIGHTENED EMOTIONS AND OTHER THINGS Julia said that some of her
students in Intermediate Acting where heightened style, language, and
physicality are explored, were frightened of being that big, of aspiring to
the size of those scenes, that rhetoric. Audrey said that women are often
afraid to vent anger and men often fail to acknowledge tears. Eric said
that in a discussion of the beginning of A Midsummer Night's Dream, when
the class was exclusively women, they expressed their anger about
Hippolyta's silence. Eric liked Michael Freedman's comment about not being
afraid of making a fool of yourself. Clare has students direct each other
in scene work. Audrey tells students that part of their evaluation will be
on the oral contribution to the class, a contribution in ideas (not acting)
to the scene work. Miranda took a course in Model Mugging in which she was
taught to shout "No" as she delivered blows to the assailant. Audrey
shouted "How dare you!" at someone who moved the garbage bins. Alan said he
would've been properly intimidated.

Dear Friends, we hope we have not conflated your ideas, or mangled your
statements, or killed your words. But if we have, collaborate with us and
repair our errors.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shakespeare Examined Through Performance
Minutes:  Chapter Nine
17-18 May 1996

by Paul Nelsen

Friday 17 May

We entered in ones and twos through the silver steel doors to assemble in
the familiar foyer and commune with customary coffee, cake, and
conversation.  Huddles form for exchange of merry tidings and resonant
murmur soon fills the wide vessel of the lobby.  Some shy from talk to
hover at the edge of conviviality or wander through the hall in reflective
solitude.  Shared awareness that this is our final weekend adds undertones
to felicitous chatter or sporadically erupts in bittersweet groans.  The
nine o'clock session is a tad tardy in starting.  Reluctant to begin our
endings, we slouched into the cave, collected our handouts, and plopped our
butts onto the purple upholstery.

Alan opened the prologue by acknowledging Ed Isser's clean shaven younger
brother "Ted."  Cezarija re-urged everyone to submit a list of five
favorite books or current reading to Paul for collation and dissemination
with the May minutes.  Kurt proudly announced the appointment of Prof.
Julia Matthew's to the faculty of Kennesaw State College -- news gleefully
applauded by all with congratulatory best wishes to Julia.  Alan proposed a
plan of attack for the weekend's agenda.  He suggested the late morning
session be devoted to organizing ourselves for an afternoon of editing
"projects" and "recipes" plus determining what else we want to generate for
publication in the chronicles of our institute.  Tom had already made great
strides in formatting everyone's submissions, but our goal, Alan suggested,
should be to have all documents polished for final printing by the end of
=46riday afternoon. If need be, Alan cautioned, time could be carved out of
Saturday's schedule to complete tasks related to packaging a finished
volume.  The triangular facets of our weekend's formal agenda included
editorial and other composition work associated with accomplishing the
chronicle, an examination of Volpone and its performance at the Lansburg,
and closing sessions related to acting and scene presentations.  The
weekend's finale would include a Saturday night f=EAte to take place in a
nearby Folger apartment, which we were grateful to have made available for
such use.  Kathleen collected payments to cover party expenses.

Attention turned to Volpone.  Alan prefaced discussion with selected
comments and queries.  Although "no other playwright has suffered from not
being Shakespeare more than Ben Jonson," Alan's own high regard for Jonson
is not universally shared by his students.  Why?  He suggested that
examination of Jonson can be "useful to us as a way of testing what we know
or think we know about Shakespeare."  How familiar are we with the range of
plays within the Jonsonian canon and the features of their dramaturgy?
Does Jonson offer us an alternative or complementary model upon which to
build understanding of the "norms" of Elizabethan drama?

Alan noted distinguishing circumstances about Jonson's professional career.
Although both Jonson and Shakespeare may have come to the theatre first as
itinerant actors, Shakespeare became a "sharer," writing expressly for his
own company and playhouse(s).  Jonson tailored some of his plays for
specific companies, stages, or for court commissions,  but he remained a
"freelance," an independent dramatist and masque jobber.  Shakespeare made
no effort to see his plays into print.  Jonson's 1616 Folio represented a
major landmark in publishing and surely induced Heminges and Condell to
produce the First Folio.  Alan drew attention to how Jonson's incipient
awareness of his own authority may be signaled by the typographical
predominance given to his name on the title page of the quarto Volpone.
Somehow Jonson secured rights to his plays from the theatre companies and
"may have fussed over preparing them for readers" -- apparently thinking
about how a script must be modeled for readership.  Alan's studies of
differences between quarto and Folio renditions of Every Man Out of His
Humour indicate that J. "clearly transformed" the later authorized version
to serve a reader's imagination.  "There is something different here than
with Shakespeare.  Shakespeare seemed content to see himself as a man of
the theatre.  Jonson wanted to see himself (and be seen) as a dramatist."

Alan cautioned that we do not know what was included in the original acting
parts of Volpone.  Stage directions that appear in modern editions are
either drawn from Jonson's Folio or are devised by latter-day editors as
reader aids.   Before moving on to examine scenes through readings, Alan
noted that another major difference between S. and J. has to do with
attachments to "genre."  Jonson wrote no histories.  His two tragedies are
admired "only by specialists."  Although there are romance elements in the
comedies, Jonson subordinated romance to emphasis on satire, an interest in
plays of ideas.

How do we assay Jonsonian satire?  Alan observed that questions of "tone"
-- how broadly cartooned or psychologically realistic characters and action
are rendered in stage performance -- have significant bearing on the slant
of interpretation.  For example, he asked us to examine the range of
interpretive possibilities a production can bring to dimensioning portrayal
of Volpone, as pivotal figure in the action, and the whole gallery of
scamps and gulls with whom he interacts.  Alan circulated copies of three
scenes offering problematic moments for staging and characterization.

Alan commented on how critical/interpretive views of Celia have changed
during the past two decades.  Is she merely a ditsy morsel of flesh and a
cog in the comic machinery or is she virtuous prey and potential victim of
dark designs?  In Act 3 scene 7, Alan pointed out the number of dashes in
Celia's speech (lines 239-258) and questioned how they might be played.
After reading the scene, Ellen observed that the dashes could call for a
fragmentation of mind in distress or alternatively they might also suggest
physical business -- parries of Volpone's advances in a classic chase
scene.  Edward asked whether Celia is qualitatively changed here.  Audrey
recalled revelations drawn from the experience of directing The Alchemist.
She suggested actually playing the scene in the style of Feydeau farce
(which was tried), offering the view that in many ways Jonson's animated
theatricality was more akin to French burlesque than English comedy.  Clare
proposed that the tone within the scene could modulate and that the action
did not have to be limited to devices of stock farce or chilling portrayal
of psychological terror.  Others acknowledged the viability of playing the
comic against the serious.  Celia's pleading at line 255 even suggests a
possible transition of tone and sets up Volpone's callous rejection of
Celia's  entreaty.  Alan commented on the dramatic effect of a villain
played in a way to utterly charm us for most of the action who then does
something that carries beyond the edge of droll roguery and repels us as
reprehensible and unpardonable.  This central scene provides  pivotal
moments of character and thematic definition.

Alan also drew attention to questions surrounding Bonario's seemingly
melodramatic "Forbeare, foule ravisher . . . " entrance.  Alan laid out the
elaborate circumstances that Jonson dramaturgically contrived to poise
Bonario for the rescue -- how Volpone's and Mosca's aims are confounded by
their own machinations.  But how does this moment come off on stage?  Is it
a laughably meta-theatrical deus ex arras intervention?  Or can it work as
a powerful reversal -- the truth of Volpone's duplicity now witnessed, and
all his venal designs "un-masqu'd, un-spirited, un-done" and thus now
ruined?

The second scene submitted for assessment, the first court scene (4.4),
focused attention on the question of "what happens to cause the Avocatori
to change their minds?"  Alan pointed out that, once again, stage
interpretation can resonate in different "tones."  Is Voltore's argument
played-up as eloquently persuasive?  Are the Avocatori credulous boobies?
Or dirty-old-men themselves with guilty consciences -- "Which of you are
safe. . . "(42-3)?  What is the object of satire here?  Julia argued that
the goal of the play is "to move us to moral knowledge" by provoking us
into "reacting negatively to deceit."  The moral compass of the satire
embraces more than a lampoon of (in)justice.  Other comments were made
about how staging details (How do we view Volpone and/or Celia-Bonario?)
and casting choices (How many Avocatori are there? How old are they? Are
they all men?) can influence reception.  Alan remarked that the tone of
presentational choices can lead us in various directions.

We then read the first hundred lines or so from the concluding scene, 5.12.
The issues here were "tone" related also: how heavily should the
disposition of poetic justice be laid on?  Ed Isser emphasized that the
finale has to maintain a glow of comic brightness, that the exposition of
dark duplicity should not bleakly overshadow the exoneration of
Celia/Bonario and the restoration of order.  Alan agreed that the challenge
of Jonson is double-edged: "You have to get the fun but you also have to
find the bite of the satire." Is the audience's sense of moral conscience
meant to be implicated in  righteous messages delivered by the ending?  Or
are we meant to perceive the punishment of Volpone and Mosca as just
deserts for heinous malefactors? Edward Rocklin (alluding to ideas of
Richard Dutton) suggested that Jonson employed a complex strategy directed
at his English audiences -- seducing them into scorning the decadent
Italian scoundrels yet, by the end, trapping them into seeing the satire as
directed against themselves.  Again, Alan invited us to recognize the range
of interpretive takes this play invites.  He then circulated copies of  a
"Short Assignment on Volpone" that he uses successfully in class.
Transcript is as follows:
The 1607 Quarto of Volpone has 0 stage (not even an enter); the version in
the 1616 Folio inserts a few marginal signals.  Consider what is 5.11 in
Herford and Simpson (based on the 1616 scene divisions) 0r 5.6 in Fraser &
Rabkin (p. 96) and most modern editions.  Given Jonson's neo-classical
practice, neither Q nor F provides and exit or exeunt at the end of the
scene, including the end of 5.10 (your 5.50, even when the stage has been
cleared.  In setting up your version of p. 96, what if anything would you
add at the end of the previous court scene (your 5.5) and at the beginning
of the next court scene (your 5.7)?  E.g., Fraser inserts [Exeunt] at the
end of his 5.5 after Corvino's "And credit nothing . . . " speech;  in his
1968 Fountainwell edition Jay Halio inserts [The scene closes.] and cites
(p. 139) Gifford, a 19th-century editor, who argues "Since the scene is
shortly resumed, the characters remain as in tableau while scene xi is
acted at one side of the stage."  What difference does your choice make?
What are the implications of this choice for performance and
interpretation?

Eleven o'clock session
"What shall we do this afternoon?"  Tom reported on and produced what he
had nobly put together so far -- all submitted material had been processed
into uniform style and format.  He had printed two copies of all documents,
including nearly a hundred "recipe" entries.  He suggested that one set be
proofread and marked-up by editors and that the other set be preserved as
control copy.  The main question with the recipes was how to categorize
them in a coherent way.  Alan noted that Lena had completed a two page
introduction linking our program to the NEH, and that he had written brief
introductory comments, and that Audrey would contribute her own.

Tom asked how we wanted to handle biographies.  Consensus was quickly
asserted: just list names and institutional affiliations for the formal
publication.  Bill announced that completion of videotapes that correlate
to his project had been delayed due to technical difficulties.  The
obstacles complicating the printing of finished copies by the end of the
weekend were noted -- the portable printers  we had available are very
slow; the Folger's laser printer is not compatible with Macintosh.  The
sense of the group was that we would vigorously pursue getting a master
copy ready for print by the end of the afternoon but that we would not be
troubled if complete copies for everyone were not bound and ready to take
home with us by the end of Saturday.  Concern was raised about how printing
and distribution exigencies might inconvenience the Folger staff.

Tom also requested that, if he is successful in setting up a Web site, he
would need to hear from anyone about any specific pieces that s/he does not
want to be included for web access.  Ed expressed concern about possible
copyright restriction and source citations.  Alan responded saying all
citations should follow "fair use" guidelines and procedures.

Alan raised the question again of how we can stay in touch.  He noted that
many of us, but not all, are members of SAA and that next year's conference
(March 26-30) is slated to convene in D.C..  Audrey and Alan urged that we
should organize a reunion during that weekend and that they hoped all would
be able to attend.  Miranda offered to advise on details of how to join the
SAA and participate in the conference.  A sense of gratitude to the NEH was
brought forward.  Kurt mentioned that funding of the Endowments beyond 1997
was still very much in jeopardy and a chorus of laments ensued, objecting
to the withdrawal of government support for worthy programs such as our
own.

Kurt invited instituters to participate in a colloquium on Macbeth -- a
scholarly exchange offered in conjunction with his production of the
Scottish play -- at Kennesaw the weekend of November 7th next fall.  Ed
Isser noted that performances of his production of Measure for Measure at
Holy Cross are scheduled for the same weekend.  Dan announced that he,
Clare, Ed, Edward, Ellen, and Paul had begun discussions of a joint book
project focusing on iteroretive cruxes of Measure and summoned others to
come aboard.  Tom drew attention to publication possibilities in the
journal, Shakespeare and Film,  and Paul reminded all about similar
prospects with Shakespeare Bulletin.  Audrey urged people who could to
attend the Shakespeare Santa Cruz conference -- dates were not at hand but
she indicated it would take place during the second week of August.
Caroline circulated a pad asking everyone to list addresses, phone numbers,
and birthdays.

Just as we were drawing the morning sessions to an end, Alan reported that
Sir Ian McKellan was in the hall and that Rebecca had suggested to him that
we might be willing to admit him in to have a look at the stage.  There
being no objections, we were soon treated to a cordial, informal exchange
with a great and gracious actor.  Perhaps we should have invited him to
banquet with us over lunch.

Friday afternoon
We assembled in the Board Room and broke down into small groups to tackle
the proofing and editing of documents.  Tom took the helm at his Powerbook.
Bit by bit pieces were proofed, corrected and turned over to Tom to enter
on the computer files.  Caroline took charge of organizing recipes into
coherent categories.  Although several of the recipes seemed to bridge
categories, choices were made and recipes were bundled into clusters.  As
anticipated, the completion of finished copy was inhibited by printer
limitations.  Before the end of the afternoon -- with proofreading,
editing, and compilation tasks all done -- we agreed that Tom (who
volunteered to do so) could finish entering emendations and print a
polished master copy much more expediently by using proper equipment back
at home.  Dan would put finishing touches on the Measure study guide.
Copies of the collected projects and recipes would be distributed from the
Folger in a couple of weeks.

Everyone ably contributed to making the editing process proceed without
trauma but we were especially grateful to Tom for his yeoman efforts.  The
afternoon's work session dissolved and everyone took a break before our
evening outing to see Volpone at the Lansburg.

Saturday nine o'clock
Following morning munches and chat in the "Ann Hathaway Gallery," we
gathered on stage.  Announcements included distribution by Kathleen of a
complex logistical chart for afternoon rehearsal rotations which provided
all scene partners a chance to work with Audrey in the theatre plus spaces
in which to rehearse during specified time slots through the course of the
early afternoon.  We would collectively convene again in the theatre for a
final showcase of all scenes.

Audrey then took us through some morning warmups, reviewing several of the
voice/body exercises we had done during prior months.  Two scene pairings
had asked Audrey to rehearse them, and two individuals had requested
Audrey's help with monologues.  At the end of the April weekend, Ed Isser
had suggested the value of observing Audrey work with actors in a rehearsal
style context.  Caroline began with Hermione's defense monologue from Act
III of Winter's Tale  (3.2.91-116).  Bob assisted playing Leontes.

Following Caroline's first playing of the speech, Audrey asked Bob to help
with a physicalization exercise we all had experienced before: Caroline
propelled thoughts toward an imaginary Leontes while trying to drive her
body forward as Bob restrained her labors at movement from behind.  Audrey
values this rehearsal exertion as a way of getting voice and feeling "into
the whole body."  Caroline then explored ways of locating the emotional
facets of the speech within the context of the scene.  Audrey counseled
against inclination to enclose herself in internalized feelings of anguish
-- Hermione's suffering of false accusation and "loss of babies."  "Plead
your case to all assembled," Audrey urged.  "Argue methodically like a
lawyer.  Look for development of various emotional layers in the speech . .
. "  but  "connect links in the emotional chain" and look for response
support from listeners.
Audrey then worked with Ed and Julia on their Angelo-Isabella scene from
Measure for Measure (2.4.22-201).  Audrey again focused attention to
context,  the identification and clarification of "steps" along the
emotional path.  Responding to Ed's first intimate rendering of Angelo's
soliloquy, Audrey advocated letting more feeling ring in the voicing.
Further work reflected upon a set of questions: "What happens to Angelo
when Isabella is announced?  Some physical stirring of the spirit?  What
are the signals that reveal Angelo's repressed longings?  How does
restraint of physical intimidation of Isabella factor into the picture --
if Angelo is less predatory how does this alter our perception of
Isabella's reactions?  Ed had included active business of knotting and
fixing a knit tie around his neck as significant action in the scene.
Audrey observed that it provided a marvelous image but the busy action may
call too much attention to itself (becoming a scene about a tie) and
obscure the emotional substructure.

Kurt and Paul were next in presenting their Brutus/Cassius scene from the
opening act of Julius Caesar (1.2.25-177).  Audrey's remarks addressed
questions of characterization and relationship.  What animal images come to
mind with these characters?  Is Cassius snake-like?  How does Brutus
respond to Cassius' maneuverings?  Is this a scene of seduction?  How can
interpretive ideas about progression -- the steps in tempting Brutus to
take action against Caesar -- be choreographed into staged movement and in
the visual composition of moments?  Is there a homoerotic element suggested
in Cassius' relationship to Brutus?

The session concluded with Audrey working with Clare's Isabella soliloquy.
Here Audrey's responses concentrated upon the passion/coolness dichotomy in
acting.  Observing Clare's emotive, reflexive intensity, Audrey suggested
"Just think the argument."  Do we achieve a clearer connection to the
emotional subtext if the words are spoken as an attempt to reason coolly in
the presence of deeply held but restrained passionate feeling?  When is it
appropriate to release emotion into gestures of speech/sound or action?
When it comes to ventilating passion, frequency, duration, intensity,
variety, and position of releases in the overall progression of a
speech/scene are all critically relevant issues the actor must examine.

The exchanges with Audrey demonstrated parallels between an approach to
directing methodology and practices of pedagogy.  Probing scenes and
characters with questions invites exploration of critical/interpretive
possibilities.  How the questions are framed can indeed impose limits on
interpretation or, on the other extreme, throw explorations into a muddle
of anything goes.  Achieving a balance between constructive direction and
responsive investigation is a challenge.  Interrogatory processes can be
employed to manipulate, but they also provide a dynamic method of critical
exploration.

Eleven o'clock session
With our collection of capsule reviews of the Lansburg Volpone  perused and
in hand, we re-gathered forces for a post-mortem of the Michael Kahn
production.  Alan launched discussion by reading a clip from Lloyd Rose's
Washington Post notice that heralded the production as "stylized, nasty,
and absolutely delicious." A chorus of responsive groans was heard.  Alan
noted that none of our commentaries found the production "nasty" at all, or
at least did not find it nasty enough.  Furthermore, quite astoundingly he
thought, no one even mentions the portrayal of the key role of Mosca. "If
Mosca has no provocative presence," Alan remarked, "the production is not
going to work."  Key interpretive questions here are "Is Mosca plotting
from the top -- improvised -- or is his cunning premeditated?"

Edward noted that he uses those very questions to propel class debate.
Audrey opined that the actor playing Mosca (Wallace Acton) lacked vocal
command.  Several commentators lamented that Mosca was merely an "elf-like"
sycophant who did not resonate on stage as an agent of duplicity.  Clare
suggested that playing off Pat Carroll's "Pillsbury dough boy" Volpone,
compromised potential of a provocative presence for Mosca.  Bill agreed
that Carroll appeared physically feeble and lacked any semblance of
fox-like rapacity.  Sheila remarked that she was "thrown off by the early
bit of (Volpone) kissing Mosca on the lips."  Is there some take on this
master-servant relationship that we are supposed to latch on to here?

Reacting to the stylized characterizations, Julia said that "we did not see
the animals working -- the birds of prey were not predatory.  We saw
mannerisms; not intent."  Others concurred that the bird images operated as
mere sight gags and did not seem to fit into an integral interpretive
pattern.  As such, their mannerism ceased to be funny very soon after first
sight.

Alan turned attention back to an issue brought forward in yesterday's
discussion: "This potentially nasty play is also a funny play.  . . . How
do we reconcile nastiness (such as in the treatment of Celia by Corvino)
with the lightness?"

Ellen responded saying that she "found the action strangely imbalanced. Men
who treat their wives badly should be deplored --yes -- but the lust of
greed lacks edge." The impulses behind the situations of comedy did not
drive the action and failed to generate satirical resonance.  Clare
observed that the "Three zannies were the core delight of the production"
but, while others enjoyed their antics, many found them to be excrescent
rather than organic to the production scheme.

Alan noted that "it is normal to pare down the Sir Pol. part" but he asked
Miranda about motives behind the extent of the cuts.  Miranda suggested
company politics may have figured into the matter -- reining in an actor in
the company who had become notorious for taking liberties with lines and
improvising shtick.

Audrey complained that "It was slow.  Jonson should be animated, full of
fun."  She suggested connections between Jonsonian aesthetics and British
pantomime.  Other voices allowed that "drag show" elements might have been
more evocative if thematically tied to a cogent production concept.  Tom
admired Kahn's penchant for detail but Edward added that Kahn's productions
seem to be ornamented with "good bits" that do not necessarily tie into a
coherent pattern.  Eric agreed, stating that he has come away from Kahn's
productions unclear about what the unifying sense of structure is supposed
to be.

Eric also registered disappointment that the production avoided topicality.
Given the political ambiance of Washington, why don't they seize
opportunity to link themes of venality, deceit, and corruption to the
corridors of government.  Miranda mentioned something about biting hands
that feed.

Dan admitted that he was more willing to accept this production's taking
license with Jonson's script than he might be with analogous adulterations
of Shakespeare.  He allowed that the musical embellishments were
entertaining.  Clare also enjoyed the musical closure.  Alan confessed that
he resents "pumped-up endings" and having his "buttons pushed" by swelling
strains of curtain-call music.  Tom asked whether he was "the only one
annoyed by synchronized clapping."  Julia stated that she resents facile
applause of sleazy gimmicks but believes strongly in the importance of
reaching out to an audience to get them "involved." Also responding to
cheap trix theatricality, Sheila marveled quizzically at the
post-intermission mass entrance of characters marching on stage.  Bill
recalled the titillating effect of the staging of Celia's "strip tease."
Others echoed a sense of repugnance at that seemingly gratuitous bit of
"spectacle" noting that it appeared to have little connection to dramatic
development of Volpone's lust and functioned more as a show stopper aimed
at arousing audience prurient attention (or political indignation).

Discourse swarmed around Kahn's directorial choices.  Cezarija asked how we
can know "what is accountable to a director."  Answers touched on the
sprawling array of choices a director makes, ineffable matters of style,
and how production dynamics are always affected by various "limitations."
Audrey stated that Kahn "has a knack for theatricality."  Edward admitted
that many of Kahn's flashy strokes "engage you with curiosity"-- what do
they mean?  Alan remonstrated that Kahn's gimmickry conveys "a disregard
for the text."  Bob complained that Kahn's garish showmanship often "blunts
the edges" of issues -- provocative problems are occasionally paraded but
not insightfully investigated -- and that thought is upstaged by spectacle.
Carol added her impression that Kahn panders to audiences, banqueting bad
taste with a "let them eat cake" view of aesthetic nutrition.  Clare
adjoined that although she wanted her "students to love Shakespeare" and
classic drama -- and could thereby forgive devices that violate propriety
of purism in favor of enlivening classics with imaginative panache -- she
also wanted students "to recognize the hard parts."  Dan asked what harm
might be done to audiences by productions of great plays that take
patronizing views of taste or by attitudes about playing down to the
public's capacity for and interest in being intellectually, emotionally,
spiritually challenged.

Eric affirmed that "great theatre will survive in garages," that the
panoply of production is not a proper measure of the power of performance.
Caroline agreed but added there is "room for both" bare bones productions
and boulevard fare.  Ed alluded to Peter Brook's categories of "Holy
Theatre" and "Deadly Theatre."  Bill noted that he is endeared to garage
theatre but also values the opportunity to see mature talent on big stages.
Audrey expressed a "cris de coeur" that "audiences will respond to
quality!!!  We have got to improve the quality of theatre" by celebrating
quality whenever it comes along  -- if you see a good production make the
effort to get others to it.  Miranda observed that "celebrating great
productions can involve risk" just as denigrating bad or mediocre theatre
can, in the view of media critics, imperil the survival of live theatre.
Ed defended the positive role "nasty" critics (e.g. John Simon) can play in
maintaining standards of quality.  Kurt observed that the critical acuity of
audiences needs to be cultivated.  Bob added that we need to distinguish
between "quality and interpretation" -- a high quality production can send
low messages.  But who are the arbiters of quality and values?  Dan
admonished that "we should not emphasize the search for excellence alone
but cultivate power of assessment."  Edward urged that we do what we can to
"expose younger audiences to the issues" and help build new foundations of
support "from the youth."  Appending another element to the discourse,
Kurt, Clare, and Ed advocated the value of including faculty participation
(as actors) in student productions as a means of fostering appreciation of
qualitative and interpretive standards.

Alan congratulated everyone on the quality and interpretive points of the
discussion.

Saturday afternoon
Our final hours were dedicated to rehearsal and presentation of our scenes
followed by reflective discussion of the learning experiences derived from
scene work and the Institute as a whole.  As noted before, the plan for the
afternoon was to allow each scene group rehearsal time in satellite spaces
complemented by a chance to cycle into the theatre for coaching session
with Audrey.  The profile of scenes and actors was:

Taming of the Shrew 2.1.168-280 (Riverside) in four pairings and
variations:  Clare/Petruchio and Caroline/Katherine; Edward/Petruchio and
Clare/Katherine; Caroline/ Katherine and Bob/Petruchio; plus Bob/Kate and
Edward/Petruchio.

Twelfth Night  2.4.88-137 (New Folger) with Miranda as Caesario/Viola and
Sheila as Orsino.

Measure for Measure  2.4.30-187 with Dan as Angelo and Ellen as Isabella.

Twelfth Night  1.3.79-139 with Tom as Sir Toby and Bill and Sir Andrew.

Measure for Measure  2.4.22-201 with Ed as Angelo and Julia as Isabella.

Pericles  5.1.81-216 (excluding Helicanus and Lysimachus from "the Peter
Alexander edition of the Complete Works") with Eric as Pericles and
Cezarija as Marina.

Julius Caesar  1.2.25-177 (Riverside with some cutting) with Kurt as Brutus
and Paul as Cassius.

At 3:30 we all gathered in the auditorium for the showcase of scenes.  As
we had done for the presentation of Macbeth scenes, everyone watching took
notes for the performers and they were later distributed.

Closing discussion
Audrey's open-door question was, "What did we learn from doing the scenes?"
Kurt and Paul responded saying that the process enhances understanding the
dynamics of what students go through.  Edward stated "I don't have command
of the acting technology" and expressed appreciation for learning more
about "the corresponding grids of literature and theatre practice."  Bob
mentioned that his students seem to be very concerned about "the
orientation of bodies" and that he learned something about that by looking
at the process from inside out.  Tom said that as someone who had no real
stage experience he learned how important it is for an actor to enjoy
performance and how that enjoyment transfers to an audience.  Clare
reported that she had incorporated scene work in her Shakespeare class this
semester for the first time and that it produced "wonderful" results and
insightful interpretations.  Cezarija noted "Performing helps you read
better."  Dan reflected upon the heuristic value of performance exercise
and how the collaborative nature of the work helps foster a community
within a classroom and a "sense of safety" where ideas can be ventured more
fearlessly.  Bob commented that because most of his students come from
rural communities, he finds that performance exercises are "palpably
liberating, especially for the young women."

Caroline listed three points of discovery derived from performance exercise
experience: 1) A new way of looking at text: "page and stage come together
in the language" 2) What questions to ask students when they are working on
scenes and 3) The traditional "academic world can be sterile" but live
performance exploration "brings human feeling back into the humanities."
Miranda was struck in performing Viola's lines -- not just reading or
reciting them as literature -- with how stirring the power of affective
expression was to her.  Eric, thinking also of how empowering it can be to
deeply grasp the expressivity of words, recalled a student who had trouble
at first speaking a strange word like "beauteous" while reciting a sonnet
only to be overheard later eloquently incorporating "beauteous" in
conversation.  Bill mused that he sometimes gets the impression that the
"English Literature Department has become the 'Criticism Department' . . .
Examining expression through performance "brings life back to literature."
He added that he has "gained new confidence in how to make performance work
in the classroom."  Kurt offered reciprocal views of how theatre students
can learn to appreciate textual cruxes through heuristic exercises.  Tom
pointed out the plays present "some very practical problems to be solved,
choices to be made" and that those challenges relate to important essential
skills students need to develop.  Ellen "relished the opportunity to work
through a scene that she has thought a lot about.  There are moments in the
scene that are technically demanding and complex.  Critics blip over
inconvenient lines but an actor cannot."  Dan added that he now feels an
"enhanced ability to talk with colleagues in the Theatre Dept." and hopes
his expanded frame of reference will encourage them "to listen better."
Julia reminded us of how important it is to "remember what it is like to
ask students to be vulnerable, experience the puzzle of an actor's
choice-making.  Reading from a desk is different from acting."  Ed said
that he had been incorporating many exercises we had done into classes
taught during the past year.  He and his students found them enriching to
do plus enjoyable and enlightening to observe.

The hour groaned for us to exeunt.  But inasmuch as "every exit is an
entrance somewhere else" we withdrew knowing we would regather for the
farewell soir=E9e and feeling that beyond the party and departings we would
reconvene somewhere, someday.  Even at the close of play, there remained a
shared sense that revels were not ended.  Deeply grateful for the privilege
of having been part of a magnificent and stimulating collective experience,
we concluded our Folger Institute with a celebratory sense of the joy and
dignity of learning that we could carry onward.