Theatre Design & Technology - May 1965 - 12

Harvard's Loeb Drama Center: The First Three Years
DICK LAND
ABSTRACT: Harvard's Loeb Drama Center embodi es severa I radi co I innovations wh ich have
been widely debated since the building's dedication five years ago. The building's operation
is discussed from the point of view of one who
has worked in it. (I. R. Code Architecture/
Vari able/Educational)
(Critical comment represents the views of the author and
does not necessarily express or concur with official sentiment of Horvord University)

Much controversy heralded the two-fold experimenta I nature of the Loeb Drama Center at its
opening in 1960. Technologically it was endowed
with advanced theatrical machinery and admitted
a flexibility heretofore unavailable in a theatre
complex. The policy of the Drama Center was to
offer the rewards of participation in theatrical
activity to Harvard and Radcliffe Colleges and
the community, independent of a specific curriculum or theater department. Any review of the
Loeb's success to date mu st be cogn i zant of
both aspects of the experiment; however the
technical aspects will be considered more extensively in the report that follows.
On the main stage, during the regular school
terms of those first three years, some nineteen
producti on s were schedu led for as many as eight
performances each. Twelve productions ran for
two weeks each during the summer sessions.
Presentational styles fully challenged the flexibility of the house through four plays by Shakespeare, three by Shaw, two by Brecht, originals,
Joyce's Ulysses in Nightown and Sophocles'
Ajax (in Greek) among others. Concurrently in
theExperimental Theater some seventy-five
programs were presented whose diversity beggars
description. In addition the shops and rehearsal
areas were used for preparation of many productions that actually were presented elsewhere.
Special lectures, receptions, art exhibitions,
motion picture viewings, non-credit seminars in
acting, designing, dance, and meetings of theater-related groups filled out the building's
varied program.
The responsibi lity for what occurs in the Center
rests with three groups: a Faculty Committee,
the Director and his staff, and the student body,
represented by produc ing organ izations (house
drama clubs, The Harvard Dramatic Club, the
Gilbert and Sullivan Players, etc.) While principal responsibility rests with the Faculty Committee, the relationship between these three
groups is flexible and is still developing. Generally the student groups have presented production proposals for the approval of the Director
and Facu Ity.

One aspect of the experimental nature of the
Loeb is here apparent. The policy to guide the
center preceded its physical appearance and is
best understood in analogy. The athletic program
of a college includes a physical plant, maintenance personnel, and a staff of knowledgeable
coaches to advise, assist, and teach in a field
of activity where students do all of the actual
performing. Simi larly the bui Iding of the Drama
Center offers extensive physical facilities, the
University has provided an instructional staff
and the students are expected to exercise their
initiative and ability to accept responsibility
within this sphere of activity. The historical and
philosophical implications of this parallel will
be left without further comment.
The financial structure reveals another feature
of the policy of the Center. The activities are
completely subsidized by the University which
maintains the building and purchases permanent
equipment, meets the staff payroll, and budgets
an amount for the season's productions. The
nominal admission price ($1.50 to $2.00) does
not affect the budget funds and hence the productions are completely independent from popular
support. Before a main stage show goes into production, its budget is worked out in detail and
usually runs $1400 to $2000. This amount covers
direct production costs, the set, costumes, publicity, etc. and is administered by the students
with the aid of the Drama Center staff. Some six
regular term productions have been very popular
playing to full houses, at least two were rather
unpopular, and the remainder managed to draw
very well on weekends and with variable attendance through the week.
It is important tonote that the summer session is
quite different in many aspects; hereafter I shall
not be including it in the technical discussion.
The first summer season was administered by
four students, and the second and third by the
staff of the Center. In each case key student
personnel received support as grants-in-aid. The
Summer School Players have evolved into an
amateur summer stock company on a fu II-ti me
working schedule using experienced directors
and designers with a producing cycle of two
weeks.
A review of pre-Loeb and extra-Loeb theatrical
activity offers further insight into present operational policy. Within the Harvard community in
the past as in the present, some fifty or more
theatrical enterprises transpire during the year.
Some are readings, some minor events, but many
are productions involving budgets of more than
$1000. All conceivable locations are used: court
yards, dining halls, club theaters, high school
auditoria, and lecture halls. The producing organization decides upon a director and play, then

IUSITT

THEATRE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOOY

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - May 1965