Theatre Design & Technology - Oct 1969 - 27

The introduction also reveals the book's
major concern. In so many articles and
books we read about the proper placement
of the spotlights, the functioning of stage
mach inery, the placement of scenic elements
and other similar concerns. New Theatre
Forms treats these problems in due time,
but the emphasis is where it properly belongs-on the actor. Early in the book Joseph
writes:
Joseph writes:
Real actors. acting in the presence of a real
audience: this is the essence of theatre. In designing
a theatre this meeting can be s~ized upon and developed so that the presence of the actor is more
strongly felt and the contribution of the audience is
increased.

This assertion is the basis of the entire
book. It governs his approach to the history
of theatre forms (dealt with as the subject
arises) and it is the primary criterion for
critical evaluation of the theatres specifically
discussed.
Later chapters examine at some length examples of each of the major new forms
(centre stage, thrust stage, end stage) and
also consider, in the same way, adaptable
stages and multipurpose halls. In addition,
there is a chapter entitled "Other Stages"
in which Joseph treats some examples of
combination stages. In this chapter, he also
suggests the existence of yet another category-the diagonal axis stage, or pictorial
open stage-citing the Theatre of Western
Springs and Norman Bel Geddes' Projected
Theatre Number 6 as examples_ In this connection he suggests the revolve as a useful
technical device and includes a projected
diagonal axis theatre with this element as
its main feature.
OtAer technical problems receive passing
mention (Chapter VIII; "Seating, Sightlines,
and Lighting" and Chapter IX; "Size, Scenery, and Cost") but clearly this is not
where his main concern lies. H is aim is to
take each of the forms, show how they accommodate theatrical performance, and suggest ways in wh ich this accommodation can
be improved. He discovers what each form
can do best and admonishes architects and
clients to do likewise.

others), Joseph contends that the thrust
form is most appropriate to theatres with
large capacities-probably in excess of 1200
seats. This is something of a contradiction
and is, I believe, too restrictive.
The bookl ist is brief, but very much to the
point. The fifty illustrations are well chosen
and clear. They enhance the book immeasurably.
Wh il e we can rejoice in having New Theatre
Forms, we must also grieve that this is
Stephen Joseph's last book. His death in
1967 took from us a sensitive and fair observer of theatre architecture. His place
will not be easily filled.
Michael Birtwistle
Case Western Reserve University

EW THEATRE
FORMS

The Penguin Dictionary of the Theatre by
John Russell Taylor. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England, and Baltimore, Maryland:
Penguin Books, 1966. 195 pp., $1.45.
(Also New York: Barnes & Noble, 1967,
$6.75)

It is good to see some unfamiliar theatres
discussed in th e thrust stage chapter. With
his analysis of the old favorites-Stratford,
the Guthrie, Chichester and the Beaumonthe also introduces us to John English's
makeshift but practical Arena Theatre (actually a thrust) and to James Hull Miller's
beautiful but out-of-the-way little theatre for
the Olathe, Kansas, High School. However,
in the face of these two examples (and

Anyone who wants a pocket-sized encyclopedia which contains compactly written material on some 1 500 theatrical items cannot do better than provide himself with the
Penguin Dictionary. This is the fifth book
in as many years by the same John Russell
Taylor who produced (at 27) a major study
of the new British drama. A Cantabrigian
with a First in English, he studied art
nouveau for two years, has written widely
on theatre, film, and television, and has far
f rom a narrowly I iterary approach to th eatre.
What's more, he writes English that's a
pleasure to read.
About the length of a standard novel, the
Dictionary gives four-fifths of its entries to
people, plays, and, to a limited extent, to
other matters theatrical. Some of the people
are of direct interest to technicians (e.g.,
Mielziner, Oliver Smith, Jessner). The remaining fifth of the entries are terms and
movements, a third or more of these being
'technical' (e.g., flies, grid, apron stage).
The book's orientation to technology may
be suggested by the brief entries on "Flats.
Units of stage scenery, generally stretched
canvas or hardboard. used in various combinations to make up three-dimensional
sets." and "Scene bay, scene dock. Rooms
in a theatre immediately adjacent to the
stage, where scenery can be stored." If
none of us would accept either definition
as it stands, I take it few would deny
Taylor's directness and lucidity.

@illC) THEATER DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY

OCTOBER,1969

Thus he recognizes that, while a multipurpose theatre may be possible, an allpurpose one certainly is not. It is not that
the multi-purpose theatre is afraud, itsimply
must be seen for what it is. "An adaptabl e
theatre," Joseph writes, "becomes a form
of theatre in its own right." It does not
provide substantially different playing environments. Though the shape of the stage
may change, the basic atmosphere of the
building-and hence the theatrical environment-does not. To accept this is to accept
the ultimate I imitation and true place of the
multi-form theatre.

Brief comparisons of Taylor with th new
editions of Phyllis Hartnoll's The Oxford
Companion to the Theatre and Warren
Lounsbury's Theatre Backstage from A to
Z (see TD&T No. 14) will help to define
the Penguin further. Taylor's emphasis is
not so strongly historical as Miss Hartnoll's,
but his book covers from the Greeks to our
day. His approach, especially in the longer
articles, is often historical. Both books treat
major non-Western material (such as Kabuki,
Noh, and Joruri-though here the Penguin
happens to be a better dictionary than the
Oxford, which buries all its Japanese material
in a single article and e.g., does not even
cross-reference J oruri). The Oxford is nearly
ten times the length of the Penguin, but the
smaller book's entry on Mielziner is the
full er, and the Oxford does not enter Oliver
Smith. Ordinarily, however, the differences
favor the longer work, which has three or
four times the number of technical entries,
and the virtues that come with such specialist contributors as Stanley McCandless and
Richard Southern.
Theatre Backstage, though somewhat shorter
than the Dictionary (but quarto-sized), is entirely technical, enters almost nothing but
the language used in the theatre, and is
well illustrated. Its 1500 entries cover
much more technical material in alphabetical sequence than any other work in English (and, in other languages, only Walther
Unruh's ABC der Theatertechnik is comparable). But perhaps the crux of the difference between the Dictionary and TB can
be put by noting that if Taylor is a bright
and prolific young writer with wide-ranging
interests in the theatre, Lounsbury is an
experienced technician-teacher who has had
a full career at one of the most active university th eatres in America. The Dictionary's
advantages over either of the other books
lie mainly in its handy size and negligible
cost (in the paperback edition), and in its
often better writing.
Joel Trapido
University of Hawaii

Making A Miniature Theatre, by Guy R.
Williams. Boston: Plays, Inc., 1967, 79pp,
4 plates, index. $4.95, hardcover.
Within the context of theatre education,
there are usually two reasons for building a
miniature theatre. One is for purposes of illustrating an historically important theatre
and in this instance, accuracy will likely be
the guiding criterion. The second major
purpose is for practical communication in
the areas of scenic and lighting design. Here,
historical accuracy is not important and frequently not relevant. What is required is an
environment for the model stage set, or
when deal ing with lighting, a tool permitting
the use of model lighting equipment in conjunction with a set model that allows instruction in lighting design. It is possible
to combine the two functions in one theatre
model but it is not necessary and usually
will not be desirable because of mutual interference.

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Oct 1969