Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 1975 - 30

We placed a living tree on stage, added straw, real things,
and emphasized their structure. We projected film on to the
rough surface of the wall. Nevertheless, it was not naturalism.
Not even illusionism. From real elements we composed a new
reality that could exist only on the stage and be truthful only
there. 20

Fig. 45. F. Trester, Public Enemy (F. Tetauer). 13 Dec. 1935,
Estates Theatre, Prague. dir: J. Frejka.

Fig. 43. F. Troster, King $vatopluK (I. Stodola). 6 Apr. 1935.
National Theatre, Bratislava. d,r: V. Sulc.

Fig. 46. F. Trester, Julius Caesar (Shakespeare). 9 June 1936,
National Theatre, Prague, dir: J. Frejka.

Fig. 44. F. Troster, Fuente Ovejuna (Lope de Vega). 3 Ocl. 1935,
National Theatre, Prague, dir: J. Frejka.

Still another distinctive artistic technique -- interesting
in theory and practice -- was developed by Troster and
Frejka. It consisted of what Troster called, "dramatic
planes or levels that we provide ... to show the actor from
"unreal" angles above and below him, in effect from all
sides, and that have the resonance of sounding boards."21
Today, in Brechtian terms, we might refer to the
technique as one of alienation, a way of heightening the
impact of a given moment by presenting it in an
unexpected manner. In Public Enemy [Verejn;'neprifel}
(Figure 45), Prague 1935, as Troster explains, this was
accomplished by means of "a concave surface that did not
intersect with the normal planes of floor, wall, or ceiling.
It was a single surface on which shadows cast by low
placed lights magnified the figures of the individual actors
as if they were seen under a magnifying glass." The setting
is also quite interesting simply as an example of spatial,
architectural design: a concave surface pierced by a spiral
staircase that extends from an opening in the upper part
of the surface.
A still more striking example of this technique is found
in Julius Caesar (Figure 46), Prague 1935, one of the most
celebrated Frejka-Troster productions. It is reminiscent of
the Hilar-Hofman productions of Hamlet and Oedipus in
its complete elimination of the painted,conventionally

28

pictorial scene, in its definitively architectonic treatment
of space and matter, and above all in its creation of
dramatic space. First, Frejka sought to disturb the
traditional separation of stage and audience by breaking
through the framed opening of the proscenium_ The stage
was extended beyond the proscenium, over the orchestra
pit, by means of a curved, raked platform, thus also
making it possible for actors to approach closer to the
aud ience. Behind the raked forestage a series of variously
angled levels or slabs were placed on a turntable. In
certain positions of the turntable, these levels rose upward
at an angle of 30 0 toward the audience, so that actors
who ascended the level from behind could suddenly
appear over the edge of the level with strong effect. But
most dramatic was the juxtaposition of actors and huge
sculptured pieces that towered over them at precarious
angles. Troster's explanation of the setting and its
function is illuminating:
We were concerned with expressing instability by means of
large broken slabs which bore gigantic sculptural pieces
terminating somewhere high above the proscenium arch:
Caesar enters from the circus and stands under a huge statue
01 a horse. actually under his uplifted hoof. Caesae is dwarfed
by the discrepancy of scale, but the crowd greets him stormily.
The deliberately contrived angle 01 vision from which we view
Caesae and the tragedy as a whole: it is not a symbol but a
pOint of view or attitude toward the whole. 23

The del iberate disproportion of
actor and scenery or property recalls similar instances in
Feuerstein's settings for Imaginary Invalid or Ass and
Shadow.
In
Troster's
Caesar
the
effect is heightened by the three-dimensional sculpture in
addition to the tilted angles employed.

USITT

THEATRE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY

FALL,1975
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 1975
