Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 1991 - 25

Whar is less commonly noriced is rhar
rhe same rhing is rrue of rhe srage.
Decades ago, a number of thearre leaders-Tyrone Gurhrie and Zelda Fichhandler were rhe firsr-recognized rhar if
rhearre was going ro survive in rhis counrry, ir was going ro have ro be decenrralized and based on a sysrem morivared by
an, nor profirs. Fichhandler wenr ro
Washingron and founded rhe Arena
Srage. Gurhrie-rejecring Bosron because ir was roo close ro ew Yorkwenr ro Minneapolis, where he nor only
founded a fine rhearre, bur helped ro
make rhar ciry inro rhe mosr progressive
in rhe land for philanrhropic suppon of
rhe ans.
The earliesr residenr rhearres in rhis
counrry were formed on such Brirish
repenory models as the Old Vic, the
Royal Shakespeare Company, and rhe
arional Thearre, sraging sraple classics
mixed wirh rhe occasional new play, performed in an acting sryle influenced by
rhe grear English performers (Gielgud,
Olivier, Richardson). Bur some of rhe
newer companies were larer ro explore
other forms of inspirarion. The Thearre
of Living Arrs, founded in Philadelphia
by Andre Gregory, developed a radical,
boisrerous approach ro rhe works of
Becken and Anouilh; Joe Papp's lew
York Shakespeare Fesrival and Public
Thearre, especially in rheir early days,
encouraged new American plays and
began experimenring wirh a peculiarly
American Shakespeare, based on roughhewn sryles borrowed from broad movie
farces. And, if I'm permirred ro menrion
ir, rhe Yale Reperrory Thearre, afrer its
founding in 1966, was ruming ro a blend
of Brecht and cabaret in approaching lirde-known classics and sariric new works.
At the same rime, The Open Theatre and
larer Mabou Mines and rhe Woosrer
Group-performance groups reflecring
the influence of the Living Thearrewere exploring a whole new approach ro
acting in their evolution of new works for
the stage.

he Sixties and early Seventies were a high poinr for
rhe residenr thearre movemenr, rhough ir must be
acknowledged rhar after a
rime-largely as a result of a funding crisis caused by dwindling privare foundarion suppon and the roo-slow growth of
the arional Endowmenr for the ArtSmany of these rheatres began ro grow
srale and convenrional, losing their initial
radical thrust. One of the proudest things
about this movemenr in rhe early stages
was its independence from the com mer-

cial ew York stage. ow many were
rerurning ro an old rose as rributaries,
generating producrs for Broadway. Of
course a good play deserves a longer life
in many differenr venues, and there's no
reason why ew York should nor be one
of rhe pit srops. But this is differenr from
acrually choosing plays in order ro move

The theatre,
usually at odds
with reality,
seems to be
imitating nature
in one important
regard: its cycles
ofdeath and
rebirth.
Something seems
to be dying, and,
as with all
seasonal changes,
something new is
struggling to be
born.
ro Broadway, or restaging past Broadway
and off-Broadway successes. A Chorus
Lille, though it saved Joe Papp from
bankruprcy and enabled him for a while
ro preserve his dedicarion ro unpopular
new plays, was an early harbinger of the
misalliance between nonprofit thearres
and rhe commercial stage. Before long,
residenr rhearres would be rrying out the
comedies of Neil Simon, or circulating
productions of August Wilson and Illto

the Woods ro other residenr thearres as
tryout srarions on the way ro ew York.
This made good sound fiscal sense. It
brought an infusion of royalties ro hardpressed insrirurions and creared celebriry
for irs anisric direcrors, direcrors, playwrights, and acrors. Bur as rhe media
wheeled around ro applaud this new
breed of American thearre people and
rum them inro srars of rhe week, the
insriwtions themselves began ro sicken
and even die. The firsr casualry was rhe
idea of a residenr permanenr company.
How could an ensemble remain rogerher
when so many of irs members were performing in New York? As a result, rhere
are nor more rhan rhree or four major
residenr acring companies srill in place in
rhis counrry, because irs members---once
happy ro join a group wirh lofry and
clearly-defined goals-have largely
decamped for Hollywood and New York.
Anorher casualry was rhe ideals and aspirarions of rhese once-commirred insrirurions. Insrirurional rhearres originally
devored ro developi ng rheir own sryle
and rheir own anisrs began compering
wirh each orher over projecrs rhey
rhoughr mighr have rhe legs ro walk ro
Broadway.

linle of rhis is undersrandable and probably inevirable. Bur ir has presenrly
grown so widespread and
endemic, ir is discrediring
rhe enrire movement. In a culrure which
worships success, few are prepared ro cry
our againsr rhis progressive deteriorarion.
Quire rhe conrrary, it is being encouraged, largely by crirics inreresred only in
resulrs, with less inreresr in rhe process by
which rhese results are achieved. The
effecrs, however, are more noriceable in
England which currenrly provides so
much fodder for our own commercial
srage-and our non-commercial srage as
well. The rwo large companies responsible for much rhar was forceful and original in English rhearre losr rheir arrisric
leaders a few years ago-Trevor Nunn of
rhe RSC and Perer Hall of rhe arional.
Both were under fire for having abandoned rheir original purpose in order ro
profir personally by rheir commercial
venrures. If anyone had said, a decade
ago, rhat the leading purveyor of blockbusrer musicals ro Broadway and rhe
Wesr End was going ro be the head of rhe
Royal Shakespeare Company, he would
have been pilloried for impugning the
honor of Brirish culrure. Yer, Trevor
Nunn is now enriching himself wirh such
facrory irems as Cats and Starlight Express
and Miss Saigoll, while Peter Hall is spinTD&T

1991

SPRING

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 1991