Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 2007 - 26

1912 Moscow production, the panels at first were to have a
metal surface, but because the resulting weight would have demanded stage machinery to make them move, Svoboda switched
to panel surfaces of a lightweight plastic material, black and reflective, which gave an impression of gleaming, inhuman menace, and set up vivid visual contrasts with red and white lights
that occasionally played on their surfaces. The lighter weight of
the panels also meant that the movement of the panels did not
require any mechanical assistance, as Pleskot noted: "There
was a stage hand moving each panel from one position to the
next in time to the music." (Pleskot 2004)
The reflectivity of the panels became particularly significant because it provided effective mirrored images of selected
moments of the play, and it also doubled the lighting effects
available to Svoboda, such as being able to cast light onto places otherwise not reachable by lighting instruments in standard
positions. The reflectivity of the panels also created an especially dramatic effect during Hamlet's encounter with the Ghost on
the battlements: the reflection of the rays of two lighting instruments on the upper section of a panel gave the impression of
Below: production photos. two spectral eyes, while the Ghost's pre-recorded, disembodied
Hamlet by William
speeches were heard as a voice-over in the dialogue with HamShakespeare, National
Theatre, Prague, 1959; let. (The voice was actually that of Lukavský himself.)
directed by Jaromir
Pleskot's recollections cite one other important lighting

COURTESY JARKA BURIAN

Pleskot; designed by
Josef Svoboda.

effect, which came to be one of Svoboda's trademark contributions to international scenography: "I believe we were first
to introduce the ramp used for strong back-lighting effect. The
first one we made in a somewhat amateur way out of car headlights. Fortinbras ordered four captains to carry the dead body
of Hamlet into this light." (Pleskot 2004)
The distinctiveness of these panels becomes more apparent when contrasted to those of the earlier productions. Although the 1959 panels were the same height as those of the
Craig production, in other respects the differences were striking. Unlike the panels in both earlier productions, Svoboda's
were of one size and shape and color, and they were reflective.
Unlike Craig's screens, which were hinged and could therefore
fold and unfold in various forms, Svoboda's never altered their
shape or size. Unlike Hofman's smaller panels, Svoboda's never
had attachments and never were used in conjunction with other
elements, such as drapes or occasionally added platforms. Also
unique were the movements of the panels in fixed planes, as
well as the fact that they were all on stage at the same time, even
though not all of them may have been visible in various scenes.
In a larger sense, Svoboda's panel were virtually entirely abstract, in no way illusional, whereas those of Craig and Hofman,
stylized though they were, were meant to suggest certain types
of locales for certain scenes.
Denis Bablet, who wrote extensively on Craig and Svoboda,
noted their relationship in regard to the principle of movement
or kinetics in scenography: "Svoboda who didn't know Craig
very well, unconsciously and instinctively realized his dream,
but at the same time surpassed it and gave kinetic scenography
a variety and an expressive strength it had never known." (Bablet 1970, 105)
I believe that Bablet's praise of Svoboda is understandable
if we realize that in this citation he is not referring only to Svoboda's 1959 Hamlet, but to his other kinetic scenography as well,
up to 1970, which would include such productions as the 1963
Prague Romeo and Juliet and the 1965 Hamlet in Brussels,
both of which employed more complex kinetic scenography
that clearly does surpass [depasser] what Craig envisioned. In
Svoboda's 1959 Hamlet, the panels certainly functioned more
effectively than Craig's in practice, but the potentials of Craig's
were perhaps greater. Moreover, Craig probably deserves credit
for the concept of kinetic scenery. (I say "probably" because
further research would probably reveal some lesser known figure who had thought of it before Craig.)
What must ultimately be considered about these varied
Hamlets is the dramatic, aesthetic appropriateness of each
type of panel or screen for its respective production. It seems
to me that the panels in both the Czech productions were
more organically suited to the concepts of their directors than
was true in the Craig-Stanislavsky production, where a major
problem was a confused, inconsistent concept resulting from
the misunderstandings between Craig and Stanislavsky, who
obviously operated on different wavelengths as individuals
and as artists. The productions of the Czechs had a unity and
THEATRE

SPRING

2007

DESIGN

&

TECHNOLOGY

25
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 2007
