Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

On Poland (By Way of Austin)

In the Times yesterday, there was an article about Poland and the divisive cultural environment that is now thriving there. What struck me most about it was this quote:
“Poles always feel they need to have an enemy,” Urszula Slawinska, 38, said one day as she walked along a sidewalk in Warsaw, an average citizen, headed home, uninvolved in politics, yet keenly aware of what was happening around her. “Because of our history we define ourselves, to be Polish meant to protect our country. So now that we don’t have to protect ourselves, we still need to find an enemy.”
In reading this, I was reminded of Dr. Oscar Brockett, my theater history and criticism professor at the University of Texas, who died a few weeks ago. That may seem like an incredible leap of logic—how does a story about European politics relate to theater history?—but I think Dr. Brockett would have appreciated how I made that connection and why.

In one of the lectures in his Contemporary Theater History class, Dr. Brockett told us about Jerzy Grotowski's 1962 production of Akropolis by Stanisław Wyspiański. In the original play, written in 1904, figures from the stained glass windows in the Krakow Cathedral come to life on the night before Easter and reenact Biblical and mythical stories; in the end, the Christ figure (as Apollo) is resurrected and destroys the cathedral in order "to free the Polish mind from the shackles of its own culture."1 The play was a source of national pride for many people (although, as this writer notes, its nationalism can be read with an ironic perspective that may well have been intended by Wyspiański) that Grotowski twisted into a wicked commentary on Polish society. He set the action in a concentration camp barracks and had the prisoners play the different parts; the characters were ultimately "freed" by a headless Christ-figure they constructed from the detritus on the set which "led them" into the gas chambers. I see Grotowski's interpretation of the play as a corollary to the statement that Slawinska gave to the reporter: he is saying—in a very graphic and, I imagine, extremely powerful fashion*—that the Poles are, essentially, their own worst enemy.

I've been lucky to have many great teachers—while I was a student and in the decades since—but Dr. Brockett influenced me more than any other. His History of the Theatre is, without a doubt, the definitive theater history textbook. It was so thorough that his classes could easily have been just a rehashing of its contents (as, indeed, my undergraduate theater history class had been). Instead, he brought to his lectures a wealth of stories and images (he lectured without notes, as I recall, and had the most amazing slides—as in carousel, not Powerpoint—of influential productions to illustrate his points) that made it obvious that his book could have easily been a multi-volume encyclopedia.

What really made him unusual as a history teacher, however, is that he was just as concerned—perhaps even more concerned—with the current state of theater. Since it first appeared in 1968, Dr. Brockett made sure that the History was always current: the 10th and last edition just came out in 2007. At the end of his Contemporary Theater History class, he was telling us about influential Off Broadway productions that were only a few years old or that were playing in New York at that moment—Richard Foreman's Film is Evil, Radio is Good, Eric Bogosian's Talk Radio and The Wooster Group's LSD (...Just the High Points...). He also provided me with the adage that I still hold true (and repeat often) to this day: there is no such thing as presenting "the play as written;" the act of staging a play is the act of interpretation.†

I think it's telling that, although I had gone to UT to get an MFA in acting, more of my graduate credits are in theater history and criticism. In my very first class with Dr. Brockett, his syllabus required us to write a number of papers by the end of the semester. Concerned that I'd be trying to write a bunch of papers in the last week of class (my M.O. as an undergraduate), I decided to get a jump on them and wrote the first one before the second week of class. Unfortunately, I hadn't read his instructions very carefully and I hadn't proofread my work before I turned it in: what was supposed to be 7-10 pages was less than 5 and riddled with typos. Dr. Brockett corrected all of my mistakes (he also believed, as I said in my previous post, that spelling counts... also punctuation and grammar) and wrote at the end that four-and-a-half pages was woefully short of the assignment but "assuming that you misunderstood: B-." Reading that, I imagined him thinking, "Well, he's an actor; what should I expect?" Whether that was in his mind or not, I made certain from that point on that it would never be a question again.

In my last exchange with Dr. Brockett, a few days before I moved to New York in 1987, he told me how concerned he was that I might never finish my degree (he was right) and that I didn't need to write the remaining three papers I owed him for one of his courses. A few minutes later, I heard a knock on my office door and he poked his head in and sheepishly said maybe I should do them, after all (I'd already told him that I would, in spite of his earlier protests). Thousands of times over the years, I've thought about writing to tell him how much he and his classes meant to me. Most of the amazing productions I've seen since graduate school—certainly all of my favorite productions‡—and every piece that I've ever created, connect back to something I learned from him. But I never did that; I waited too long. Not that he needed to hear it from me: I could tell from the comments on his obituaries that he had plenty of students who kept in contact with him and with whom he had close relationships. It would have meant a lot to me, though; maybe just to make sure he knew I wasn't the doofus actor that I imagined he thought me.

By way of returning this post to Poland, from whence it sprang, I leave you with this short excerpt from Peter Brook's video of Grotowski's Akropolis. The video sucks but it's at least a little taste of what must have been an incredible production.



1 Relations Between Cultures by George F. McLean, John Kromkowski.
* For an excellent description of the production, with illustrations, check out Theater: a Way of Seeing by Milly S. Barranger.
† He's also responsible for my favorite smart-ass comment that, strictly following the Aristotelian belief that the purpose of drama is "to teach and to please," the lesson of Othello is that women should look after their linens; for the t.v. series, Miami Vice (this was 1987, after all), it was "don't get caught" because the criminals all lead incredible lives until the cops catch up with them.
‡Including The Wooster Group's 2005 piece, Poor Theater, which incorporated Grotowski's Akropolis into the production.

Sunday, March 7, 2010

Top Secret: The Battle for the Pentagon Papers

Was it mere synchronicity that Catherine and I stayed up late a few nights ago watching the last half of All the President's Men again for the I-don't-know-how-many-th time? Of course, but I think it may also have affected our experience a bit at the New York Theatre Workshop's production of Top Secret: The Battle for the Pentagon Papers. Not that the play isn't enjoyable—it is; but the text here, by Geoffrey Cowan and Leroy Aarons, doesn't have the sense of immediacy that make Alan J. Pakula's film so timeless. While the personal stakes for the staff of The Washington Post and owner Katherine Graham in their publication of the Pentagon Papers were incredibly high and the history is absolutely fascinating—I knew The New York Times' role in the events but almost nothing about the Post's—the two-dimensional quality to this production keep it from being entirely successful.

To be fair, this lack of dimension is entirely intentional: Top Secret is a radio play performed live, with actors onstage creating foley sound effects. And a very good radio play it is, too: the original sound design by Lindsay Jones serves the conceit exceptionally well. But this device also allows us to distance ourselves from the characters and events that we are watching: we're supposed to see the actors as actors, reading into microphones from scripts they hold in their hands (although, to everyone's credit, a lot of the key dialogue is clearly memorized). No matter how strong the performances—and the performances are all uniformly strong—there is an inherent disconnect that makes the piece more like a documentary than events that we are witnessing unfold before us.

The script may also suffer from so much of it having been taken from personal memoirs, or at least frequently sounding as though it was. Some of Katherine Graham's narrations, especially, do little more than provide a writer-ly device to bridge the gaps between dialogue scenes. It's a shame, to0, because we get occasional hints at her personal "coming of age in the newspaper industry" story that might have been a wonderful framing device for the piece; instead, she merely offers us a "looking back on it all now" perspective that is less powerful and reinforces our detachment from what we are watching. I must say, however, that Kathryn Meisle has created a fully-realized and incredibly engaging character, in spite of these limitations.

Peter Strauss gives an excellent performance as Post editor Ben Bradlee, completely and naturally capturing Bradlee's mannerisms, style of speaking and humor. Larry Bryggman, James Gleason and Matt McGrath have a wonderful scene as the three reporters who are given less than a day to pour through the 4,000 pages of reports to find a story for the Post to publish (the Times had 3 months to come up with their series). And Jack Gilpin does a very nice job as the paper's defense attorney, Bryan Kelly. Director John Rubinstein keeps the pace moving pretty well; I wish it could have been a 90-minute, no intermission production (in fact, I wish every production I see could be that), but I think that would require text editing more than anything else.

The play is at it's most engaging in the trial scene that dominates Act II. The authors have done a very good job of editing down the transcripts from the hearing where Kelly defends the Post against the government's charges that publishing the texts runs counter to our national security interests into a series of swiftly moving and tightly constructed scenes. If the rest of the piece matched that energy and tension, it might have been a powerful drama. Instead, it's a really nice, big spoonful of sugar that helps the history lesson go down.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

How Language Changes With Time

One of the many historic ads and magazine covers that await you on designer Gene Gable's blog. I especially enjoyed the 1962 ad for the California Zephyr and the 1953 ad for trans-Atlantic passage on the Andrea Doria; the latter is not actually an illustration of our changing language—it's just a little creepy.

Monday, June 30, 2008

This Day in History

John Gay, composer of The Beggar's Opera, b. 1685 (Happy birthday, John! How appropriate is that!?)

The Tunguska Event, 1908 (photo at right... Not so much an anniversary to celebrate for the Siberian forest...)

Gone With the Wind published, 1936 (Happy birthday, Scarlett: I don't give a damn!).