A READERS' THEATER PRODUCTION OF SOPHOCLES' ELECTRA by VERA L.J. SIMPSON, B.A. A THESIS IN SPEECH Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Technological College in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS ^i> V ^.ir/ FOREWORD "It is possible, too, that someone will do a first-rate study in the vexed problem of oral reading of drama, about which there has been so much trouble­ some confusion."^ While this statement was made in 1949 by the chairman of the Department of Oral Interpretation at Northwestern University, Dr. Wallace A, Bacon, certain areas of the oral interpretation of drama still present some "vexed" problems for study. Since that time a great deal of study and writing has been done in the area of the individual interpretation of drama. Many text books in the field of oral interpretation now contain studies and exercises devoted to this area, such as Oral Inter­ pretation by Charlotte I. Lee,2 Communicative Reading by Otis J. Aggertt and Elbert R. Bowen>^ Oral Reading by Lionel Crocker and Louis M. Eich,^ The Oral In­ terpretation of Literature by Chloe Armstrong and ^Wallace A. Baoon, "Graduate Studies in Interpre­ tation," The Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. V, No. 3 (October, l^k^) , p. 318. ^Charlotte I, Lee, Oral Interpretation (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1959) , pp. 291-387. ^Otis J, Aggertt and Elbert R. Bowen, Communica­ tive Reading (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951), pp. if'+Z-bl. T^ionel Crocker and Louis M. Eich, Oral Reading (2d ed., rev.; Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1955) , pp. 413-41. 11 i-K 'J. Ill Paul D. Brandes,5 and even one by Dr. Bacon and Robert S. Breen, Literature as Experience.^ However, about the same time as the above statement was made, a new dimension was being added to the "vexed problem." This dimension can be identified as the enlarging of the oral interpretation of drama to include more than one reader, or interpreter. Focus was placed on this new kind of performance by the professional production of Shaw's Don Juan in Hell in 1951.^ When the writer of this paper saw this production on tour at the University of North Carolina, her interest in this type of production was greatly aroused. Since that time the writer has been concerned with this new area for study which combines aspects of both oral interpretation and theater. Information has been gathered from both fields in an attempt to define the principles and practices which seem to be developing into what may be a new art form. This writer is deeply indebted to the Department of Speech at Texas Technological College , especially to Dr. P. Merville Larson and Mr. Ronald Schulz, for giving ^Chloe Armstrong and Paul D. Brandes, The Oral Interpretation of Literature (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1963), pp. 235-51. Wallace A. Bacon and Robert S. Breen, Literature as Experience (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959) , pp. 251-72. ^Agnes Moorehead, "Staging Don Juan in Hell," Western Speech. Vol. XVIII (May, 1954), pp. 163-67. IV her the opportunity to experiment in the classroom and in directing group work both in oral interpretation and in theater. As a result of this study and experimentation, the writer has been allowed to adapt Sophocles' Electra for presentation in this combination form, and this adaptation has been tested in actual production at the University Theater, Texas Technological College on May 8, 9, and 10, 1964. To all those who worked so long and so hard on this production, i. e., the cooperative cast, the hard­ working crews, Dr. Clifford Ashby who designed and directed the lighting, and especially Dr. Larson and Mr. Schulz, without whose constant support this adaptation would never have been produced, this writer wishes to express her deepest thanks and appreciation. A READEEIS' THEATER PRODUCTION OF SOPHOCLES' ELECTRA CONTENTS FOREWORD ii I. WHAT IS READERS' THEATER? 1 Terminology 2 History 5 Styles of Production 8 A Definition of Readers' Theater 12 II. ADAPTATION OF SOPHOCLES' ELECTRA 17 Greek Theater and Drama 17 Selection of the Play 18 Selection of the Translation 21 Analysis of the Play 23 The Playwright 23 The Play 25 The Plot 26 The Characters 30 Planning the Production 42 Style of Production 42 Cutting the Script 45 III. PREPARING THE PRODUCTION 47 Casting 50 Rehearsals 51 VI CONTENTS IV. REPORT ON THE PRODUCTION 57 Publicity 57 House Management .«• 59 Box Office 59 Set and Scenery ..*.. •• 60 Properties 60 Lighting 61 Costumes •.•...•.•.• 62 Make-up • 63 V. EVALUATION OF THE PRODUCTION 64 VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 71 BIBLIOGRAPHY 74 APPENDIX 81 A. Script of Sophocles' Electra 82 B. Newspaper Reviews ••.. 128 C. Audience Check-Sheet 133 D. Program 134 E. Pictures of the Production 137 F. Tape Recording of the Production Bound Inside Back Cover CHAPTER I WHAT IS READERS' THEATER?! Before reporting the details of the production of Sophocles' Electra at Texas Technological College on May 8, 9, and 10, 1964, some clarification of the art form of Readers' Theater itself would seem to be necessary. Allardyce Nicoll has said: Almost always we find dramatic genius flowering when a particular land in a particular age discovers a theatrical form which is new, adjusted to its demands, and hitherto not fully exploited.^ While Readers' Theater is not truly new, the recent focus of attention and experimentation with this form in combi­ nation with its rapid growth in the professional, as well as the educational, field has created many areas of ^Among the controversial issues of this form of pro­ duction are both the spelling and the punctuation used by the writers in the field. The word "theater" is spelled "theatre" frequently. The apostrophe forming the posses­ sive case in such words as "interpreters'" and "readers'" may, or may not, be used. For the purposes of this paper, the spelling, "theater," preferred at this college, will be used, and the apostrophe after the "s" denoting the plural possessive case, "readers'" will be retained. Any variation from these forms will conform to the usage of the author cited. ^Allardyce Nicoll, World Drama (New York: Harcourt, Brace Company, 1950) , p. 937^ confusion. The very fact that this form represents a bringing together of the principles and methods of two related, but separate, fields of academic study, i. e., oral interpretation and theater, tends to increase the confusion both in the use of terminology and in styles and methods of production. Therefore, this chapter will be concerned with a discussion of the terminology to be used, a history of its development, a discussion of styles of production, and a working definition of this art form. Terminology In the opening paragraph of her article, "Inter­ preters Theatre: Theatre of the Mind,'* Leslie Irene Coger states: A variety of labels has been used to identify this popular way of presenting literature to an audience. It is called Multiple Reading, Con­ cert Reading, Platform Theatre, Staged Readings, Group Reading, and Interpreters Theatre.^ Grimes and Mattingly in their book, Interpretation, state: In the early part of the present century a sdmilar form of presentation was called Library Reading, and today it is occasionally called that.^ Armstrong and Brandes in The Oral Interpretation of Lit­ erature begin Appendix A with this statement: ^Leslie Irene Coger, "Interpreters Theater: Theater of the Mind," The Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol XLIX, No. 2 (April, 1963)J p. 156. ^ilma H. Grimes and Aletha Smith Mattingly, Inter- pre tation: Wri ter, Re ader, Audience (San Francisco: Wads- worth Publishing Company, Inc., 1961), p. 331. For the past several years there has been an accelerated interest in a new approach to oral inter­ pretation, called by some the staged reading, by others experimental reading. Some directors use the term theater reading to designate the staged reading of drama, and chamber theater to indicate the pre­ sentation of other forms of Titerature.^ Other terms which the writer has seen or heard applied to this art form include: Interpretative Theater, Script-in- Hand Theater, Reading Theater, Play Reading, Group Theat­ rical Reading, and Reading-in-Action. In the program notes for this production, the term "Theater of the Imagination** was used as a purely personal refutation of Roderick Robertson's statement: The interpreters theatre is probably a theatre of the mind--but only after it is a theatre of the ears and eyes. And even before that it is a theatre of translation.6 The Quarterly Journal of Speech, the International Index, and the Interpretation Interest Group of the Speech Association of America all designate this form as Readers Theatre. This label appears to be the one most widely used among the New York critics, also.^ Therefore, this paper will use Readers' Theater, changing the spelling Schloe Armstrong and Paul D. Brandes, The Oral Inter­ pretation of Literature (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Com- pany. Inc., 1963), p. 289. Roderick Robertson, "Interpreters Theatre," The Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. XLIX. No. 3 (October, 1963) , p. 3^5. ^Keith Brooks and John E. Bielenberg, "Readers Theatre as Defined by New York Critics," The Southern Speech Journal, Vol. XXIX, No. 4 (Summer, 1954), p. 288. and the punctuation to conform to the current usage at Texas Technological College. In addition to the confusion that exists in the labeling of the art form, some confusion also exists in the designation of the performers. Brooks and Bielenberg make the following point in their article: A case in point is the interchangeable use of the terms "reader** and "actor** by the critics.