Stratford Festival Composite Script Collection

Home , Nicholas Pennell, Richard Monette

Figure 1. William Hutt as Prospero, The Tempest, 2005, Stratford Festival, directed by Richard Monette. Photo by David Hou, courtesy of the Stratford Festival Archives

64 ctr 156 fall 2013 doi:10.3138/ctr.156.012 Stage-Managerial Collections | “SCRIPT”

When a Script is Not a Script

by Kathryn Harvey

With this issue on Theatre Archives, Jenn Stephenson and I considered many options for the “script” section. There was the tried and true path, trying to find a short Canadian play in which archives featured prominently. We could have gone that route, but as we tossed around ideas with the carefree abandon of those presented with a clean slate, we jointly became tempted to try some- thing different. Rather than a playfeaturing archives, we considered choosing a play whose many drafts have been archived and publishing excerpts from early through later versions as a sort of “show and tell” (really more “showing” than “telling”). We also talked about asking individual theatre practitioners (actors, de- signers, administrators, playwrights, etc.) whose papers have been archived to write a couple of paragraphs about the reasons they chose to donate papers to archives and how they felt about their experience with the whole process. All of these alternatives would have made compelling additions to the issue, and—as also often happens when presented with a plethora of options—we found it difficult to choose. But we had to commit to one—and quickly!—and since we had already read through the proposed articles being considered for inclusion, we saw a great opportunity in Toby Malone’s paper Figure 2. Founding Stratford Stage Manager John Hayes (1920-1993). to highlight the script as archival object while at the same time Photo by Peter Smith, courtesy of the Stratford Festival Archives drawing attention to the role of a theatre practitioner-turned-archivist in creating an archival record. Malone’s examination of the Stratford Festival’s prompt-book and “composite-book” collection reveals how an active company has valued its past enough to invest in understanding how past productions were conceived and uses that knowledge to inform future productions. The stage nourishes the archives, and the archives nourishes the stage.

doi:10.3138/ctr.156.012 ctr 156 fall 2013 65 “SCRIPT” | Stage-Managerial Collections “Distract parcels in combined sums”: The Stratford Festival Archives’ Stage- Managerial Collections

by Toby Malone

The Stratford Festival houses the world’s largest collection devoted compiled without official guidelines, which means stylistic differ- to a single theatre, with holdings encompassing over sixty-one sea- ences occur not only between generations, but between produc- sons. Founded in 1967, the Festival Archives is best known for tions in the same season. As a case in point, we can look as far back its impressive collections of production-worn costumes, props, and as the Festival’s debut season. John Hayes stage-managed Tyrone photographic materials, but a less well-publicized strength is their Guthrie’s Festival-opening Richard III and All’s Well That Ends exhaustive stage-managerial collection. Between 1953 and 2013, Well in 1953, stage-directed by Elspeth Cochrane. A common Stratford has presented 660 productions, which includes 231 ver- season and stage-managerial team does not necessarily equate to sions of Shakespeare’s plays: 74 tragedies, 117 comedies, and 40 organisational standardisation, however, as demonstrated in Fig- histories. Most frequently offered is Twelfth Night (11 produc- ures 3 and 5. tions), As You Like It (11), and A Midsummer Night’s Dream (11); The first two prompt-books are the actual 1953 in-show while Troilus and Cressida (3), Henry VI Part III (2), and The Two working texts, but their structural differences are remarkable, even Noble Kinsmen (1) are the least regularly produced. This produc- beyond the obvious contrast in tidiness. Essentially, prompt-book tivity has furnished a vast, meticulously catalogued stage-manage- compilation may be reduced to three distinct approaches: 1) re- rial collection, in both prompt-book form and in a new, innova- typed/transcribed, compacted complete text with cuts omitted tive Composite Script format, which emerges from the collection’s (Figure 3); 2) photocopied (or cannibalised, which involves the stage-managerial roots, and offers intriguing scholarly potential. physical cutting up and pasting of a paperback text) with cuts struck through (Figure 5); 3) printed complete text (retyped or The Stage-Managerial Archivist copied from the Internet) with cuts struck through (Figure 6). Fifteen minutes with archives assistant Nora Polley is enough to Benefits are clear for each approach: the “clean” Richard III is draw the conclusion that the archivists themselves are some of the easy to follow and unfettered by annotations, while the cannibal- Festival Archives’ most important assets. A former Stratford stage ised All’s Well leaves textual cuts and rearrangements in plain sight. manager, Polley is devoted to detail and organization and has an Richard III has been altered and retyped with changes removed, encyclopaedic mental catalogue of company anecdotes and pro- seen in Gloucester’s “Your beauty…” speech, where fourteen omit- duction histories. Polley has worked in numerous organizational ted lines after “bosom” are not noted. This script is lightly annotated capacities at the Festival for over forty years and was given her first with word inflections and pauses (indicated with a fermata symbol) stage-managerial position by the Festival’s first stage manager, the and is clearly designed to be a simple-to-read working document. late John Hayes. All’s Well shows pencil-marked line cuts, and the pasted-in text Over a series of conversations with Polley, I established a set addition offers production clarity and fascinating archival texture. of prompt-book milestones which effectively tracks the Stratford To contrast with a modern example, Figure 6 is an emended and stage managers’ developmental chronology. Prompt-books are retyped text, updated prior to rehearsal: the line “They cannot be-

66 ctr 156 fall 2013 doi:10.3138/ctr.156.012 Stage-Managerial Collections | “SCRIPT”

Figure 3. Stage manager’s prompt script, Richard III, Stratford Festival, Figure 4. Richard III, 1953. Stratford Festival. Directed by Tyrone Guth- 1953, directed by Tyrone Guthrie, stage-managed by John Hayes. rie. Alec Guinness as Richard. Courtesy of the Stratford Festival Archives Photo by Peter Smith, courtesy of the Stratford Festival Archives tween heaven and the ocean / Perceive a sail,” is altered from Shake- speare’s “I cannot ‘twixt the heaven and the main / Descry a sail.” A manual cut (lines 17–27) extends this alteration, presumably for clarity or expediency. Each of these cutting and arrangement approaches is entirely valid, and depends on the individual stage manager’s organization. The Stratford Festival Archives are heavily laden with this rich variety of prompt-books, which offer vivid insight into not only the productions but the teams behind them. Despite the breadth of approaches throughout the Festival’s history, there is a noticeable chronological thread that links to stage managers’ central endowment of knowledge through mentorship. Young stage managers may learn their profession at theatre school, but the true learning is passed on as they toil as assistant stage managers or prompters. Nora Polley learned her craft in-house at the Festival, resulting in a technical toolkit such as seen in Figure 7’s snapshot from The Taming of the Shrew. The contrast between Hayes’ early prompt-books and Pol- ley’s more sophisticated latter-day work is striking. Line numbers are added to the heavily annotated script, for easy reference to the extensive blocking and cueing annotations on the right-hand page. Hand-written additions include incidental lines such as Pe- truchio’s “Here sir…” (line 21), the servants’ calling the spaniel (line 32), and the inclusion of Italian-language song lyrics (lines 25–27). A sketch of the Festival stage (top left) notes placement of set piece (tables, chairs), on which blocking may be noted based on diagrammatical stage quadrants. Tabs at the bottom right Figure 5. Stage manager’s prompt script, All’s Well That Ends Well, corner correspond to scene numbers, and the heavily annotated 1953, Stratford Festival, directed by Tyrone Guthrie, stage-managed blocking sections serve as rehearsal tracks which later assists di- by John Hayes. Courtesy of the Stratford Festival Archives doi:10.3138/ctr.156.012 ctr 156 fall 2013 67 “SCRIPT” | Stage-Managerial Collections

Figure 7. Stage manager’s prompt script, The Taming of the Shrew, 1988, Stratford Festival, directed by Richard Monette, stage-managed by Nora Polley. Courtesy of the Stratford Festival Archives

Figure 6. Stage manager’s prompt script, Othello, Stratford Festival, 1994, directed by Brian Bedford, stage-managed by Hilary Graham Courtesy of the Stratford Festival Archives rectors and understudies in rehearsal. Beyond an archival video, prompt-books are the best possible entry into recreating a production, both for researchers and for possible remounts. These four examples offer a small sampling of the approaches to stage-managerial material found in the Festival Archives. To contrast the lightly-annotated Richard III with the consistent best-practices Taming of the Shrew, we see approaches that span Figure 8. The Taming of the Shrew, 1988. Stratford Festival. Directed the development of stage management as a professional industry, by Richard Monette. Colm Feore as Petruchio and Goldie Semple as as each generation learns from its predecessors and layers in les- Katherina. Photo by Michael Cooper, courtesy of the Stratford Festival Archives sons from the past. represent multiple prompt-books on a central text, which allows The Stratford Composite Scripts for comparison of line cuts, changes, and insertions for at-a-glance Discussion of layering innovation is a useful segue to turn us analysis of show-specific colour-coded annotations. toward Stratford’s great stage-managerial innovation. While the Edmonds based this Composite Script on a copy of John prompt-book collection is illuminating, its volume can be daunt- Hirsch’s 1982 prompt-book (Figure 9). With different coloured ing. Comparison of multiple productions is an exercise in pa- markers,1 Edmonds overlaid cuts, line additions, and text altera- tience and often, when dealing with markedly different textual tions specific to each production. Layering in comparison helps approaches, in futility. For this reason, the Festival Archives’ sup- illuminate dramaturgical and stage-managerial choices and notes plementary collection of Composite Scripts is a rich resource for points at which directors textually agree and depart from one an- the comparative-minded researcher and dramaturge. other. For example, each director chooses to cut text unnecessary The Stratford Composite Scripts were quietly pioneered in to their production; William reassigns lines from the Boatswain to the late 1990s by former, late archivist and researcher Jane Ed- the Master; Hirsch adds exclamations and rearrangements (“Jesu!,” monds, as a centralised, unpublished resource for internal refer- “Durst thou!”); and Monette adds new text, including Ferdi- ence and dramaturgical use. Edmonds saw the need for a reference nand’s scene-closing “Hell is empty and all the devils are here,” edition of the Festival prompt-books that did not waste Xerox later “quoted” by Ariel. This is an incomplete Composite (pending resources or require multiple editions. Their basic function is to update): it lacks the adaptations from George McCowan, 1962,

68 ctr 156 fall 2013 doi:10.3138/ctr.156.012 Stage-Managerial Collections | “SCRIPT”

Figure 9. The Tempest, Stratford Festival Archives composite script (in Figure 10. The Tempest, 1976, Stratford Festival, directed by Robin progress), prepared by Jane Edmonds. Phillips and William Hutt. Marti Maraden as Miranda and William Hutt Courtesy of the Stratford Festival Archives as Prospero. Photo by Robert C. Ragsdale, courtesy of the Stratford Festival Archives

Figure 11. Romeo and Juliet, Stratford Festival Archives composite Figure 12. Romeo and Juliet, 1977, Stratford Festival, directed by David script, prepared by Nora Polley. William. Richard Monette as Romeo and Marti Maraden as Juliet. Courtesy of the Stratford Festival Archives Photo by Robert C. Ragsdale, courtesy of the Stratford Festival Archives

doi:10.3138/ctr.156.012 ctr 156 fall 2013 69 “SCRIPT” | Stage-Managerial Collections

Figure 13. Titus Andronicus, Stratford Festival Archives composite script, prepared by Nora Polley. Courtesy of the Stratford Festival Archives and Des McAnuff, 2010, but it is a step in these texts’ evolution. Figure 14. Titus Andronicus, 1989, Stratford Festival, directed by Edmonds completed a number of these Composite Scripts, and Jeannette Lambermont. Consulting Director: Richard Monette. Lucy intended them for internal reference use only. Peacock as Lavinia and Nicholas Pennell as Titus. After Edmonds’ death in 2009, the Composites fell to Polley, Photo by Michael Cooper, courtesy of the Stratford Festival Archives who fielded a request from director Dean Gabourie for a Com- posite Two Gentlemen of Verona. Gabourie was so pleased with Unlike Titus Andronicus, Romeo and Juliet is a play so well- Polley’s work that word spread, and other directors requested their known to theatregoers that alterations usually are minimal to ad- own versions (Personal Interview). As a result of this interest, and here to an expected narrative. Clusters of line cuts target what is in a natural extension of her stage-managerial profession, Polley most important in the Prince’s speech and its aftermath. Omitted decided to compile Composites for the entire Shakespearean can- text speaks to the direction of the production: the Prince’s frus- on. These visually arresting composites, even when presented ret- tration over being ignored (line 71) may be removed if the brawl rospectively and on a clean base text, can be complicated. Figure has dissipated by then. Campbell’s emendation of “Old Capulet” 13 shows the Composite Titus Andronicus.2 to “bold Capulet” (line 78) is due to a younger actor in the role; At first glance, the Composite Scripts appear complex, but McAnuff’s alteration of “sword” to “blade” refers to that produc- the potential in their use far outweigh legibility. Broad cuts like tion’s weaponry (line 97). Monette and William cut to the chase Bedford’s excision of the first thirty lines of the scene (continuous and omit much of Benvolio’s explanatory speech, reducing his action from the previous scene, also adopted by Lambermont, lines speech significantly (lines 106–117). Leblanc removes Romeo’s ob- 1–29) demonstrate a desire to move directly to Titus’ high-stakes servation of his father’s departure (lines 151–152) but otherwise entrance; Rose and Lambermont are allied in relocating Marcus’ the cousins’ opening exchange is untouched: clustered cuts suggest speech (lines 38–40) some thirty lines later. Some words are sub- each director is eager to hasten Romeo’s entrance, and in turn to stituted to fit the directorial choices (Lucius calls Marcus “Uncle” hasten the play’s action. rather than “Grandsire” to Titus, line 42), and others compensate Both Titus and Romeo offer a brief glimpse into the Com- for earlier cuts (Bedford reassigns Titus’ first lines to Marcus and posite project, and insight into dramaturgical links between pro- Young Lucius to facilitate a changed entrance, lines 30–31). On ductions otherwise unavailable in single prompt-books. In the many occasions (lines 22–30; 32–37; 63–70; 89–91) all three context of the Festival’s stage-managerial heritage, the Composite directors agree on cuts; on others (Lambermont lines 120–129), Scripts are compiled with a stage-managerial sensibility, under the a cut is unique. We may identify the production’s dramaturgical techniques Polley developed at the Festival. identity from such cuts: Lambermont’s production was heavily cut Of all working theatre documents, a prompt-book is the one to fit into a double-bill, which explains some decisions in brevity. best defined as a palimpsest: “a parchment or other writing surface Bedford’s 1978/1980 productions were the Festival’s first attempts on which the original text has been effaced or partially erased, and at this bloody play, which perhaps necessitated a direct cut to the then overwritten by another” (OED def. 2a). The process of mark- unfamiliar text. ing and re-marking the same “surface” neatly applies to prompt- The greater the number of past productions, the more com- books which “preserve the notes of a succession of owners” (Jackson plex the Composite, as evidenced in the Romeo and Juliet version. 12). If we view a prompt-book as a palimpsest, marked and over- For this compilation, Polley incorporates eight productions into a marked by stage managers, assistants, and prompters, the difficulty single document, represented in Figure 11.3 in untangling the priority and chronology of alterations is clear.

70 ctr 156 fall 2013 doi:10.3138/ctr.156.012 Stage-Managerial Collections | “SCRIPT”

We cannot know when a line change or blocking moment was inserted, or what motivated it, purely from prompt-books.4 Tex- Notes tual cuts may straddle pre-production and rehearsal, even bleeding 1 The pertinent key is as follows: Robin Phillips’ production of 1976, in into performance. A palimpsestic reading complicates chronology red; David William, 1992, green; Richard Monette, 1999/2005, blue. of annotation provenance: we cannot confidently privilege either 2 Brian Bedford, 1978/1980, red; Jeannette Lambermont, 1989, blue; the earliest or most recent layer, as they might blend together. As and Richard Rose, 2000, green. Darko Tresjnak’s 2011 production the Composite Scripts are compiled simultaneously (as opposed to has yet to be added. periodically), decoding provenance of layers is less important than activating the dramaturgical data available within. 3 Michael Langham, red, 1960; Douglas Campbell, blue, 1968; Da- vid William, lime, 1977; Peter Dews, pink, 1984; Robin Phillips, or- ange, 1987; Richard Monette, green, 1992; Diana Leblanc, turquoise, Future Directions 1997; Miles Potter, purple, 2002; and Des McAnuff, pencil, 2008. The Composite Scripts were not developed for scholars, but for 4 Polley notes that some stage managers keep a progressive series of quick, internal reference. As an internally-constructed palimp- pages annotating the chronology of cuts, but this is isolated. sest, however, I suggest there is a scholarly application for these texts, as a means of tracking textual transmission over the Festival’s 5 My greatest of gratitude to the staff of the Stratford Festival Archives lifespan, but changes are necessary first. The variety of copy-texts for their assistance in compiling the materials for this paper, particularly the attentive input of Nora Polley, Lois Quail, Francesca used in prompt-book compilation—which we must often guess Marini, and Christine Schindler. To view more extended excerpts at—leaves us with a dilemma over what base text might effec- of the composite scripts mentioned here, see the Stage-Managerial tively host the Composite Scripts. Polley uses the MIT Complete Collections supplement at http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/ctr.156.012. Works (based on the 1864 Globe edition) as copy-text for its ac- cessibility; while this choice stands up to scrutiny for its current Works Cited internal uses, an expansion into scholarly uses would necessitate Bedford, Brian, director. Othello. Hilary Graham, stage manager. Archi- a peer-reviewed, Folio-based copy text such as those hosted at the val Prompt-Book, 1994. Stratford Festival Archives. Print. Internet Shakespeare Editions. Edmonds, Jane, compiler. “The Tempest Composite Script.” Stratford Any analysis of palimpsests requires caution, particularly Festival Archives. Print. with the Composites, given the difficulty of interpreting the large Gabourie, Dean. Telephone Interview. 5 April 2013. amount of data in often-clashing collections of colour markings. Guthrie, Tyrone, director. All’s Well That Ends Well. John Hayes, stage Some of the larger Composites are convoluted and muddled from manager. Archival Prompt-Book, 1953. Stratford Festival Archives. sheer volume of material, but this simply requires a deeper read- Print. ing. For my own scholarship, I find that positioning the Compos- ———. Richard III. John Hayes, stage manager. Archival Prompt-Book, ites’ visual clues alongside the physical prompt-book artifacts of- 1953. Stratford Festival Archives. Print. fers conclusions on structure, length, copy-text, and connections to other productions unavailable in isolation. The Internet Shakespeare Editions. http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca. Web. Solutions to these minor concerns are speculative but manage- Jackson, Russell. Introduction. Shakespeare and the Stage. Series One: able. The potential of the Composite Scripts as an online hypertext Prompt-Books from the Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington D.C. is considerable, and may mitigate clarity issues; allowing for an Brighton: Harvester P, 1985. 11–13. Print. opportunity to add and remove layers of cuts and other changes The MIT Complete Works of William Shakespeare. http://shakespeare. has rich potential. This would similarly combat against problems mit.edu/. Web. in the variety of copy-texts and even in the original Quartos and Monette, Richard, director. The Taming of the Shrew. Nora Polley, stage Folios, which might be inlaid in a more complex manner than is manager. Archival Prompt-Book, 1988. Stratford Festival Archives. possible in the static hard-copies. Such flexibility would offer access Print. to researchers and dramaturges world-over: an invaluable resource. The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. Oxford UP. http://www. The Stratford Festival Archives’ exhaustive stage-managerial oed.com/. Web. collection shines a crucial light on the dramaturgical heritage of Polley, Nora. Personal Interview. 1 March 2013. the Festival, and the fact that the Composite Scripts were internally ———, compiler. “Romeo and Juliet Composite Script.” Stratford Fes- popular enough to justify their laborious creation is testament to tival Archives. Print. the company’s commitment to past innovations which inform the ———, compiler. “Titus Andronicus Composite Script.” Stratford Festi- future. The Festival’s stage-managerial legacy is encapsulated in the val Archives. Stratford Festival Production History. Print. http://www. Archives: Polley notes that pioneering stage managers, led by John stratfordfestival.ca/about/history.aspx?id=1178. Hayes, “figured out” how to annotate prompt-books as they went, building traditions and conventions that have been and are being About the Author passed down through the generations. The past always informs the Toby Malone is a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Waterloo’s De- future at the Festival: as Dean Gabourie makes clear (Personal In- partment of Drama and Speech Communication. He is a PhD graduate terview), the jewel in a Stratford director’s arsenal is the Archives; it of the University of Toronto’s Graduate Centre for Drama, Theatre, and is a treasure trove that Gabourie encourages the young directors in Performance Studies, and previous publications include Literature-Film Stratford’s Michael Langham Workshop for Classical Direction to Quarterly, Shakespeare Survey, and the Routledge Companion to Dra- use and take inspiration from for their future projects.5 maturgy. doi:10.3138/ctr.156.012 ctr 156 fall 2013 71