Creating the Role of Sarah Bernhardt in the Divine: a Play for Sarah Bernhardt by Michel Marc Bouchard

CREATING THE ROLE OF SARAH BERNHARDT IN THE DIVINE: A PLAY FOR SARAH BERNHARDT BY MICHEL MARC BOUCHARD

CHRISTIE LYNNE ROBINSON

PERFORMANCE OPTION IN LIEU OF THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOLOF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF FINE ARTS

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2017

For Sarah Bernhardt. Thank you for speaking the unspeakable.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………..…………………………………………………………………...5

ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………..……………....6

EVALUATION

1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………..…………………………..…….………………………..……….7

2. STYLISTIC DEMANDS…………………………………………………………….……………..……….…………….……..9

3. PRE-REHEARSAL ANALYSIS………….………………………………………………………….………………11

4. REHEARSAL……………………………………………………………………………………………….……………16

5. THE MICHAEL CHEKHOV TECHNIQUE……………………………………………………….………….…27

5. TECHNICAL REHEARSAL, DRESS REHEARSALS AND OPENING NIGHT………….…………...33

7. CONCLUSION…………………………………..………………………………………………..…………..……….37

APPENDIX

A LESSAC VOCAL MARKINGS…………………………………………………………………………………………...40

B PRODUCTION PROGRAM……………………………………………………………………………………………..41

C PRODUCTION PHOTOS…………………………………………………………………………………..………….…50

D AUDIENCE RESPONSE…………………………………………………………………………………………………..54

WORKS CITED………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…55

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH……………………………………………………………………………………………..…………….56

ACKNOWLEGEMENTS

I wish to express sincere gratitude to several people who have helped me on this journey. First, members of the performance faculty of the University of Florida, including

Professor Ralf Remshardt, Dr. Mikell Pinkney, Professor Tiza Garland, Professor Kevin Marshall, and Dr. Judith Williams. Thank you also to Kathy Sarra, for her knowledge regarding physical demands as well as her emotional support during this process; Charlie Mitchell for his trust in my process and patience in me discovering how to articulate it; Tim Altmeyer for consistently asking “what do you want?”; Yanci Bukovec for never failing to push me, believing in the power of transcendence through art; Dr. David Young for his fervor and trust that I could embody such an icon. Sincere thank you to Jacob Lesh, my MFA brother, for holding me up and being there every night on stage -- his spirit is infectious. Thank you to Nathan Halvorson and Amy-Jane

Mooney, without their tough love and mentorship, I undoubtedly would not have taken this remarkable leap.

Presented to the College of Fine Arts of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Fine Arts Theatre

CREATING THE ROLE OF SARAH BERNHARDT IN THE DIVINE: A PLAY FOR SARAH BERNHARDT BY MICHEL MARC BOUCHARD

Christie Lynne Robinson

February 2017

Chair: Charlie Mitchell Second Reader: Kevin Marshall Major: Theatre

From Monday, November 7, 2016 through Sunday, February 5, 2017, I was privileged to portray the role of Sarah Bernhardt in Michel Marc Bouchard’s The Divine: A Play for Sarah

Bernhardt. The production was included in The University of Florida’s 2016-2017 season.

My approach began with a comprehensive analysis of the circumstances that gave rise to the play, mainly the life of Sarah Bernhardt herself. I researched the original production at the George Bernard Shaw Festival, as well as the playwright, Michel Marc Bouchard. Once I had identified the genre most suitable to the text, I began to focus on the language as my guide.

After using the Lessac vocal methodology to institute tonal, consonant, and rhythmic opportunities, I began creating a physicality that aided in presenting Bernhardt emblematically.

I applied the Alexander Technique to aid in the most efficient use of my body and breathing, which presented a challenge due to the limitations imposed by costume demands. The Michael

Chekhov Techniques of the Qualities of Movement, Psychological Gesture, and Focal Points were instrumental, assisting me to gain inspiration and truth with finding a character.

INTRODUCTION

The Divine: A Play for Sarah Bernhardt was officially announced as a part of the School of Theatre and Dance season schedule in spring 2016. I had never heard of the production before and I was curious. Through my studies in theatre history, I was aware of Sarah Bernhardt and the artistic impact she made in the nineteenth century; I was anxious to explore this new play and what it entailed.

In spring of 2016, my graduate advisor, Tiza Garland, informed me that I should select three plays of interest in the upcoming season in which to perform my project in lieu of thesis role. After some consideration and reading all the plays that were available at that time, I selected The Divine as my first choice. I approached Dr. Young once more during my selection process, expressing interest in the play. Delighted, he shared he would consider me for the roles of Mrs. Talbot or Sarah Bernhardt. Upon learning this information, I read the play once more to learn about the two characters. Although Mrs. Talbot is an endearing and beautifully challenging character, it was Sarah Bernhardt that truly inspired me. The fact that this was a depiction of the real Sarah Bernhardt herself was intriguing. I was struck by the author’s representation of her spirit within the theatre and prima donna charisma. I wanted to know more. Sarah Bernhardt functions as a demonstration of the power of art in our lives, as well as a celebrant in authentic connection to what one desires out of life, and how to take a stand to get it. While Bernhardt is the title character, this complex play deals with the ruin of purity, tyranny of the church, child labor and appalling working conditions, and the hope for change.

She serves as the encouraging voice to rebel and speak out against such injustice happening around her.

The second act involves Bernhardt delivering a daring criticism about society’s ills: a direct address to the archbishop regarding the church’s war against art. I began to wonder if this was the author’s liberty to create a closure to Bernhardt’s subplot, or if this was an actual event which wove beautifully into several other plotlines. After some extensive research, I was intrigued to learn that this speech was indeed delivered in 1905, and was one of the original inspirations for Michel Marc Bouchard to write the piece (Montreal Gazette). This led me to further inquire into the actress, anxiously wondering if other instances in the play were real events. I spoke to Dr. Young and expressed my interest in playing the divine Sarah Bernhardt.

This document details my journey with The Divine: A Play for Sarah Bernhardt, highlighting script and textual analysis, pre-rehearsal work, the rehearsal process, and finally, opening week and post-production details. This work will also describe several acting techniques that I implemented, as well as their results in the rehearsal and performance processes. Although the experience of the production was not exactly what I had predicted, I was appreciative for the opportunity to conclude my career at the University of Florida, playing such an iconic figure from theatre history.

STYLISTIC DEMANDS

“A style as bold as this would be shocking in other actresses.” –Gerda Teranow

The Divine takes place in the early twentieth century and the theatrical demands of this time require a sense of overindulgence; lavish effects, physical comedy, grand gestures, and well as outlandish costumes. However, it becomes clear Bouchard only addresses the

Romanticism style when depicting Sarah Bernhardt and her grandiose acting technique. After much examination of Bouchard’s script, as well as John Harrop and Sabin Epstein’s book, Acting

With Style, it can be concluded that, even with Bernhardt’s bravura way of storytelling, the world of the play is most closely related to realism. According to Harrop and Epstein, realism focuses on the individual, encompassing the motto that “the proper study of Mankind is Man”:

The focus of this inquiry came more and more to be on the individual, culminating the

development of psychology and the placing of human motives for action deep within an

inner self…Realism was, then, the response, at this particular moment of history, to the

desire of individuals in a democratic society to understand themselves in terms of both

motivation for action and relationship to the social and economic limitations and

opportunities of that society. (170)

This description encompasses Bouchard’s script beautifully. The characters surrounding

Bernhardt capture the quality and dealings with the harshness in their everyday lives. Issues with sexual abuse (specifically in the church), the eye-opening reality of child labor, as well as the overall darkness of society provide a playground for Bouchard’s characters to take on a

9 reflection of their own position in civilization. Their language is conversational, rather than an elevated and heightened form.

Although the world of the play is rooted in realism, Bernhardt’s style does not necessarily follow suit. During my pre-rehearsal process, I concluded that much of her personality and behavior off stage emulated what she brought on stage. In developing and researching Bernhardt’s acting style, I felt it important to honor this idea and implement it within the realistic world surrounding her.

Throughout her own theatrical training, Bernhardt devised her own formula which would set her apart from her colleagues, establishing herself as one of the finest actresses in history. At the age of 16, she auditioned for the Paris Conservatoire. Her audition was weak and was not favored as a first choice for admission. Monsieur Auber, a composer at the

Conservatoire, saw something in Bernhardt and admitted her (Gold, Fizdale 42-43). Through training at the Conservatoire, Bernhardt took her most important lessons from three professors: Provost, Samson, and Elie. The first point of study was “declamation dramatique,” a required acting course for all students. Taught by Provost, this course primarily focused on the components of declamation, concentrating on gesture, attitudes, and movement. Gerda

Taranow, author of Sarah Bernhardt: The Art Within the Legend, states that “of Provost’s approach, nothing beyond the fact that he taught broad gestures can be ascertained” (83).

Samson also taught gestures but emphasized dramatic truth to his students. He enforced that the gesture need be accompaniment to the actor, not the main focus.

Elie, however, took gestures to the next level by asserting that “the entire histrionic art resides in the glace, the gesture, and the attitude.” His exercises were involved and complex,

10 consisting of “the drill (utilized for posture development, a series of standardized ways of sitting down, and the application of a principle concerning the relationships between gesture and speech” (Taranow 84). Throughout these exercises, students were not permitted to speak; they had to express their emotions through “a set pattern of movement and face acting,” creating melodramatic pantomimes (Taranow 84). Elie’s approach would be the one most valued by

Bernhardt.

PRE-REHEARSAL

My work on The Divine: A Play for Sarah Bernhardt began in July of 2016 while I was in

Bangor, Maine, performing in Penobscot Theatre Company’s summer season. Prior to my arrival, I had spoken with Dr. Ralf Remshardt, theatre history and criticism professor at the

University of Florida, and asked him which books would bear the most fruit when it came to learning about Sarah Bernhardt. He recommended The Divine Sarah by Arthur Gold and Robert

Fitzdale. I anxiously collected this book, as well as a collection of Bernhardt’s memoirs, My

Double Life, as a starting point. During my time in Maine, I began reading and taking notes of inspiration for developing my interpretation.

I took my research to a deeper, more focused level in September 2016 while I was in the midst of my internship at the Hippodrome Theatre. During this time, I continued reading The

Divine as well as gathered articles and reviews on Michel Marc Bouchard. After accumulating a massive amount of research, I was overwhelmed and I realized I needed to focus my research within the world and time frame of the play. This is not to say that my research of Bernhardt in

11 the mid-1800s was not valuable to the piece; in fact, it was unquestionably crucial to understanding what made Sarah Bernhardt a phenomenon. However, I needed to concentrate on the text of the play itself.

When I broke down the script, I began to take note of first-hand records and associate them with corresponding lines in the script. I was astounded at the level of detail Bouchard took into account when developing the play. For instance, in Berhnardt’s first scene, she gives a frustrated condemnation of a new script she would be performing in Paris, and declares that she will not be performing in the play. In response to her own thwarting, she creates an excuse for not performing: she was surrounded by bears. “Bears! Mountains of Bears! Everywhere!”

(Bouchard 52). To the average reader, this might seem like a dramatic figment of Bernhardt’s famous imagination and irritability. However, it appears that this particular monologue might have been based upon Bernhardt’s arrival in Seattle, 1891. Bernhardt found out that she was in bear country and insisted that she learn to hunt. Complete with hunting regalia, Bernhardt sought out to return with a bear for her collection but was unsuccessful (Nelson, 5-12). I also noticed that Bouchard’s lines to describe Bernhardt’s acting style were taken from distinguished playwrights such as Anton Chekhov and George Bernard Shaw. Chekhov complained that Bernhardt “did not pursue the natural” (Gold, Fitzdale 199) while Shaw found her to be self-centered, stating “She does not enter into the leading character; she substitutes herself for it” (Gold, Fitzdale 257). Throughout my research, I continued to find correlations, fueling my ideas and preparation to take on the character.

In October 2016, I received an email from the director, Dr. David Young, with a character questionnaire. This list was composed of questions to analyze, prepare, and be willing to

12 discuss during the first week of rehearsals. It consisted of questions such as “How does your character get up in the morning, eat, go through the day, and go to bed at night?” and “Write about what happens to your character between scenes and before the play begins.” I took answering these questions as an opportunity to dig deeper into my already conceived notion of

Sarah Bernhardt and possibly reveal new information I had not previously contemplated. Using the research I had already conducted in the previous months, I was able to make informed, historically accurate conclusions about how she might function. After all, much about what was written about Bernhardt was about her eccentric personality, mannerisms, ideals, etc.

Answering the questionnaire thoroughly was an opportunity to simplify some of the research and translate it into creating a character.

My intent was to consider the realism elements and contrast them with Bernhardt’s eccentric style as noted in the script. I knew that she could not blend in with the other characters; I had to find what historically made her “divine,” and implement her style within the realistic style of those surrounding her. What I did not want to get caught up in was a parody of the melodramatic, grand style. Bernhardt rooted her technique in truth and I wanted to honor her approach. I began to search for any video and audio recordings I could find. Although there are no recordings of Bernhardt’s work on the stage, there are a few examples of her film work from the latter part of her career; where she needed to modify her grand gestures for film.

However, it gave me an excellent starting point for a visual use of her body. I specifically looked at a short clip from Tosca (1905) and observed how she used her entire body. Bernhardt was a petite woman, standing at 5’3”, yet, her commitment to the use of her body made her seem larger than life. I took notes on the flow and grandness of her gestures to keep in mind for

13 exploration in the rehearsal process. Audio recordings were also exceptionally resourceful. I listened to a segment of Bernhardt’s La Samaritaine (1903) as well as her portrayal of Phaedra

(1910). Although the recordings were of poor quality, I was struck by the musicality in her voice.

As mentioned in numerous articles and reviews throughout my research, she seemed to sing her dialogue, using the middle to upper range of her voice with touches of vibrato. I was surprised not to hear low and commanding tones from her lower register. I went on to read that during her training at the Conservatoire, Bernhardt developed her middle and upper register first, and struggled greatly with her lower tones. Because of her limited use of lower notes, she carefully devised when she would use them, specifically when playing male roles.

Even then, her male characters were delivered almost entirely in the middle and upper registers, apart from certain passages, highlighting moments of anger. Gerda Teranow describes that

Sarah achieves the desired effect of anger in two ways: she grounds the entire passage

in the lower register, and she reinforces her chest voice with a combination of increased

volume and uvular articulation of the r’s. The resulting auditory impression is one of

impassioned but lyrical range, the effectiveness of which derives from its limited

application. (23)

This information became imperative when approaching the vocal quality of this character and I was excited by the challenge.

Prior to the first rehearsal, I went through the script and scored it via the Lessac vocal technique. This involves marking the tonal, consonant, structural, and linking opportunities within the dialogue. It also includes marking and acknowledging punctuation. The scoring was

14 invaluable because it identified the opportunities within the language provided me with many different options for play and did not lock me in to my initial interpretation. I consistently reminded myself of the instrumental training with voice professor Yanci Bukovec. Examining my

Lessac notes, I came across a vital quote from class in Spring 2015 that struck me. Bukovec stated “The word is stronger than you. Don’t just rely on yourselves for the answer. The text does the work for you.” He emphasized that you (as the actor) do not empower the word on the page. You allow the word to empower you, the source being your guide. Throughout my scoring process, I used this as a mantra, keeping an open mind for a world of exploration that was ahead.

I began scoring the script in pencil, reading the words out loud and exploring vocal opportunities. I highlighted all punctuation in purple highlighter, knowing that the punctuation was stagnant. It would never change and must always be acknowledged. I broke down the script sentence by sentence, first identifying and circling the operative words, treating them like symbols to be unlocked. I identified the consonants and tonal opportunities with proper markings (see APPENDIX A). I read each sentence aloud, playing with different operatives, consonant, and tonal opportunities to maximize my options for interpretation and delivery.

Using this technique, I could explore and experience how each word “felt,” not sounded. This idea of feeling was emphasized and engrained over the two years of Bukovec’s training and guidance. I would read each sentence multiple times, acknowledging the operatives and the specific markings, not judging the sound or how it was delivered. I focused on the feeling, which gave me insight on the varying line deliveries I could play with in rehearsal.

Throughout my vocal training at the University of Florida, it was stressed that the actor avoid overindulgence at all costs. In regards to Sarah Bernhardt, this was a challenging concept for me. When listening to Bernhardt’s recordings and the lyrical, melodramatic quality of her voice, it seemed overindulgence could be an easy trap. I knew I needed to unlock moments of truth within the word on the page, rather than play an overall luxurious archetype. I recognized that I would need to continue to rely on the text and my discoveries utilizing the Lessac vocal technique until the very end of my performance process.

The work I conducted on my script proved to be invaluable. Having done extensive research, listening to recordings and watching Bernhardt’s style, I felt I had an excellent foundation to begin the rehearsal process. I was not, however, prepared for the incredible challenges that would lie ahead.

REHEARSALS

Although performances were not scheduled until the end of January 2017, it was necessary to begin months prior due to the university’s academic calendar and holiday breaks.

It was known from the beginning that the rehearsal process would be choppy and inconsistent, and, having performed Metamorphoses in this particular slot in 2015-2016, I felt prepared for the lack of fluidity.

The first rehearsal took place on November 7, 2016. Dr. Young did not discuss his concept of the play and decided to do a full run-through of the script. He stated that we need not be grounded to the table, that we could get up and move around the space as we felt

16 necessary. During this run-through, I explored elements of physicality, based off of my notes in watching Bernhardt’s films, as well as within my research. Although proven difficult to effectively execute the grand movements with a script in hand, I was able to get an idea of the direction I needed to work towards.

Perhaps the most simple movement technique to implement during this specific run- through was exploration of serpentine movement and patterns, as intricately studied and utilized in Dr. Mikell Pinkney’s Classical and Heightened Styles course in Spring 2015. Dr.

Pinkney stressed that serpentine movement is never in a straight line, but, rather, in circular movements. In addition to Bernhardt’s own acting formula, she implemented serpentine movement, not to highlight her grandiose movement, but, rather, to emphasize her figure:

“The effectiveness of her spiral pantomime was based upon the amplification of her slim and flexible body in appropriately manipulated costumes” (Taranow 105). With the script in hand, I could utilize swooping motions, implementing my Lessac vocal markings to explore the script. I made sure to attempt in not putting pressure on myself to give a “performance,” but rather feel the sounds and movements as I interacted with other actors.

Throughout the first two weeks of the rehearsal process, we spent a portion of the first hour discussing answers to our character questionnaires. Many were for the sake of discussion alone, for instance, discussing what we believe the play is about, how our characters serve the playwright, etc. Here, we shared our own thoughts and ideas. I felt that perhaps this would be an opportunity to not only share our own concepts of the central, motivating theme of the play, but also to finally hear Dr. Young’s vision and director concept. Although my cast-mates delivered wonderfully insightful ideas, I was disappointed in once again not getting any kind of

17 answer from our leader. Because we were dealing with a complicated script with many subplots, I felt it necessary to hear the director’s understanding of the play, what he wanted the audience to take away. This information would have been helpful in my creative process of refining Bernhardt, keeping me on track to be sure I was in the same “world” and moving in the right direction.

For specific questions, such as “Think of how your character might dance, think of an animal that your character reminds you of, find your character’s walk,” we went around to each individual and demonstrated our understanding of our character’s movement. I found it interesting to specifically examine Bernhardt as an animal. Animal work was an intricate part of my graduate movement studies with Professor Tiza Garland and I had a clear idea as to where to begin answering this question. Based off of my research, I had a clear understanding of her walk but how it translated into an animal sparked my thinking in a new way. After much consideration, I came to the conclusion of combining two animals: a peacock and a black feline.

Bernhardt has a regal sensibility about her, which reminded me of a peacock. I researched the skeleton of the peacock and took note of the spine, how it moved, and where the movement initiation came from in the body. I took note of what information the mere visual of the skeleton told me; it clearly conveyed a sense of pride. Bernhardt’s personality is bold and has an infatuation with an audience. She loves being looked at. Through moving as a peacock, I was able to tap into imagery, picturing a grand bird with regal colors and feathers. My posture became erect and I could feel the weight as I ruffled my feathers behind me, enjoying every moment as the audience noticed my beauty. Throughout the rehearsal process, I discovered that this imagery worked best specifically in moments of standing in stillness. Bernhardt

18 captured attention no matter what she was doing, and, at times, I felt she commanded more power when not moving around. An example of where the physicality of a peacock worked within the script was in act 2, scene 2, when Sarah is observing Madeleine sabotaging her time with Michaud. While watching Madeleine’s flirtatious behavior towards Michaud, Bernhardt stands watching, calculating her next move. Breaking the interaction between them, Bernhardt wittingly says, “This must be how a wallflower feels” (Bouchard 98). Here, she simply stands and regains the attention she lost from Madeleine. Although extremely proud, there is an ease and smoothness about Bernhardt that resembles a black feline. As with the peacock, I researched the skeleton of a cat, examining qualities of movement. There is a sense of effortlessness within Bernhardt’s movement; her serpentine patterns flow with ease of motion, without showing overexertion or hard angles. Using imagery of the skeleton, I imagined the use of my arms to emulate the cat’s tail. The tail moves along with the spine as one unit, creating a sense of grace. The tail curves and curls, and is an extension of the cat’s emotions. What the cat is feeling is translated into its tail. I took this discovery and used it when taking note of how

Bernhardt used her arms so effectively, how her hands show as much life as her face and voice.

The emulation of a cat worked specifically in act 1, scene 3, when Michaud is showing the first sign of his lack of certainty. When Bernhardt tells Michaud he is too handsome to be a priest,

Michaud responds with “I don’t know.” Bernhardt, without missing a beat, slinks over to him, using her arms and hands to tease Michaud, saying “He doesn’t know. They are the cruelest of all. And those who know are the stupidest” (Bouchard 57-58). The visualization and attention to specific animals was invaluable in discovering how Bernhardt moved.

Working with Dr. Young presented some challenges. He requested actors be completely off-book for the play in its entirety by the sixth rehearsal. The off-book announcement was stated at our second rehearsal, prior to any attention to scene work and blocking. I became nervous at this idea, simply because I felt as though the process was heading towards end- gaining before we even began. I knew, even though I had spent a considerable amount of time with the script, I would not be ready; I had a great many lines and a limited number of hours.

This lead to frantic cramming and rote-learning, causing me to disregard much of the research I had conducted simply for the sake of time.

Knowing that there was nearly three months of rehearsal time ahead, I approached Dr.

Young about the off-book date, and articulated my concerns. To my disappointment, he did not seem to understand the reality of his demand, however, granted a grace period for me to be off book as soon I could. This gave me some peace of mind, but still felt as though I was racing to the finish, rather than continuing to discover beyond my pre-rehearsal work.

Throughout the rehearsal process, my frustration continued. Rehearsals consisted of running acts from beginning to end, without attention to problem spots or specific scenes.

Surprisingly, there was no discussion of objectives or refining moments. If actors had confusion about specific moments in the script, Dr. Young inevitably responded with, “you Staniskavski actors drive me crazy!”

There were no specific acting notes at the end of a single rehearsal. Dr. Young felt it best if we simply continued to run through the show without stopping so we could get an understanding of flow. Uncertain of the road ahead, I recognized that this rehearsal process would not include a collaborative actor/director relationship. I knew that I would be responsible

20 for bringing Sarah Bernhardt to life and I had to channel my fear into finding solutions to problems.

Throughout our many run-through’s of the script, I noticed that Bernhardt is the topic of conversation throughout the play until the third scene when the audience finally sees her.

Upon listening to the dialogue prior to Bernhardt’s entrance, I felt it important to create an informal character dossier, making note of lines that would inform me of her persona, and combine them with notes from my research to create my interpretation. I wrote down informative lines such as Mrs. Talbot’s, “They say young men should stay away from her. She devours them with her eyes” and implemented the information where appropriate (Bouchard

8). The research I conducted revealed that Bernhardt had many lovers in her lifetime and although Bouchard’s script did not give artistic license for her to seduce a male character, I recognized that seduction was an ample part of her personality. After examining the script, I discovered I could use a touch of Bernhardt’s flirtatious flair when she meets Michaud for the first time: “…No one will believe that you or the nameless shadow accompanying you could play the role of a priest. You are too handsome” (Bouchard 57). It can be implied that Bernhardt might have her eye on the young writer, especially when she is under the impression that he will be playing the priest in her acting company. However, charmed by Michaud’s naiveté,

Bernhardt is more seduced by the idea of his play than pursuing him romantically.

Another instance of using character descriptions of Bernhardt includes much of

Michaud’s dialogue. Prior to Bernhardt’s first entrance, Michaud, obsessed with everything encompassing the actress, shares much about her personality and exuberant life on stage:

“When Sarah performs, words take wing, emotions take root” (Bouchard 9). To me, this meant

Bernhardt rooted her performances in truth, allowing the words to take precedence, translating emotions through her voice and petite body. Michaud’s description assisting me in finding truth in moments of performance rather than a caricature of melodrama.

Other descriptions derived from my research of Provost, one of Bernhardt’s most acclaimed teachers at the Conservatoire, calling her “self-centered and inconsiderate” (Gold,

Fitzdale 45). Francisque Sarcey, a French journalist and dramatic critique, described Bernhardt as “a force of nature, a fiery soul, a marvelous intelligence” (Gold, Fitzdale 139) and that she

“was meant to be a diva…” (Gold, Fitzdale 118). From these descriptions, I was able to identify where and how these qualities could come forth. It was obvious that the first words that

Bernhardt delivers in the play would be ample opportunity to encompass and establish her unruly disposition: “…my character doesn’t appear until Act 3! The audience came for me, they came to see ME” (Bouchard 51). Her first monologue, however, is simply the beginning of her boisterous personality. Numerous clues were displayed throughout the script, and it became a quest to blend her famous qualities within what Bouchard provided.

Although Bernhardt was impatient, heated, and known to be nearly impossible to deal with, I did not want to become trapped in a “one-note” delivery. Bernhardt was a people’s actress, and it only made sense that I find moments of sincerity and kindness within her. In act

1, Michaud speaks of her genuineness upon her arrival in Quebec City: “She had a friendly smile and a warm word for everyone.” Given Bernhardt’s infatuation with the young writer and his play, I began to look for moments of softness within her. It was most obvious to balance out her harsh attitude with her manager and acting company with a shift in approach when it came to interacting with Michaud. This was especially apparent at the end of act 1, when Bernhardt

22 discovers this man will write a play specifically for her. The shift in demeanor provided me with peaks and valleys of her personality, rather than a one-note conveyance.

Bernhardt’s vocal quality proved to be a challenge throughout the entirety of the process. At first, it seemed unnatural to “put on” such a voice as I was hearing in the recordings.

However, I knew it was a necessity in order to achieve her “divine” nature that was so well received. I played around with varying notes and tones, specifically during moments of acting throughout the play, such as Bernhardt’s Adrienne Lecouvreur excerpts. In these

“performances” within the script, I imagined the quality of an opera singer, using the middle-to- high registers of my voice, including a touch of vibrato to achieve the sound I had heard from

Bernhardt’s recordings. Throughout my vocal exploration, I received negative feedback from Dr.

Young. He requested that I use as many low tones as I could muster. Otherwise, he found me to be powerless. I took his direction knowing that a continuous low voice was not historically accurate. I also found the very low tones to be tiresome and harsh on my voice; they felt unnatural and put on rather than sound flowing from a natural place. At one point during a rehearsal, Dr. Young asked me to provide some background information on Sarah Bernhardt.

Happily, I shared bits of her life including lack of a lower register and the soprano, musical quality about her voice. Dr. Young seemed to support my research but at the next rehearsal, he requested that I throw the research away and stick to the uncomfortably low tones. My interpretation was embedded in research, and his seemed to be rooted in imagination. Finding the balance between respecting the director and maintaining my own artistic integrity proved to be a difficult road.

On November 20, 2016, voice instructor Carol Pendergrast came in to observe rehearsal and provide feedback. Ms. Pendergrast pulled me aside at the end of rehearsal and stated that she was pleased with my voice, found it to rich and powerful, and found my utilization of the

Lessac technique, specifically open vowels, satisfying. However, she requested that I utilize more variety and to embody Bernhardt’s vocal musicality. She stated that she felt my voice to be uncomfortably low, that it sounded unnatural and “put on.” I was relieved to have support from another ear, especially one at the level of her expertise. Nevertheless, my confusion as to how to approach the process vocally from this point continued to flourish.

In order not to disregard Dr. Young’s direction, I looked for opportunities where I could implement the lowest tones I could comfortably produce. I could justify moments of disgust, specifically within the first few lines after Bernhardt’s long-awaited entrance. Based off the fact that Bernhardt only utilized her limited low range to express anger, I found it to be only appropriate. I was also able to literally display my lowest tones when Bernhardt is coaching

Michaud in reading the letter from the archbishop forbidding her to perform: “Find the deepest notes in your voice, the notes that vibrate, that produce anxiety” (Bouchard 59). Depending on

Bernhardt’s mood, I would play with the range of pitch within my voice, creating variety, rather than creating a monotone delivery. I still played with Bernhardt’s flighty tone and range, placing it specifically at moments of “performance,” and still adhering to the vocal qualities that set

Bernhardt apart from anyone else of her kind.

On November 13, 2016, rehearsal costumes were provided for the cast. These consisted of corsets, petticoats, and various show shoes. Working in the corset proved to be a difficult task. Although I had previously worked with corsets in Shakespeare, Heightened Styles, and

Period Styles course work, there was something proving more difficult for this process. From my costume fittings, I knew that my gowns would be heavy and ornate compared to the rest of the cast. Wearing the corset created an intense feeling in my upper body of being bound and constricted. My lower body felt free, although learning to walk with a train took some getting used to. During a costume fitting, I was coached by costume department faculty Steven Stines on how to work with a train without tripping. He explained that to be able to change direction when walking, I would need to kick the train in a swooping, counter-clockwise circle motion with the outside of my foot. I realized that my exploration in serpentine movement would assist me in manipulating the train, understanding that with the length and weight of my gowns, I would not be able to make abrupt movements with sharp angle turns.

Throughout the process, I struggled with the corset. It did give me a more formal stance than what I was used to, restricting my range of movement in my upper body drastically. My arms could not be held loosely and comfortably at my sides, but rather, were forced to be in front of my body, arms slightly bent with fingertips together. The grandness of Bernhardt’s gestures was difficult to implement; suddenly, I did not have the range of motion, nor the breath to execute the movement and voice in full. I knew I needed to make some adjustments to move forward in a healthy way.

I pursued assistance from Kathy Sarra, an expert in the Alexander Technique to assist in working with the corset. Sarra had attended a rehearsal early in the rehearsal process, but due to time constraints, we did not have an opportunity to discuss individual concerns. I made use of my graduate Alexander Technique class time to address my problem with the corset. I expressed that I was having difficulty breathing and that the back of my neck was very tense.

Sarra agreed to attend rehearsal later that week. On January 9, 2016, she observed rehearsal, providing hands-on work throughout a full-run through. With her guidance, she reminded me first check the tightness of the corset; she felt perhaps it had been pulled so tightly that it was imposing the difficulties I was experiencing. Once she had determined that it was not the tightness, she began to aid me with individual hands-on work. Sarra invited me to feel the ground underneath me and to breathe; she concluded that the corset was not causing an overabundance of rigidity - I was doing it to myself. My knees were locked and I was holding my stomach in. Once again, she gently coached me to feel the ground underneath me and to breathe, feeling my whole self. After several times of saying this to me, I closed my eyes and began to make it a mantra. She reminded me to send regular invitations to myself to allow my head to balance at the top of my spine, allowing my spine to lengthen and my shoulders to widen, therefore alleviating much of the tension I was imposing upon myself. Throughout the remainder of the rehearsal process, I wrote down clues of Ms. Sarra’s guidance in my journal so

I could recite them to myself whenever necessary and not engage in unnecessary tension.

Through her direction, I was able to find comfort and ease in the corset. Reminding myself to allow the ground to hold me and to breathe into my whole self became a part of my individual warmup.

USING CHECKHOV TECHNIQUE

The Michael Chekhov Technique was an integral part of the rehearsal process. Rooted in the Stanisklavski system, it provides endless opportunities for actor exploration within a role.

Focusing on imagination and physicality, it assists in finding the truth of the moment; through various exercises and concepts, I was able to bring forth the inner life of Sarah Bernhardt.

Firstly, I explored Chekhov’s “Qualities of Movement” (QOM). According to the National

Michael Chekhov Association playbook, these are “How” the actor is utilizing their physical energy. They are Molding, Flowing, Flying and Radiating (33). As previously stated, I understood that Bernhardt’s movements were grand and swooping. However, I felt it important to translate these physical actions in a more imaginative state. According to Lisa Dalton, Master

Teacher of the Chekhov Acting Technique, QOM’s are named after the elements of earth, water, air and light and are related “to the degree of resistance the movement meets” (Dalton

33).

My exploration began early on in the rehearsal process. I went through each of the

Qualities of Movement, used my mind’s eye and visualized what each element looked and felt like. As a warmup, I physically went through each, exploring the possibilities. Throughout my self-driven exercise, I made sure that I did not have an end result in mind. I had strong feelings of what I thought Bernhardt’s default Quality of Movement would be. However, I did not want to limit myself without exploration. Imagining I was moving through space in each element, I immediately experienced an emotional response. The National Michael Chekhov Association

27 states that “We must understand that a movement triggers images, whether we are conscious of them or not…Michael Chekhov includes mental processes, yet what distinguishes his process is that images can be triggered and anchored through Psycho-Physical means” (Dalton, 29). I recorded the physical actions I executed, as well as the psychological response that accompanied. After much experimentation, I discovered that Bernhardt primarily balanced between two default Qualities of Movement: Flowing and Radiating.

My initial reaction to playing with Bernhardt’s grand gestures and serpentine movement was that she is a flowing character. With her circular, smooth walking patterns, she emulates the physicality of water, flowing from one end of the stage to the other, her arms elongated and smooth. The quality of flowing is not limited to physicality, however. After careful examination of the script, I discovered that much of Bernhardt’s dialogue literally flows right off her tongue without a second thought. To Bernhardt, there are no questions to the validity of her ideas and statements, she simply says what her thoughts are with pride.

From my very first read of the script, I could identify that Bernhardt was most definitely a radiant character. Given her strong personality, Bernhardt manifests several different mediums of light, concluding that Radiating be the second default Quality of Movement.

Bernhardt has several moments were she explodes with disgust. For example, in act 2, scene 2,

Bernhardt becomes wildly irritated with her manager, Meyer, for his distress over the decreasing number of ticket holders for her performance. Her general atmosphere is growing with tension and explodes with disgust. For this particular moment, I radiated lightning with my hands, gesturing towards him in an quick-tempered “Enough with this noise! Get out!”

(Bouchard 98). As previously mentioned, many first-hand accounts of Bernhardt’s personality

28 described her as “firey.” This overall description was incredibly clear in Bouchard’s depiction of her in the script. After careful examination, I noticed that much of her elements of fire came with her intelligence and quick wit, often in response to another character’s opinion. For instance, I discovered Bernhardt radiated fire in act 1, scene 3, when Michaud and Talbot come to read the letter from the archbishop forbidding her to perform. Talbot cantankerously shares his thoughts on how absurd acting is: “On stage, the character who just dropped dead right in front of us stands up to take a bow and gets wild applause. It’s ridiculous” (Bouchard 58).

Without a thought, Bernhardt radiates and shoots fire with the middle of her forehead, out- witting him: “Three days after his death, Christ resurrected received a standing ovation!”

(Bouchard 58). A recurring characteristic that Bouchard has given Bernhardt is her ability to question. A general answer is never enough for her; her inquisitiveness is fierce and commanding. There are several instances in the script where Bernhardt asks as many as eleven questions in a row, desperate to get a detailed account in response to her inquisitions. After exploration of opportunities to radiate with a laser-like quality, I found that act 2, scene 2 the most effective. Here, Michaud has revealed his incredibility in writing true facts about social injustice. Bernhardt is deceived, believing that Michaud could have been the next writer to portray the harsh reality of daily life, rather than falling into the usual trend, masking pain and suffering with entertaining smiles and comforting phrases. Once Bernhardt exposes Michaud’s faults as a writer, he fights back, stating that his “words were sincere” (Bouchard 101). It was this moment where I discovered that Bernhardt radiated the quality of a laser. Radiating from my eyes, I shot questions that would condemn Michaud’s credibility. “Oh really? What did you see in that factory? Poverty or your own discomfort? Did you try to become one of those

29 workers? Did you really enter the harsh reality of their daily lives?” (Bouchard 102). With each question, I focused the laser beam from my eyes so intently that I could not see anything else. I was no longer aware of my peripheral vision and my heart began to beat heavily; a side effect from focusing on the quality of movement, using extreme economy of my means of expression.

Although Bernhardt is a fiery character, she exemplifies warmness, love, and heart. With her passion for the theatre, her friendship she developed with Michaud, and descriptions of her appreciation for audience members, Bernhardt embodies and radiates sunlight. I discovered that perhaps the most powerful opportunity to radiate sunlight was in her address to the archbishop in act 2, scene 5. At first, it was easy for me to fall into a harsh, preaching quality.

However, I realized that I would be delivering the speech exactly in the way in which she says not to. I would be contradicting what the words were providing me. Instead, I played with radiating sunlight from my heart. Delivering the speech, I imaged opening my heart and sharing a piece with each member of the audience. In psycho-physical response, my hands went up to my heart, and my voice softened. Radiating sunlight from my heart, I was able to embody and truly experience her words: “Theatre gently preaches what you preach so harshly…It opens our minds. It touches our hearts” (Bouchard 140). As a result, I became fully impassioned with the words I was delivering.

Going through the rehearsal process, there was much sitting and waiting. There were at least two weeks where Dr. Young requested that the cast sit and face the wall, rather than engage in the action on stage. I learned that one can quickly lose focus and go into a dark mentality when staring at a white wall, breath cut short in a corset. In Bouchard’s script, Sarah

Bernhardt does not appear until act 3, scene 1, nearly an hour into the script. After executing a

30 proper physical and vocal warmup at the top of rehearsal, it became difficult for me to “find” my way into character with so much down time. In order to rekindle my energy and readiness to go on stage, I turned to Michael Chekhov’s Psychological Gesture.

Chekhov describes the Psychological Gesture as “the Gesture together with the Feelings connected with it” (Chekhov 60). Its purpose is simply to transform you instantly into your character, combining the Archetypal Gesture with thoughts and feelings (AG + T + F = PG). “An

Archetypal Gesture is the largest possible gesture of the primal intention. It is the pure WILL with no reason…It should charge the whole body with a universal attitude” (Dalton 35). When thinking of reasons why the archetype takes place, and how, then it transforms into the

Psychological Gesture. This includes the given circumstances with the character, their individual needs. To discover what my needs would be, I asked myself what Bernhardt’s tasks, objectives, goals, and wants were within the scene. I turned to the National Michael Chekhov Association handbook for guidance. After careful examination, I acknowledged Chekhov’s “3 I’s”

(Inspiration, Imagination, and Intellect) to explore the first images within me. I had an instinct as to what my psychological gesture would be (Inspiration). I thought about it and embodied what I thought Bernhardt might look like in this moment (Imagination). I then asked myself:

What do I want? How will I respond when I get what I want, and how do I respond when I do not get what I want (Intellect) (Dalton 85). As a result, my Psychological Gesture came into being. As previously mentioned, the first Psychological Gesture I experimented with took place prior to my first entrance, 51 pages into the script. It was executed in 3 steps as follows: 1) Both arms extended out in front at a low “v,” wrists and fingers relaxed. Here, I was inspired to greet the audience coming to see me. 2) Raise both arms into a “v” above my head, chin raised in

31 pride. I imagined Bernhardt soaking the audience in upon her entrance at the beginning of the play. 3) Drop arms and chin in disappointment. I was frustrated to find out that I would not actually appear on stage until the third act, that I would have to wait an eternity for the public to see me. I felt the need for a second Psychological Gesture, taking place in act 2, scene 2, just before delivering a “performance” as Talbot. Here, the Psychological Gesture was executed as follows: 1) On breath, pull in arms towards my hips, hands in gentle fists. Here, I was inspired to directly experience what Talbot was experiencing: breathing in and smelling the sandalwood. 2)

Reach out in front with relaxed arms and hands. I imagined Talbot offering his arms for

Madeline to hold, slowly and gracefully. 3) Extend arms out to each side, fingers spread, head up with a smile. I was delighted in the result of my first experience with a woman; it was a freedom I had never encountered before and it was intoxicating. Each Psychological Gesture took place within one breath, and was repeated 3-5 times prior to entering. On occasion, I would need to repeat my Psychological Gestures more than 5 times to help in bringing my energy up and raising the stakes.

Focal Points were another powerful tool throughout my process. Within studying the script, it became apparent that Bernhardt would say whatever she wanted to, including tangents of verbalizing her subtext throughout direct addresses. Her speeches are long and detailed and demand a sense of focus. Upon scoring my script, I needed to recognize where each of these speaking qualities took place and how and turned to Focal Points as a point of reference. The National Michael Chekhov Association Handbook breaks down Focal Points into five concentrated areas of inspired acting. #1: Self (Me). #2: Partner (You). #3: Immediate

Sensory Environment (This). #4: Non-Present Specific Objects (That). #5: Unified Energy Field

(God, other) (Dalton 81).

After identifying moments in the script where Bernhardt was specifically talking to someone, when she went off on a subtextual tangent, and where both come into play within her long speeches, I was able to play with various Focal Points and bring my delivery to more specific, concentrated level. It was obvious to direct my attention to my acting partner with

Focal Point #2 when speaking directly. In moments of verbalizing subtext or drifting into verbal tangents, I found it useful to combine Focal Points #2, #4, and #5. This was specifically useful in an address to Meyer in act 1, scene 3, expressing my annoyance to hearing she will endure yet another tour of the city’s fortifications. Implementing Focal Points into Bernhardt’s long speeches assisted me in finding specificity within the meaning of the phrases, as well as finding opportunities for depth and holding on to specific images.

Utilizing the Michael Chekhov technique throughout my process was invaluable. In nearly 3 months of rehearsals, I did not receive any feedback or specific acting notes regarding my characterization. Chekhov Technique allowed me to explore truthfully in unity with the

Bouchard’s script, my research, the audience, and my higher self.

TECHNICAL REHEARSALS, DRESS REHEARSALS, AND OPENING NIGHT

The first technical rehearsal for The Divine took place on January 13, 2017. The evening was conducted with a cue-to-cue format, only running scenes when the technical staff felt it necessary. The technical demands of this production were heavy. The prologue (added by Dr.

Young) took 30 seconds in real time but took nearly an hour to execute technically. The prologue did not include any scenic elements and it was clear that the technical process would be lengthy.

With the slow, stop-and-go method, we utilized the full 20 hours of tech scheduled and as a result, we did not get in a full run-through. Scenic changes proved to be complex and unorganized, there was a lack of communication between stage management and design staff.

Safety became an issue, with actors getting hurt on set pieces due to a lack of light for scene changes. There was no communication regarding flying in the grand rag curtain; actors making entrances and exits in the wings were not told when it would be coming in, and it landed on me twice, without acknowledgement from backstage that actors were getting hurt. Knowing that dress rehearsal would commence the next day made me nervous, as other crucial technical and safety elements were never flushed out.

The first day in costume proved to be wonderfully insightful. I would finally have an opportunity to discover Sarah Bernhardt in her full element. Although I had worn the costumes multiple times in the costume shop, I had not moved about the stage in them. I was surprised at how the weight of each dress affected how I moved. Depending on the material, the weight of the train slowed me down a great deal. The kicking of the train became more difficult, and the range of movement in my arms was even more restricted than in the corset. After some rehearsal, I could modify my movements and still honor the grand gestures that I had developed for Sarah Bernhardt. One thing was certain: I felt like a prima donna. The short, red wig changed my entire look so I did not feel like myself. My costumes were glamorous and

34 striking. Even simply putting on the costume and walking around made me instantly transform into regality.

The first act was quite simple for me. I was not responsible for any scenic changes and I had one costume. The second act, however, proved much more difficult. Dr. Young changed the act break in the script, which posed a problem for one of my quick costume changes. I had to go from wearing a man’s 3-piece man’s suit to an extravagant gown with shoe and jewelry changes in approximately 15 seconds. After going through three full dress rehearsals, I never made the change going from “Talbot” to Bernhardt’s dressing room. Eventually, Stacey Galloway made the decision to move the change earlier when delivering my second speech as “Talbot.”

Although it might confuse the audience, it gave me at least 15 minutes to make the change and arrive on stage in a timely manner.

The dress rehearsal process proved to be frustrating. After three days of tech and two days of dress rehearsal, we still did not manage to achieve a full run. There were too many technical issues that became a hindrance. The night before the final dress rehearsal, Jenny

Goelz, technical staff supervisor, made an exception that we stay as late as necessary on final dress to get a run in before we had an audience. With the extended time, we were finally able to go through the production from start to finish without stopping. At note session, Dr. Young did not provide any acting notes for me. His only feedback was “more green eyeshadow,” which

I was not wearing in the first place. He expressed that I should paint Bernhardt’s face as a

Kabuki artist, with a star beauty mark for dramatic effect. I could not believe what I was hearing. Immediately I contacted designer Amanda Moore about this request. She told me not to change my makeup at all and to continue with the plot I was given. I thought for certain that

35 after seeing my performance on stage, I would receive criticism regarding my performance, but it never came. Let down and uncertain of my quality of work, I went into our “soft opening” feeling uneasy about what I would be facing during performances.

Out of the fifteen scheduled performances, nine of them would be exclusively for the

What is the Good Life? course, a required humanities course for all incoming students at the

University of Florida. The overall response was strong. The first week of performances were filled with eager students who expressed gratitude for their experience at the theatre. After each performance, select members of the cast would conduct a talkback with the students, helping relate the story they just saw to their coursework and their own daily lives. I was pleasantly surprised at the outcome of the first week, and having an audience response helped to reinforce my confidence.

Official opening night took place on January 27, 2016. I was excited to share The Divine with my friends and professors and obtain some genuine feedback. The performance itself was the best that it has ever been. Every word was delivered exactly the way that I wanted, and my listening was better than ever. I discovered new moments and found new life in Sarah

Bernhardt; new life that had otherwise been smothered in my discouragement. It was nice to be alive again.

After the actors took their bows and got out of costume, we attended a brief reception.

Jerry Dickey, Director of the School of Theatre and Dance, raised a toast to the production, recognizing all that played a hand in making the story come to life. Specifically, the actors who were playing their thesis roles were recognized. It was a warm and appreciative

36 acknowledgement, and I was struck by how far I had come within my program, as well as this production. It also struck me that this would be my final performance at the School of Theatre and Dance, and that the next chapter of life was quickly approaching. The evening concluded with mingling with professors, students, and supportive members of the community. I received flowers, warm wishes, and congratulatory remarks from too many to count. When I approached Dr. Young, his response was: “the show was good, but, you still need more green eye-shadow.” I shook my head, sharing a laugh with him. At this point, there was little point in holding on to such a minute and frustrating request. Instead, I chose to hold on to the showings of love and recognition that surrounded me.

CONCLUSION

The audience response to The Divine: A Play for Sarah Bernhardt was an utter shock.

Having predicted a failure, no one could have foretold the positive reactions received. I listened to feedback from professors, colleagues, and students in my Acting for Non-Majors class in awe.

I was approached in the student union, thanking me for my work. I continue to receive emails and kind words from many, even as the production has closed. Audiences were not expecting to be faced with a story that is pertinent today. They were expecting “another boring period piece,” as one acting student so earnestly told me. Given the circumstances of our current government and the darkness of millions in our country, The Divine raises questions and situations that are viable today. A colleague of mine sent me an email stating that the final speech I deliver about the importance in art within our society should be recorded and played

37 at the White House every day. I was pleasantly surprised in the weight of effect the play I thought would fail would have on the audience.

While I disagreed with how rehearsals were conducted and still have no notion of the director’s concept, there is no denying that I am proud of the work that I produced. I created a role entirely on my own and was successful in doing so. If I had not conducted the amount of research that I did in the pre-rehearsal process, I firmly believe I would not have had this outcome. Following the idea of making Bernhardt a campy, one-note character would undoubtedly have created an archetype – a misrepresentation of not only what Michel Marc

Bouchard intended, but also bastardizing what made Bernhardt the phenomenon that she was.

I do, however, wonder what the outcome would be if I had guidance. There were instances where I diligently tried to make moments work, and I am uncertain if I was able to convey appropriately. Some simple direction would help to alleviate many questions that came up through the entirety of my process.

The incorporation of techniques I have learned throughout my time at UF proved to be invaluable. The level of depth I applied to Bernhardt can be applied to other characters, no matter what type of role. Essentially, I raised the bar for myself. From this point on, there is no excuse to not conduct as much research and pre-rehearsal preparation as I did for Bernhardt.

Although I have questions about my performance, I still am extremely proud at the level of artistry I implemented.

My work on The Divine: A Play for Sarah Bernhardt was rewarding both artistically and personally. Although a long and problematic process, I had a chance to work with an incredible cast of people. Their energy and support was invaluable. Without a sense of ensemble and

38 bringing the play to life ourselves, we might have failed. I had the opportunity to utilize the tools I have learned throughout my career at the University of Florida, and refine them into a character that I will hold dear to my heart.

APPENDIX A – LESSAC VOCAL MARKINGS

APPENDIX B – PRODUCTION PROGRAM

APPENDIX C – PRODUCTION PHOTOS

“3 days after his death, Christ resurrected received a standing ovation!” –Sarah Bernhardt

Sarah Bernhardt gives Michaud (Jake Lesh) an acting lesson.

“The producer will fool everyone by announcing an extended run before he’s sold a single ticket.” – Sarah Bernhardt

Sarah Bernhardt annoyed with Meyer.

Sarah Bernhardt visits the factory (with Sam Richardson)

“What would life be without art? Eating, drinking, sleeping, praying, dying? Why go on living?” -Sarah Bernhardt

Final moment: Sarah Bernhardt and Talbot (Diego Zozaya)

APPENDIX D – AUDIENCE RESPONSE

Dear Christie,

Just a few thoughts about your performance last night. And I know these are unsolicited, and only my opinion, so take them with a grain of salt. But I know as an actor that it’s valuable to get feedback from a theatre peer sometimes- comments more specific than the usual “you were great”!

First off, and no fault of your own, but I felt the play had some structural issues with how much exposition there was at the front end. Or maybe I, along with everyone else in the theatre, was waiting for Sarah to make her grand entrance. They payoff was worth the wait- your entrance into that scene was just right. And that first dress- along with ALL of your attire, was so fitting with her sense of elegance, glamour, and eccentricity. They did a great job finding the right textures, colors, and cuts to bring out her nature- and you wore them all well.

I don’t know how much ‘Yanci-work’ you did on her voice, but this is one of the things I was SO impressed with. To state it simply, you found the music in her voice, and in the dialogue; tonally, stylistically, rhythmically- it was all there, and so important to the character. Fluid, believable, eloquent- like an operatic ballet. Your ability to synthesize her vocal coloration with your physical work was also very impressive. The rhythm of moving from a long cross to sitting on the divan with attendant gestures/posing was seamless and fluid. You found the humor in her too- almost as if she knew she was over the top in a given moment, but was going to go for it anyway, and knowingly play the drama of it all. You wore her physical nature as well as you did the dresses- it was just there.

I’m sure I’m not alone in my feelings about the play resonating with this strange time we live in, with its recent disregard of the importance of art, diversity, the press….just about everything we hold dear. The monologue you do near the end about the importance of theatre should be recorded and posted on the White House website. I wish it could be played before every show at the Hippodrome for the next four years! So well-written (I assume those are Sarah’s own words…) and so eloquently rendered in your performance- powerful to hear, and so much an affirmation of what we do, or try to do, in the theatre. Thank you Sarah- thank you Christie- thank you David!

Lastly, I want you to know that you have done a great job of incorporating your training without letting it show. I have worked with actors at the Hipp, and seen them at UF, whose training is sort of ‘on display’ as they do their work. This is partly because they haven’t had time to incorporate it into their process yet, and I get that, but yours is there without that layer, and that is a good thing that puts you ahead of the curve.

Sorry this is longer that I intended, but I just kept thinking about other reactions/memories of last night. I hope you enjoyed the success of the opening, and that you enjoy the run to come.

And, I hope we get to work together again someday soon!

Gregg

--Gregg Jones, Hippodrome Company Actor and Colleague

WORKS CITED

Bernhardt, Sarah. My Double Life: The Memoirs of Sarah Bernhardt. Trans. Victoria T. Larson Albany: State U of New York, 1999. Print.

Bouchard, Michel Marc, and Linda Geboriau. The Divine: A Play for Sarah Bernhardt. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Talon, 2015. Print.

Burke, Jim. “La Divine Illusion Conjures Up Saints and Sinners in Quebec City.” Montreal Gazette [Montreal] 12 Nov. 2015: n. pag. Print.

Dalton, Lisa, Charlie Bowles, and Wil Kilroy. Michael Chekhov Technique Playbook. NMCA, Inc., 2000. Print.

Fitzdale, Robert, and Arthur Gold. The Divine Sarah: A Life of Sarah Bernhardt. New York: Knopf, 1991. Print.

Taranow, Gerda. Sarah Bernhardt: The Art Within the Legend. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1972. Print.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

A Maine native, Christie Lynne Robinson is a graduate of the University of Maine at

Farmington and the Circle in the Square Musical Theatre Intensive in NYC. Select acting credits include: A Christmas Carol, Whatever Happened to Baby Jane, The Snow Queen, Honky Tonk

Angels (Hippodrome State Theatre), Studs Turkell’s Working (The Gracie Theatre), Clue: The

Musical (The Grand), Rock of Ages, The Rocky Horror Show, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, I Love

You…Now Change, The Marvelous Wonderettes, The Great American Trailer Park Musical,

Boeing Boeing, Steel Magnolias, Little Shop of Horrors (Penobscot Theatre Company), Sweeney

Todd, Mary Zimmerman’s Metamorphoses, The Comedy of Errors, The House of Atreus, The

Divine: A Play for Sarah Bernhardt (UF), The Wizard of Oz (National Tour, Munchkin

Choreography Leader). Christie has also been seen with The Nite Show with Danny Cashman

(Two-time New England Emmy Award nomination), “Just Kidding! A Live and Online Comedy

Show,” Winterport Open Stage, Bangor Rotary’s Music Off Broadway, and Ten Bucks Theatre

Company. She has been a director, teaching artist, and choreographer for numerous productions since 2006. Christie will begin her career after UF with Troupe America’s Stage

West Entertainment, Inc. as a featured actor and vocalist.