British Theatre Scenography The Reification of Spectacle Christine A. White Goldsmiths College London University Phd. 1 Abstract Over the last twenty years, the nature of theatre has changed due to the economic system of production which has led to the use of scenography to advertise the theatre product. Theatre has tried to make itself more attractive in the market place, using whatever techniques available. The technological developments of recent years have enabled the repackaging and sale of theatre productions both nationally and internationally. As a result theatre has become more 'designed' in an attempt to make it an attractive commodity. Scenography has become more prominent and this has changed the authorship of the theatre production, the dramatic text; the experts required by the new technologies have had a different involvement with the product, as they have actively contributed to the scenic image presented. Commercial values may have improved the integrity of theatre design and raised its profile within the profession, with theatre critics and with the academic world but it has proved unable to sell a production, which is ultimately lacking in theatricality and true spectacle. On particular occasions the gratuitous use of technology has been criticised, and as such, has been referred to as 'spectacle'. However, spectacle theatre does not simply mean theatre which uses technology, and so it has become imperative for the word spectacle to be more specifically applied, when used as a critical term to describe a form of theatre production. In this thesis, I intend to look at the significant factors that have led to the types of theatre presented in the last twenty years; to discuss these types of theatre in terms of their means of production and delivery to an audience, and to relate the change in scenographic values with a change in economic values; a change which has particularly affected the means of production, and as such is a vital beginning for any discussion of the scenography of the late twentieth century. 2 Contents Title Page 1 Abstract 2 Contents 3 1 Introduction 4-8 2 Capitalism and Production 9-40 3 Repackaging Theatre 41-62 4 The Changing Scenographic Aesthetic 63-115 5 Reclaiming Spectacle 116-131 6 An Analysis of the Theatre Comprehension Processes 132-157 7 The DNA of Scenography 158-169 8 The Commodification of Theory 170-207 9 Conclusion 208-229 10 Appendix Contents & Introduction 230-231 a) Data on working practice: Lighting and Set design 232-237 b) Data on new lighting technology 238-243 c) Audience reception of Scenography 244-249 d) Interviews: Scenographers in Conversation 250-286 e) Productions 287-291 Bibliography 292-314 3 Introduction Some of British theatre design has become extrinsic to the substance of the product, and the embodiment of designed theatre and of high production values have, during the late twentieth century, become normative. Erstwhile this has helped to disguise poor content but more predominantly the quality of the 'product' has been apparent. The design choices made in the course of theatre production and the discussion of concept have involved all areas of design for theatre, and new technologies have required experts in each field who have then had a different involvement with the product, as they have actively contributed to the scenic image presented. Scenography which is consistent with high production values, has become a desirable feature of a theatre production and it has come to playa significant role in how audiences respond to a performance. However, scenography cannot replace the actor as the leading performer in the theatre event; if it does, the theatre event becomes something else. The difficulty of defining what has recently been termed 'spectacle' theatre and the concomitant problems of describing the role of scenography in theatre productions has been compounded by the changing role of scenography. It is apparent that theatre is still enjoyed by a minority of people whose buying power has substantially changed the content and form of what is on offer. This has highlighted forms which are both popular and efficacious, and which have become attractive to this relatively small audience. In discussing the nature of the product and its efficacy I hope to indicate some of the contradictions which spectacle and its technology present. Whilst the use of technology in performance has often been seen as a negative attribute, I would like to discuss the more positive uses of technology as a contributor to the efficacy of spectacle, and ultimately the theatre performance. 4 This will inevitably lead to an elucidation of the nature of scenography and how it might be discussed through the various theories available. Methodology Throughout this investigation into Scenography of the late twentieth century, I have used a number of methods of research and investigation. Initially, my investigation began as a series of premises about the way in which technology has shaped the product of theatre performance. This led me to associate myself with a lighting design manufacturer for whom I conducted surveys in Research and Development, investigating the type of products which would be appropriate for the company to develop, given the advancing aesthetic of performance and the growing importance of lighting design. This research led me to run discussions with the Strand Lighting R&D team in Kirkcaldy which resulted in the company developing low voltage technology aimed at the architectural market, which has filtered through to the equipment list of theatre lighting designers, and electric's departments. As part of this product research I engaged in a series of surveys. These were with three separate groups. The first two were related in their use of particular technology as a part of the lighting design team. I surveyed lighting designers from the Association of Lighting Designer's mailing list, including in the data people I interviewed specifically; and chief electricians at a variety of performance venues with different producing structures. The results of this research were published as an internal document for Strand Lighting and later in Lighting and Sound International. The third group were designers of costume and set. This list was compiled from the Society of British Theatre Designers, which Ethel Langstreth helped prepare. I also used research results from an undergraduate thesis by Ursula Bilson, The Experiences of Women Set designers- Is there Sexism in the 5 Theatre and If so What next? 1993, Leicester University, which detailed the way in which women designers worked in theatre. Whilst the results of this were not of direct relation to my thesis the information in Bilson's work added to premises substantiated by the other works. The next area of research was to conduct a series of interviews with designers who worked in a variety of theatre production areas. Their work offered examples from opera, mainstream theatre, young people's theatre, fringe and the national companies. Consequently, they had experienced a wide range of production aesthetics and budget structures. Theory The methodology for approaching a theory of scenography took into account the work of theatre theorists such as Keir Elam and Martin Esslin, Patrice Pavis, Marco de Marinis, Tadeusz Kantor and Richard Schechner. The need to discuss scenography through language naturally pointed me to the work in linguistics of Roland Barthes and Wolfgang Iser. In an attempt to discuss the aesthetics of scenography I have referred to Wittgenstein, Collingwood and Wilkinson. One of the areas which has been most important in determining empirically, the efficacy of scenography has been audience reception theory. I undertook my own survey of student groups at Loughborough University who viewed professional productions at the university theatre. The problems with this kind of survey are highlighted in a postgraduate thesis by J .E. Pinchen (Loughborough), to which I have referred but also in work by Susan Bennett. The latter offers a more coherent argument on the efficacy of scenography. The rise of scenography and its influence on the theatre product need to be discussed in a theoretical sense, to analyse the way in which scenography affects theatre and its reception. The role of 6 scenography must encompass that which has a meaning as part of the dramatic text, that is, the performance, and be related to the society it is produced by. Previous theories have looked at the component parts of the scenographic but have not grappled with what might be termed a poetics of scenography. Barthes's polysemy of signs applies but much of this theory is actually based on Brecht's ideas of alienation. Whilst the aesthetic of the late twentieth century has to a great extent evolved through the economics of production, the use of scenography as a major signifier of meaning has also produced a more critical response to the subject of theatre. This aesthetic can, therefore be traced to Brecht and his influence along with Neher, on the process of scenographic production which exemplifies the critical awareness that can be achieved, and was demonstrated in the reception of their work in the 1950s. However, in the period of the postmodem this theory must also note the contradictory nature of the process of production and the reification of this aesthetic. In the analysis ofthe 'unmarked', the product can become adopted both commercially and critically and this causes contradictions for the aesthetic, as the work can simultaneously be a producer ofthe capitalist ideology whilst also being within it. This plurality is to be celebrated as it suggests an educated spectator who actively participates in reading the works presented which consequently enables theatre production to further debates within society. Whilst the spectacle of scenography can be used to either affect criticism of, or complicity with, the ideology presented, the duality of spectacle is a progression from when it has been used in the past to simply reinforce the dominant ideology, as in the Court Masques.