Myths of the House Theatre of Chicago (2002-2007): a Dramaturgical Study of Chicago’S “Next Big Thing”
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Wayne State University DigitalCommons@WayneState Wayne State University Dissertations 1-1-2013 Myths Of The ouH se Theatre Of Chicago (2002-2007): A Dramaturgical Study Of Chicago's "next Big Thing" Matthew oF ss Wayne State University, Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/oa_dissertations Recommended Citation Foss, Matthew, "Myths Of The ousH e Theatre Of Chicago (2002-2007): A Dramaturgical Study Of Chicago's "next Big Thing"" (2013). Wayne State University Dissertations. Paper 652. This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@WayneState. It has been accepted for inclusion in Wayne State University Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@WayneState. MYTHS OF THE HOUSE THEATRE OF CHICAGO (2002-2007): A DRAMATURGICAL STUDY OF CHICAGO’S “NEXT BIG THING” by MATT FOSS DISSERTATION Submitted to the Graduate School of Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 2013 MAJOR: THEATRE Approved By: Advisor Date © COPYRIGHT BY MATT FOSS 2013 All Rights Reserved DEDICATION To the Foss and McKinney Family ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you to my committee: Dr. Mary Anderson, Dr. Blair Anderson, Dr. Thomas Kohn, Dr. David Magidson, and Dr. James Thomas, for their consistent investment in my learning and imagination. A sincere thank you to my family for their support throughout this process: Dr. Linda Foss for her constant and empathetic support, Dr. Larry McKinney for his empathetic encouragement, to Matt Murphy, Kelcee Murphy, Molly and Mark Foss for more than I can say and to Jo Foss and Donald McKinney for always picking up the phone. Thank you to Nate Allen, Phillip Klapperich and all the good people at The House for their fine plays and generous access to their work. Thank you to Andrew Payton for his help in editing this manuscript and helping cross the finish line. And in all seriousness, thank you to the many coffee shops where I worked over the past two years, especially Arnold’s Perk and Prairie Chick in Okoboji, IA and Lorry’s in Ames, IA. A good space for writing is hard to find and discovering your establishments saved the day. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication__________________________________________________________________ ii Acknowledgements___________________________________________________________ iii Preface_____________________________________________________________________ v List of Tables________________________________________________________________viii List of Figures_______________________________________________________________ ix Chapter One: Introduction_______________________________________________________ 1 Chapter Two: Methodology_____________________________________________________ 22 Chapter Three: The Terrible Tragedy of Peter Pan and Death and Harry Houdini__________ 60 Chapter Four: The Valentine Trilogy_____________________________________________ 115 Chapter Five: The Sparrow ____________________________________________________ 140 Chapter Six: Epilogue _______________________________________________________ 152 Appendix A: Summary Narratives ______________________________________________ 156 Appendix B: Annotated Production History ______________________________________ 210 References_________________________________________________________________ 217 Abstract___________________________________________________________________ 224 Autobiographical Statement____________________________________________________ 225 iv PREFACE In his book, On Directing and Dramaturgy, director/scholar Eugenio Barba offers that the context of dramaturgy is less a theoretical one and more a biographical one (8-9). Barba’s advice traces how his own dramaturgical impulses engage with the texts he is working with, and how his own personal circumstances have an undeniable impact on any study of any given theatre text (8-9). This advice by Barba proves exceptionally helpful for this study. Barba argues that biography has an indelible impact on a person’s dramaturgy, and that most dramaturgies function similarly to the branched and layered systems studied by biologists and ecologists. Here, I am able to find a fortunate entrance point from my own biography, like Barba advises, into the work of studying this particular set of plays. My first scholarly work was in ecology. Before moving to Chicago to pursue acting, I was studying to be a conservation biologist and was apprenticing as a research assistant in the Yellowstone ecosystem in South-Central Montana. It may seem a stretch to mention a twenty- something’s college job researching elk as impactful on a doctoral student now analyzing plays, but the research paradigm that informs much of the scholarly work of conservation biologists has a rigor and method for looking out how living systems function that shares sensibilities with the practice and aim of dramaturgy. It is beyond the scope of both this study and a preface to try and force connections of conservation biology’s sense of place, system dynamics and value-based plans of action to a theatrical context. This brief discussion of ecology is prompted by Barba pointing to it as an aid to examining plays and my experience as a field researcher’s impact on my observation and examination of plays. The skill set required and breadth of gaze necessary to observe these v systems at work and to then pull apart their constituent factors serves the dramaturgical analysis of interlaced plots and characters in performance texts exceedingly well. Fortunately for this study, Barba’s advice goes beyond just the suggestion to begin at biography or biology. His writing helps to build methodological bridges between the analytical means for approaching myth and the dramaturgical processes necessary for observing patterns within the plays of The House Theatre of Chicago. The workings of this methodology are described and demonstrated in subsequent chapters, but it is important to seat this study at the outset as dramaturgical in both aim and focus. This study makes no claims to expertise on myth or the structural methodology employed within, but tries to incorporate without misappropriating critical elements of both into a functional dramaturgy for analyzing a particular emergent theatre company’s collection of plays. The methodology of this study’s efforts to create a working myth dramaturgy in no way claims to be proprietary, as it is a response to perceived or potential patterns in The House Theatre’s highly successful first work and an effort to discuss those patterns in a rigorous way. The process of creating this methodology equally lays no claim to groundbreaking originality, as it is the familiar, problem-solving kind of observation any theatremaker undertakes in their honest first steps in making a play. Attempting to articulate how observing elusive elements in narrative is similar to tracking elusive elk in Yellowstone Park is anecdotally silly at best and a pretentious waste of time at worst. However, these disparate sources share similar skill sets and the study finds supported connections that support this dramaturgical method as a viable one. Again, while this study’s aim and focus dramaturgical in nature, any result is a move towards clarity rather than hermeneutics or groundbreaking originality of method. Dramaturgy is a humble enterprise that is more concerned with the object of study than calling attention to the vi process of studying or the author behind it. In The House’s play, The Sparrow, the high school biology teacher, Mr. Christopher, tells his class that dissection does not mean to cut up but rather “to expose to view” (Matthews, Minton, and Allen 54). In theatremaking, dramaturgy works in any number of ways to better inform the choices made in production of a text. Here this dramaturgy is closer akin to the above definition of dissection in The House’s Sparrow— exposing to view elements of myth—rarely concretely identifiable in narrative but rather instinctually present, all in hopes of seeing patterns at work in these plays. vii LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1: The Terrible Tragedy of Peter Pan Matrix ............................................................. 78-80 Table 3.2: The Terrible Tragedy of Peter Pan Revised Matrix ................................................. 84-5 Table 3.3: Death and Harry Houdini Matrix ............................................................................. 98-9 Table 4.1: The Valentine Trilogy Matrix ................................................................................. 131-5 Table 5.1: The Sparrow Matrix ................................................................................................ 146-7 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: The Terrible Tragedy of Peter Pan The Doctor ............................................................9 Figure 1.2: Peter Pan, Tink, and the Lost Boys ...............................................................................9 Figure 1.3: Chain of Fools .............................................................................................................10 Figure 1.4: Hook’s Entrance ..........................................................................................................10 Figure 1.5: The Cost of Death and Harry Houdini ........................................................................12 Figure 1.6: The Water Torture Cell ...............................................................................................12