A REPORT ON THE PRODUCTION OF THE PLAY uA PHOENIX TOO FREQUENT 11 Wayne Shrope A.B., Sacramento State College, 1952 PROJECT Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements tor the degree of MASTER OF ARTS AT THE SAC.RAMENTO STATE COLLEGE Charles V. Hume, Chair SA CRAMENT O Baxter M. Geeting STATE COLLEGE George W. Creel ARCHIVES Date @.~ ~C; tf£"#, TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. THE PROBLEM • • • • . .. • • 1 II. REVIEW OF RESEARCH, CASTING, DIRECTING, AND REHEARSAL SCHEDULE • • • • • • • • • 3 Review of research • • • • • • • • • • • • 3 The author • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3 The play • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • s Casting; . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 10 Direction • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 11 Rehearsal schedule • • • • • • • • • • • 16 - III. PROMPT BGOK • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 18 IV. THE SETTING • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 82 v. THE COSTUMES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 86 VI. PUBLICITY • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 93 VII. EVALUATIONS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 96 BIBLIOGRAPHY • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 98 APPENDIX •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 99 CHAPTER I THE PROBLE:M The problem was to prepare a prompt book for the play A Phoenix 12.2 Frequent by Christopher Fry and to pre­ sent this play for a public performance in the drama work- shop at Sacramento State College. A Phoenix too Frequent wae chosen because it is an excellent comedy, perhaps Fry's funniest, and because the interpretation of the beautiful poetry and subtle wit provided an interesting challenge for ' the director and for the actors. The scenes are well con- etructed and carefully planned for comic effect; the char­ acters are clearly drawn and differentiated. In the pre­ sentation of this play the writer acted as producer, director, designer, and technician. In the capacity of director he read and carefully analyzed the play in order to plan the general style ot the production. Subsequently he cast the play, prepared a prompt book, and directed the action and interpretation. The director then became the designer, for the setting and costumes had to be planned to fit into the style chosen for the production. It was necessary to do research on Greek life and costumes before making the set-drawing and the costume plates. 2 The sets were then constructed; the designer super­ vised this work. Other technical duties included; super­ vi eing the lighting of the set, obtaining properties, and stage-managing the performances. As producer for the play it was up to the writer to co-ordinate all of the activities already mentioned, and to arrange for the performance dates, costumes, rehearsal times, stage facilities, programs, and publicity. All of these activities were essential to the effect­ ive staging of this difficult play. A more detailed dis­ cussion of each will be given in later sections of the paper. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RESEARCH, CASTING, DIRECTING, AND REHEARSAL SCHEDULE I. REVIEW OF RESEARCH The author. Christopher Fry was born on December 18, 1907, the son of an architect with deeply religious feelings. At the age of six he first showed his interest in drama by participating in a civic pageant. His father died while Christopher was very young, and his mother took in board.ere in order to send him to the Bedford Modern School. Fry began' writing at a very early age, turning out a farce at the age of eleven, a poem at twelve, and a verse drama at fourteen. At the age of eighteen he left school and became a teacher. After a brief period of teaching, Fry joined the Bath Repertory Company. After this he taught again for three years, pa.rt of the time at a preparatory school in Surrey. He then returned to drama for eight years, acting the usual rounds of Shakespeare, Shaw, Wilde, Barrie, and Coward in repertory companies, and then went to London. There he edited a magazine, tried his hand at cartooning, worked as secretary to a novelist and wrote children's 4 plays for radio.l He also tried song writing (none of his songs became popular, however) and many other things. After this time his life becomes too complicated for tabulation.2 A busy and prosperous playwright, his favorite relaxation is planning holidays which he does not take.3 Fry says he was unable to write a line from the time he was eighteen until he was twenty eight, but always be­ lieved that one day he would write good verse plays.4 ; Finally, inspired .by a Shakespearean production he had seen, he wrote! Phoenix !Q.2. Frequent. This play, first performed at London's Private Arts Club in 1946, brought him to the attention of critics and theatregoers. Other plays by Christopher Fry are; Thor ,!!!h ,Ange~~, The Firstborn, !h.! Lady's .!i2! !2,;: Burqi.}Jg_, Venus Observed, Boy With~~. and! !J.eep 2.!, Prisoners. With these Fry has become a major figure in modern theatre. All of Fry 1 s plays are in verse. 1 Poetry 1 he says, I Irina Rothe, editor, Current Biograph!. (New York: H.W. Wilson Company, 1951), p. 1022. 2 Who's Who for 1952. (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1952T,"""'P:' 1022:--- 3 Who 1 s !h2, !.2!, 1952, op. cit., p. 1022. 4 Christopher Fry, 'The Artist Views the Critic', Th! Atlantic, 191: 52-55, March 1953. s •has been a natural function of man for as long as we 1ve known him. It 1 s a sign of his vitality. Fear of it, or lack of it, is the dead hand of his material needs. I would rather have talked of the theatre with­ out referring to it, taking it for granted that in ex­ ploring and recreating life in terms of the stage we should use language as fully charged and as. ,~l-iant as we can make it. It is not a special eclectic theatre we're considering, but a theatre at full pressure, tor the full pressure of lite is the rough-and-tumble of the spirit and the flesh together, the two levels on which all our actions simultaneously perform, and all our actions, in this sense, are the action of poetry. Comedy can perform on these two levels as naturally as tragedy. Where tragedy is the demonstration of the human dil~mma, comedy is the comment on the human dilemma. 11 .5 Ot the art of writing a verse play, Fry has this to say, "The dramat.t,et must view the world of his play, and the people of that world with great precision; the whole structure depends upon it, what scene follows another, what character goes and what c.haracter enters, where description of landscape becomes part of the action and where it needs a bare exchange. The poetry and the con-­ struction are inspearate. Who understands the poetry understands the construction, who understands the con­ struction understands the poetry, for the poetry is the action, and the aetion--even apart trom the words--is the figure of poetry.M 6 The .E.!.!L• The tollowing section consists of the reactions of critics to the play--or more particularly to the version' or it which ran five days on Broadway. Reactions 5 Christopher Fry, 'Poetry In The Theatre", ~ Satur­ day Review £!. Literature, 36: 18019, 33-34, March 21, 1953. 6 Christopher Fry, 'The Artist Views !a! Critic•, The. Atlantic, 191: 52-55, March"""'I953. 6 were from luke warm to very cold. Adverse criticisms seem­ ed aimed mainly at the production rather than at the play itself. Theatre ~. July 1950, says 11 ••• The value of the play lies in its language which is delightful, tender, ·sensuous as poetry shouid be, and witty. 11 The production failed to take advantage of the language. It was directed--and cast--with an emphasis on physical good looks and the ha-ha possibilities ot the situation. Richard Derr, who was allowed a good deal of unnecessary cape-swinging and sword clasping, seemed totally incapable of getting through his poetic speeches, romatically or any other way. The love story as a result, became quite unbelievable. Nina Foch tas Dynamene) delivered her poetry in a desperate sing-song. As a faithful maid ••• Vicki Cummings, who pleased the audience most--possibly because she spoke slowly -.nough to be heard--burlesqued ir. Fry 1 s lines as it she or the director had given up all hope of making them understood in any other way. When this sort or comment is intended by the dramatist it can be legitimate and effective comedy. But it was most unfair to the delicate and far from obscure witticisms of an urbane poet-playwright who was lamely introduced to American audiences in this ill advised and devised production.N Euphemia Van Rensselaer Wyatt in Catholic· World (June 1950) called the play a Mhighly polished cynical bit o:r poetic toolery 11 • But the director John 0 1 Shaughnessy, she said, Mshowed poor judgement in the casting of 1 Phoenix111 • In Newsweek (May 8, 1950) T. H. Wenning wrote of Fry, 11 He has wit and , poetry, and a. showman's trick of cutting ab- 7 ruptly from the poetic to the staccato vernacular•. He did, however, find some criticisms of the play, and telt that "the performances accented the plays deficiencies." The two lovers, he felt, 1 seemed to be taking their emotions somewhat more to heart thah Fry intended.u Joseph Wood Krutch in the .TE.e Nation (May 13, 1950) also was not impressed with the production. He called the play 11 a brief skit•, but found it 11 both highly diverting, and in its odd mannered way, a little bit more than that". The review in Commonweal (May 19, 1950) read "· •• regarding the 1 Phoenix1 piece I must admit to a good deal of _i interest and some delight. The author is unquestionably a theatre poet, he writes in lines which needn't be mouthed, he has a nic.e wit.