Title The convergence of influences on and evolving praxis of mid-twentieth century British theatre design (1935-1965) through a close study of selected works by Motley and Jocelyn Herbert Type Thesis URL http://ualresearchonline.arts.ac.uk/9194/ Date 2016 Citation Jump, Sophie V. (2016) The convergence of influences on and evolving praxis of mid-twentieth century British theatre design (1935-1965) through a close study of selected works by Motley and Jocelyn Herbert. PhD thesis, University of the Arts London. Creators Jump, Sophie V. Usage Guidelines Please refer to usage guidelines at http://ualresearchonline.arts.ac.uk/policies.html or alternatively contact [email protected]. License: Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives Unless otherwise stated, copyright owned by the author The convergence of influences on and evolving praxis of mid-twentieth century British theatre design (1935-1965) through a close study of selected works by Motley and Jocelyn Herbert Sophie V Jump Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The degree is awarded by University of the Arts London August 2015 ABSTRACT This thesis examines key developments in theatre design in Britain between 1935-1965 through the lens of the praxis of the design trio known as Motley (active 1932-78) and of theatre designer Jocelyn Herbert (1917-2003). Analysis of their roles in the creation of the four theatre productions that are used as case studies, Romeo and Juliet (1935), Three Sisters (1938), The Kitchen (1959 & 1961) and Happy Days (1962) enables an evaluation of the complex threads of influence on Motley and Herbert both from within the UK and from the USA and Europe. Furthermore, it offers a close study of their working process including their relationships with directors and playwrights considering not only what they designed, but how and why. Critical engagement with theatre design practice has increased since the early 1990s but there is still very little evaluative literature about British theatre design during the period of this study, 1935-1965. To date there are only three books and three journal articles that specifically cover the seminal designers Motley and Herbert so there is scope for a broadened analysis and contextualisation of their practice. One of the original contributions to knowledge of this thesis is that it assesses the confluence of influences on Motley and Herbert and draws together the threads of connections between British, European and American theatre and the ethos of Michel Saint-Denis illustrating how these fed into Motley’s and Herbert’s work. Whilst acknowledging the complexity of theatre practice and of reconstructing past events, this thesis assesses a combination of archival design material, such as set and costume renderings and sketches, as well as written texts, press reviews and recorded interviews, and draws on my own experience as a theatre design practitioner. The four case studies enable an in-depth investigation of Motley’s and Herbert’s processes and practice, the circumstances in which they operated and how they negotiated these conditions, as well as indicating how the role of the theatre designer developed across the period 1935-1965. In approaching the four case studies from the point of view of design the thesis contributes a new layer to their intricate histories. By emphasising the significance of the professionalisation of the role of the theatre designer during this time and by revealing the connections between Motley, the London Theatre Studio, Herbert and the Royal Court Theatre it expands understanding of the period and reinforces the substantial contribution of design to British theatre history. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research would not have been possible without the unfailing commitment and guidance of my supervisors Professor Jane Collins, Dr Linda Sandino and Professor Eileen Hogan. Apart from their academic support I would like to thank them for their generosity in sharing their time and wisdom with me and for their unflagging encouragement in the writing of this thesis. In addition, I thank the Rootstein Hopkins Foundation for awarding me a doctoral bursary for the first three years of study, and the John Hodgson Theatre Research Trust for its contribution towards the fourth year. There are many people without whom I would not have been able to complete this thesis. I am particularly grateful to the following for their support and encouragement: Cathy Courtney who guided me through the Jocelyn Herbert Archive, patiently listening and responding to my thoughts and theories, and generously sharing her expertise and contacts; my mother, Harriet Devine, who has consistently provided practical and moral support; Jocelyn Herbert’s family, particularly Sandra Lousada for her help with particular queries and for allowing me access to her personal photographic archive; Donald Howarth, Stephan Hammes, Alex Wardle, Elizabeth Dawson and Caroline Townsend for allowing me to mine their knowledge and expertise; Susanne Thomas of Seven Sisters Group for waiting patiently and supportively for me to pursue this path; all the friends and colleagues who have at one time or other been subjected to my thoughts on the process of completing this thesis; David Gothard, Greer Crawley, Theresa Shiban and Vivienne Schadinsky for their consistent interest, enthusiasm and faith in my work. I would also like to thank all those who were interviewed for this thesis for their invaluable contribution to the research, including Trish Montemuro who provided thought provoking input that was unfortunately omitted from its written format due to the ultimate limitations of its scope. Finally, I would like to thank my husband Glyn Pritchard, and my children George and Cai for their patience, love and support. ii Figure 1: Jocelyn Herbert and Margaret ‘Percy’ Harris in 1999 (Courtney, 1999) iii CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: Introduction ...................................................................................... 1 1.1 Context4 1.2 Research background4 1.3 Literature review5 1.3.1 Biographies & monographs 9 1.4 Methodology17 1.4.1 Theoretical context 17 1.4.2 Interviews 19 1.4.3 Archives 21 1.5 Brief overview of each chapter25 Keydeinitions26 1.7 Establishing boundaries28 1.8 Summary29 CHAPTER TWO: Motley and Romeo and Juliet (1935) ..................................... 30 2.1 Context 33 2.1.1 Motley 33 2.1.2 Modern theatre design and New Stagecraft 36 2.1.2.1 Synthesis 37 2.1.2.2 Suggestion 39 2.1.2.3 Simplicity 40 2.1.3 Harley Granville-Barker and Shakespearean performance in twentieth century Britain 41 2.2 Romeo and Juliet (1935) case study43 2.2.1 Circumstances of the production 44 2.2.2 Motley’s process 45 2.2.2.1 Shakespeare’s scene divisions 46 2.2.3 Motley’s designs 49 2.2.3.1 Set designs 49 2.2.3.2 Costume designs 56 2.2.3.2.1 Motley Ltd 56 2.2.3.2.2 Costume process 59 2.2.3.3 Lighting 69 2.2.4 Reception 72 2.3 Summary 73 CHAPTER THREE: The London Theatre Studio and Three Sisters (1938) 74 3.1 Context77 3.1.1 Copeau, Saint-Denis and the Compagnie des Quinze 77 3.1.2 London Theatre Studio 82 3.1.2.1 Architecture 84 3.1.2.2 Design training 90 iv 3.1.2.3 The ground plan 92 3.1.2.4 The dramatic text 96 3.1.3 Chekhov in Britain 97 3.2 Three Sisters (1938) case study 99 3.2.1 Circumstances of the production 99 3.2.2 Motley’s process 104 3.2.2.1 Identifying authorship 105 3.2.3 Motley’s designs 109 3.2.3.1 Set designs 109 3.2.3.2 Costume designs 116 3.2.3.3 Lighting and sound 125 3.3 Summary 126 CHAPTER FOUR: The Royal Court Theatre and The Kitchen (1959 & 1961) ............................................................................................................................................129 4.1 Context132 4.1.1 The English Stage Company at the Royal Court Theatre (1956-) 132 4.1.2 The permanent surround at the Royal Court Theatre 135 4.1.3 The permanent wardrobe at the Royal Court Theatre 142 4.1.4 Repertory and ensemble at the Royal Court Theatre 144 4.1.5 Jocelyn Herbert 144 4.1.6 The Kitchen world premiere 151 4.2 The Kitchen (1959 & 1961) case study153 4.2.1 Circumstances of the production 153 4.2.2 Herbert’s design process 156 4.2.3 Herbert’s design 161 4.2.3.1 Set, lighting and sound 161 4.2.3.2 Costumes 167 4.3 Summary 168 CHAPTER FIVE: Samuel Beckett and Happy Days (1962) ..............................170 5.1 Context173 5.1.1 The Royal Court Theatre and Beckett 173 5.1.2 Beckett, performance and scenography 175 5.1.3 Jocelyn Herbert in 1962 177 5.2 Happy Days (1962) case study180 5.2.1 Conditions of the production 180 5.2.3 Herbert’s design 181 5.2.3.1 Herbert’s design process 181 5.2.3.2 Set designs 187 5.2.3.3 Costume 193 5.2.3.4 Critical reception 200 5.3 Summary 200 v CHAPTER SIX: Conclusion .......................................................................................203 Keypointsofindings204 204 6.1.2 The materials of theatre production - and what they reveal 206 Threadsofinluence 6.1.3 The evolving praxis of Motley and Herbert between 1935-1965 207 6.2 Relevance to contemporary practice209 6.2.1 Directors and designers 209 6.2.2 My perspective as a practitioner 210 6.2.3 Theatre design nomenclature 211 Relections211 6.3.1 Archival research 211 213 6.4 Further research215 Relectionsasaresearcher 6.5 Contribution to knowledge216 ILLUSTRATIONS ............................................................................................................218 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................221