Download Interviews in classical performance research

C L A S S I C A L R E C E P TI O N S I N L A TE T W E N TI E T H C E N T U R Y
D R A MA A N D P O E TR Y I N E N G L I S H
ESSAYS ON DOCUMENTING AND RESEARCHING
MODERN PRODUCTIONS OF GREEK DRAMA: THE SOURCES
ESSAY 5: INTERVIEWS IN CLASSICAL PERFORMANCE RESEARCH:
(1 ) J O U R N A L I S T I C I N T E R V I E W S
Alison Burke1 (2003)
Analysing modern classical texts in performance is an interdisciplinary activity
which requires a re-thinking of methodological approaches. As classical studies
have embraced reception studies,2 interest in modern productions of Greek plays
has grown and developed, but a revised methodology is needed to ensure that
the critical approaches to the subject matter respond to the interdisciplinary
nature of performance analysis of classical texts. Two assumptions underpin this
paper: that practitioners’ intentions are held to be important in the evaluation of
the theatrical event; and that those intentions can be recovered through a
process of interviewing. Broadly speaking interviews take two forms, academic
and journalistic, and it is with respect to the latter that this paper is focused. 3 My
critical position is that journalistic interviews are subject to a set of limitations
that must be appreciated in order to evaluate the information they contain.
Furthermore, for information to be used effectively by the theatre researcher, the
intentions that underpin the interview need to be understood as determining
factors. The aims of this paper are: to set journalistic interviews within a wider
methodology; to consider the value of interview evidence and to evaluate the
strengths and weaknesses of the interview process through analysis of the
relationship of intent (mutual promotion) that characterises the
interviewer/interviewee relationship. An analysis of several examples of
interviews is included to support the critical position, namely, that the intentions
of practitioners, journalists and publishers combine to contribute to a preferred
reading which need not be accepted uncritically by the researcher.
A methodology of production analysis is difficult to determine. The traditional
methodological approach (rigorous desk study of the text, material evidence and
secondary criticism) has been used to evaluate Greek dramatic texts within their
production environment, as works of literature in their own right and as evidence
of social, political, cultural values. However, this is only a starting point for
performance analysis which must also include the shaping of the performance by
the production team. Therefore, in order to progress from a textual analysis to
performance text analysis, a more flexible research model is needed. As the area
of production analysis is subject to the transitory nature of performance,
establishing primary evidence on which to justify a critical interpretation is
problematic. Therefore, the study of a live theatrical event needs to generate its
own primary evidence in order to provide a ‘text’ of the performance that can be
analysed and subjected to varying interpretations by other researchers.
Journalistic interviews can be considered as constituting primary evidence that
survives the production’s run: the communication in print of the intentions
underlying a production provides a testament of intent against which, and in light
of which, the process of production analysis can begin.
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 5, August 2003
Alison Burke
The value of journalistic interviews is that they can provide a medium by
which practitioners can explain their intentions in the performance. The unique
feature of interviews (academic and journalistic) is that they provide the
opportunity for theatre practitioners to elucidate the creative process. This is
valuable because, for effective performance analysis to take place, the critic
needs to be aware of the creative process through which a theatrical production is
given life.4 In performance analysis, the final performance as it appears on stage
is an end product, but the creative process by which a production gets to the
stage is as important as the performance itself. The decisions of the production
team (director and costume/lighting/set designers) and the motivation of actors
determined throughout the rehearsal process are not usually documented;
therefore, interviews with the practitioners can fill that gap. Moreover,
performance analysis is often based on personal witness: the researcher watches
the production and then frames his/her analysis in response. However, the
human eye cannot register everything that happens on stage simultaneously, so
aspects of the production can be missed. Futhermore, memory is not infallible, so
confusion can arise as to the layout/use of the set, for example. 5 Because of the
subjective nature of personal witness, researchers and reviewers can interpret the
production as a consequence of personal interest/knowledge base. All these
factors impinge on the reliability of performance analysis, but, depending on the
range and scope of the interview, the responses of the practitioners can provide
another layer of evidence to enrich the critical response.
Journalistic interviews, however, are not a neutral method of data collection
as the media interview process is circumscribed by a relationship of intent: a
symbiotic relationship exists between the media and the theatre that is predicated
on the basis of mutual promotion. The interview as a preview has distinct aims: it
promotes the production, the interviewee, the publication and, to a greater or
lesser extent, the interviewer. The promotion of the production is achieved
through the promotion of the practitioner; because the act of being interviewed
assumes superior knowledge on behalf of the practitioner, the respondent is
defined as ‘Elite’ and is, therefore, invested with authority.6 In journalistic
interviews, inside knowledge of the production can present the practitioner as an
authority on the text as well as the production. What needs to be borne in mind,
however, is that the concept of authority aims at promoting the production to the
readers, who are positioned as a potential audience. The practitioner, by being
represented as an authority on the theatrical event and the play text, advertises
the production and ‘legitimises’ the production’s interpretation. In a positive
sense, the practitioner’s comments allow for a clear statement of intent, albeit
influenced by the role that he/she has in the production: an actor’s statement of
intent may be quite significantly different from a director’s. The practitioner’s
motive, however, may prevent a critical distance: the promotion of the
production’s interpretation of a play precludes a discussion of variant readings of
the text and other possible theatrical approaches. Therefore, for the information
gained from a practitioner in a journalistic interview to be useful, it needs to be
understood as the presentation of the production’s ‘party line’, which need not be
accepted uncritically by the researcher.
Journalistic interviews also promote the publication in which they appear. The
very process of interviewing is based on the illusion of intimacy and privilege: the
publication in which the interview appears suggests to its target readership that,
2
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 5, August 2003
Alison Burke
by reading the interview, the reader gains a coveted access to a restricted and
charmed circle. This element of privilege serves to promote the publication as it is
through purchasing the newspaper/magazine that this access is gained.
Furthermore, the marketing of authority and knowledge augments this prized
access: by presenting the practitioner as an authority, the publication suggests to
its readership that, as potential audience members, they will be in a greater
position of knowledge. Again this promotion is double edged. Positively,
journalists can gain admittance to theatrical circles that may prove difficult to the
independent researcher, but negatively, the positioning of the practitioner as an
authority does not promote a critical approach, but uses an interactionalist
method in order to support and enhance rather than analyse the practitioner’s
responses.7
The journalistic interview supports the concept of authority by fusing the
practitioner with the production, for example, actors and their roles become
inextricably linked; therefore, the text becomes re-defined through the actor’s
psyche, which supports and privileges a modern context for ancient drama. The
readership then participates in this process as readers are encouraged to accept
the practitioner’s interpretation of the play and understand the cultural and
historical context of the play in light of prevailing modern attitudes: simply, the
past is reinvented in light of the present through the practitioner’s experience.
According to David Silverman:
The media aim to deliver us immediate ‘personal’ experience. Yet
what they (we) want is simple repetition of familiar tales. Perhaps
this is part of the post-modern condition. Maybe we feel people
are at the most authentic when they are, in effect, reproducing a
cultural script.8
With respect to the performance of ancient drama, the inclusion of ancient texts
into the modern theatrical repertoire is usually justified on the basis that the
Greek plays speak to the universal human condition and are, therefore, relevant
to the modern world. The concept of relevance in journalistic interviews, however,
can be interpreted as the redefinition of the ancient text in light of modern
opinions. Therefore, the practitioner’s appeal to a modern ‘cultural script’ also
endorses a ‘legitimate’ view of the text that is dependent on an assumed
continuity of meaning from the past to the present. Furthermore, aiming to
deliver ‘‘personal’ experience’, not only assumes continuity of meaning, but also
supports the merging of the actor with the character or the director with the
dramatic interpretation. Personal experience implies insight, which, rightly or
wrongly, suggests authority. Consequently, once again, the merging of the
practitioner with his/her role coupled with suggested continuity of meaning from
past to present, legitimises the interview process by implying that the interviewee
has authoritative insight into the text.
The promotion of the publication and the production also rests on the collusion
of the interviewer. Increasingly the interviewer’s role is not to take an objective
investigative stance, but to support the production and reinforce the commerce
between the publication and its market share. This can be achieved in several
ways. If the interview as published expunges the voice of the interviewer, the
interviewer still undertakes an editing process that privileges information that is
held to be key to promoting the production and of interest to the target
3
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 5, August 2003
Alison Burke
readership. Similarly, if the voice of the interviewer is maintained, then the
critical position of the interviewer is interactionalist rather than interrogative. That
is, it is supportive of the production and the market position of the publication. In
essence, the danger is that media interviews simply confirm rather than
investigate. Altheide, for example, considers that the development of journalist
interviewing has progressed in a manner that simply reinforces the position of the
interviewee:
Media logic has transformed journalistic interviewing from what was
primarily a ‘discovering’ or ‘information gathering’ enterprise into
an aspect of entertainment. As journalistic practices and
perspectives as well as entertainment formats became more widely
understood, the line separating journalists from their interviewees
began to fade. One consequence was that interviews began to be
set up to complement the interviewees’ own messages and
emphasis.9
Journalistic interviews with theatre practitioners could be considered as
presenting a closed loop of meaning so that the interview always remains safe by
never challenging expectations. Moreover, the mutual reinforcement of the
publication and the production means that there is no critical voice, and the rush
to validate can result in the trivialising of the themes of the original text. Indeed,
without a critical voice, the published media interview runs the risk of becoming a
weak dramatic commentary that cynically flatters its readership whilst engaging
in a symbiotic promotion of the production and publication.
Example 1: Paul Taylor ‘Fatal attraction: in bed with Medea’, The
Independent, 17 January 2001, p.12. [see DB id. nos. 2573 (London) and
2591 (Dublin)]
Paul Taylor’s interview with Fiona Shaw and Jonathan Cake (Medea and Jason in
Deborah Warner’s Medea) is an example of the interview process being used as a
vehicle for the promotion of the interviewer, the newspaper and the theatrical
production. The relationship of intent, in this instance, is explored through an
examination of the following journalistic codes and conventions: the preferred
reading established by the title, strap line and image; the context that the
interview is given in order to validate the information and analysis contained in
Taylor’s article; the positioning of the audience in relation to the allusions and
comparisons drawn by the interviewer; the selection of information generated by
the interview schema and the interviewees’ responses. What will be seen, is that
the necessity for mutual promotion requires the interviewees to be presented as
authoritative with respect to the original text and the interpretation of the
production. In this instance, authority is conveyed through merging the identity of
the actors with their characters. Furthermore, in this interview, the presentation
of the actors and characters as one suggests continuity of meaning from the past
to the present and assumes that the themes and issues of Medea can be
expressed using celebrity culture as a modern referent. Continuity from the past
to the present also prepares for the interpretation of gender conflict in the play
and lays the groundwork for the assumption that this production, in this day and
age, ‘correctly’ responds to the meaning of Euripides’ play.
4
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 5, August 2003
Alison Burke
The concept of authority in the interview is achieved by merging the actors with
their roles. In Taylor’s interview this is established by the process of preferred
reading and by the fusion of the actors’ behaviour, appearance and skill with the
characters they play. Taylor’s article is dominated by Jack Hill’s photograph of
Shaw and Cake in what appears to be the theatre’s Green Room. The central
position of the photograph eclipses the text and title; therefore, the text is read
with reference to the dominant image. The image itself uses a shallow depth of
field in order to focus the viewer’s gaze on the eyes of Shaw, who gazes back at
the viewer. The light in the photograph then draws the eye to Cake, who,
although occupying the same amount of space as Shaw, is in less sharp focus and
looks at Shaw rather than at the viewer. The intimacy of Cake’s gaze at Shaw and
his Brando-like posture and clothes suggests a sexual aspect to their interaction
in the photograph and Shaw’s direct gaze at the viewer, set within the normally
restricted area of the Green Room, affords the illusion of intimacy between
audience and interviewees. This reading of the image is supported by the unusual
discussion of the photograph in the text. Taylor, establishing the context of the
interview, writes:
Because the director needs him for notes, I am to interview Cake
separately, but before that, I’m allowed to observe the two of them
being photographed for this piece. With her quick, deprecating Irish
wit, Shaw keeps up a steady flow of bantering mock-abashment at
the thought of being snapped alongside this gleaming hunk.
(‘Jonathan is mythological in shape, isn’t he?’ she said earlier).
(Italics added)
In this description, Taylor takes the reader ‘behind the scenes’ of the interview,
which supports the theory that the reader is allowed access to the real world
behind the stage illusion: into a private space occupied by the theatre celebrities.
The idea of being ‘allowed to observe’ this ‘intimate’ moment further enhances
the idea of being admitted (and thereby privileged) to a private sphere. The
illusion of intimacy also embraces the suggestion of sexual frisson between the
leading actors. This is not to suggest that the article plays on a physical affair, but
that the evident crackling sexual flirtation lends authority to Shaw and Cake’s
performances as Medea and Jason, which thereby promotes the production.
Therefore, the authority of the interview rests, in part, on the collision/separation
of the actors with/from their roles. Shaw and Cake’s comments as actors about
the production’s interpretation of the play are lent authority based upon their
understanding of the roles, but authority is also suggested by fusing the identity
of the actor with the role. In the image this is achieved by presenting them as a
couple,10 and in the preferred reading of title and image, Shaw is presented as
both actress and Medea.
The collision of actor and role is then anchored as a premise in the ‘hook’
paragraph that opens the article. Taylor states:
Having witnessed Deborah Warner’s searching production in its
first incarnation, last summer, at the Abbey, Dublin, I’m aware
that Shaw will be seeing me directly after having put herself
through the mother and father of all mangles. So I suddenly feel
about as sensitive as someone waiting to shove a microphone in
the face of a major road-accident casualty.
5
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 5, August 2003
Alison Burke
Taylor’s anxiety could be considered more than a rhetorical sensitivity. In
establishing the emotional impact on Shaw of performing Medea, Taylor prepares
the groundwork for the fusion of Shaw with Medea in order to lend authority to
her responses in the interview. Moreover, by establishing the ‘emotional truth’ of
Shaw’s interpretation of the character, Taylor also promotes the production:
simply, the production is worth seeing because of Shaw’s performance.
Taylor’s article is also noteworthy as it fulfils a number of functions: interview,
preview and review. Taylor’s authority to interview Shaw and Cake is derived
from his prior witness of the production. As the production transferred from the
Abbey (Dublin) to the Queen’s (London), Taylor, having seen the production at
the Abbey, is able to present a critical response to the production, whilst
previewing, and thereby promoting, the London production. 11 Taylor, in providing
the context for the interview, establishes in the ‘hook’ paragraph that he has
already seen the production in Ireland, therefore, the interview is informed by his
previous critical response. This context supports the positive review in the strap
line that the production is ‘Deborah Warner’s sensational version of Euripides’.
Consequently, the production receives promotion for the London debut and
affirmation as a result of the previous run, and the interviewer’s prior experience
validates his role.
The promotion of the interviewer also rests on the interviewer’s relationship
with the reader. In this instance Taylor operates as a mediator between the
interviewees and the reader, filtering, analysing and contextualising the interview
process. In order to undertake this role the interviewer positions the reader by
establishing a shared frame of reference, which is understood by the reader, and
in so doing, defines the target audience. Taylor displays his knowledge in a series
of comparisons which provide modern counterparts in order to support the
assumption that Medea is a play of universal interest. The manner in which Taylor
displays his knowledge further contributes to the shaping and defining of the
target audience. Taylor defines the reader through assumptions made about the
reader’s geographic location, class, and literary/cultural knowledge base. With
respect to geographic location, Taylor assumes that the reader is London-based
and that the bank of the reader’s theatrical experience is London-centric. This is
evident when Taylor, establishing Cake’s macho credentials to play Jason, alludes
to his previous performance:
Jonathan Cake, the actor who recently wowed audiences with his
strapping frame and teasing sexual confidence in Tennessee
Williams’s steamy, tongue-in-cheek Baby Doll at the National
Theatre.12
In this comment Taylor establishes his own credentials, in that he displays a
wider theatrical knowledge, whilst characterising his readership as being able
(geographically and economically) to attend a London-based production. also
identifies the class of the readership as educated and refined. In his physical
description of Cake he implies a shared class-based knowledge: When in comes
to achieving his political ambitions, Medea’s asylum-seeking husband has all the
advantages of a glamorous Olympic hero, and Cake, who is a Cambridge rugby
Blue, is ideally cast to project this allure.
Taylor assumes that his audience are familiar with the colours awarded to the
Cambridge University rugby team when they play Oxford University, which
6
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 5, August 2003
Alison Burke
assumes and displays a class-based knowledge and re-inscribes the prejudice
that the ‘body beautiful’, class and a glorified view of the classical past are all
interrelated. Taylor’s observation works on an assumption of shared values
related to privilege and belief in the pursuit of excellence (physical and
intellectual) that finds its counterpart in the mythologised view of the classical
past. Moreover, Taylor re-figures Jason as an Olympic hero which is reductive of
the complexity of Euripides’ characterisation. Taylor does this in order to link the
vision of the Olympic hero with his implied definition of ideal masculinity and the
‘British elite’, which, by association, according to Taylor, are those who participate
in the Oxford/Cambridge sporting/intellectual culture. Taylor also displays his
literary knowledge and invites his audience to participate in a self-congratulatory
game of understand the literary comparison. Shaw becomes a ‘bony and brainily
beautiful Virginia Woolf’, Cake is a ‘fresh Steve Redgrave’, Medea and Jason
become ‘Ted Hughes and Sylvia Plath’, and, in order to show an awareness of
contemporary figures, Barbara and Boris Becker are presented as a modern
comparison. This process of comparisons develops the tripartite relationship of
intent: the publication is promoted by flattering the literary/cultural knowledge of
the target audience, the interviewer is promoted through a display of belonging
and the production is promoted by being associated with the ‘glitterati’ of the
literary/theatrical/celebrity worlds.
The purpose of this string of comparisons to literary and public figures
supports the assumption that Euripides’ Medea is relevant to the modern world.
In the interview, celebrity culture is considered to be an appropriate modern
referent for the relationship between Medea and Jason. The position is not argued
critically by Taylor, but is presented as an assumption to be accepted. The
interview schema begins with the question ‘why now?’ Taylor reports Shaw’s
answer in the following terms:
Partly, reveals Shaw, because our current fame-obsessed culture
makes the world of drama peculiarly accessible to a modern
audience.
And in order to develop this observation Taylor quotes Shaw’s analysis of Jason
and Medea’s relationship: ‘This kind of admiring, immodest love affair is what
Hello! Magazine is built on.’ What is not clear is whether or not the production
sought to utilise public interest in those in the public eye uncritically as
justification for the character-based focus of the production’s interpretation. It is
also possible, however, that the production and interview aim at challenging the
way in which the media plays to and promotes voyeurism. In support of this, the
reference to Hello! in The Independent, because of the tabloid/broadsheet
polarity, could be considered as an attempt to challenge what is presented in the
strap-line as celebrity obsession. If this is the case, then there is a significant
irony to the marketing of the production and the justification and presentation of
the interview. The production was marketed as Fiona Shaw’s Medea, which
established the production as a star vehicle and thereby promoted the concept of
the celebrity rather than challenging it. 13 Furthermore, the presentation of the
interview, prioritising Shaw in the title and photograph, and merging the actor
with the character in order to validate the interview, promotes and utilises the
principle of the celebrity. Ultimately, whether or not it was the intention of the
interviewer or interviewees, a wider awareness of the production and a critical
response to the interview results in the conclusion that the production and the
7
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 5, August 2003
Alison Burke
interview, in effect, re-inscribe the very position that they seek to deconstruct.
The lack of clarity in the interview, which leads to this conclusion, arises from the
fact that celebrity culture as a modern referent is accepted as an assumption
rather than being justified through critical argument, therefore, the
appropriateness of the referent is unclear.
In the interview, celebrity obsession prepares for the discussion of gender and the
production’s interpretation of Medea and Jason’s relationship. Shaw and Taylor
assert the modern relevance of Euripides’ play by claiming that, in the present
‘post-feminist society’, there exists the capability to appreciate that the faults in
the relationship, which precipitate the tragedy, are two-sided. Medea’s role in the
relationship is considered by Shaw to operate as a trap for Jason:
‘A woman marries a man and does such favours for him that he
can never in good conscience leave her. I think already that is a
subconscious trap.’ Shaw argues. And this new capacity to
appreciate the pressures on Jason is the other key reason why
now is the right moment for Medea.
Taylor’s willingness to accept this interpretation could be considered as predicated
on the flawed premise that prevailing gender politics provide a more appropriate
understanding of the gender relations in the text than previous production
environments. The premise is flawed as it collapses history: the article does not
give consideration to the vastly different political/social environment into which
Medea was originally received. In contrast, because Taylor’s article operates as a
positive review (Abbey production) and preview (London production), the desire
to validate the modernising impetus of the performance in effect ignores variant
readings of the text. Taylor’s acceptance and promotion of the gender
interpretation proffered by Shaw and Cake suggests a specific reading of
Euripides’ intentions, but what is presented, however, constitutes a specific
thematic interpretation that need not be accepted by the reader uncritically.
Although Taylor does acknowledge that ‘Medea has been co-opted for many
causes’, this critical position is not invoked as an analytical premise for Warner’s
interpretation. Indeed, although Taylor notes the long-standing performance
tradition, he does not then consider this production’s interpretation in relation to
that performance tradition. In contrast, Warner’s interpretation is ‘legitimised’ by
Taylor through presenting her directorial strategy as coming closer to the ‘spirit’
of the play:
Deborah Warner is renowned for blasting through the encrusted
gunk of performance tradition and for being true to the spirit of a
classic play by holding the drama to the consequences of its own
deepest insights.
In this statement Taylor aims to promote Warner’s production and endorse her
interpretation by distancing her production of Medea from previous ones: the
implicit assumption being that Warner’s interpretation and Shaw and Cake’s
responses are closer to the intentions of Euripides. The sub-text of Euripides’ play
is then assumed to be concerned with presenting Medea and Jason as eternally
locked together in mutual recrimination: both culpable and at fault for the tragic
events. The problem with this interpretation is the ending of the play. Medea’s
exit in her grandfather Helios’ chariot is problematic for the mutually culpable
8
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 5, August 2003
Alison Burke
theory, so much so that Warner excised Medea’s divinely assisted exit to Athens.
Consequently, what is considered to be getting back to the ‘spirit’ of the play,
actually means changing the play. It is possible to argue that changing the ending
of the play in order to privilege the production’s interpretation is not problematic
in itself. What is problematic, however, is the assertion that to do so is more true
to the ‘spirit’ of the play, rather than the ‘spirit’ of the production. In his analysis,
Taylor ignores the issues around adapting a text to fit a theoretical interpretation,
and side steps the question of whether or not it is our modern fear that the
ending justifies the action that causes difficulty with Euripides’ ending.
Justification of an ending on the basis that it is more appropriate to the ‘spirit’ of
Euripides than the ending Euripides did write exposes the problems in collapsing
history and eroding cultural difference. Forcing Euripides into the mould of
modern gender politics in order to appropriate his work for the present does not
distinguish Warner’s interpretation, but actually places it firmly in the
performance tradition of appropriation and adaptation.
Taylor’s critical stance ultimately accepts the production’s thematic interpretation
and as a consequence he does not maintain a critical distance in order to evaluate
the interviewees’ responses, but provides a context in order to promote the
production and in the process the publication and himself. For the purposes of
performance research, however, the interview does have value as the
interviewees’ responses provide corroborative evidence for the psychological
realism and modernising approach of Warner’s production. Given that information
about theatrical productions is ephemeral, the interview provides more concrete
evidence of the production’s approach. In this interview, the fusing of the actor
with the role by the interviewer, and the interviewees’ internalising of characters’
motives, augments the process of character inhabitation undertaken in the
production. Furthermore, in the assertion that Euripides’ play is relevant to the
modern world, the interview points towards the reason why a modern staging
interpretation was utilised. Although the critical position of the interview may not
present it as such, the definition of the sub-text of the play in terms of the
lengths to which obsessive desire can lead (in which both parties are culpable),
locates the play within a modern frame of reference. The interview’s focus on
Medea and Jason’s relationship, to the exclusion of cultural and historical
influences, results from and evidences the production’s interpretation of the play
in light of prevailing gender politics, modern presentational modes and a
psychological interpretation of character. In simple terms, the interview provides
supporting textual evidence, albeit uncritically, for the transitory theatrical event.
Example 2: Al Senter ‘Playing God’, What’s On in London, 1st May 2002,
p.51.
Al Senter’s interview with the actor Greg Hicks (Dionysus, Teiresias, Servant, in
Sir Peter Hall’s production of the Bacchai at the National Theatre, London, 2002 –
DB id. no. 2644) is radically different from Taylor’s interview with the
protagonists of Warner’s Medea. Senter’s interview is presented as a monologue,
with the role of the interviewer expunged in order to present Hick’s responses as
an uninterrupted speech. For the purposes of performance research, however, the
interview can be examined with reference to the relationship of intent established
above.
9
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 5, August 2003
Alison Burke
In this interview, the relationship of intent promotes the production through
providing what appears as unmediated access to the practitioner, thereby
promoting Hicks as an actor and, consequently, Hall’s production of the Bacchai.
Indeed, the primary strength of this interview as a source for theatre research
lies in the manner in which the interview allows for the promotion of the
production. Senter’s interview schema begins with asking what attracts Hicks to
Greek tragedy and to masked acting. In the opening ‘hook’ paragraph and
subsequent paragraph, Hicks establishes that his attraction to Greek tragedy is,
- because it is a world that never ceases to fascinate and expand
me. Doing these plays takes you into the deepest recesses of
your psyche and, from the start, I’ve always felt comfortable in a
mask – somehow you become more selfless and this helps you
grasp these cosmic emotions.
Here Hicks establishes his personal view that Greek tragedy explores issues of
consciousness, whilst implicitly linking the performance of Greek tragedy with
masked acting. He undertakes a similar connection in the second paragraph:
I like the formality of Greek drama. Yet when I put on a mask, it
is not only a piece of formal ritual – my self is diminished and I
love the anonymity which a mask brings me.
In these statements, Hicks connects the emotional content of Greek tragedy and
the form of the genre with masked acting: his implicit assumption is that
performance of Greek tragedy is correctly expressed through masked acting.
Although there is no interviewer’s voice to contextualise and analyse this position,
the information cannot be accepted uncritically by the theatre researcher. Hicks’
interpretation of Greek tragedy is informed by his long-standing involvement with
Hall and corresponds to the production style developed by Hall as a consequence
of directing the Oresteia, The Oedipus Plays, Tantalus and the Bacchai.14 Hicks’
assumption that acting in Greek tragedy requires masking could be considered
derived from Hall’s thesis that the emotion and form of Greek tragedy demand
the wearing of masks.15 Furthermore, their shared theoretical position may have
emerged as a consequence of the fact that all the mask work that Hicks has
undertaken has been under Hall’s direction and Hall has cast him repeatedly in all
his productions of Greek tragedy.16
Hick’s assumption that performing Greek tragedy automatically requires a
masked interpretation is, therefore, a personal preference for Hall’s directorial
approach and serves to ‘legitimise’ Hall’s direction of the Bacchai, thereby
promoting the production. The view that Greek tragedy should automatically be
masked is, however, a controversial position. As there is no interviewer’s voice to
provide a critical context to Hicks’ assumption, the theatre researcher needs to
place the interview in a wider context. Hall’s use of masks may now be accepted
as his directorial style, but his first masked venture (the Oresteia) polarised
reviewers’ responses. In what became known as ‘the war of the masks’,17 without
exception the reviewers of the Oresteia applauded or railed against the use of
masks.18 Moreover, in more recent times, the gulf that emerged between Barton
and Hall in the rehearsals of Tantalus was reportedly a consequence of Hall’s
decision to mask an essentially modern dramatic text, albeit a text derived from
the extant tragedies, fragments and Epic Cycle. Therefore, what Hicks presents in
the interview as the method of performance required by the content and form
10
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 5, August 2003
Alison Burke
Greek tragedy, constitutes a personal opinion which results from a collaborative
process informed by Hall’s directorial predilection for utilising ancient stage
conventions.
Although Hicks’ position in the interview supports Hall’s direction, Hicks also
discusses his own interpretation of movement and choreography:
I’m also passionate about working on stage and going right to the
limits of what my body can do. I study Japanese movement and
Brazilian martial art and that has helped me use my body as a
means of expression. A mere hand gesture can convey a mile of
meaning – even the tips of the fingers can be extraordinarily
eloquent.
As the interview operates on one level as a preview, Hicks’ discussion of
movement provides the readership with a tantalising glimpse into what the
audience can expect at the production. The ‘exoticness’ of Hicks’ physical
influences could be considered provocative of the readership (and potential
audience members’) curiosity, so Hicks implicitly ‘sells’ the production. He also
privileges the potential audience by providing them with information with which
they can decode his performance. There is, however, the implicit assumption that
the potential audience will understand and respond to the meaning of gesture
derived from another performance culture, and that the minutiae of meaning can
be discerned. This assumption establishes Hicks’ authority over his own
performance (he determines his own influences) and his authority in the interview
(his explanation informs the reader). Furthermore, to place Hicks’ movement in a
wider context, Hall’s directorial style could be described as presenting the text to
the audience; stage choreography and interpretation through physical movement
have presented a challenge to Hall’s direction. Indeed, Hall has been somewhat
suspicious of physically based interpretations, considering that movement
detracts from the text.19 Consequently, Hick’s discussion of movement evidences
his personal contribution as an actor and the reader would be better positioned to
appreciate this if he/she had a wider knowledge of Hall and Hicks' performance
history.
The promotion of the production in the interview is also achieved through the
promotion of the practitioner in a wider theatrical context. Senter’s interview
schema progresses from discussing Hicks’ response to Greek tragedy to his
approach to acting as a profession. The interview schema affords Hicks the
opportunity to display his dedication to the profession through his process of
preparation20 and his commitment to performing classical texts through
privileging plays that have a classical subject matter. 21 The element of disclosure
and revelation augments the sense of authority in the interview: Hicks, by
stressing his dedication to the genre and the profession, establishes himself as
specialised in the field, therefore, his testament gains credibility. Furthermore, as
the interview operates as a preview to Hall’s Bacchai, Hicks’ credibility as an actor
further promotes the production: the very seriousness with which he takes his
roles, and his experience and preference of the genre, adds legitimacy and kudos
to the production. The unspoken subtext of the interview, however, could be
considered contradictory. The element of revelation assumes that the actor’s
psyche is of importance and value in understanding the performance. The position
is contradictory in that Hicks also establishes that the attraction of masked acting
11
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 5, August 2003
Alison Burke
is the anonymity the mask affords. The contradiction lies in the fact that the
interview presents the practitioner as key to understanding meaning, yet the
performance style aims at subverting individual psychological expression in order
to achieve Hall’s aim to present the text to the audience.
The authority of the interview rests on the assumption that the interview
process informs the potential audience, and, through presenting the interview as
instructive, the publication is promoted. The decision to present the interview as
a monologue could be considered as a rhetorical technique aimed at persuading
the reader of the authority of the interview. The effacing of the interviewer’s voice
suggests to the reader that he/she is gaining unmediated access to the
practitioner, therefore, the assumption that the practitioner is key to
understanding the production is augmented. The selling point of the interview is
that, by presenting the interview as an ‘interior monologue’, the publication
provides the readership with a ‘truth’ that they would not otherwise have access
to, which places the potential audience member in a greater position of
knowledge. To put it simply, the readership of What’s on in London are privileged
as potential audience members above those who have not read the publication,
as they can approach the production from a position of superior knowledge. The
concept of superior knowledge, however, works on a set of assumptions. There is
no critical voice in the interview, so the information is assumed to be
authoritative without question, and the justification of authority rests on the
implicit assumption that the psychological processes of the actor are key to
understanding his performance. That the interview is of value positions the
readership as a potential audience drawn from a hermeneutic world (Londoncentric and theatrically aware) in which the name of the practitioner, his
performance history and current undertaking has meaning. For the interview to
be of value beyond London’s theatre world and over and above the uncritical
acceptance of the reader, the content of the interview needs to be placed in a
wider critical context of performance analysis in which the production as a whole
is examined in light of the style to which it subscribes and in relation to other
possible performance methods.
Conclusions
Classical scholars’ developing interest in modern performance of classical texts
requires debate and research into new methodological approaches. Traditional
methods of research, rigorous study of the original text and secondary criticism
juxtaposed with performance analysis based on personal witness, do not
constitute an embracing methodology. The position of this article is that an
appreciation of the intentions of the practitioners is needed in order to understand
the performance aims of the production. To this end, interviews with practitioners
provide insight in to the motivation, justification, and reasoning that underpin the
approach taken by the theatrical event. However, given that interviews with
practitioners can provide primary evidence for the theatrical event as well as
secondary evidence in the form of reviewers’ evaluation, a revised critical
apparatus needs to be put in place in order to analyse the reliability of
information generated by the interview process.
What has been seen in this paper, is that any critical apparatus needs to take
account of the process of mutual validation that takes place between the
publication, interviewer, theatrical production and interviewee. Positively, what
12
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 5, August 2003
Alison Burke
the above examples show is that journalistic interviews are a useful but
problematic source for production analysis. The interviews are useful in that they
do provide evidence for the respective productions’ general interpretation. This
information can then be used as a basis for understanding the rationale behind
the presentational modes, and, placed within a wider theatrical context, can
evidence approaches to the different performance styles to which respective
productions subscribe (for example, naturalistic character inhabitation or distance
and abstraction from character). The interviews are also useful as evidence of the
critical tradition in the media; in particular Taylor’s interview provides clear
evidence for media critics’ continuing validation of the performance of Greek
tragedy predicated on a premise of universal interest.
The interviews are problematic, however, as the requirement of mutual
promotion on behalf of the publication and interviewer, and production and
practitioner, coupled with the use of an interactionalist method, result in collusion
rather than investigation. In the above interviews, because there is no critical
voice the interviewers do not analyse the information. For this information to be
used in support of performance analysis, the researcher needs to consider the
extent to which the information is formed in response to the need to promote,
and distinguish the data from the advertisement. Furthermore, as is evident in
both examples, the increasing tendency to promote interest in the celebrity figure
and to collide the celebrity with his/her role (or the interpretation of the
production) implies that the interviewee has an authoritative knowledge that is to
be accepted rather than challenged. Therefore, for the information generated
from the newspaper interview to be of value, it has to be treated as the
presentation of a production’s ‘party line’ and, consequently, not an authoritative
interpretation of the original text as a performance text. In sum, in order to use
information from journalistic interviews, it is important for the researcher to
maintain a critical distance and not to acquiesce in the closed loop of meaning
created by interviewers and interviewees as a consequence of the mutual need
for promotion.
I would like to acknowledge the assistance of the following: Prof. Douglas Cairns
(Glasgow), Prof. Lorna Hardwick (Open), Dr Paul Innes (Glasgow), Dr Lloyd
Lewellyn-Jones (Open), Mr Oliver Jones (What’s on in London), Dr Ian Ruffell
(Glasgow), Mr Colin Templeton (photographer), Ms Paddy Walls and the
anonymous referees.
1
For a detailed study in reception criticism and classics see L. Hardwick, .
‘Reception Studies’, Greece & Rome: New Surveys in the Classics 33, Oxford,
Oxford University Press, 2003.
2
A companion study of the contribution that academic interviews provide to
classical performance research is forthcoming (see Essay 6).
3
This point is established by the theatre director Peter Brook: ‘I see nothing but
good in a critic plunging into our lives, meeting actors, talking, discussing,
watching, intervening.’ P. Brook, The Empty Space, Harmondsworth, Penguin
Books, 1972, p.37.
4
13
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 5, August 2003
Alison Burke
This point was established by J. Michael Walton in his analysis of Katie Mitchell’s
Oresteia (National Theatre: London, 1999) at the ‘Agamemnon in Performance
Conference’ hosted by The Archive of Performances of Greek and Roman Drama,
University of Oxford, September 2000. Walton's paper was subsequently
published as ' Translation or Transubstantiation’, in F. Macintosh, P. Michelakis, E.
Hall and O. Taplin (eds.), Agamemnon in Performance 458 BC to AD 2004 .
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 189–206.
5
For a detailed discussion of ‘Elite’ interviewing see L. A Dexter,. Elite and
specialized interviewing, Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1970 and T.
Odendahl, and A. Shaw, ‘Interviewing Elites’ in Handbook of Interview Research:
Context and Method, J. F. Gubrium, and J. A. Holstein (eds.) California: Sage
Publications Inc, 2002, 299-316.
6
An interactionalist method presents the participants as ‘peers’, joining together
in a conversation in which the aspect of social encounter is maintained. In
journalistic interviews this can be used in order to preserve the illusion of
intimacy between journalist and respondent. See further D. Silverman,
Interpreting Qualitative Data: methods for analysing talk, text and interaction,
London, Sage, 2001, pp. 94-99.
7
8
Ibid p.96.
D Altheide, ‘Journalistic Interviewing’ in Handbook of Interview Research:
Context and Method, J. F. Gubrium, and J. A. Holstein, (eds.) California: Sage
Publications Inc., 2002, p. 413.
9
The fusion of actor and character is evident in the title of the photograph:
‘Fiona Shaw and Jonathan Cake: “Medea and Jason are locked forever in mutual
recrimination over an unspeakable catastrophe’ ”. The close association of the
actors’ names with the characters’ names in order to merge practitioner with
character is further supported by the direct quotation from Shaw.
10
That the interview operates as a preview as well as a review is evident from the
strap line: ‘It’s a story of power, glamour, betrayal and atrocity. On the eve of
this West End opening of Deborah Warner’s sensational version of Euripides,
Fiona Shaw and Jonathan Cake tell Paul Taylor why this ancient Greek tragedy is
so suitable for our celebrity-obsessed culture’ (publication’s emphasis)
11
Taylor undertakes the same process of comparison when discussing Deborah
Warner’s theatrical style through her production of Ibsen’s Hedda Gabler.
12
The marketing of Deborah Warner’s Medea as a star vehicle is discussed in A.
Burke (2003), ‘Characterising the Chorus: Individual and Collective in Four
Recent Productions of Greek Tragedy’, in (eds) L. Hardwick and C. Gillespie, The
Role of Greek Drama and Poetry in Crossing and Redefining Cultural Boundaries,
Milton Keynes: The Open University, and electronically at
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays/Seminar02/SS.htm
13
Greg Hicks played Orestes in Hall’s Oresteia (National Theatre, London, 19801), Tiresias in Hall’s Oedipus Rex (National Theatre, London, 1996), Agamemnon
in Hall’s production of John Barton’s Tantalus (British premiere Lowry Centre,
Salford, 2000). For a full performance history see Hicks’ web site at:
http://members.aol.com/actorsite2/gh/ (last accessed August 2003).
14
14
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays
Essays No. 5, August 2003
Alison Burke
Hall has established his theoretical position that the emotion and form of Greek
tragedy necessitate mask use in a variety of sources. See, for example Exposed
by the Mask, London: Oberon Books, 2000, pp. 22-30 republished in part as ‘The
Mask In Practice’, Bacchai Programme, London: National Theatre, 2002.
15
That Hicks’ theory of mask use emerged from working with Hall on the Oresteia
(the earliest collaboration) is established in an unpublished interview with Alison
Burke in which he asserts: ‘it was the first mask venture that I had ever done in
my life’. Interview with Greg Hicks (Orestes and Chorus Member in Peter Hall’s
Oresteia) held at the Barbican Theatre, London on Tuesday 15 July 2001.
16
See M. Shulman, The Standard, 30 November 1981, p.22 op. cit. ’The Oresteia,
by Aeschylus at the Olivier is likely to become known as the War of the Masks.’
17
For example, J. Barber, Daily Telegraph, 30 November 1981, M. Billington,
Guardian, 30 November 1981, F. King, The Sunday Telegraph, 6 December 1982,
K. Hurren, What’s on in London, 11 December 1981, all of which questioned Hall’s
use of the mask. In contrast, approval was expressed by J. Fenton, The Sunday
Times, 6 December 1981, and R. Christianson, Chicago Tribune, 17 January
1982.
18
With respect to his approach to choral movement, Hall commented, ‘The one
thing I do know about dance is that if you dance and speak you might as well not
bother to speak, because we all watch the dance. I have been experimenting in
the Bacchai with very slow movement and very quick speech so that the
movement does not detract from the words. But I think that we didn’t solve the
movement in the Oresteia at all.’ Unpublished interview with Sir Peter Hall held at
the National Theatre (London) 30th May 2002.
19
Hicks stresses his dedication to the profession and to his roles: ‘I do think of
acting as a kind of calling – I’m not one of those actors who can breeze in 30
minutes before the show…. I come in two or two and a half hours before the show
and sit in my dressing room and prepare myself.’
20
With respect to Barton’s Tantalus, Hicks says, ‘Tantalus came and went before
we eventually got the green light on one project, and I remember chucking the
script into a skip in Clapham out of sheer frustration when the project collapsed
again – after I had made myself available by turning down a Stratford season.’
Although Tantalus could be considered as a modern play, implicit in Hicks’
comment is an opinion that the classical subject matter of Tantalus places
Barton’s text within the canon of classical drama.
21
15
www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays