How To Produce Amateur Plays Part 1

How to Produce Amateur Plays.

by Barrett H. Clark.

PREFACE.

This book aims to supply the demand for a simple guide to the production of plays by amateurs. During the past decade a number of books dealing with the subject have been published, but these are concerned either with theoretical and educational, or else with limited and, from the practical viewpoint, unessential aspects of the question. In the present manual the author has attempted an altogether practical work, which may be used by those who have little or no knowledge of producing plays.

The book is not altogether limited in its appeal merely to producers; actors themselves and others having to do with amateur producing will find it helpful. The author has added a number of suggestions on a matter which is rapidly becoming of prime importance: the construction of stages and setting, and the manipulation of lighting.

It is always well to bear in mind that no art can be taught by means of books. The chief purpose of this volume is to lay down the elements and outline the technique of amateur producing.

A careful study of it will enable the amateur stage manager to do much for himself which has heretofore been either impossible or attended with dire difficulty.

The plan of the book is simple: each question and problem is treated in its natural order, from the moment an organization decides to "give a play", until the curtain drops on the last performance of it.

This new edition of "How to Produce Amateur Plays" has been revised throughout, and the list of plays in Chapter X completely re-written and brought up to date.

The author acknowledges his indebtedness for suggestions and help, as well as for permission to reproduce diagrams, photographs, and pa.s.sages from plays, to Mr. T. R. Edwards, Mr. Hiram Kelly Moderwell, Mr. L. R.

Lewis, Mr. Clayton Hamilton, Miss Grace Griswold, Miss Edith Wynne Matthison, Mr. Maurice Browne, Miss Ida Treat, Mr. Sam Hume, John Lane Company, Samuel French, Brentano's, and Henry Holt and Company.

MARCH, 1922

CHAPTER I

CHOOSING THE PLAY

The first important question arising after the decision to give a play, is "What play?" Only too often is this question answered in a haphazard way. Of recent years a large number of guides to selecting plays have made their appearance, most of which are incomplete and otherwise unsatisfactory. The large lists issued by play publishers are bewildering. Toward the end of the present volume is a selective list of plays, all of which are, in one way or another, "worth while"; but as conditions differ so widely, it is practically impossible to do otherwise than merely indicate in a general way what sort of play is suggested.

Each play considered by any organization should be read by the director or even the whole club or cast, after the requisite conditions have been considered. These conditions usually are:

1. =Size of the Cast.= This is obviously a simple matter: a cast of ten cannot play Shakespeare.

2. =Ability of the Cast.= This is a little more difficult. While it is a laudable ambition to produce Ibsen, let us say, no high-school students are sufficiently mature or skilled to produce "A Doll's House." As a rule, the well-known cla.s.sics--Shakespeare, Moliere, Goldoni, Sheridan, Goldsmith--suffer much less from inadequate acting and production than do modern dramatists. The opinion of an expert, or at least of some one who has had experience in coaching amateur plays, should be sought and acted upon. If, for example, "As You Like It" is under consideration, it must be borne in mind that the role of Rosalind requires delicate and subtle acting, and if no suitable woman can be found for that part, a simpler play, like "The Comedy of Errors", had much better be subst.i.tuted. Modern plays are on the whole more difficult: the portrayal of a modern character calls for greater variety, maturity, and skill than the average amateur possesses. The characters in Moliere's "Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme" ("The Merchant Gentleman"), Shakespeare's "The Comedy of Errors", Sheridan's "The Rivals", are more or less well-known types, and acting of a conventional and imitative kind is better suited to them. On the other hand, only the best-trained amateurs are able to impart the needful appearance of life and actuality to a play like Henry Arthur Jones's "The Liars." Still, there are many modern plays--among them, Shaw's "You Never Can Tell" and Wilde's "The Importance of Being Earnest"--in which no great subtlety of characterization is called for.

These can be produced as easily by amateurs as can Shakespeare and Sheridan.

3. =The Kind of Play= to be presented usually raises many questions which are entirely without the scope of purely dramatic considerations.

In this country especially, there is a studied avoidance among schools and often among colleges and universities, of so-called "unpleasant plays." Without entering into the reasons for this aversion, it is rather fortunate, because as a general rule, "thesis", "s.e.x", and "problem" plays are full of pitfalls for amateur actors and producers.

While it is a splendid thing to believe no play too good for amateurs, some moderation is necessary where a play under consideration is obviously beyond the ability of a cast: "Hamlet" ought never to be attempted by amateurs, nor such subtle and otherwise difficult plays as "Man and Superman." Plays of the highest merit can be found which are not so taxing as these. There is no reason why Sophocles' "Electra", Euripides' "Alcestis", or the comedies of Lope de Vega, Goldoni, Moliere, Kotzebue, Lessing, not to mention the better-known English cla.s.sics, should not be performed by amateurs.

It goes without saying that the facile, trashy, "popular" comedies of the past two or three generations are to be avoided by amateurs who take their work seriously. This does not mean that all farces and comedies should be left out of the repertory: "The Magistrate" and "The Importance of Being Earnest" are among the finest farces in the language. The point to be impressed is that it is better to attempt a play which may be more difficult to perform than "Charley's Aunt", than to give a good performance of that oft-acted and decidedly hackneyed piece. It is much more meritorious to produce a good play poorly, if need be, than a poor play well.

If, after having consulted the list in this volume and similar other lists, the club is still unable to decide on a suitable modern play, the best course is to return to the cla.s.sics. It is likely that the plays that have pleased audiences for centuries will please us. Aristophanes'

"The Clouds" and "Lysistrata", with a few necessary "cuts"; Plautus'

"The Twins" and Terence's "Phormio"; Goldoni's "The Fan"; Shakespeare's "Comedy of Errors" and half a dozen other comedies; Moliere's "Merchant Gentleman" and "Doctor in Spite of Himself"; Sheridan's "The Rivals" and Goldsmith's "She Stoops to Conquer"; Lessing's "Minna von Barnhelm"--almost any one of these is "safe." A cla.s.sic can never be seen too often and, since true amateurs are those who play for the joy of playing, they will receive ample recompense for their efforts in the thought that they have at least added their mite to the sum total of true enjoyment in the theater. Another argument in favor of the performance of the cla.s.sics is that they are rarely produced by professionals. If an amateur club revives a cla.s.sic, especially one which is not often seen nowadays, it may well be proud of its efforts.

If, however, the club insists on giving a modern play, it will have little difficulty in finding suitable material. It is well not to challenge comparison with professional productions by choosing plays which have had professional runs of late; try rather to select (1) good modern plays which by reason of their subject matter, form, etc., cannot under present conditions be commercially successful (like Granville Barker's "The Marrying of Ann Leete"); (2) translations of contemporary foreign plays which are not well known either to American readers or producers; and, finally (3) original plays. Here it is difficult to advise. It cannot be hoped that an amateur club will discover many masterpieces among original plays submitted to it, but if any of the works considered has even a touch of originality, some good characterization, any marked technical skill; in a word, if there is something interesting or promising, then it is worth producing.

Doubtless many beginners are discouraged from writing plays for lack of experience gained by seeing their work staged; for such, the amateur club is the only resource.

Besides these particular considerations, there remain the minor but necessary points relating to rights and royalties. A full statement of the legal aspect of the case is to be found in the first appendix in this book.

[Ill.u.s.tration: "THE GROTESQUES", BY CLOYD HEAD. PRODUCED AT THE LITTLE THEATER, CHICAGO

A shallow cyclorama. The simple design forms an effective background for the grouping of the figures.

(Courtesy of Maurice Browne).]

CHAPTER II

ORGANIZATION

A great many more factors go into the making of a successful dramatic production than may at first be apparent. To organize a staff whose duty it is to furnish and equip a theater, hall, or schoolroom; to arrange and efficiently run rehearsals; to supply "props", costumes, and furniture; to manage the stage during the performance--all this is next in importance to the acting itself.

Of late years especially it has been made clear that the art of the theater, although it is a collaboration of the brains and hands of many persons, must be under the supervision of one dominating and far-seeing chief. That is to say, one person and one alone must be responsible for the entire production. Except in rare instances this head cannot know of and attend to each detail himself, but it is his business to see that the whole organization is formed and managed according to his wishes.

The function of this ideal manager has been compared with that of the orchestral conductor: it is he who leads, and he should be the first to detect the slightest discord. While the foregoing remarks are more strictly applicable to acting and staging, it will readily be seen that if the same leader is not in touch with the more practical side of the production, there is likely to arise that working at cross-purposes which has ruined many an amateur as well as professional production.

While a great deal of the actual work must be done by subordinates, it should be clearly understood that the director has the final word of authority.

Much in the matter of organization depends upon the number and ability and experience of those persons who are available, but the suggestions about to be made as to the organization of a staff are based upon the a.s.sumption that the director is a capable person, and his a.s.sistants at least willing to learn from him. As a rule, he will have plenty of material to work with.

=The Director.= The producer, the head under whose guidance the entire work of rehearsing and organization should lie, is called the director.

However, since this position is often held by a hired coach or by some one else who cannot be expected to attend to much outside the actual rehearsing, there must be elected or appointed an officer who is directly responsible. This officer is:

=The Stage Manager.= As the director cannot always be present at every rehearsal, and as oftentimes two parts of the play are rehea.r.s.ed simultaneously, it is evident that another director must be ready to act in place of the head. It is chiefly his duty to "hold" the prompt-book and keep a careful record of all stage business, "cuts", etc. At every rehearsal he must be ready to prompt, either lines or "business"--action, gestures, crosses, entrances, exits, and the like--and call the attention of the director to omissions or mistakes of every sort. In the event of the director's absence, he becomes the pro tem. director himself.

It is advisable--though not always possible--to delegate the duties of property man, lightman, curtain man, costume man (or wardrobe mistress) to different persons; but even when this is done, it is better for the stage manager to keep a record of all "property plots", "light plots", "furniture plots", etc.

It is also the stage manager's business to arrange the time and place of rehearsals, and hold each actor responsible for attendance.

On the occasion of the dress rehearsal and of the actual production, it is the stage manager, and not the director, who supervises everything.

His position is that of commander-in-chief. He either holds the book, or is at least close by the person who actually follows the lines; sees that each actor is ready for his entrance; that the curtain rises and falls when it should; that his a.s.sistants are each in their respective places; and that the entire performance "goes" as it is intended to go.

=The Business Manager.= This person attends to such matters as renting the theater--or arranging some place for the performance--printing and distributing tickets; in short, everything connected with the receipt and expenditure of money. It is not of course imperative that he should have much to do with the director; the only point to be borne in mind being that every one connected with the production of a play should be in touch with those in authority. The business manager ought to have at least a preliminary conference with the director, and report to him every week until a few days before the performance, when he should be within instant call in case of emergency. The property, light, furniture, and costume people must naturally keep in close touch with him, although no purchases should be made without the permission of the director, who in this case must be at one with the club or organization.

=The Property Man.= The duties attaching to this position are definitely and necessarily limited, but of great importance. Working under the stage manager, he supplies all the objects--such as revolvers, swords, letters, etc.--in a word, everything actually _used_ by the actors, and not falling under the categories of "scenery", "costumes", and "furniture."

It will be found necessary in some cases to add to the staff one person whose business it is to attend to the matter of furnishings: rugs, hangings, pictures, furniture, and so forth; but in case there is no such person, the property man attends to these details himself.