SUMMER 1998 ----------------------------In this issue------------------------------------------ Life in the Theatre Gil Osborn looks at the real-world applications of skills we develop in theatre Enter Laughing Dressing up the Theatre - Wayne takes a hard look at what audiences are wearing Voices in Contemporary Theatre Musings from Dick Hill (Boomers) and Trevor Nunn (National Theatre) The Play's the Thing Caprice Woosley takes an in-depth look at A Doll's House's Nora CyberTheatre Monthly Worldwide Freezone DJ session live on Nirvanet Rubin's Corner Robert Rubin looks at Chess, the musical that will not die ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Life in the Theatre So here I am after all these years in theater, trying to think of an alternate career that might actually make me some money. It’s an interesting process, especially when you start trying to write a resume! A theater resume, as we all know, is a completely different kettle-of-fish to a regular I-wanna-earn-some-money-so-hire-me kind of resume. In the outside world no one gives a fig about that new David Mamet work you helped to develop; or that you actually managed to pull together a major show with absolutely no budget and a star who agreed to do it because you convinced her/him that it was good for their soul; or that you took classes at the Actors Studio; or that….. Well, you get the idea. So I started to think about the skills we develop in theater that actually translate into terms that the outside world would recognize. Number One has to be crisis management. I know that regular places of work all have crises, but I defy anyone in the business world to better the skills that we learn in the theater. How about the pressure of staying up all night with a lead actor who has decided (three days before you open) that they can’t act anymore, they cannot face an audience, their love-interest is fooling around and they miss their cat? All done with a bottle of vodka/scotch/bourbon and much crashing around and sobbing and screaming, of course. Or a designer who has decided in the middle of tech week that all the lights need to be re-hung and she/he needs twelve hours to do it and then another twelve hours to re-program all the cues into the computer? Or a major sponsor who decides to go bankrupt two weeks into rehearsal? Or a printer who "forgets" that the house program deadline is opening night, and opening night happens to be in four hours time? Well, you get the idea. Number Two is in many ways closely related to Number One….people management. The two lead actors loathe each other. The stage manager turns out to be a mini-Hitler and the crew loathe her/him. One of the actors loathes the director and calls in the artistic director to re-direct the show. The set designer can’t draft and seems to think little sketches on restaurant napkins will serve the carp shop just fine. Well, you get the idea. Number Three must be planning. How to organize things so that your hugely complex Henry V (set on a space station in 2025) is ready to open with three and a half weeks rehearsal and a two week build. Or three members of your cast aren’t available for the first week of your three week rehearsal because they’re finishing up a TV shoot. Or your star is needed by the publicity department for at least four hours every day for interviews so that you can sell tickets. Or you have sixteen new plays to rehearse for your new play festival, and you only have the budget to hire ten actors. Well, you get the idea. I guess Number Four has to be budget management. There is never, ever enough money to accomplish what you want to do in theater. I don’t care if you’re a drama student putting on a two-hander with your classmates or if you’re Hal Prince, there always comes a point when you know damn well that you don’t have enough money to get the show onstage. So you have to go through the whole budget all over again for the twentieth time and listen to the production manager tell you that she/he can’t cut the shop/crew costs one more cent; listen to the general manager tell you that the Ritz Carleton was a make-or-break contract clause with your star; listen to your costume designer tell you that unless the actors’ underwear is made in silk none of the costumes will hang right and she/he will take their name off the program…. Well, you get the idea. And finally I guess high productivity has to be Number Five. Because despite all the problems, all the late nights, all the angst and all the temper tantrums, the show always goes on! So if there is a way of putting all this in a resume for the "real" world, I would really appreciate it if someone would let me know what it is. And in the meantime, don’t let anyone tell you that you’re a ditzy artiste because I defy all those regular business types to survive one month of what we can do as a regular part of our working day! Keep at it, everyone, it really is worth it. --- Gil Osborn has worked in theatre for over 30 years in many capacities, most recently as Artistic Director of English Theatre and the National Arts Centre in Ottawa, where she returned this winter to direct the Canadian Premiere of MASTER CLASS. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Voices in Contemporary Theatre Musings from Dick Hill & Trevor Nunn MUSINGS by Dick Hill, Boomers Musings, philosophical thoughts occasioned by the muse's presence. Or in this case absence. Erato, ever erratic, has fled. Or perhaps become bored with my company, tired of dragging the dullard. I have faith, I'm fully convinced she'll return, but for the present, I struggle with the task of getting a handle on our second piece, variously titled....oh hell....too many titles, too many ideas. And still, one short of enough. If you can't write a show, write a newsletter. John Peakes and Judy Gentry were in New York, casting for the Boarshead season, and will be in Chicago in a couple weeks. I may watch the Chicago callbacks....the two men's roles in BOOMERS are being cast, with Susie and Emily as the females. BOOMERS is making the rounds....tapes and scripts visiting venues across the land. It takes awhile for a show to take off, I've been told...but evidence of things afoot came in yesterday's mail. An invoice from Good Agent Mary, via Rob, for copying costs. You have to send out scripts if you expect people to book the show it seems. Makes sense to me. Also got our first rejection letter, forwarded from Mary. Not unkind, and indicating an agreement with Mary's assessment that this would be an exciting crowd pleaser. The timing however, was just not right.....another show dealing with the boomer generation is already booked for next season. The other show sounds more like a 60's nostalgia piece....which doesn't really describe our show, but that's fine. Every artistic endeavour is of course subject to the interpretation and subjectivism of each person interacting with it. (..though Susie is of the opinion that they must not have even read the script) I recall the monograph written by Guiseppe Malfortuna in response to first seeing Michaelangelo's ceiling in the Sistine Chapel, in which he decried what he termed "ornamentationato excessivo" and opined that a more suitable treatment might have been a subtle blanketing of "ova-armoro blanco" (egg shell white). We of course shall never know if his proposed treatment would have been superior, but the point is, he was entitled to his opinion, just as the people who consider BOOMERS are entitled to theirs. And we should note respectfully Sgr. Malfortuno's subsequent and distinguished career as decorator for the doge's private toilet facility. It is widely believed that a Medici, I forget which one, was oft heard to say "every time I look at his work, my bowels are inspired to function most admirably" But I digress. I merely want to say that I wish the 60's revival show and the theatre both great success. Frankly, Jeff and I are relieved. The location was in a part of the country that may well be covered in water soon, due to melting of the polar ice caps, and we both had reservations about a production in such a hazardous location. TREVOR NUNN ON THE STATE OF THE NATIONAL THEATRE Soundbite and slogan, strapline and headline, at every turn we meet hyperbole. The soaring inflation of the English language is more urgently in need of control than the economic variety. Crash, lash, whip and crunch turn out to describe nothing more than a reduction, an irritation, a criticism or a moment of decision. So for months we have been reading about the "crisis" in the arts, and just recently the "revolt", the "rebellion" and the "catastrophe". Hyperbole. Unless we talk about these problems in a specific and detailed way, they will be made worse, which I am sure nobody wants E or do they? The main problem for the arts in this country is that the funding for the entire sector has been kept by successive governments at what they misleadingly call "standstill" for the past five years. Costs rise, wages rise, the funding is frozen. Every arts organisation in the country is suffering from the effect of this freeze. The treatment of the arts is not mirrored in other sectors. The arts have fared worse in the public spending round than any other department over the past decade. Politicians justify what amounts to an annual reduction in arts funding by pointing to the annual proportion of the proceeds of the National Lottery dedicated to the arts. The catch is that until now, Lottery money could only be spent on capital projects, not to help revenue needs; buildings have been funded, but not artists or audiences. In a recent editorial, this newspaper said: "All governments deserve some sympathy in dealing with the arts because their demands for public funds are insatiable." Hyperbole. Inflation. The demand of the arts is simply that government should stop the cutting. The arbiter in this worsening situation is not the new chairman of the Arts Council or even the Culture Secretary (as you would expect from recent headlines) but the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is Gordon Brown who calculates whether there are any votes in helping the arts, and it is quite possible that exaggerated squealing in response to his treating the arts badly improves the Chancellor's cred in the City, helping him to establish the image of a tough financial decision-maker. Certainly, how the cause is divided is important, but squabbling over who is to have what say in dividing it is diversionary when the cake is getting smaller every year. This is a time for pragmatism as companies, museums, orchestras and galleries concentrate on survival, ruling out risk and confining ideologies. Like most others responsible for negotiating their organisations through these rapids, I know that survival means concentrating on essentials. And what is the National for? I say it is a theatre for everyone; for the whole nation. I don't mean everything it does should attempt to be equally for everyone, but in the range and diversity of its work, in repertoire in three auditoria, the National should speak to all generations, to people from every sort of background and, whenever we can, to those who have never experienced live theatre before. Of course we are in business to do the things audiences can't see anywhere else, great rarities (like Flight and Enemy of the People), lost and unjustly neglected plays, esoteric and difficult plays (Stoppard's Invention of Love, about to re-emerge in the West End, and Frayn's Copenhagen are two diamond-sharp evenings of intellectual exchange as rewarding as they are demanding) and above all new plays. That's not all. Many commentators become agitated when they spot anything coming into the National's repertoire that is of broad popular appeal. But theatre has always been a cockpit for conflicts of fashion, taste, style and politics and it is in diversity and conflicting sensibilities that a truly national theatrical identity is to be found. So we are approaching the next six months needing to fire on all cylinders for the special identity of the National to survive. I am hard at work on Rodgers and Hammerstein's revolutionary redefinition of music theatre Oklahoma! (no hyperbole). Soon after, a crop of new plays begin to come into the rep; there is Guiding Star by Jonathan Harvey, then Hanif Kureishi returns to the theatre with Sleep With Me; Nick Darke contributes The Riot, while Terry Johnson directs Antony Sher in his new comedy Cleo, Camping, Emmanuelle and Dick, a quite inexplicable title until you remember each of those oddly assorted words once had "Carry On" in front of it. Salman Rushdie has generously agreed to let us stage his magical Haroun and the Sea of Stories, which will be directed by Tim Supple, and Fiona Shaw is about to play the eponymous shocker in a new version by Jay Presson Allen of Muriel Spark's The Prime of Miss Brodie. Given my history and obsessions, I am immensely gratified to be able to announce the first Shakespeare production during my time at the National; Helen Mirren is coming back to the theatre to join Alan Bates in Antony and Cleopatra, to be directed by Sean Mathias. As for being national, we shall be touring with Brodie, Cleo and a new production I am directing of Pinter's Betrayal. We are doing co-productions with the Liverpool Everyman and Kneehigh from the South West, while hosting Sheffield Crucible's smash hit adaptation of Brassed Off. Just a few weeks ago, the National welcomed 20,000 first-time visitors to see our whole repertoire at massively reduced prices thanks to an entirely philanthropic grant from the Hamlyn Foundation. This was the New Labour dream of access come true, no dumbing-down, no patronising. For months we have been touring the country with a new production of Oh What a Lovely War played in a big top, so we can reach the places that don't have theatres. Access again. Both examples have produced an atmosphere of carnival and joy. We want to build on the start we have made, and we could. But not if the funding freeze continues. Despite last week's argument about who is entitled to sit at the top table in Arts Council deliberations, my impression is that everybody working in the arts is united in urging the Chancellor to end the freeze. Once the tourniquet is released and the blood flows again, the arts can enter a period of renewed vigour, reaching the many and not just the few. Beating up on the arts can make the Chancellor look like a tough guy, but if the beating doesn't stop the tough guy can discover that without quite meaning to he has become a killer. Hyperbole? I wish it were. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Enter Laughing Dressing up the theatre! My calculator has been busy once again folks! This time I've figured out that we spend far too much time and money dressing up to go to the theater. The average person spends 2.6 hours readying themselves for "the big night", unless of course you're a woman and then..well, let's not go there. So much time spent. And for what? You spend all of 3 minutes (give or take) in full view of any one person at the theater. Most of that time is spent in line to use the only toilet available. Believe me people, when you're standing in line with a bursting bladder, RARELY (perhaps even NEVER) does one say to themselves, "Hey, that's a nice little tuxedo he's wearing!". It's more like, "Mr.! If you don't move away from that urinal within the next 3 seconds, I'm gonna make you an instant soprano!". Don't believe for a second either that anyone is looking at you while you're corralled to your seat. You're lucky if you don't permanently lose your date in the heaving masses, let alone see what designer made the dress your seat neighbor is wearing. Let's not pretend that dressing up for the theatre isn't a stress invoking ceremony. Alas, when I asked my date if she wanted to go see the San Francisco tour of Show Boat, her reaction was one of complete, unadulterated horror: "What will I wear!!!!!!!!!!!?". Not, "Sure!", or "Oh, that would be lovely.". Nope. She first had to process what outfits were currently available in her repertoire, whether I or any other potential audience member had already seen any of her current 'theatre outfits', calculate her schedules to make room for hair and nail appointments, and, to figure when she'd get to the gym in order to lose weight so she'd be able to wear that beautiful dress she saw at Nordstroms. Only after all of that had processed did she respond affirmatively. "But I'll need to do some shopping first!", she said. All the while I was just hoping I had time to wash the pair of Levi's I had on. But all along I was thinking…"if not, I've only worn them three times this week…". When I picked my date up, she exclaimed, "Is that what you're wearing?!". Obviously I should have found time to wash those Levi's after all. I went home and threw on a nice white shirt. Of course when we got to the theatre I made a special point to take note of what other people were wearing. To my surprise, I found that well over 75% of the people wore black! I think folks have taken "the death of theater" far too literally. This isn't a funeral people! As I walked into the auditorium with black in front of me and black behind me, I'm sure I looked like an Oreo cookie. At intermission, I promised myself I'd make someone's day by acknowledging his or her outfit. So I bucked tradition and I asked the woman next to me at the refreshment stand (where I bought my date a $5.00 glass of cheap wine!), "So, where you get that lovely dress?". Instead of the smile I had expected, I got a "Not interested, buddy!", and a cool shoulder. Hrmp! As I figure it, there's just two ways to solve this whole problem. Theatre owners could jack up the prices of tickets another $15 (I'm sure there'd be a lot of resistance to that idea by producers!) and include a free T-shirt with every ticket sold. In order to enter the theatre on the date of the performance a person would need to have his or her T-shirt on and a ticket in hand. This pseudo uniform insures everyone wears the same thing, and no one worries about what to wear to the theatre. The only other alternative is to require everyone to arrive to the theatre nude. A sort of "No dress" policy! This could, of course, prove problematic in other ways. Especially should a man happen to meet someone they're especially attracted to. Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase, "The curtain rises!". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Play's the Thing This month I wanted to show how the work of a dramaturg can assist an actor in understanding the historical and social elements of a character in a play. The following article, complete with citations, is something that could be given to the actor as research material. I chose the character of Nora, from Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, because this play was instrumental in changing the theatrical and social consciousness of the time. The character of Nora is complex, but is even more complex if the actor does not have any idea of the social climate for women in Victorian times. The article will also allow readers of the play to have a broader view of the issues Ibsen was trying to bring out regarding the treatment of women during his time. Nora, Prisoner of an Age The Victorian Age was a difficult time for women. Restricted by social rules and male dominance, these women were confined to the prisons of their homes. Choices were few. Husbands and fathers regulated all activities inside and outside the home. Against this backdrop, Henrik Ibsen wrote A Doll’s House, the story of Nora Helmer’s eventual escape from the conventions of the Victorian mindset. In the book Ibsen in England, Miriam Alice Franc wrote, " . . .No one can doubt that tragedy is found in the three-story brick house around the corner, as poignant as any enacted in castle or peasant’s hovel; yet Ibsen was the first to portray the tragedies in the lives of suburban, provincial people," (133). Ibsen’s Nora was trapped in a prison designed by society, and Ibsen himself would give her the keys to freedom. Lack of proper education outside the home left women ignorant about how to deal properly with the world that surrounded them. Eric Trudgill wrote in Madonnas and Magdelens that: Her education was often short throughout early marriage . . . often she would be trained in little more than domestic practicalities or polite accomplishments like music, dancing and artwork; and always inhibiting her development there would be the constraints of feminine delicacy (65). A woman could be clever and entertaining yet never understand the simple everyday tasks of business dealings. Trudgill also wrote that , "Many women we have seen, were brought up a virtual moral idiot, insulation from a sullying knowledge of the world making them ignorant . . ." (106). In A Doll’s House, Nora doesn’t understand why forging a signature on a loan contract is illegal. She clumsily falls into Krogstad’s blackmail attempt in order to spare her husband. Nora tells Krogstad, "I don’t know much about the law, but I’m sure there must be provisions made somewhere for that kind of situation," (Ibsen, A Doll’s House, 34). The fact that Nora does not grasp this area of business sets her up for the consequences of her blunder. Ibsen’s title, A Doll’s House, is an indication of the masculine views of women. As the cliché state, "A woman’s place is in the home." In Nora’s case, her home was to resemble a doll house, with figures moved about by unseen controllers, in the form of her father, Torvald and Krogstad. Hermann J. Weigand wrote in The Modern Ibsen, that Ibsen was, " . . .an ardent champion of woman’s rights before and after writing A Doll’s House. Apostle of freedom and individualism as he was, Ibsen felt that organized society was trying to keep woman in a state of virtual slavery," (74-75). The myth of feminine enslavement had long been a standard for male behavior. Victorian males felt, "there was also a consensus that wives should be subordinated . . . to an extent that made the wife a stranger and slave . . ." (Mason, 116). Ibsen thought these ideas were archaic and that new light should be shed on the relationships between men and women. William Archer, in the introduction to The Works of Henrik Ibsen, commented that Ibsen, " . . . seemed to be delivering a direct assault on marriage, from the standpoint of feminine individualism," (14-15). Ibsen used A Doll’s House as a red flag to the male population that women were on the verge of awakening from the slumber of masculine domination. Ibsen reflected the female perspective on Victorian values through the character of Mrs. Linde, a childhood friend of Nora’s. Although she represents the coming modern working woman, Mrs. Linde voices the Victorian view that a woman without a family to care for has little purpose. Mrs. Linde tells Nora, "The worst thing about the kind of situation I’m in is that it fills you with bitterness. You have no one to work for, and yet you have to put all your energy into it," (A Doll’s House, 16). Mrs. Linde would gladly work herself in exhaustion for the sake of a family but to work so hard for one’s self was not acceptable behavior. She declares this fact to Nora claiming that, "You have to live, and so you get selfish," (A Doll’s House, 16). Selfishness was unattractive for a Victorian woman. Later in the play, Mrs. Linde continues the same line of Victorian thought. When confronting Krogstad, her lover years ago and the blackmailer of Nora, Mrs. Linde confesses that her life has been empty without someone to care for. After talking about her life as a working woman, she tells Krogstad, " . . . now I’m all alone in the world, it’s terrible, I feel so lost and hollow. There’s no happiness left in working for yourself. Give me someone and something to work for, Krogstad," (A Doll’s House, 68). Krogstad’s reply sounds like Ibsen’s personal reproach to the Victorian mindset, "I don’t believe it. It’s just some romantic female instinct for noble self-sacrifice," (A Dolls’ House, 68). Through Mrs. Linde, Ibsen was also able to comment on the antiquated rules regarding women and financial dealings. Nora tells Mrs. Linde the truth about a trip, a rest cure for Torvald, to Italy. Everyone thought Nora’s father funded the trip but Nora reveals that she, in fact, borrowed the money on her own. Mrs. Linde is surprised and the following exchange takes place: Mrs. Linde. Well, then, where did you get it from? Nora. (Humming and smiling mysteriously) Aha! Mrs. Linde. You couldn’t possibly have borrowed it. Nora. Oh, couldn’t I? And why not? Mrs. Linde. Well, wives aren’t allowed to borrow without their husband’s consent. Nora. (Tossing her head) Oh, when a wife’s got a bit of business sense and knows how to use her intelligence . . . (A Doll’s House, 18) Nora’s response to Mrs. Linde marks one of the first signs of self-actualization that she might possess several qualities that are not typical of the Victorian lady. Ibsen credits women with having the capability to make decisions, financial or otherwise, for themselves, without the permission or supervision of the males in their lives. The man who dominates Nora is her husband Torvald Helmer. His treatment of Nora leaves audiences disturbed by his condescending superiority. Trudgill stated that, "For women in some respects was little better than man’s plaything," (66). He refers to Nora as, "my little lark," "my squirrel," "my little prodigal," and "a scatterbrain." When Nora refers to the people that Helmer could borrow money from as "strangers," he replies, "Nora. Nora. That’s just typical of a woman," (A Doll’s House, 7). After refusing to borrow money, Torvald tells a pouting Nora, "Oh now, that can’t be my little skylark with her wings all drooping, ca it? Mm? Is it a little sulking squirrel?" (A Doll’s House, 7). After discussing a past Christmas, and lean times, Torvald says, "Now I don’t have to set here on my own dying of boredom, and you don’t have to wear out your lovely eyes and your dear little delicate hands," (A Doll’s House, 10). To Helmer, Nora is a possession in a playhouse. The circumstances of her marriage left Nora with few options. Nora’s life has been dictated by the men around her. In his book, The Theatre Experience, Edwin Wilson noted that, "All her life, first by her father, they by her husband, she has been treated like a doll or a plaything, not as a mature, responsible woman," (224). As Jaeger wrote in his biography of Ibsen, "She is to live for the his [Helmer’s] sake only, to have on other thought than of him, no feelings, no opinions, save those where are his," (240). Helmer holds a tight rein yet Nora allows this to continue by never challenging her husband. For a time, she is content to be treated this way. Jaeger continued by concluding that, "She lives in a sort of minority, thinks as a child, and allows herself to be treated as a child," (245). Nora is the literary reflection of the real lives of Victorian Nora’s everywhere. In that marriage, she is doomed to remain a mere doll, never a human being. Although Helmer seems incapable of truly loving Nora, she is full of love for him. Nora’s predicament is due to her love for Torvald. His illness prompts Nora to do a dishonorable deed in order to save his life. Ibsen had never written a woman, " . . . as completely carried away by enthusiasm for manly activities; her great and admirable trait of character was that of being ready to sacrifice all for the man whom she loved," (Jaeger, 241). To Ibsen, this was the essence of her character -- a love which would sacrifice all without hope of any reward. And way she could save her husband was an acceptable risk. For Helmer, not even love is worth sacrificing one’s honor. According to the standards of the time, self-indulgence, " . . . would sap their qualities of self-sacrifice and that was tantamount to being willfully unwomanly," (Rowbotham, 115). Nora never displays this kind of indulgence until Helmer pushes her too far. He sees her as being unwomanly when she decides, after Helmer’s tirade regarding the blackmail attempt, to leave. Torvald throws every rule of society at her. He uses religion, moral codes and her children to make her stay. Nora simply decides that, in spite of how unfeminine her decision may be, she must leave. Ibsen forged Nora as the ideal that, "Women also shall be themselves, be human beings, and not merely their husband’s wives of their children’s mothers," (Jaeger, 240). One of the most interesting clues into Nora’s true character is her friendship with Dr. Rank, Torvald’s closest friend and Nora’s possible savior. Dr. Rank suffers from what Nora calls "spinal consumption" due to his father’s promiscuous lifestyle. Eric Trudgill noted that the typical Victorian woman, "She was in some measure, then, more a moral and mental cripple, incapable of informed and independent judgment . . . and sometimes willfully vacuous," (66). Both Nora and Dr. Rank were somehow crippled. It was Nora’s crippled spirit identifying with Dr. Rank’s crippled body. Their friendship was unique and flirtatious. Eventually, this leads to Dr. Rank’s confession of love for Nora. When pressed to confirm whether she knew, Nora replies, "I couldn’t tell you," (Ibsen, A Doll’s House, 54). Even though Nora loves Torvald, she recognizes the fact that Dr. Rank sees the inner Nora, the woman, not the outer child Torvald sees. With the doctor, Nora is free to explore the world abroad. Yet once Dr. Rank confesses his love, Nora pulls back, bowing to social rules in place to prevent further scandal in her life. Eventually Nora accepts the fact that her life with Torvald is a sham that must end. In Ibsen’s biography, Jaeger reflected on Nora’s decision and wrote: The day she realizes what sort of man he is for whom she has sacrificed so much, that day brings crisis -- she is then forced to choose between absolute self-renunciation and self-assertion. As we know, Ibsen makes her choose the latter. (245) As Nora prepares to leaves Helmer offers to send her anything she needs. Nora replies, "No, I’ve told you. I don’t accept anything from strangers," (Ibsen, A Doll’s House, 91). Nora slams the door behind her as she goes. Edwin Wilson writes in The Theatre Experience: In the last act of the play, Nora . . . makes a declaration of independence to her husband, slams the door on him, and walks out. It has been said that Nora’s slamming of the door marked the beginning not only of modern drama but of the emancipation of modern women. Certainly Nora’s defiance -- her claim to be treated as an equal -- has made her typical of all housewives who refuse to be regarded as house pets. (224) Nora is ready to sever her last ties to the conventionality of the Victorian Age and begin exploring life as a well-rounded, experience-filled and whole human being. Errol Durbach wrote that Nora’s bravery exemplified Ibsen’s ideals. He stated: The Nora who takes off her doll’s dress, transfigures herself from a toy into a woman, is a heroic paradigm of the liberating spirit in Ibsen -- the self-creating being who discovers her own capacity for god within . . . (144). Nora is a butterfly who emerges from the cocoon of her doll-like prison. By understanding all the elements that trapped her in that cocoon and that would start her metamorphosis into womanhood, we can see Nora as a woman on a spiritual quest for all women. As Edwin Wilson stated, "In one sense, she [Nora] is an ordinary wife and mother . . . but she is unusual in the way she sums up an entire group of women. A Doll’s House was written in 1879; but today, well over 100 years later, Nora is a symbol of modern woman," (224). The journey is long and enlightenment comes slowly, but ultimately Nora will escape her restraints to fly free. Ibsen unlocked the door for women in Nora’s time to see the future waiting just ahead. Ibsen also unlocked the door for women of the present time to see how far they have come, following in Nora’s tenuous but independent footsteps. Works Cited Archer, William. The Works of Henrik Ibsen. New York: Jefferson Press. n.d. Volume III. 14-15. Durbach, Errol. Ibsen the Romantic. Athens: The University of Georgia Press. 1982. 144. Franc, Miriam Alice. Ibsen In England. Boston: Fours Seas. 1919. 133. Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll’s House. New York: Samuel French. 1972. 16 - 18, 34, 54, 68 91. Jaeger, Henrik. Henrik Ibsen: A Critical Biography. New York: Benjamin Bloom.1972. 240 -241, 245 Mason, Michael. The Making of Victorian Sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press. 1994. 116 Rowbotham, Judith. Good Girls Make Good Wives. New York: Basil Blackwell. 1989 115. Trudgill, Eric. Madonnas and Magdalens. New York: Holmes and Meier. 1976. 65 -66, 106. Weigand, Hermann J. The Modern Ibsen. New York: Holt. 1925. 74-75 Wilson, Edwin. The Theatre Experience. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1991. 224 --- Caprice Woosley is currently pursuing her BFA in theater (directing and playwriting), after 25 years working in and around the theater. She is a produced playwright, actress, and amateur dramaturg who enjoys researching plays. She is a host in the Writing Forum where she co-hosts a Writing Discussion Group. She also hosted "Shakespeare Unplugged" and "Murder and Mayhem" in the Theatre Forum. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rubin's Corner CHESS: The Musical That Will Not Die A few week ago I got a chance to see another concert version of Chess, the musical the musical written by Benny Andersson, Tim Rice, and Bjorn Ulvaeus. Alice Ripley played the role of Svetlana, the wife of our Russian hero. In this production she sang "Someone Else’s Story" and "Heaven Help My Heart", which is usually song by the actress that plays the role of Florence. Christiane Noll, who is now staring in Jekyll and Hyde, played the role of Florence. Robert Evan, who co-produced the production was a strong Anatoly, while Brian d"Arcy James played the chess champion name Freedie. Michael Cerveris assisted Brian, who is in Titanic, as the narrator. As I listened to this spirited concert, I thought about the potency of the Andersson-Ulvaeus-Rice score. Chess has one of the most complex histories of any contemporary musical. In 1964 RCA Records issue the concept album which feature Elaine Paige, Murray Head, Barbara Dickson, Bjorn Skifs and the London Symphony Orchestra under the direction of Anders Elijas. In 1986 an elaborate production, which was started by Michael Bennett and taken over by Trevor Nunn, after Bennet died, opened in London. The show ran three years thanks to Elaine Paige, Murray Head, Tommy Korberg, and its very high-tech stagecraft. When I say it in London in 1967, I loved the music, but found the story somewhat a mess. The production was so costly that the original production was never used in any other production. Nunn decided to try to open a New York production. People in the United State were excited by the score and were ready for the revised production. He hired Judy Kuhn, David Carrol, Philip Casnoff and Marcia Mitzman for this new production. Nunn decided to use a new book by Richard Nelson that was an uneasy fit for the score. He designed a drab physical production that used triangular chess pieces that move around the stage, After two week of previews and two weeks of performances the production closed on Broadway. Since Americans still loved the music, Dess McAnuff decided to direct a national tour. This tour which started Carolee Carmello, Stephen Bogardus, John Herrera, Gregory Jbara, and Barbara Walsh lasted only a story period of time. Again the problem was the Nelson text. The Broadway failure meant that the show did not become the international pop opera. Chess return to New York in 1992 when an Off-Broadway company did still another new production. The company called The Artists’ Perspective hired Kathleen Rowe McAllen, J. Mark McVey, Ray Walker and Patrick Jude. All during the early 1990’s, Chess was done as small productions throughout the country. Mitzman played the role of Florence in a small version of the musical in L.A. In this production Douglas Sills, Jodi Benson and Ann Crumb took leading roles. During all the productions of Chess the material was altered with various amount of dialogue and new endings added to the play. No version has become the permanent one and no staging has been a big financial success. So, we come fully circle with the new concert version that was presented as a Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS benefit on May 10 and 17 at the John Houseman Theater. The lack of a book continues to haunt the musical, but the superior score seems to make producers bring this show back to life again and again. Perhaps some day it will find its rightful place in theatre history. Until that time Chess remains the musical that will not die. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CyberTheatre Monthly Worldwide Freezone DJ session live on Nirvanet Between live from CyberTheatre (Brussels), Ministry of Sound (London), La Terrrazza (Barcelona), Betalounge (San Francisco) and What's Up Bar (Paris) with DJ Q, Charles Webster, DJ Morpheus, Jonah Sharp/SpacetimeContinuum, Doctor L, DJ Loic, this is one serious Int'l pow-wow of 'netcast performance. Saturday 20 June 1998, 11:00 pm (CET) Freezone 5 compilation is out. On this occasion, Crammed/SSR and Nirvanet are teaming up with Ministry Of Sound (London) , Beta Lounge (San Francisco), La Terrrazza (Barcelona), What's Up Bar (Paris) and CyberTheatre (Brussels) to organize a DJ session on Nirvanet, where 5 DJs situated in 5 countries will be playing records in turns. The event will be transmitted live in video and audio on If you are in Brussels (I know, we should all be so lucky), come to CyberTheatre to enjoy the mix. Free entrance. The Freezone collection has become one of the most respected and most enjoyable collections of electronic music around. Masterminded by DJ Morpheus, each yearly Freezone release consists entirely of exclusive tracks produced by some of the world's hottest and cutting-edge artists. The line-up is the following: DJ Q in Brussels (live from the CyberTheatre) DJ Morpheus in Barcelona (live from La Terrrazza) Jonah Sharp/Spacetime Continuum in San Francisco (live from the Beta Lounge) Doctor L and Radio Nova's DJ Loïc in Paris (live from the What's Up Bar) Charles Webster in London (live from Ministry Of Sound) The event will also be broadcast afterwards by several partner radios including Radio 21 in Belgium, Radio Nova and RFI in France, M80 and Radio Nacional 3 in Spain, Kiss FM in UK.. If you missed the show or want to see the set again from the 21st of June onwards, go and get connected to Nirva(not)TV and our archives on For more information, please contact Helene Abrand To suggest a theatre, dance, or music-related website for CyberTheatre Monthly, write to Theatre_msn@msn.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Copyright 1998, Mersinger Theatrical Services